Miao, Jing

Background: Cirrhosis and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are significant global health concerns, contributing to high mortality and morbidity. Haemodialysis (HD) is frequently used to treat ESKD in patients with cirrhosis. However, it often presents challenges such as haemodynamic instability during dialysis sessions, leading to less than optimal outcomes. Peritoneal dialysis (PD), while less commonly used in cirrhotic patients, raises concerns about the risks of peritonitis and mortality. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess outcomes in PD patients with cirrhosis. Methods: We executed a comprehensive search in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases up to 25 September 2023. The search focused on identifying studies examining mortality and other clinical outcomes in ESKD patients with cirrhosis receiving PD or HD. In addition, we sought studies comparing PD outcomes in cirrhosis patients to those without cirrhosis. Data from each study were aggregated using a random-effects model and the inverse-variance method. Results: Our meta-analysis included a total of 13 studies with 15,089 patients. Seven studies compared ESKD patients on PD with liver cirrhosis (2753 patients) against non-cirrhosis patients (9579 patients). The other six studies provided data on PD (824 patients) versus HD (1943 patients) in patients with cirrhosis and ESKD. The analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality between PD and HD in ESKD patients with cirrhosis (pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53–1.14). In PD patients with cirrhosis, the pooled OR for peritonitis compared to non-cirrhosis patients was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.03–1.18). The pooled ORs for hernia and chronic hypotension in cirrhosis patients compared to non-cirrhosis controls were 2.48 (95% CI: 0.08–73.04) and 17.50 (95% CI: 1.90–161.11), respectively. The pooled OR for transitioning from PD to HD among cirrhotic patients was 1.71 (95% CI: 0.76–3.85). Mortality in cirrhosis patients on PD was comparable to non-cirrhosis controls, with a pooled OR of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.53–2.10). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that PD provides comparable mortality outcomes to HD in ESKD patients with cirrhosis. In addition, the presence of cirrhosis does not significantly elevate the risk of mortality among patients undergoing PD. While there is a higher incidence of chronic hypotension and a slightly increased risk of peritonitis in cirrhosis patients on PD compared to those without cirrhosis, the risks of hernia and the need to transition from PD to HD are comparable between both groups. These findings suggest PD as a viable and effective treatment option for ESKD patients with cirrhosis.

Background This study investigated the efficacy of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in assessing drug safety for patients with kidney diseases, comparing their performance to Micromedex, a well-established drug information source. Despite the perception of non-prescription medications and supplements as safe, risks exist, especially for those with kidney issues. The study's goal was to evaluate ChatGPT's versions for their potential in clinical decision-making regarding kidney disease patients. Method The research involved analyzing 124 common non-prescription medications and supplements using ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 with queries about their safety for people with kidney disease. The AI responses were categorized as “generally safe,” “potentially harmful,” or “unknown toxicity.” Simultaneously, these medications and supplements were assessed in Micromedex using similar categories, allowing for a comparison of the concordance between the two resources. Results Micromedex identified 85 (68.5%) medications as generally safe, 35 (28.2%) as potentially harmful, and 4 (3.2%) of unknown toxicity. ChatGPT-3.5 identified 89 (71.8%) as generally safe, 11 (8.9%) as potentially harmful, and 24 (19.3%) of unknown toxicity. GPT-4 identified 82 (66.1%) as generally safe, 29 (23.4%) as potentially harmful, and 13 (10.5%) of unknown toxicity. The overall agreement between Micromedex and ChatGPT-3.5 was 64.5% and ChatGPT-4 demonstrated a higher agreement at 81.4%. Notably, ChatGPT-3.5's suboptimal performance was primarily influenced by a lower concordance rate among supplements, standing at 60.3%. This discrepancy could be attributed to the limited data on supplements within ChatGPT-3.5, with supplements constituting 80% of medications identified as unknown. Conclusion ChatGPT's capabilities in evaluating the safety of non-prescription drugs and supplements for kidney disease patients are modest compared to established drug information resources. Neither ChatGPT-3.5 nor ChatGPT-4 can be currently recommended as reliable drug information sources for this demographic. The results highlight the need for further improvements in the model's accuracy and reliability in the medical domain.