Glycemic Control Modifies Difference in Mortality Risk Between Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis in Incident Dialysis Patients With Diabetes: Results From a Nationwide Prospective Cohort in Korea

Selection of dialysis methods for end-stage kidney disease patients with diabetes

The increasing prevalence of diabetes has led to a growing population of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients with diabetes. Currently, kidney transplantation is the best treatment option for ESKD patients; however, it is limited by the lack of donors. Therefore, dialysis has become the standard treatment for ESKD patients. However, the optimal dialysis method for diabetic ESKD patients remains controversial. ESKD patients with diabetes often present with complex conditions and numerous complications. Furthermore, these patients face a high risk of infection and technical failure, are more susceptible to malnutrition, have difficulty establishing vascular access, and experience more frequent blood sugar fluctuations than the general population. Therefore, this article reviews nine critical aspects: Survival rate, glucose metabolism disorder, infectious complications, cardiovascular events, residual renal function, quality of life, economic benefits, malnutrition, and volume load. This study aims to assist clinicians in selecting individualized treatment methods by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, thereby improving patients' quality of life and survival rates.

Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.

Inferior Nutritional Status Significantly Differentiates Dialysis Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetes mellitus is currently the leading cause of end-stage renal disease. Assessing nutritional status is an important component of care in this group. This prospective observational study aimed to assess the nutritional status of type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients on hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis and its relationship with hospitalizations and all-cause death. Adult patients with end-stage renal disease, treated with dialysis, and suffering from type 1 or type 2 diabetes, being treated with insulin, were included in the study. Exclusion criteria comprised other types of diabetes, the patient's refusal to participate in the study, and severe disorders impacting verbal-logical communication. The nutritional status based on the Nutritional Risk Index, the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index, fat distribution measures, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index was estimated for 95 Caucasian dialysis patients with type 1 (n = 25) or type 2 (n = 70) diabetes. Patients with type 1 diabetes exhibited significantly inferior nutritional status and increased nutritional risk than those with type 2 diabetes. Lower values of nutritional indices significantly differentiated patients with type 1 from those with type 2 diabetes, with ≥84% sensitivity and specificity. Inferior nutritional status was related to all-cause hospitalizations, whereas higher comorbidity was associated with a greater likelihood of cardiovascular hospitalizations and all-cause death. The significant difference between patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes being treated with dialysis indicates that these patients should not be considered as a homogeneous group, while also considering the greater age of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Patients with end-stage renal disease and diabetes had similar survival rates whether they received hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

The survival rate of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing maintenance dialysis, including hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), is markedly lower than that observed in patients with ESRD without DM.

METHODS

We used propensity score matching to balance the clinical characteristics of patients from the HD and PD groups. We compared the survival rate between HD or PD, followed by Cox regression analyses accounting for age, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), body mass index (BMI), and serum albumin levels to examine the outcome influence of dialysis modalities.

RESULTS

During follow-up, there were 19 (18.1%) and 18 (17.1%) deaths among patients who underwent HD and PD, respectively (P = 0.856). Kaplan-Meier survival analyses showed no significant difference in overall survival between patients in the HD and PD groups. Cox regression analyses stratified based on age, CCI, BMI, and serum albumin demonstrated that the choice of HD over PD did not influence survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of age, CCI, BMI, and albumin level, patients with DM and ESRD had similar survival rates whether they received HD or PD in China. The choice of dialysis modality should be individualized according to patients' physical status and local practices for patients with DM and ESRD.

Peritoneal dialysis in the modern era

The practice and clinical outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) have demonstrated significant improvement over the past 20 years. The aim of this review is to increase awareness and update healthcare professionals on current PD practice, especially with respect to patient and technique survival, patient modality selection, pathways onto PD, understanding patient experience of care and use prior to kidney transplantation. These improvements have been impacted, at least in part, by greater emphasis on shared decision-making in dialysis modality selection, the use of advanced laparoscopic techniques for PD catheter implantation, developments in PD connecting systems, glucose-sparing strategies, and modernising technology in managing automated PD patients remotely. Evidence-based clinical guidelines such as those prepared by national and international societies such as the International Society of PD have contributed to improved PD practice underpinned by a recognition of the place of continuous quality improvement processes.

