Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do / Atenção às lacunas no cuidado renal: traduzindo o que sabemos em ações

Abstract Historically, it takes an average of 17 years for new treatments to move from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. Now is the time to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions are diagnosed worldwide, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because it is often silent in the early stages. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from the patient to the clinician to the health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Resumo Historicamente, são necessários, em média, 17 anos para que novos tratamentos passem da evidência clínica para a prática diária. Considerando os tratamentos altamente eficazes disponíveis atualmente para prevenir ou retardar o início e a progressão da doença renal, esse período é demasiadamente longo. Agora é o momento de reduzir a lacuna entre o que sabemos e aquilo que fazemos. Existem diretrizes claras para a prevenção e o manejo dos fatores de risco comuns para doenças renais, como hipertensão e diabetes, mas apenas uma fração das pessoas com essas condições é diagnosticada mundialmente, e um número ainda menor recebe tratamento adequado. Da mesma forma, a grande maioria das pessoas que sofrem de doença renal não têm conhecimento de sua condição, pois ela costuma ser silenciosa nos estágios iniciais. Mesmo entre pacientes que foram diagnosticados, muitos não recebem tratamento adequado para a doença renal. Levando em consideração as graves consequências da progressão da doença renal, insuficiência renal ou óbito, é imperativo que os tratamentos sejam iniciados precocemente e de maneira adequada. As oportunidades para diagnosticar e tratar precocemente a doença renal devem ser maximizadas, começando no nível da atenção primária. Existem muitas barreiras sistemáticas, que vão desde o paciente até o médico, passando pelos sistemas de saúde e por fatores sociais. Para preservar e melhorar a saúde renal para todos em qualquer lugar, cada uma dessas barreiras deve ser reconhecida para que soluções sustentáveis sejam desenvolvidas e implementadas sem mais demora.

Justifying access to kidney care in low resource and humanitarian settings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Access to and quality of kidney care is not equitable between or within countries. A natural question is whether global kidney care inequities are always unjustifiable and unfair, or are sometimes due to unavoidable competing or conflicting ethical duties or responsibilities. RECENT FINDINGS: Health is a fundamental right for all people. People with kidney conditions should have the same claim on this human right as others. Countries have an obligation to progressively fulfil this right and a duty to do so equitably, but global progress has been slow. Countries with limited resources or faced with humanitarian emergencies must set priorities to allocate resources fairly. This process involves trade-offs and often people requiring kidney replacement therapy are left out because of costs, logistics and lack of data. Major burdens are placed on clinicians who grapple between their duty to their patient and professional codes and their responsibility to a 'greater good'. These dilemmas apply also to industry, governments and the international community who must recognize their share in these duties. SUMMARY: Inequities in kidney health and care must be acknowledged and sustainable and collaborative solutions urgently found such that right to kidney care is progressively upheld for everyone everywhere.

International equity in access to home dialysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Discussion of inequalities and inequities in global distribution of and access to home dialysis. RECENT FINDINGS: The majority of patients receiving home dialysis receive peritoneal dialysis, but these are concentrated in few countries across the globe. Peritoneal dialysis as the most common form of home dialysis has many advantages in terms of individual freedoms, similar outcomes to haemodialysis, being less costly in some countries, and more scalable than in-centre haemodialysis. Despite this there are many inequities in access at the patient, clinician, health system and geopolitical levels. Poverty, discrimination and lack of support at home are important drivers of inequities at the patient level. At the clinician and health systems level lack of experience in home dialysis, lack of resources and lack of time drive patients towards in-centre dialysis. At the geopolitical level, high costs associated with procurement and distribution of peritoneal dialysis solutions exacerbate inequities in access. SUMMARY: The challenge of reducing global inequities in access to home dialysis in low- and middle-income countries are vast and would require training of the doctors, nurses, families, patients, leaders and community partners. Once this is achieved, dealing with costs and logistics of supplies is crucial to improve and sustain equitable access.

