UK prescribing practice of anticoagulants in patients with chronic kidney disease: a nephrology and haematology-based survey.

A survey to gain insight into anticoagulant prescribing practice in the setting of chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the UK was disseminated via renal and haematology networks. Areas of anticoagulant use included patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), requiring thromboprophylaxis for VTE, Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and nephrotic syndrome.An online-survey was disseminated via British Haematology Society, UK Kidney Association, and Renal Pharmacy Group over a five month period. All responses were voluntary and anonymous.Among 117 responses there were 49 nephrology doctors, 47 renal pharmacists and 20 haematology clinicians. A specialist multidisciplinary team to discuss the specific anticoagulant management of these patients was only available to 3% (4/117) respondents. Renal function estimate used for anticoagulant dosing was mainly Cockcroft-Gault for pharmacists and haematology but lab-based estimates were used by nephrology doctors. Therapeutic dose of Low Molecular Weight Heparin was mostly likely to be reduced by one-third when used for VTE treatment, with the majority of units undertaking anti-Xa monitoring in CKD stage 5 and dialysis. Direct-acting Oral Anticoagulants are being used in patients with nephrotic syndrome, those with CKD stage 5 and on dialysis for VTE and AF in the absence of license in these indications.This survey highlighted the significant differences between anticoagulant prescribing in CKD between two professional specialties and marked variation between centres in anticoagulant management strategies employed for these patients. With gaps still existing in the evidence base and answers to these not expected within the next few years, development of a best-practice guideline would be warranted to support clinicians in this field.

Can direct oral anticoagulants be used in kidney transplant recipients?

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant recipients(KTRs) are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation(AF). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have shown important advantages over vitamin K antagonists; however, in KTRs, concerns regarding interactions and use in severe kidney disease may limit their use. This evaluation describes a large UK kidney transplant center's experience of DOACs in KTRs with CrCl > 15 mL/min. METHODS: Electronic records were reviewed for all adult KTRs at Manchester University Foundation Trust Hospitals taking DOACs between January 2018 and October 2020 with VTE or AF. The primary outcome was trough and peak DOAC levels within the expected reference ranges and secondary outcomes included bleeding and thrombotic events. RESULTS: In 31 KTRs taking DOACS, eight patients had a CrCl < 30 mL/min. Overall, 94% (62/66) of DOAC levels were within the recommended ranges. There were no thrombotic events and four bleeding events (two major and two clinically relevant non-major bleeds). The overall bleeding rate was 6.9 per 100 patient-years at risk. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a significant interaction of apixaban or rivaroxaban with CNIs based on expected DOAC and CNI levels. Their use was found to be safe and effective with no VTE events and bleeding episodes similar to published trial data.

Chronic anticoagulation is not associated with a reduced risk of acute kidney injury in hospitalised Covid-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) has been declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organisation. Severe disease typically presents with respiratory failure but Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) and a hypercoagulable state can also occur. Early reports suggest that thrombosis may be linked with AKI. We studied the development of AKI and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 taking chronic anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: Electronic records were reviewed for all adult patients admitted to Manchester University Foundation Trust Hospitals between March 10 and April 302,020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Patients with end-stage kidney disease were excluded. AKI was classified as per KDIGO criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1032 patients with COVID-19 studied,164 (15.9%) were taking anticoagulant therapy prior to admission. There were similar rates of AKI between those on anticoagulants and those not anticoagulated (23.8% versus 19.7%) with no difference in the severity of AKI or requirement of renal replacement therapy between groups (1.2% versus 3.5%). Risk factors for AKI included hypertension, pre-existing renal disease and male sex. There was a higher mortality in those taking anticoagulant therapy (40.2% versus 30%). Patients taking anticoagulants were less likely to be admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (8.5% versus 17.4%) and to receive mechanical ventilation (42.9% versus 78.1%). CONCLUSION: Patients on chronic anticoagulant therapy did not have a reduced incidence or severity of AKI suggesting that AKI is unlikely to be thrombotic in nature. Therapeutic anticoagulation is currently still under investigation in randomised controlled studies to determine whether it has a potential role in COVID-19 treatment.

The use of direct oral anticoagulants in chronic kidney disease.

Increasing use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has made management of non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism easier in most patients. But the presence of co-existing renal impairment could render the use of DOACs problematic because all of these drugs have varying degrees of renal excretion. In this paper we address misconceptions about the safety and efficacy of DOACs in moderate-severe renal impairment by presenting a summary of the literature from phase III trials and real-world studies. It also addresses the important consideration of correct estimate of renal function for DOAC dosing. It is hoped that the review will serve as a valuable resource for clinicians involved in anticoagulation decision-making in patients with renal impairment to guide the choice of most suitable agent. Accurate dosing is of particular relevance as registry data suggests it is done inconsistently and may be resulting in avoidable thromboembolic and bleeding events.

Is anticoagulating haemodialysis patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation too risky?

