TNF-α, IL-1β, MMP-8 Crevicular Profile in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Periodontitis

Increasing evidence sustains the potential of periodontitis as a risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD). Our study aimed to analyze several periodontal specific inflammatory biomarkers within the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) of patients with CKD, compared to patients with normal kidney function, providing an inflammatory profile of the dialysis patient. The study comprised 79 patients divided into: group 1 (59 subjects with periodontitis and CKD) and group 2 (20 patients with periodontitis, without other systemic conditions). Clinical diagnosis was performed via dental and periodontal examination. GCF samples were collected from each patient, and the levels of TNF-α, IL-1β and MMP-8 were determined by using ELISA assay. In group 1, the average values were: 22.85 ± 5.87 pg/mL for TNF-α, 33.00 ± 39.68 pg/mL for IL-1β and 18.80 ± 27.75 ng/mL for MMP-8. In group 2, the mean values were: 2.10 ± 1.34 pg/mL for TNF-α, 0.71 ± 2.42 pg/mL for IL-1β and 5.35 ± 0.37 ng/mL for MMP-8. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between groups as referring to all three biomarkers and, TNF-α and MMP-8, in certain stages of periodontitis. The level of TNF-α, IL-1β and MMP-8 points out the increased inflammatory status of the dialysis patient with PD, supporting the mutual connection of the two pathologies.

Chlorhexidine – a commonly used but often neglected culprit of dialysis associated anaphylactic reactions (case report)

Background Hemodialysis-associated anaphylactic reactions are rare and frequently complex in nature due to the sheer number of possible culprit agents. Unfortunately, dialysis is often unavoidable or strictly essential for life-saving solute clearance or fluid removal in patients with end stage kidney failure and those with severe acute kidney injury. It is of utmost importance that the culprit agent is identified and avoided to allow continuation of dialysis treatment as needed. Case presentation We present 2 cases of hemodialysis-associated anaphylactic reactions. These patients developed anaphylactic reactions peri-dialysis and were initially suspected to have dialyser reactions. They were investigated in a controlled healthcare setting and possible culprit agents were systemically identified and eliminated. They both underwent allergy testing and were diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy. Of note, Case 1 was an incident dialysis patient at the time of presentation and Case 2 was a prevalent dialysis patient. This suggests that the time from initial sensitization to reaction may not always be helpful in determining if a particular agent is the culprit of an anaphylactic reaction. In both cases, the patients were dialysed through a tunnelled dialysis catheter. We postulate that the presence of an exit site, which represents a compromise to the integrity of the skin’s epidermal barrier, may have a significant role in the development of these reactions. As chlorhexidine is a widely used disinfectant in hemodialysis, it is imperative that we consider it as a possible culprit agent when these reactions arise. To our knowledge, there are no other reported cases of anaphylaxis secondary to chlorhexidine use in dialysis patients other than a previous report in 2017. Our report also highlights the possibility of these reactions occurring more frequently in patients with damaged epidermal barriers and in patients exposed to higher environmental concentrations of chlorhexidine. These are novel concepts that can be explored with further research. Conclusion Chlorhexidine associated anaphylactic reactions can occur in the peri-dialysis setting and a high index of suspicion is paramount to diagnosis.