A commentary from the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease in children and adults.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2024 Guidelines for identification and management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are a welcome development coming 12 years after the paradigm changing 2012 guidelines. We are living in an unprecedented era in nephrology with novel therapies, including sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists now being proven in multiple randomised controlled clinical trials to reduce both the progression of CKD and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The KDIGO 2024 CKD guideline is aimed at a broad audience looking after children and adults with CKD and provide practical and actionable steps to improve care. This commentary reviews the guideline sections pertaining to the evaluation and risk assessment of individuals with CKD from a European perspective. We feel that despite the last guideline being published 12 years ago, and that the assessment of CKD has been emphasized by many other national/international nephrology, cardiology and diabetology guidelines and societies, the diagnosis and treatment of CKD remains poor across Europe. As such the KDIGO 2024 CKD Guidelines should be seen as an urgent call to action to improve diagnosis and care of children and adults with CKD across Europe. We know what we need to do. We now need to get on and do it.

Access to expensive therapies and diagnostics for kidney care in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, nephrologists must frequently obtain pre-authorizations from health insurers for certain medications/tests for individual patients. These are time consuming and outcomes are inconsistent. Clinical experience suggest inequities in access to expensive medications, related to need for and processes involved with medication pre-authorization requests. METHODS: An anonymous survey was conducted between November 2021 and March 2022 regarding experiences in applying for pre-authorizations for medications and genetic testing required for kidney care conducted among nephrologists in Switzerland. RESULTS: Ninety-four responses were received. The most common medications reported to require pre-approvals were rituximab, sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and eculizumab. Rebuttals were reported to be most frequently required for rituximab, eculizumab and SGLT2i, also the most frequently denied medications. Most frequent genetic testing requests were for complement and Alports spectrum disorders. Requests for genetic testing were reported to be most frequently denied for cystic renal diseases, congenital syndromes and nephrotic syndrome.Most nephrologists found requests for further information from the health insurers were seldom reasonable; 72% reported it was rarely/never possible to engage with the insurance physicians, 69% were concerned insurance physicians did not have relevant expertise. Respondents reported receiving different responses from different insurers for similar requests more frequently than from the same insurer (58% vs 8%). One in three nephrologists reported that the pre-authorizations process frequently resulted in a clinically relevant delay in treatment. Four of five respondents reported that the pre-authorization process frequently made them feel that they could not do their best for the patient. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of nephrologists, the pre-authorizations process in Switzerland is cumbersome, not transparent and inequitable, may result in denial or delays of important treatment for patients and contributes to moral distress.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years for new treatments to move from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. Now is the time to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions are diagnosed worldwide, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because it is often silent in the early stages. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from the patient to the clinician to the health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Metal phosphide poisoning in a disaster-stricken area. Can early hemodialysis improve outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Phosphide metal poisoning results in tens of thousands of fatalities per year worldwide. The mortality in critically ill patients often exceeds 50%. The available treatment is supportive and there is no antidote. Dialysis is recommended to treat advanced complications but has not been prescribed early in the process. In this study we report our experience in using dialysis in the early hours of presentation of the patients and suggest it can favorably improve the prognosis. We also draw attention to the risk of suicide under conditions of chronic conflict such as those in northwestern Syria, and to the lack of necessary mental health support for patients after suicide attempts. METHODS: Retrospective review of records of patients poisoned with aluminum phosphide and admitted to critical care facilities in northwestern Syria between July 2022 and June 2023. RESULTS: During the observation period 16 cases were encountered. Suicide was the reason of the poisoning in 15 patients, the median patient age was 18 years and over two thirds of the patients were female. Early dialysis was used in 11 patients who were critically ill and their mortality rate was 18%. CONCLUSIONS: Phosphide metal poisoning is common in the disasters stricken area of northwestern Syria. Most cases are suicidal and impact young females. Early dialytic interventions may favorably impact the outcomes.

Discontinuation of maintenance peritoneal dialysis in children-A 10-year review from a single center in a low resource setting.

