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.

Introduction

In a review from Japan reported at the end of 2013, a total of 43.8% of patients initiating dialysis were patients with diabetes [1], and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has continued to increase as in other countries. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is chosen less often by diabetic patients. Diabetic patients were less likely to receive PD as a first renal replacement therapy (RRT) than non-diabetic patients in North America (9.0% versus 10.1%) [2], Europe (14% versus 15%) [3], and Japan (4.9% versus 6.6% for diabetic patients commencing RRT) [4]. Clinicians are concerned that diabetic patients are likely to develop PD-associated peritonitis, given their immunocompromised state [5], and they mistake the process of PD as potentially contributing to visual disorder and peripheral neuropathy [6-8]. PD-associated peritonitis is an important complication related to both patient survival and technical survival. In addition, PD-associated peritonitis is a well-known risk factor for the development of encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS), one of the most serious complications [9]. Several studies have reported DM as a risk factor for PD-associated peritonitis [6–8, 10–14]. In contrast, DM was not a risk predictor in the Brazilian Peritoneal Dialysis Study (BRAZPD) [15].

We recently reported a 33-year, single-center cohort study including 527 PD patients and 377 episodes of PD-associated peritonitis [16]. In that study, the prevalence of PD-associated peritonitis declined dramatically over the course of 33 years, despite the increasing populations of both diabetic and aging patients. The chief causes of this change appear to have been several developments in medical technology, including the twin-bag system. Use of a twin-bag system has been reported to prevent PD-associated peritonitis by limiting the opportunities for contamination [17]. Given this situation, we presume that the impact of diabetes on the prevalence of PD-associated peritonitis has reduced.

The present post-hoc analysis tested the hypothesis that the prevalence of PD-associated peritonitis in diabetic patients did not differ from that in non-diabetic patients.

Subjects and methods

Study population

This study was a post-hoc study of the previously reported cohort study [16]. In the previous cohort, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all 527 patients who initiated PD at our hospital between January 1980 and December 2012. From this database, we excluded 154 of incident PD patients because of missing data on the history of PD-associated peritonitis or underlying diseases, leaving 373 patients eligible for this analysis. We then divided these 373 patients into three groups according to era: Period 1 (n = 43), PD initiated from 1980 to 1993; Period 2 (n = 123), PD initiated from 1994 to 2004; and Period 3 (n = 207), PD initiated from 2005 to 2012. In terms of PD devices and PD solutions, a single-bag method with conventional PD solution was mainly used in Period 1, a twin-bag system with conventional PD solution was mainly used in Period 2, and a twin-bag system with biocompatible PD solution was mainly used in Period 3. When patients used several devices and PD solutions, we allocated them to the group that they used for more than half of the duration of their PD therapy. In Japan, sterile systems came into use from 1993 to 1994. This term overlapped with Period 2. However, not every patient used a sterile system, unlike the twin bag system and biocompatible solution. Clinical information was obtained from medical records, but complete laboratory findings were not available in all cases because of the long study period, with data frequently missing from Period 1. The ethics committee at Jikei University Hospital approved this study protocol (approval number 30-295(9316)). Further, our ethics committee specifically waived the need for collection of patient consent.

Diagnosis and treatment of PD-associated peritonitis

PD-associated peritonitis was diagnosed and patients recovering from peritonitis were identified using the criteria proposed by the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD). Patients were classified as having peritonitis if they satisfied at least two of the following criteria: i) presence of clinical symptoms (pain, fever, cloudy dialysate); ii) presence of >100 leukocytes/mm3 of dialysate, with at least 50% polymorphonuclear neutrophils; or iii) positive results from culture or Gram stain. We defined ‘recovery from PD-associated peritonitis’ as recovery from the above-mentioned criteria. ‘Duration of peritonitis’ was defined the interval between onset of and recovery from PD-associated peritonitis. In addition, ‘PD duration’ was defined from the start of the PD therapy to study observation period.

