scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Brett Larive

Bio: Brett Larive is an academic researcher from Cleveland Clinic. The author has contributed to research in topics: Hemodialysis & Dialysis. The author has an hindex of 38, co-authored 61 publications receiving 4408 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Frequent hemodialysis, as compared with conventional hemodIALysis, was associated with favorable results with respect to the composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death orchange in a physical-health composite score but prompted more frequent interventions related to vascular access.
Abstract: Background In this randomized clinical trial, we aimed to determine whether increasing the frequency of in-center hemodialysis would result in beneficial changes in left ventricular mass, self-reported physical health, and other intermediate outcomes among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to undergo hemodialysis six times per week (frequent hemodialysis, 125 patients) or three times per week (conventional hemodialysis, 120 patients) for 12 months. The two coprimary composite outcomes were death or change (from baseline to 12 months) in left ventricular mass, as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and death or change in the physical-health composite score of the RAND 36-item health survey. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance; self-reported depression; laboratory markers of nutrition, mineral metabolism, and anemia; blood pressure; and rates of hospitalization and of interventions related to vascular access. Results Patients in the frequent-hemodialysis group averaged 5.2 sessions per week; the weekly standard Kt/V(urea) (the product of the urea clearance and the duration of the dialysis session normalized to the volume of distribution of urea) was significantly higher in the frequent-hemodialysis group than in the conventional-hemodialysis group (3.54±0.56 vs. 2.49±0.27). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with significant benefits with respect to both coprimary composite outcomes (hazard ratio for death or increase in left ventricular mass, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.82; hazard ratio for death or a decrease in the physical-health composite score, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92). Patients randomly assigned to frequent hemodialysis were more likely to undergo interventions related to vascular access than were patients assigned to conventional hemodialysis (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.73). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with improved control of hypertension and hyperphosphatemia. There were no significant effects of frequent hemodialysis on cognitive performance, self-reported depression, serum albumin concentration, or use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Conclusions Frequent hemodialysis, as compared with conventional hemodialysis, was associated with favorable results with respect to the composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in a physical-health composite score but prompted more frequent interventions related to vascular access. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00264758.).

878 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Treatment assignment to six compared with three-times-per-week hemodialysis appears to promote a more rapid loss of RKF, the mechanism of which remains to be determined.

173 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Cognitive impairment, especially impaired executive function, is common among hemodialysis patients, but with the exception of CNS-active medications, is not strongly associated with several ESRD- and dialysis-associated factors.
Abstract: Background and objectives: Cognitive impairment is common among persons with ESRD, but the underlying mechanisms are unknown. This study evaluated the prevalence of cognitive impairment and association with modifiable ESRD- and dialysis-associated factors in a large group of hemodialysis patients. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Cross-sectional analyses were conducted on baseline data collected from 383 subjects participating in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network trials. Global cognitive impairment was defined as a score <80 on the Modified Mini-Mental State Exam, and impaired executive function was defined as a score ≥300 seconds on the Trailmaking B test. Five main categories of explanatory variables were examined: urea clearance, nutritional markers, hemodynamic measures, anemia, and central nervous system (CNS)-active medications. Results: Subjects had a mean age of 51.6 ± 13.3 years and a median ESRD vintage of 2.6 years. Sixty-one subjects (16%) had global cognitive impairment, and 110 subjects (29%) had impaired executive function. In addition to several nonmodifiable factors, the use of H1-receptor antagonists and opioids were associated with impaired executive function. No strong association was found between several other potentially modifiable factors associated with ESRD and dialysis therapy, such as urea clearance, proxies of dietary protein intake and other nutritional markers, hemodynamic measures, and anemia with global cognition and executive function after adjustment for case-mix factors. Conclusions: Cognitive impairment, especially impaired executive function, is common among hemodialysis patients, but with the exception of CNS-active medications, is not strongly associated with several ESRD- and dialysis-associated factors.

163 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Patients with chronic HCV had greater HRQL impairment than healthy controls and those with type II diabetes, and patients with chronic low back pain, andFatigue was the most important symptom with negative impact on HRQL.
Abstract: In addition to chronic hepatitis, many individuals infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) suffer from fatigue, which may compromise their health-related quality of life (HRQL). To assess systematically health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with chronic hepatitis C and to determine if any clinical, biochemical, virologic, demographic, and histologic features are associated with HRQL status. In this cross-sectional observational study, one hundred thirty patients with chronic HCV infection (HCV RNA positive by PCR) and 61 healthy controls were enrolled from a tertiary care teaching medical center. All patients and controls completed one generic HRQL questionnaire (MOS SF-36) and one liver-disease specific instrument (Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire, CLDQ). Ninety-five HCV patients and all the controls also completed a fatigue questionnaire (Chronic Fatigue Screener, CFS) and had immunologic markers determined (Cryoglobulin, Soluble IL-2 receptors, Rheumatoid Factor). We compared the HRQL of HCV-infected patients to the controls and, using data from other studies, to the general population, patients with diabetes, and patients with chronic low back pain. Patients with chronic HCV had greater HRQL impairment than healthy controls and those with type II diabetes. Fatigue was the most important symptom with negative impact on HRQL. Sixty-one percent of HCV-infected patients reported fatigue-related loss of activity. Additionally, other factors associated with HRQL were gender and histologic cirrhosis. Chronic HCV infection has a profound negative impact on patients’ HRQL. Disabling fatigue is the most important factor that contributes to loss of well-being in this relatively young group of patients.

153 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

3,152 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.
Abstract: There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

1,289 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This research presents a meta-analyses of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the cellular and molecular level, which shows clear trends in the development of immune-oncology-metabolical pathways towards “clinically checkpoints”.
Abstract: aDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of Porto; MedInUP, Centre for Drug Discovery and Innovative Medicines; Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal bIBD Unit, DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy cDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel dGastrointestinal Unit ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco—University of Milan—Milan, Italy eIBD Unit Complesso Integrato Columbus, Gastroenterological and Endocrino-Metabolical Sciences Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Gemelli Universita’ Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy fDepartment of Gastroenterology, IBD Unit, University Hospital Santiago De Compostela (CHUS), A Coruña, Spain gDepartment of Gastroenterology, North Zealand University Hospital, Frederikssund, Denmark hFirst Department of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary iIBD Unit, St Mark’s Hospital, Middlesex, UK jDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium kInstitute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria lDepartment of Gastroenterology, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust; Institute of Inflammation and Repair, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK mUnit of General Surgery, Second University of Naples, Napoli, Italy nMaria Skłodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Centre and Institute of Oncology, Department of Oncological Gastroenterology Warsaw; Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Warsaw, Poland oDepartment of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK pImperial College London; Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK qDepartment of Pathobiology /NC22, Lerner Research Institute; Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition/A3, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

1,214 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
27 Sep 2019-Gut
TL;DR: Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care.
Abstract: Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn’s and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, including patients, their families and friends.

1,140 citations