Incremental and Personalized Hemodialysis Start: A New Standard of Care.

Introduction: Incremental hemodialysis (iHD) may attenuate "dialysis shock" and reduce costs, preserving quality of life. It is considered difficult to reconcile with HD wards' routine; fear of underdialysis and increasing mortality are additional concerns. The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality, morbidity, and costs in a large HD ward where iHD is the standard of HD start. Methods: This observational study included all incident HD patients in 2017 to 2021, stratified according to HD start: iHD (1-2 sessions/wk), decremental HD (dHD, 3 sessions/wk at start, later reduced), or standard (3 sessions/wk). Results were compared with data recorded in the same unit before the incremental program (2015-2017) and with a propensity score-matched cohort from the French Renal Epidemiology and Information Network (REIN) registry. Results: A total of 158 patients started HD in 2017 to 2021, 57.6% on iHD, 8.9% dHD, and 33.5% standard HD schedule. Patients on the standard schedule had lower initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (5 vs. 7 ml/min per 1.72 m2, P = 0.003). We found no survival differences according to period of start (same center) and propensity score matching (REIN). Patients intensively followed in the pre-HD period were more likely to start on iHD-dHD. Persistence on iHD-dHD was about 50% at 1 year and 35% at 2 years. Hospitalization rates and time to first hospitalization or death did not differ between the schedules. The iHD-dHD policy allowed a 16% cost saving, even accounting for supplemental biochemical tests. Conclusion: Our study reveals that iHD can be a new standard of care, as it is safe and feasible in up to two-thirds of patients on incident HD.

Elderly Patients in a Large Nephrology Unit: Who Are Our Old, Old-Old and Oldest-Old Patients?

The world population is aging, and the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing. Whether this increase is also due to the methods currently being used to assess kidney function in the elderly is still a matter of discussion. We aimed to describe the actual referral pattern of CKD patients in a large nephrology unit and test whether the use of different formulae to estimate kidney function could affect the staging and the need for specialist care in the older subset of our population. In 2019, 1992 patients were referred to our center. Almost 28% of the patients were aged ≥80 and about 6% were ≥90 years old. Among the causes of kidney disease, glomerulonephritis displayed a higher prevalence in younger patients whereas hypertensive or diabetic kidney disease were more prevalent in older patients. The prevalence of referred patients in advanced CKD stages increased with age; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreased with age regardless of which equation was used (chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI), Lund-Malmö Revised (LMR), modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD), Full Age Spectrum (FAS), or Berlin Initiative Study 1 (BIS)). With CKD-EPI as a reference, MDRD and FAS underestimated the CKD stage while LMR overestimated it. The BIS showed the highest heterogeneity. Considering an eGFR threshold limit of 45 mL/min for defining "significant" CKD in patients over 65 years of age, the variability in CKD staging was 10% no matter which equation was used. Our study quantified the weight of "old" and "old-old" patients on follow-up in a large nephrology outpatient unit and suggested that with the current referral pattern, the type of formula used does not affect the need for CKD care within the context of a relatively late referral, particularly in elderly patients.

Unmet needs for CKD care: from the general population to the CKD clinics-how many patients are we missing?

INTRODUCTION: Prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) varies around the world. Little is known about the discrepancy between the general population's needs and nephrology care offered. We aimed to contribute to filling this gap and propose a means to infer the number of patients needing follow-up. METHODS: All patients undergoing at least one nephrology consultation in 2019 were enrolled. We used the ratio between CKD Stages 3 and 4 reported in the literature, and considered that only 25-50% of CKD Stage 3 patients have progressive CKD, to hypothesize different scenarios to estimate the number of CKD Stage 3 patients still needing nephrology follow-up. RESULTS: The 1992 CKD patients were followed-up in our centre (56.93% males; age 66.71 ± 18.32 years; 16.82% Stage 1; 14.66% Stage 2; 39.46% Stage 3; 19.88% Stage 4; 7.68% Stage 5). The ratio between Stages 3 and 4 in population studies ranged from 7.72 to 51.29, being 1.98 in our centre. Hypothesizing that we followed-up 100, 70 or 50% of CKD Stage 4 patients, 528-2506 CKD Stage 3 patients in our area would need nephrology follow-up [1885-8946 per million population (p.m.p.)]. Three to 17 additional nephrologists p.m.p. would be necessary to fully cover the need for care. CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients with CKD Stage 3 who would benefit from nephrology care is high. Considering that one patient-year of delay of dialysis could cover a nephrologist's annual salary, interventions aimed to improve the care of advanced CKD may be economically sound.