Statistical analysis

All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median and range, as appropriate. Values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Differences between groups were analyzed by Student’s t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as appropriate. Differences between the three groups were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance or the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, as appropriate. Differences were considered statistically significant when the F value was less than 0.05. The Tukey-Kramer test was then used to determine the group that caused the difference. Nominal variables were tested using the chi-square test. The incidence rate of peritonitis was calculated by dividing the number of cases of incident peritonitis by the number of person-years of follow-up as the denominator under the Poisson assumption. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare peritonitis-free times. The log-rank statistic was used to test differences between groups. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis were assessed using Cox regression analysis and interaction analysis with the confounding factors of sex, age, study period and diabetes. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP for Windows version 10.0.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

General

Table 1 details baseline characteristic of the 373 patients divided into the three groups, along with comparisons between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. DM was present in 92 patients. Mean age at PD initiation was 58±14 years in the DM group and 51±16 years in the non-DM (NDM) group (P<0.05). Age has been rising gradually in both the DM and NDM groups. The NDM group continued PD longer (49 months; range, 1–279 months) than the DM group (36 months; range, 0–119 months; P<0.05).

Table 1

Demographics and clinical characteristics.

	Whole period			Period 1			Period 2			Period 3
	Total	DM	NDM	Total	DM	NDM	Total	DM	NDM	Total	DM	NDM
Number [n (%)]	373	92 (24.7)	281 (75.3)	43	13 (30.2)	30 (69.8)	123	18 (14.6)	105 (85.4)	207	61 (29.5)	146 (70.5)
total patient-year (year)	1616.25	342.58	1273.66	288.08	58.83	226.25	713	114.66	598.33	618.16	169.08	449.08
Male [n (%)]	278 (74.5)	78 (84.8)	200 (71.2)†	33 (76.7)	12 (92.3)	21 (70)	87 (70.7)	14 (77.8)	73 (69.5)	158 (76.3)	52 (85.2)	106 (72.6)
Age at PD initiation (years)	53±15	58±14	51±16†	45±13	51±12	42±13††	51±15	57±10	49±15†	57±15	60±14	55±15††
PD duration (months)	45 (0–279)	36 (0–119)	49 (1–279)†	101 (10–184)	42 (12–112)	111 (10–184)†	72 (0–266)	48 (3–119)	73 (0–266)††	44 (0–279)	29 (0–96)	48 (1–279)
Peritonitis (total number of episodes)	268	65	203	89	28	61	105	21	84	74	16	58
Incidence of peritonitis (/patient-years)	0.16	0.21	0.15††	0.31	0.49	0.27†	0.15	0.27	0.13†	0.12	0.09	0.13
Duration of peritonitis	34.7±28.8	34.4±27.9	34.8±29.2	51.6±33.8	54.3±29.3	49.5±35.9	35.6±28.6	27.5±21.1	37.8±30.1	20.8±15.1	18.3±15.8	21.6±15.0

Abbreviations: PD, peritoneal dialysis; DM, diabetes mellitus; NDM, non-diabetes mellitus.

† p<0.05 (comparison between DM and NDM groups)

†† p<0.01 (comparison between DM and NDM groups

Peritonitis incidence

A total of 268 episodes of peritonitis were identified. Incidence of PD-associated peritonitis (times per patient-year) was 0.16 in total, 0.21 for the DM group, and 0.15 for the NDM group (P<0.01). In Periods 1 and 2, the DM group showed higher incidences of PD-associated peritonitis than the NDM group (P<0.05). However, no difference according to the presence of diabetes was seen in Period 3.

In Period 1, the duration of peritonitis was 51.6±33.8 days. In Period 3, however, the duration of peritonitis was 20.8±15.1 days. Although length of treatment more than halved, the duration of peritonitis did not differ significantly between DM and NDM groups throughout the three periods.

