Identifying and integrating patient and caregiver perspectives in clinical practice guidelines for percutaneous renal biopsy.

AIM: Percutaneous renal biopsy is often essential for providing reliable diagnostic and prognostic information for people with suspected kidney disease, however the procedure can lead to complications and concerns among patients. This study aims to identify and integrate patient priorities and perspectives into the Kidney Health Australia - Caring for Australasians with Renal Impairment clinical practice guidelines for renal biopsy, to ensure patient-relevance. METHODS: We convened a workshop, consisting of three simultaneous focus groups and a plenary session, with 10 patients who had undergone a renal biopsy and seven caregivers. Topics and outcomes prioritized by patients and their caregivers were compared to those identified by the guideline working group, which was comprised of seven nephrologists. Transcripts and flipcharts were analyzed thematically to identify the reasons for participants' choices. RESULTS: In total, 34 topics/outcomes were identified, 14 of which were common to the list of 28 previously identified by the guideline working group. Most of the new topics identified by patients/caregivers were related to communication and education, psychosocial support, and self-management. We identified five themes underpinning the reasons for topic and outcome selection: alleviating anxiety and unnecessary distress, minimizing discomfort and disruption, supporting family and caregivers, enabling self-management, and protecting their kidney. A new topic on patient care and education was added to the guideline as a result. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and caregiver involvement in developing guidelines on renal biopsy ensured that their concerns and needs for education, psychosocial support, and self-management were explicitly addressed; enabling a patient-centred approach to renal biopsies.

Practice of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Flushing in Australia and New Zealand: Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of effective interventions to prevent peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter malfunction before first use is presently insufficient to guide clinical care. Regular flushing of the PD catheter (e.g. before PD commencement) has been adopted by some practitioners in the belief that it will prevent catheter obstruction and/or malfunction. The aim of this study was to characterize and evaluate PD catheter flushing practices across Australian and New Zealand PD units. METHODS: An on-line survey was distributed to all 62 PD units in Australia (12 August 2016; n = 51) and New Zealand (2 February 2017; n = 11), with questions relating to PD catheter flushing practices, audit, and outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-nine units of variable size (< 16 to > 100 patients) completed the survey (79% response rate). All centers flushed PD catheters at some stage after insertion as routine unit practice. Forty-one units (84%) routinely flushed during periods of PD rest at varying intervals ranging from alternate daily to monthly. The type and volume of solution used to flush varied between units. Units that practised routine flushing of PD catheters were almost twice as likely to audit their catheter-related outcomes (66% vs 38%, p = 0.23) and more likely to have reported blocked catheters in the preceding 12 months (84% vs 0%, p = 0.01) compared with those units that did not routinely flush PD catheters. Thirty units (61%) regularly audited and monitored catheter-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a wide variation in center practices relating to PD catheter flushing. Drawing conclusions about any relationship between flushing practices and clinical outcomes was impeded by the relatively low uptake of regular auditing and monitoring of catheter-related outcomes across surveyed units. Evaluation of the benefits and harms of standardized PD catheter flushing practices on patient outcomes in a randomized trial is needed to guide practice.

Efficacy and safety of oral methazolamide in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of methazolamide as a potential therapy for type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized 76 patients to oral methazolamide (40 mg b.i.d.) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point for methazolamide treatment was a placebo-corrected reduction in HbA1c from baseline after 24 weeks (ΔHbA1c). RESULTS: Mean ± SD baseline HbA1c was 7.1 ± 0.7% (54 ± 5 mmol/mol; n = 37) and 7.4 ± 0.6% (57 ± 5 mmol/mol; n = 39) in the methazolamide and placebo groups, respectively. Methazolamide treatment was associated with a ΔHbA1c of -0.39% (95% CI -0.82, 0.04; P < 0.05) (-4.3 mmol/mol [-9.0, 0.4]), an increase in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% (48 mmol/mol) from 8 to 33%, a rapid reduction in alanine aminotransferase (∼10 units/L), and weight loss (2%) in metformin-cotreated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Methazolamide is the archetype for a new intervention in type 2 diabetes with clinical benefits beyond glucose control.