INTRODUCTION: In South Africa, only children considered eligible for transplantation are offered dialysis as bridge to kidney transplantation. Maintenance peritoneal dialysis (PD) is preferred and has several advantages over hemodialysis (HD). While awaiting transplantation, PD may be discontinued due to permanent transfer to HD or death while on PD, of which the occurrence and burden is not known in our setting. We investigated the rate of discontinuation of maintenance PD, and associated factors among children awaiting a kidney transplant under challenging socio-economic circumstances in a low resource setting. METHODS: Single center retrospective analysis of children receiving maintenance PD. Outcomes included the proportion of children who discontinued PD before transplantation, associated factors and timing of discontinuation, and the proportion transplanted. Time to discontinuation or transplantation was displayed using a Kaplan-Meier curve. RESULTS: Sixty-seven children who received maintenance automated PD as initial dialysis modality were identified from the kidney transplant waiting list between January 2009 and December 2018. Complete data was available for 52 of the 67 children. Four children had prior failed kidney transplants. The median age was 11 years (interquartile range 6.0, 13.1). Overall, 17/52 (32.7%) children discontinued PD, with 13 (25%) transfers to HD and 4 deaths (7.7%), whereas 29/52 (55.8%) received a kidney transplant. Three of the deaths were PD related. Six children remained on maintenance PD at the end of the study period. Over a half of our patients discontinued PD by 12 months, and 80% by 30 months. Most PD discontinuations were associated with peritonitis. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion discontinuing PD was high, highlighting the need to optimize measures to improve retention rates, especially through prevention of peritonitis.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know into What We Do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know Into What We do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary-care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Dialysis for paediatric acute kidney injury in Cape Town, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis is lifesaving for acute kidney injury (AKI), but access is poor in less resourced settings. A "peritoneal dialysis (PD) first" policy for paediatric AKI is more feasible than haemodialysis in low-resource settings. METHODS: Retrospective review of modalities and outcomes of children dialysed acutely at Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital between 1998 and 2020. RESULTS: Of the 593 children with AKI who received dialysis, 463 (78.1%) received PD first. Median age was 9.0 (range 0.03-219.3; IQR 13.0-69.6) months; 57.6% were < 1 year old. Weights ranged from 0.9 to 2.0 kg (median 7.0 kg, IQR 3.0-16.0 kg); 38.6% were < 5 kg. PD was used more in younger children compared to extracorporeal dialysis (ECD), with median ages 6.4 (IQR 0.9-30.4) vs. 73.9 (IQR 17.5-113.9) months, respectively (p = 0.001). PD was performed with Seldinger soft catheters (n = 480/578, 83%), predominantly inserted by paediatricians at the bedside (n = 412/490, 84.1%). Complications occurred in 127/560 (22.7%) children receiving PD. Overall, 314/542 (57.8%) children survived. Survival was significantly lower in neonates (< 1 month old, 47.5%) and infants (1-12 months old, 49.2%) compared with older children (> 1 year old, 70.4%, p < 0.0001). Survival was superior in the ECD (75.4%) than in the PD group (55.6%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: "PD First for Paediatric AKI" is a valuable therapeutic approach for children with AKI. It is feasible in low-resourced settings where bedside PD catheter insertion can be safely taught and is an acceptable dialysis modality, especially in settings where children with AKI would otherwise not survive.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Treatment strategies of the thromboembolic risk in kidney failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

The incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients affected by kidney failure, i.e. glomerular filtration rate <15 ml/min/1.73 m2, is high and probably underestimated. Numerous uncertainties remain regarding how to prevent thromboembolic events in this population because both cardiology and nephrology guidelines do not provide clear recommendations. The efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) in preventing thromboembolism in patients with kidney failure and AF has not been demonstrated for either vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct anticoagulants (DOACs). Moreover, it remains unclear which is more effective and safer, because estimated creatinine clearance <25-30 ml/min was an exclusion criterion in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Three RCTs comparing DOACs and VKAs in kidney failure failed to reach the primary endpoint, as they were underpowered. The left atrial appendage is the main source of thromboembolism in the presence of AF. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has recently been proposed as an alternative to OAC. RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of LAAC versus OAC in kidney failure were terminated prematurely due to recruitment failure. A recent prospective study showed a reduction in thromboembolic events in haemodialysis patients with AF and undergoing LAAC compared with patients taking or not taking OAC. We review current treatment standards and discuss recent developments in managing the thromboembolic risk in kidney failure patients with AF. The importance of shared decision-making with the multidisciplinary team and the patient to consider individual risks and benefits of each treatment option is underlined.