We compared the development of peritonitis once to several times between DM and NDM groups for the 3 periods. No significant association was seen between groups in any period (Period 1 P = 0.27, Period 2 p = 1.00, Period 3 p = 0.51).

Analysis of risk factor for peritonitis

Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the peritonitis-free period between DM and NDM groups (Fig 1). The peritonitis-free period was significantly shorter in the DM group than in the NDM 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).

Fig 1

Kaplan-Meier curves of peritonitis-free time.

Peritonitis-free time was compared between DM (solid line) and NDM (dashed line) groups. PD, peritoneal dialysis; DM, diabetes mellitus; NDM, non-diabetes mellitus.

In a Cox analysis including gender, age, and DM was an independent predictor for incidence of PD-associated peritonitis in Periods 1 and 2 (Period 1: HR, 2.49; 95%CI, 1.15 to 5.23; Period 2: HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.13 to 4.58). However, no correlation was seen between DM and PD-associated peritonitis in Period 3 (HR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.41 to 1.54; Table 2).

Table 2

Hazard ratio for first peritonitis episode.

	Unadjusted HR (95%CI)	Adjusted HR (95%CI)
Period 1
Age (years)	1.01 (0.98 to 1.04)	1.00 (0.97 to 1.03)
Male sex	1.24 (0.58 to 2.96)	1.19 (0.51 to 3.02)
DM	2.52 (1.18 to 5.16)	2.49 (1.15 to 5.23)
Period 2
Age (years)	1.01 (0.99 to 1.03)	1.00 (0.98 to 1.03)
Male sex	1.18 (0.66 to 2.26)	1.04 (0.57 to 2.01)
DM	2.44 (1.19 to 4.60)	2.36 (1.13 to 4.58)
Period 3
Age (years)	1.02 (0.99 to 1.04)	1.02 (0.99 to 1.04)
Male sex	0.93 (0.49 to 1.93)	0.85 (0.45 to 1.78)
DM	0.82 (0.41 to 1.53)	0.82 (0.41 to 1.54)

Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; DM, diabetes mellitus.

Fig 2 shows the effects of diabetes and each clinical parameter on the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis. A significant interaction between diabetes and study period, and the influence of the presence of diabetes on the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis became less pronounced during Period 3.

Fig 2

Effect of the presence of diabetes and each clinical parameter on the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis.

CI, confidence interval.

Causative microorganisms of PD-associated peritonitis in three terms

Table 3 shows causative microorganisms of PD-associated peritonitis in three terms. Staphylococcus species were significantly predominant in the DM group. In Period 1, Staphylococcus species infection was the most common in both groups. Although the difference was not significant, Pseudomonas aeruginosa was predominant in the NDM group. In Period 2, Staphylococcus species were the most common in both groups. One-third of patients (33%) showed culture-negative peritonitis episodes. Three (15%) diabetic patients displayed infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE). After 2005, Streptococcus species increased, with eight (34.8%) diabetic patients showing Streptococcal peritonitis. For non-diabetic patients, culture-negative peritonitis was the most frequent. No significant difference was seen between DM and NDM groups, but Staphylococcus species decreased, while Streptococcus species increased over the three periods.

Table 3

Spectrum of PD-peritonitis episodes over the 33 years.