Propensity-matched comparison of mortality between peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The optimal choice of dialysis modality for diabetic patients remains controversial. This study aimed to compare mortality between peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Our observational, longitudinal cohort consisted of all incident ESRD patients with T2D who received either PD or HD in our center from January 2012 to December 2017 and were followed until December 2019. Propensity scores were used to select a 1:1 matched cohort. Mortality was compared between dialysis modalities using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and risk factors for mortality were estimated using multivariate Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The median follow-up times were 35.5 months in the PD group (n = 134) and 41.6 months in the HD group (n = 134, p = 0.0381). The 1-, 2-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year patient survival rates were 98%, 91%, 77%, 61%, and 35% for diabetic PD patients and 96%, 88%, 81%, 60%, and 57% for diabetic HD patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that overall mortality did not significantly differ between modalities (log-rank = 0.9473, p = 0.6575). Using a multivariate Cox regression model, advanced age and increased cholesterol at the initiation of PD treatment were independent risk factors associated with mortality, whereas under HD therapy, the risk factors associated with mortality were lower BMI and higher HbA1c.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that in patients with T2D, mortality is comparable between PD and HD irrespective of whether there are the first 2 years or over the 2-year period, and that different mortality predictor patterns exist between patients treated with PD versus HD.

Propensity score matched mortality comparisons of peritoneal and in-centre haemodialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Accurate comparisons of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) survival based on observational studies are difficult due to substantial residual confounding that arises from imbalances between treatments. Propensity score matching (PSM) comparisons confer additional advantages over conventional methods of adjustment by further reducing selection bias between treatments. We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared mortality between in-centre HD with PD using a PSM-based approach.

Methods

A sensitive search strategy identified all citations in the PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases from inception through November 2018. Pooled PD versus HD mortality hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated through random-effects meta-analysis. A subsequent meta-regression explored factors to account for between-study variation.

Results

The systematic review yielded 214 citations with 17 cohort studies and 113 578 PSM incident dialysis patients. Cohort periods spanned the period 1993–2014. The pooled HR for PD versus HD was 1.06 (95% CI 0.99–1.14). There was considerable variation by country, however, mortality risks for PD versus HD remained virtually unchanged when stratified by geographical region with HRs of 1.04 (95% CI 0.94–1.15), 1.14 (95% CI 0.99–1.32) and 0.98 (0.87–1.10) for European, Asian and American cohorts, respectively. Subgroup meta-analyses revealed similar risks for patients with diabetes [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.98–1.21)] and without diabetes [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.90–1.09)]. Heterogeneity was substantial (I² = 87%) and was largely accounted for by differences in cohort period, study type and country of origin. Together these factors explained a substantial degree of between-studies variance (R² = 90.6%).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that PD and in-centre HD carry equivalent survival benefits. Reported differences in survival between treatments largely reflect a combination of factors that are unrelated to clinical efficacy.

Effect of diabetes on incidence of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

Background

Several reports on patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) treated by peritoneal dialysis (PD) have shown a higher risk of PD-associated peritonitis compared to non-DM (NDM) patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis in DM patients.

Methods

We divided all patients who received PD at a single center between January 1980 and December 2012 into three groups according to era: Period 1 (n = 43, 1980–1993); Period 2 (n = 123, 1994–2004); and Period 3 (n = 207, 2005–2012). We investigated incidences of PD-associated peritonitis between patients with and without DM.

Results

In Periods 1 and 2, incidence of PD-associated peritonitis was higher in the DM group than in the NDM group (P<0.05). However, no difference according to presence of DM was seen in Period 3. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed DM as a risk factor for incidence of PD-associated peritonitis in Periods 1 and 2, but not in Period 3 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 5.23; HR, 2.36; 95%CI, 1.13 to 4.58; and HR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.41 to 1.54, respectively). Furthermore, the peritonitis-free period was significantly shorter in the DM group than in the DM group in Periods 1 and 2, whereas no significant difference was seen in Period 3 (P<0.01, P<0.01 and P = 0.55, respectively). Moreover, a significant interaction was seen between diabetes and study period, and became less pronounced during Period 3(P<0.01).

Conclusions

The increased risk of peritonitis in diabetics reported in previous periods has not been evident in recent years.

Comparison of peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis as first renal replacement therapy in patients with end-stage renal disease and diabetes: a systematic review

Background

Diabetes has become the most common cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) in most countries around the world. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is valuable for patients newly requiring RRT because of the preservation of residual renal function (RRF), higher quality of life, and hemodynamic stability in comparison with hemodialysis (HD). A previous systematic review produced conflicting results regarding patient survival. As several advances have been made in therapy for diabetic patients receiving PD, we conducted a systematic review of studies published after 2014 to determine whether incident PD or HD is advantageous for the survival of patients with diabetes.

Methods

For this systematic review, the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched to identify articles published between February 2014 and August 2017. The quality of studies was assessed using the GRADE approach. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality; RRF; major morbid events, including cardiovascular disease (CVD) and infectious disease; and glycemic control. This review was performed using a predefined protocol published in PROSPERO (CRD42018104258).

Results

Sixteen studies were included in this review. All were retrospective observational studies, and the risk of bias, especially failure to adequately control confounding factors, was high. Among them, 15 studies investigated all-cause mortality in diabetic patients initiating PD and HD. Differences favoring HD were observed in nine studies, whereas those favoring PD were observed in two studies. Two studies investigated effects on CVD, and both demonstrated the superiority of incident HD. No study investigated the effect of any other outcome.

Conclusions

In the present systematic review, the risk of death tended to be higher among diabetic patients with ESRD newly initiating RRT with incident PD in comparison with incident HD. However, we could not obtain definitive results reflecting the superiority of PD or HD with regard to patient outcomes because of the severe risk of bias and the heterogeneity of management strategies for diabetic patients receiving dialysis. Further studies are needed to clarify the advantages of PD and HD as RRT for diabetic patients with ESRD.

Health economic evaluation of peritoneal dialysis based on cost-effectiveness in Japan: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the medical expenditures associated with dialysis have garnered considerable interest; however, a cost-effectiveness evaluation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is yet to be evaluated. In particular, the health economics of the "PD first" concept, which can be advantageous for clinical practice and healthcare systems, must be evaluated.

METHODS

This multicenter study investigated the cost-effectiveness of PD. The major effectiveness indicator was quality-adjusted life year (QALY), with a preference-based utility value based on renal function, and the cost indicator was the amount billed for a medical service at each medical institution for qualifying illnesses. In comparison with hemodialysis (HD), a baseline analysis of PD therapy was conducted using a cost-utility analysis (CUA). Continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) and automated PD (APD) were compared based on the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and propensity score (PS) with a limited number of cases.

RESULTS

The mean duration since the start of PD was 35.0±14.4 months. The overall CUA for PD (179 patients) was USD 55,019/QALY, which was more cost effective (USD/monthly utility) compared with that for HD for 12-24 months (4,367 vs. 4,852; p<0.05). The CUA reported significantly better results in the glomerulonephritis group than in the other diseases, and the baseline CUA was significantly age sensitive. The utility score was higher in the APD group (mean age, 70.1±3.5 years) than in the CAPD group (mean age, 70.6±4.2 years; 0.987 vs. 0.860; p<0.05, 9 patients). Compared with CAPD, APD had an overall ICUR of USD 126,034/QALY.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of PD was potentially good in the elderly and in patients on dialysis for <24 months. Therefore, the prevalence of PD may influence the public health insurance system, particularly when applying the "PD first" concept.

Impact of body mass index on survival in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis: Analysis of data from the Insan Memorial End-Stage Renal Disease Registry of Korea (1985-2014)

Background

Significant increases in the prevalence of obesity have been observed among patients with peritoneal dialysis (PD). The impact of body mass index (BMI) on survival remains unknown in Korean PD patients.

Methods

Among data of 80,674 patients on PD acquired from the Insan Memorial ESRD Registry database for the years 1985 to 2014, 6,071 cases were analyzed. Subjects were classified by baseline BMI; < 21.19 kg/m² (quartile 1, n = 1,518), 21.19 to 23.18 kg/m² (quartile 2, reference; n = 1,453), 23.19 to 25.71 kg/m² (quartile 3, n = 1,583), and > 25.71 kg/m² (quartile 4, n = 1,517).