There is an increasing understanding of the risks from atrial fibrillation (AF) in the current era. In patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis, the prevalence of AF is significantly higher compared to the general population and those with earlier stages of CKD. Although anticoagulation of these patients may seem appropriate, there is a lack of conclusive evidence that it provides the same protection from thromboembolic complications as it does in patients not on dialysis. In addition, the increased risk of bleeding in patients requiring dialysis makes the use of anticoagulants less favourable. This article aims to discuss the problem of AF in dialysis patients, summarise the current evidence around the use of oral anticoagulants for AF in ESRD and provide some practical suggestions on management of AF in the haemodialysis population.

Impaired kidney function: supporting the safe use of medicines for patients.

Due to the increasing incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), nurses in most healthcare settings are likely to care for patients with some degree of impaired kidney function. Impaired kidney function can adversely affect the way the body excretes, absorbs, distributes and metabolises medicines (pharmacokinetics), potentially resulting in a wide range of drug-related complications. This article provides an overview of the effects of impaired kidney function on pharmacokinetics and the importance of accurate drug dose adjustments for patients with related conditions. It also discusses various aspects of medicines use in patients with AKI, the pharmacological management of patients with CKD and the use of immunosuppressive therapy in patients who have had a kidney transplant. The authors consider the role of the nurse in ensuring safe medicines use for patients with impaired kidney function throughout the article.

Best practice for the selection, design and implementation of UK Kidney Association guidelines: a modified Delphi consensus approach.

BACKGROUND: Despite research into how to effectively implement evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice, a lack of standardisation in the commissioning and development of clinical practice guidelines can lead to inconsistencies and gaps in implementation. This research aimed to ascertain how topics in kidney care worthy of guideline development within the UK should be chosen, prioritised, designed and implemented. METHODS: Following a modified Delphi methodology, a multi-disciplinary panel of experts in kidney healthcare from across the UK developed 35 statements on the issues surrounding the selection, development and implementation of nephrology guidelines. Consensus with these statements was determined by agreement using an online survey; the consensus threshold was defined as 75% agreement. RESULTS: 419 responses were received. Of the 364 healthcare practitioners (HCPs), the majority had over 20 years of experience in their role (n=123) and most respondents were nephrologists (n=95). Of the 55 non-clinical respondents, the majority were people with kidney disease (n=41) and the rest were their carers or family. Participants were from across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Consensus between HCPs was achieved in 32/35 statements, with 28 statements reaching ≥90% agreement. Consensus between patients and patient representatives was achieved across all 20 statements, with 13/20 reaching ≥90% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The current results have provided the basis for six recommendations to improve the selection, design and implementation of guidelines. Actioning these recommendations will help improve the accessibility of, and engagement with, clinical guidelines, contributing to the continuing development of best practice in UK kidney care.

Thromboembolism in nephrotic syndrome: controversies and uncertainties.

Thromboembolism is one of the most serious complications of nephrotic syndrome, including both arterial and venous thromboembolic events. Rates of thromboembolism depend on a multitude of factors, including the severity and cause of nephrotic syndrome, with primary membranous nephropathy having the highest reported rates. In relation to arterial thromboembolism, the risk can be as high as 8 times that of an age- and sex-matched population. However, extrapolating risks is challenging, with published studies not being homogeneous, several being single center and retrospective, and including different causes of primary nephrotic syndrome. Determining thromboembolic risk in nephrotic syndrome is essential to enable decision making on preventive strategies. However, lack of proven strategies to help estimate risk-benefit aspects underpins variations in clinical practice. Although the use of anticoagulation following a thrombotic event is clear, this still leaves us with a clinical dilemma as to if, and who, should receive prophylactic anticoagulation, with what agent, and for how long. In the absence of clear evidence to answer these questions, prophylactic anticoagulation strategies for nephrotic syndrome currently rely on expert consensus opinion, such as in the recently published 2021 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes glomerular disease guidelines. In the mainstay, these recommendations relate to patients with membranous nephropathy. Here, we detail the current controversies still faced by clinicians around the risk of thromboembolism in nephrotic syndrome, use of prophylactic anticoagulation in nephrotic syndrome and propose ways of advancing existing knowledge and practice in this field to unravel the conundrum.

A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Anticoagulants have not been studied in randomised controlled trials with CrCl < 30 ml/min. The objective of this review was to identify the impact of different anticoagulant strategies in patients with advanced CKD including dialysis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, searching electronic databases from 1946 to 2022. Studies that evaluated both thrombotic and bleeding outcomes with anticoagulant use in CrCl < 50 ml/min were included. RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 14,503 papers with 53 suitable for inclusion. RCTs comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin for patients with VTE and CrCl 30-50 ml/min found no difference in recurrent VTE events (RR 0.68(95% CI 0.42-1.11)) with reduced bleeding (RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.94)). Observational data in haemodialysis suggest lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding with apixaban versus warfarin. Very few studies examining outcomes were available for therapeutic and prophylactic dose low molecular weight heparin for CrCl < 30 ml/min. Findings for patients with AF on dialysis were that warfarin or DOACs had a similar or higher risk of stroke compared to no anticoagulation. For patients with AF and CrCl < 30 ml/min not on dialysis, anticoagulation should be considered on an individual basis, with limited studies suggesting DOACs may have a preferable safety profile. CONCLUSION: Further studies are still required, some ongoing, in patients with advanced CKD (CrCl < 30 ml/min) to identify the safest and most effective treatment options for VTE and AF.

Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised patients with acute kidney injury and COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has spread globally to now be considered a pandemic by the World Health Organisation. Initially patients appeared to have a respiratory limited disease but there are now increasing reports of multiple organ involvement including renal disease in association with COVID-19. We studied the development and outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19, in a large multicultural city hospital trust in the UK, to better understand the role renal disease has in the disease process. METHODS: This was a retrospective review using electronic records and laboratory data of adult patients admitted to the four Manchester University Foundation Trust Hospitals between March 10 and April 30 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, medications, comorbidities, social deprivation index, observations, biochemistry and outcomes including mortality, admission to critical care, mechanical ventilation and the need for renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: There were 1032 patients included in the study of whom 210 (20.3%) had AKI in association with the diagnosis of COVID-19. The overall mortality with AKI was considerably higher at 52.4% compared to 26.3% without AKI (p-value <0.001). More patients with AKI required escalation to critical care (34.8% vs 11.2%, p-value <0.001). Following admission to critical care those with AKI were more likely to die (54.8% vs 25.0%, p-value <0.001) and more likely to require mechanical ventilation (86.3% vs 66.3%, p-value 0.006). DISCUSSION: We have shown that the development of AKI is associated with dramatically worse outcomes for patients, in both mortality and the requirement for critical care. Patients with COVID-19 presenting with, or at risk of AKI should be closely monitored and appropriately managed to prevent any decline in renal function, given the significant risk of deterioration and death.

Is polypharmacy an increasing burden in chronic kidney disease? The German experience.

This is a commentary article describing the key findings of the German chronic kidney disease (GCKD) study and how these relate to current practice. With the GCKD study showing high levels of polypharmacy, this article discusses ways to ensure that polypharmacy is appropriate and the difficulties faced within a chronic kidney disease population. Suggestions of ways to minimize medication burden in renal patients provide some practical advice for clinicians.

Medication burden in CKD-5D: impact of dialysis modality and setting.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is thought to be around 50% in the general and dialysis population. Reducing the pill burden (PB) reduces regime complexity and can improve adherence. Increased adherence should lead to improvement in treatment outcomes and patient quality of life. There is currently little published data on PB in CKD-5D across dialysis modalities. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single renal network study. All in-centre HD (MHD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home HD (HHD) patients were identified in the Greater Manchester East sector renal network. Information collected included age, sex, comorbidities, daily PB, dialysis vintage and adequacy. Data were retrieved from a customized renal database, clinic and discharge letters with cross validation from the general practitioner when needed. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-six prevalent dialysis patients were studied. HHD patients had a significantly lower PB (11 ± 7 pills/day) compared with PD and MHD (16 ± 7 pills/day). The HHD patients required fewer BP medications to meet the recommended target. HD setting was the only significant factor for reducing PB. For home therapies (HHD versus PD), weekly Kt/v and serum phosphate were significant factors influencing PB. When comparing all modalities, OR of PB ≥ 15/day for MHD versus HHD was 3.9 and PD versus HHD was 4.9. The influence of HHD is dominant above factors such as comorbidities or clinical variables in reducing PB for MHD. Higher clearances achieved by HHD could explain differences in PB with PD. CONCLUSION: This is the first comparative study of PB across all dialysis modalities and factors that influence it. The PB advantage in HHD may result in greater adherence and might contribute to the outcome benefit often seen with this modality. Higher clearances achieved by HHD could explain differences in PB with PD but the precise reasons for lower PB remain speculative and deserve further research in larger settings.

Warfarin management in haemodialysis--are we meeting British Haematology Society standards?

BACKGROUND: We evaluated current oral anticoagulant management at our main dialysis unit and three satellite units against British Haematology Society (BHS) standards. These standards include patients meeting their target INR +/- 0.5 INR units for 60% of the time with an appropriate frequency of monitoring. METHODS: Data were collected on anticoagulant prescribing and monitoring over one month. RESULTS: None of the four haemodialysis centres were able to achieve BHS standards for all patients. There was wide variability in monitoring frequency, some patients had 13 INRs and up to 10 dose changes. Satellite C had the most patients (63%) meeting BHS target. Satellite A and B both had 50% of patients meeting target. However, Satellite A, where all patients were dosed by anticoagulant clinic, had the least frequent blood sampling and no patients exceeded the therapeutic INR. CONCLUSION: Units that employed dosing by anticoagulant clinics demonstrated best outcome for INR target with the least frequency of sampling. Service design set up and monitoring pathways play a crucial role in achieving warfarin therapeutic targets in haemodialysis units.