Causative microorganisms n(%)	Total			Period 1			Period 2			Period 3
	DM	non DM	P	DM	non DM	P	DM	non DM	P	DM	nonDM	P
Total	69	129		26	17		20	67		23	45
Staphylococcu sp.	28	34	0.04	15	8	0.49	8	18	0.26	5	8	0.69
Staphylococcus aureus	11	12		10	5		0	5		1	2
MRSA	1	2		0	0		1	1		0	1
Staphylococcus epidermidis	10	11		5	2		2	5		3	4
MRSE	3	3		0	0		3	3		0	0
Other Staphylococcus sp	3	6		0	1		2	4		1	1
Streptococcus sp.	12	21	0.96	3	1	0.63	1	9	0.44	8	11	0.46
Enterococcus sp.	1	6	0.41	0	0		1	6	0.67	0	0
Other GPC	3	0	0.08	0	0		1	0	0.25	2	0	0.1
GPR	0	1	0.77	0	0		0	1	0.56	0	0
Pseudomonas aeruginosa	5	13	0.61	4	7	0.09	0	3	0.57	1	3	0.76
Esherichia coli	0	4	0.32	0	0		0	4	0.57	0	0
Other GNR	5	5	0.53	0	0		2	2	0.26	3	3	0.39
Fungi	1	2	0.61	1	0	0.8	0	2	0.4	0	0
NTM	0	1	0.77	0	0		0	0		0	1	0.71
Polymicrobial infection	1	6	0.41	0	0		0	0		1	6	0.41
Negative	13	36	0.15	3	1	0.63	7	22	0.89	3	13	0.22

Discussion

This large, single-center cohort study evaluated 33 years of experience in the form of 268 episodes of PD-associated peritonitis. We divided patients into three groups by the use of PD devices and solutions use. In Japan, the twin-bag system was released from 1992 to 1993 and biocompatible solutions were released from 2000 to 2004. Our period classification corresponded to that used in a paper from Germany by Kitterer et al [18]. That study analyzed 351 adult patients with peritonitis in three time periods from 1979 to 2014.

Before 2004, the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis was higher and the peritonitis-free period was shorter in the DM group than in the NDM group, but no such differences were seen after 2005. In addition, a significant interaction was seen between diabetes and study period, and the influence of the presence of diabetes on the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis became less pronounced during Period 3. This means that the increased risk of peritonitis in diabetics observed in previous periods has not been seen in recent years.

Our study demonstrated that Staphylococcus species were predominant in DM. However, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), MRSE, and other Staphylococcus species were not associated with DM. This result was similar to Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) study [19].

As the time has progressed, infections involving Staphylococcus species have decreased, while those with Streptococcus species have increased. Streptococcal peritonitis has been demonstrated in 5–11.7% of cases in most studies [20,21]. The paper by Shukla et al. observed 104 cases of Streptococcal peritonitis in 68 patients over a period of 10 years [21]. They stated that the rate of Streptococcal peritonitis was increased, and viewed that the decline of Staphylococcus peritonitis relatively increased Streptococcus infections with Y-set systems and routine exit site care.

Alhough the ISPD has stated that frequencies of culture-negative peritonitis should be less than 15%, our study showed in Period 2 and for the NDM group in Period 3, culture-negative peritonitis accounted for more than 15% of cases [22].

According to other reviews of the literature examining the relationship between DM and PD-associated peritonitis, several studies reported DM as a risk for PD-associated peritonitis [6–8, 10–14]. Diabetic patients are compromised hosts and experience many complications. Furthermore, diabetic patients mistake the process of PD as potentially contributing to visual disorder and peripheral neuropathy [6-8]. Joshi et al. found that glucose load impaired the peritoneal defense system [23]. The presence of DM may affect the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis via several mechanisms.

The ISPD has recommended teaching PD patients and caregivers about appropriate catheter exit care and the use of prophylactic antibiotics [22]. Although we unfortunately did not have specific data to analyze, we tried to observe ISPD guidelines. Patients and caregivers have been taught techniques for PD on initiation of PD and became PD-associated peritonitis. For example, they were taught aseptic technique for connection, care for exit site, recognition about infection, and timing of medical examination. Instruction was provided on disinfection the catheter exit site with povidone iodine. The attending doctor examined catheter exit site for each patient every month. Systemic antibiotics were administered prophylactically prior to PD catheter insertion. We used intravenous cefazolin unless clinically contraindicaed.