Results

Mean age was 65.8 years, and baseline BMI was 23.57 kg/m². Numbers of male and diabetic patients were 3,492 (57.5%) and 2,192 (36.1%), respectively. Among 6,071 cases, 2,229 (36.7%) all-cause deaths occurred. As a whole, Kaplan–Meier survival curves according to BMI quartiles was significantly different (P = 0.001). All-cause mortality was significantly higher in quartile 4 than in the reference (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.154, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.025–1.300; P = 0.018). There was no statistical difference in all-cause mortality among BMI quartiles in diabetic patients on PD. In non-diabetic patients, all-cause mortality of quartiles 1 and 3 was not different from the reference, but the HR was 1.176 times higher in quartile 4 (95% CI, 1.024–1.350; P = 0.022).

Conclusion

Baseline BMI > 25.71 kg/m² seems to be an important risk factor for all-cause mortality in Korean PD patients.

Predictors of outcomes in patients on peritoneal dialysis: A 2-year nationwide cohort study

There has been no nationwide study of prognostic factors and outcomes in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) in Japan. We conducted a cohort study using data from the nationwide registry of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy. We followed 8,954 prevalent PD patients for 2 years, 2014–2015. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine factors that were independently associated with patient survival. Survival rates were compared between patients with and without diabetes after adjusting for potential confounders. During the 2-year study period, 893 (10.0%) of 8,954 patients died, 148 (1.6%) underwent kidney transplantation, and 2,637 (29.4%) were switched to hemodialysis; 5,276 (58.9%) patients were alive at the end of the study period. After multivariate adjustment, older age, longer duration of dialysis, presence of diabetes, cardiovascular comorbidity, use of 2.5% glucose dialysate, higher C-reactive protein and phosphate levels, and a lower serum albumin level were independently associated with increased hazard ratios for all-cause mortality. A combination of PD and hemodialysis was associated with a lower mortality rate. The new-onset cardiovascular event rate was significantly higher in the diabetes group than in the non-diabetes group (P < 0.0001). After adjusting for all variables, the hazard ratio was 1.509 (95% confidence interval 1.029–2.189, P = 0.036) in the diabetes group. Diabetes, older age, longer duration of dialysis, cardiovascular comorbidity, and inflammation were predictors of mortality in patients on PD.

Impact of the use of anti-diabetic drugs on survival of diabetic dialysis patients: a 5-year retrospective cohort study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and associated complications are common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and can increase morbidity and mortality. A longitudinal 5-year observational study was conducted to investigate whether the use of anti-diabetic medications or not affected survival rates of diabetic dialysis patients.

METHODS

Using a data sample of a million patients from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database, a retrospective cohort study surveyed patients with type 2 DM who began dialysis between 2002 and 2007. The study population was classified into groups using or not using anti-diabetic drugs. The group using anti-diabetic drugs was then categorized into 3 subgroups, including use of only oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), only insulin, and OHAs-combined insulin groups. Subjects of these four groups were followed 5 years or to date of death. Three major areas were analyzed: (1) demographic data and medical history; (2) survival prognosis and causes of death; and (3) effects on survival prognosis of different classes of OHAs.

RESULTS

A total of 912 patients fitting inclusion criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 5 years or to date of death. A total 465 patients died, and those not using anti-diabetic drugs (67.34 %) had a higher mortality rate than those using anti-diabetic drugs (46.42 %). After the multivariate analysis, group of OHAs-combined insulin had the lowest risk of death (HR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.27-0.47), followed by OHAs alone (HR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.38-0.63) and then insulin alone (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.51-0.88). To clarify four classes of OHAs (sulfonylurea, α-glucosidase inhibitors, meglitinide, and thiazolidinedione) are used in Taiwan for uremia patient with type 2 DM, and in our study, there were no significant differences in survival prognosis for the four drugs. Finally, the most common cause of death was infectious disease and there were no significant differences among the four groups.

CONCLUSION

This 5-year observational study results suggested that diabetic dialysis patients with anti-diabetic drugs had a lower risk of death compared with those without anti-diabetic drugs. Despite insulin therapy, appropriate OHAs should play an important role in treating these patients.