Improvement of glycemic control is one factor that may help reduce the risk of PD-associated peritonitis. DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists currently play central roles in the treatment of dialysis patients with DM. These drugs were approved between 2009 and 2010 in Japan. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors was found to significantly improve hemoglobin (Hb)A1c levels and hyperglycemia in patients receiving PD [24,25]. Furthermore, GLP-1 agonists significantly decreased average blood glucose levels among diabetic patients undergoing PD [26]. Although we did not show data on glycemic control, diabetic patients might have benefitted from these treatments in Period 3. According to a report from Spain, the time to first episode of peritonitis did not differ between patients with HbA1C values ≤7.1% and those with values >7.1% [27]. In contrast, Lee et al. indicated that better patient survival with PD was influenced by the degree of glycemic control [28].

The mechanisms by which biocompatible PD solutions help prevent PD-associated peritonitis have not been established. Several reports have suggested that biocompatible PD solutions suppress peritoneal fibrosis and decrease the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis [29]. We have previously reported that biocompatible PD solutions did not exert favorable effects on the incidence of PD-associated peritonitis [16]. This would mean that use of biocompatible solutions was not associated with the declining incidence of PD-associated peritonitis noted in this study. This result supports recent results described by Srivastava et al. [30].

Reduced residual renal function is presumed to increase the risk of PD-associated peritonitis. Actually, Han et al. reported reduced residual renal function as a risk factor for peritonitis in patients receiving continuous ambulatory PD [8]. Serum albumin level, which might reflect nutritional status, was significantly higher in patients with residual GFR >5 ml/min/1.73 m2 compared to those with GFR <5 ml/min/1.73 m2. Lower albumin level would thus contribute to the development of peritonitis.

The present study has several limitations. First, this was an observational study based on retrospective data. Data such as laboratory results and treatment of DM were unavailable. For example, we could not assess the effect of serum albumin, a well-known contributing factor for the development of PD-associated peritonitis [31]. We thus could not adjust for confounding factors such as residual renal function, presence of pre-dialysis care, or glycemic control in the Cox analysis. Second, not all patients underwent renal biopsy to determine the diagnosis of renal disease. We cannot exclude the possibility that some patients could have been misclassified. In addition, our study showed selection bias, in that we intentionally selected PD patients with self-management skill. The primary strength of the study was the large number of peritonitis episodes, data on which were collected during 33 years of PD practice.

Conclusion

The increased risk of peritonitis in diabetics observed in previous periods appears to have disappeared in recent years. Diabetic patients with end-stage renal stage therefore need not avoid selecting the PD modality.

21 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-20955

Effect of diabetes on incidence of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Nakao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 05 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tatsuo Shimosawa, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. ‘In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records/samples used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data/samples were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data/samples from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3.  Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

Y.M. and M.I. have received scholarship funds from Baxter International Inc. and Terumo Corporation. Y.T. has received research grants from Baxter International Inc. They had no direct involvement in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This article is interesting because it evaluate the effect of diabetes on PD peritonitis over a period of more than 3 decades.

However there are still some problems to accept for publish.

Major

You divided 373 PD patients into 3 groups, according to era. The observation period in 3 groups is different from 7 to 13 years, Era means Period 1 (single bag system), Period 2 (twin bag system), and Period 3 (biocompatible solution).

Is there any article which uses similar era classification? If your original classification, could you mention the history of these development in PD shortly.

You did not mention about the progress of PD devices such as sterlile system. These devices has been developed mainly to reduce the risk of peritonitis. It is better for you to include the progress of PD devices in era classification.

It seems that we often use device for patients whoare empirically risky, for Pariod 3, is there any differences in device usage rate between DM and non DM patients?

I think it is difficult to explain the result by only biocompatible PD solution.

You mentioned the contribution of icodextrin in discussion, even now some icodextrin are not yet biocompatible neutral solution. If you want to describe the contribution of icodextrin, you should show that you use only biocompatible icodextrin in period 3. Otherwise this phrase should be deleted from the discussion.

The progress of devices seems to have changed the cause of peritonitis from touch contamination to exit and tunnel infection, and intaraperitoneal bacterial translocation, could you show the data on transmission of pathogenic bacteria? If difficult, could you consider only recent period 3 peritonitis whether you can show there was no significant difference between DM and non DM group?

Minor

1) Could you show the approval number of the ethics committee of Jikei University Hospital.

2) Table 1

What about patients who are observed over both period? Is there a total of 373 patients, or is there no overlap?

What does PD duration mean in Table 1?

It is better to show the number of total patient-yaer in each period.

Duration of peritonitis is not shown in Table 1. Is there any difference between DM and non DM in each period?

Especially in period 3, the incidence of peritonitis became not significant in both group, what about the duration of peritonitis?

What about the difference in both group about the quality of peritonitis such as simple peritonitis or intractable peritonitis to continue PD (for example MRSA peritonitis, Tuberculosis peritonitis, NTM)?

3) Figure 2

How do you define with peritonitis free time? How do you evaluate the second or more peritonitis in same patient? Kaplan Meir Curve seems to deal with only 1st peritonitis in each period considering the number of each period.

Reviewer #2: The authors conducted an analysis based on abundant data unique to institutions that have played a precursor role in Japanese peritoneal dialysis therapy, and in recent years there is no disadvantage in the prevalence of PD-related peritonitis even in diabetic patients.

This study provides extremely useful information for the selection of dialysis methods for diabetic patients. However, some comments should be raised as follows.

1 ISPD guidelines recommend that the parameters monitored should include rates of specific organisms, and the antimicrobial susceptibilities of the infecting organisms.

In diabetic patients, refractory peritonitis or relapsing, recurrent, and repeat peritonitis may affect the results of this study, so the infecting organisms and the frequency of refractory peritonitis, or relapsing, recurrent, and repeat peritonitis should be mentioned.

2. Exit-site and catheter-tunnel infections are major predis- posing factors to PD-related peritonitis. It should be mentioned whether there were changes in each period of disconnect systems, teaching PD patients and their caregivers, catheter exit site care, and systemic prophylactic antibiotics administration prior to catheter insertion.

3. Since icodextrin is being discussed, changes in the frequency of use of icodextrin should be presented. If information on dialysis fluid is not available even after 2003 in this study, it may be a substitute for discussion based on changes in the frequency of use at other facilities or throughout Japan.

4. There are no data suggesting improved glycemic control in this study, and the results of this study are not related to discussion.

This is because glycemic control can greatly affect the results of this study.

In fact, from 1980 to the present, antidiabetic drugs that can be used especially in dialysis patients have been able to add α-glycosidase inhibitors, glinides, DPP-4 inhibitors, and GLP-1 analogs one after another since the days of insulin alone, and insulin itself has changed significantly. These are assumed to have dramatically improved glycemic control.

If data on glycemic control or diabetes treatment for all patients cannot be obtained in this study, the authors should discuss within the available periods, or cite papers on the transition of glycemic control in diabetic patients during PD. At least the transition of treatments for diabetes should be mentioned.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

11 Oct 2019

We are re-submitting the following manuscript for your consideration: “Effect of diabetes on incidence of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis” (manuscript ID PONE-D-19-20955).

The comments from the three reviewers were extremely helpful. We have worked through each of the comments with the aim of improving the manuscript. My co-authors have all contributed to this revised manuscript and have agreed to this re-submission.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience and are very grateful for your consideration.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

4 Nov 2019

Effect of diabetes on incidence of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

PONE-D-19-20955R1

Dear Dr. Nakao,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Tatsuo Shimosawa, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors responds appropriately to Reviewer's comments and the article has been corrected as far as possible.

Reviewer #2: The authors conducted an analysis based on abundant data unique to institutions that have played a precursor role in Japanese peritoneal dialysis therapy, and found a evidence to break past concepts.

The response to the review was also appropriate and I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Shinya Kawamoto

Reviewer #2: No

4 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-20955R1

Effect of diabetes on incidence of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

Dear Dr. Nakao:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Tatsuo Shimosawa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE