Sensing Dying Cells in Health and Disease: The Importance of Kidney Injury Molecule-1.

Kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), also known as T-cell Ig and mucin domain-1 (TIM-1), is a widely recognized biomarker for AKI, but its biological function is less appreciated. KIM-1/TIM-1 belongs to the T-cell Ig and mucin domain family of conserved transmembrane proteins, which bear the characteristic six-cysteine Ig-like variable domain. The latter enables binding of KIM-1/TIM-1 to its natural ligand, phosphatidylserine, expressed on the surface of apoptotic cells and necrotic cells. KIM-1/TIM-1 is expressed in a variety of tissues and plays fundamental roles in regulating sterile inflammation and adaptive immune responses. In the kidney, KIM-1 is upregulated on injured renal proximal tubule cells, which transforms them into phagocytes for clearance of dying cells and helps to dampen sterile inflammation. TIM-1, expressed in T cells, B cells, and natural killer T cells, is essential for cell activation and immune regulatory functions in the host. Functional polymorphisms in the gene for KIM-1/TIM-1, HAVCR1 , have been associated with susceptibility to immunoinflammatory conditions and hepatitis A virus-induced liver failure, which is thought to be due to a differential ability of KIM-1/TIM-1 variants to bind phosphatidylserine. This review will summarize the role of KIM-1/TIM-1 in health and disease and its potential clinical applications as a biomarker and therapeutic target in humans.

Opioid prescribing practices in chronic kidney disease: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is common, and its management is complex in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but limited data are available on opioid prescribing. We examined opioid prescribing for non-cancer and non-end-of-life care in patients with CKD. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada which included adults with CKD defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 from 1 November 2012 to 31 December 2018 and estimated the proportion of opioid prescriptions (type, duration, dose, potentially inappropriate prescribing, etc.) within 1 year of cohort entry. Prescriptions had to precede dialysis, kidney transplant or death. RESULTS: We included 680 445 adults with CKD, and 198 063 (29.1%) were prescribed opioids. Codeine (14.9%) and hydromorphone (7.2%) were the most common opioids. Among opioid users, 24.3% had repeated or long-term use, 26.1% were prescribed high doses and 56.8% were new users. Opioid users were more likely to be female, had cardiac disease or a mental health diagnosis, and had more healthcare visits. The proportions for potentially inappropriate prescribing indicators varied (e.g. 50.1% with eGFR <30 were prescribed codeine, and 20.6% of opioid users were concurrently prescribed benzodiazepines, while 7.2% with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 were prescribed morphine, and 7.0% were received more than one opioid concurrently). Opioid prescriptions declined with time (2013 cohort: 31.1% versus 2018 cohort: 24.5%; p <0.0001), as did indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use was common in patients with CKD. While opioid prescriptions and potentially inappropriate prescribing have declined in recent years, interventions to improve pain management without the use of opioids and education on safer prescribing practices are needed.

Synchronous Health Care Delivery for the Optimization of Cardiovascular and Renal Care in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current care model of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its complications appears to be "asynchronous" with patient care divided by specialty. This model is associated with low use of guideline-directed medical therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: The use of integrated care models has been well described in the management of patients with T2D; this usually includes an endocrinologist coupled with a nutritionist and nurse. However, physician-based care models are largely "asynchronous," whereby the patient requires multiple different siloed specialties to manage their health care. To date, there has been limited exploration of synchronous care delivery, i.e., whereby multi-comorbid patients with T2D are seen simultaneously by health care providers from endocrinology, cardiology, and nephrology to optimize use of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT). Given the rising complexity of patients with T2D, further research is needed on the role of synchronous health care delivery in optimizing the use of GDMT and improving patient outcomes.

Short-term antibody response after 1 dose of BNT162b2 vaccine in patients receiving hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving in-centre hemodialysis are at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and death if infected. One dose of the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is efficacious in the general population, but responses in patients receiving hemodialysis are uncertain. METHODS: We obtained serial plasma from patients receiving hemodialysis and health care worker controls before and after vaccination with 1 dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, as well as convalescent plasma from patients receiving hemodialysis who survived COVID-19. We measured anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and stratified groups by evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Our study included 154 patients receiving hemodialysis (135 without and 19 with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection), 40 controls (20 without and 20 with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection) and convalescent plasma from 16 patients. Among those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, anti-RBD IgG was undetectable at 4 weeks in 75 of 131 (57%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 47% to 65%) patients receiving hemodialysis, compared with 1 of 20 (5%, 95% CI 1% to 23%) controls (p < 0.001). No patient with nondetectable levels at 4 weeks developed anti-RBD IgG by 8 weeks. Results were similar in non-immunosuppressed and younger individuals. Three patients receiving hemodialysis developed severe COVID-19 after vaccination. Among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, median anti-RBD IgG levels at 8 weeks in patients receiving hemodialysis were similar to controls at 3 weeks (p = 0.3) and to convalescent plasma (p = 0.8). INTERPRETATION: A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine failed to elicit a humoral immune response in most patients receiving hemodialysis without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, even after prolonged observation. In those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response was delayed. We advise that patients receiving hemodialysis be prioritized for a second BNT162b2 dose at the recommended 3-week interval.

When is more frequent hemodialysis beneficial?

The use of frequent hemodialysis (HD) is growing, with the hope of improving outcomes in end-stage renal disease. We narratively review the three randomized trials, 15 comparative cohort studies, and several case series of frequent HD that empirically demonstrate the potential efficacy and adverse effects of these regimens. Taken together, the randomized studies suggest frequent HD may result in left ventricular mass regression. This effect is most pronounced when left ventricular mass is abnormal, but attenuated by significant residual urine output. Both frequent short and long HD consistently improved blood pressure control and reduced antihypertensive use, despite greater weekly interdialytic weight gains. Serum phosphate was lowered. Frequent short daytime HD improved health-related quality of life, while frequent long overnight HD did not. Regarding adverse effects, frequent HD patients underwent significantly more procedures to salvage arteriovenous vascular accesses. An absolute increase in hypotensive episodes was observed with frequent short HD, while frequent long HD accelerated residual renal function loss and increased perceived caregiver burden. The effect of frequent HD on mortality is controversial, due to conflicting results and limitations of published studies. Finally, pregnancy outcomes may be substantially better with frequent long HD. On the basis of these data, we suggest frequent HD is most likely to benefit patients with left ventricular hypertrophy particularly if there is minimal urine output, those unable to attain dry weight on a thrice weekly schedule, and pregnant women. All patients receiving frequent HD should be advised of and monitored for potential risks.

Patients receiving frequent hemodialysis have better health-related quality of life compared to patients receiving conventional hemodialysis.

Most patients with end-stage kidney disease value their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and want to know how it will be affected by their dialysis modality. We extended the findings of two prior clinical trial reports to estimate the effects of frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis on additional measures of HRQoL. The Daily Trial randomly assigned 245 patients to receive frequent (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) in-center hemodialysis. The Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 patients to receive frequent nocturnal (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) home hemodialysis. All patients were on conventional hemodialysis prior to randomization, with an average feeling thermometer score of 70 to 75 (a visual analog scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), an average general health scale score of 40 to 47 (a score from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), and an average dialysis session recovery time of 2 to 3 hours. Outcomes are reported as the between-treatment group differences in one-year change in HRQoL measures and analyzed using linear mixed effects models. After one year in the Daily Trial, patients assigned to frequent in-center hemodialysis reported a higher feeling thermometer score, better general health, and a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session compared to standard thrice-weekly dialysis. After one year in the Nocturnal Trial, patients assigned to frequent home hemodialysis also reported a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session, but no statistical difference in their feeling thermometer or general health scores compared to standard home dialysis schedules. Thus, patients receiving day or nocturnal hemodialysis on average recovered approximately one hour earlier from a frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis session. Patients treated in an in-center dialysis facility reported better HRQoL with frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis.

Kidney injury molecule-1 protects against Gα12 activation and tissue damage in renal ischemia-reperfusion injury.

Ischemic acute kidney injury is a serious untreatable condition. Activation of the G protein α12 (Gα12) subunit by reactive oxygen species is a major cause of tissue damage during renal ischemia-reperfusion injury. Kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) is a transmembrane glycoprotein that is highly up-regulated during acute kidney injury, but the physiologic significance of this up-regulation is unclear. Here, we report for the first time that Kim-1 inhibits Gα12 activation and protects mice against renal ischemia-reperfusion injury. We reveal that Kim-1 physically interacts with and inhibits cellular Gα12 activation after inflammatory stimuli, including reactive oxygen species, by blocking GTP binding to Gα12. Compared with Kim-1(+/+) mice, Kim-1(-/-) mice exhibited greater Gα12 and downstream Src activation both in primary tubular epithelial cells after in vitro stimulation with H2O2 and in whole kidneys after unilateral renal artery clamping. Finally, we show that Kim-1-deficient mice had more severe kidney dysfunction and tissue damage after bilateral renal artery clamping, compared with wild-type mice. Our results suggest that KIM-1 is an endogenous protective mechanism against renal ischemia-reperfusion injury through inhibition of Gα12.

ß-Blocker dialyzability and mortality in older patients receiving hemodialysis.

Some ß-blockers are efficiently removed from the circulation by hemodialysis ("high dialyzability") whereas others are not ("low dialyzability"). This characteristic may influence the effectiveness of the ß-blockers among patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. To determine whether new use of a high-dialyzability ß-blocker compared with a low-dialyzability ß-blocker associates with a higher rate of mortality in patients older than age 66 years receiving long-term hemodialysis, we conducted a propensity-matched population-based retrospective cohort study using the linked healthcare databases of Ontario, Canada. The high-dialyzability group (n=3294) included patients initiating atenolol, acebutolol, or metoprolol. The low-dialyzability group (n=3294) included patients initiating bisoprolol or propranolol. Initiation of a high- versus low-dialyzability ß-blocker was associated with a higher risk of death in the following 180 days (relative risk, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.8; P<0.01). Supporting this finding, we repeated the primary analysis in a cohort of patients not receiving hemodialysis and found no significant association between dialyzability and the risk of death (relative risk, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.3; P=0.71). ß-Blocker exposure was not randomly allocated in this study, so a causal relationship between dialyzability and mortality cannot be determined. However, our findings should raise awareness of this potentially important drug characteristic and prompt further study.

The risk of hospitalization and modality failure with home dialysis.

While home dialysis is being promoted, there are few comparative effectiveness studies of home-based modalities to guide patient decisions. To address this, we matched 1116 daily home hemodialysis (DHD) patients by propensity scores to 2784 contemporaneous USRDS patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis (PD), and compared hospitalization rates from cardiovascular, infectious, access-related or bleeding causes (prespecified composite), and modality failure risk. We performed similar analyses for 1187 DHD patients matched to 3173 USRDS patients receiving in-center conventional hemodialysis (CHD). The composite hospitalization rate was significantly lower with DHD than with PD (0.93 vs. 1.35/patient-year, hazard ratio=0.73 (95% CI=0.67-0.79)). DHD patients spent significantly fewer days in hospital than PD patients (5.2 vs. 9.2 days/patient-year), and significantly more DHD patients remained admission-free (52% DHD vs. 32% PD). In contrast, there was no significant difference in hospitalizations between DHD and CHD (DHD vs. CHD: 0.93 vs. 1.10/patient-year, hazard ratio 0.92 (0.85-1.00)). Cardiovascular hospitalizations were lower with DHD than with CHD (0.68 (0.61-0.77)), while infectious and access hospitalizations were higher (1.15 (1.04-1.29) and 1.25 (1.08-1.43), respectively). Significantly more PD than DHD patients switched back to in-center HD (44% vs. 15%; 3.4 (2.9-4.0)). In this prevalent cohort, home DHD was associated with fewer admissions and hospital days than PD, and a substantially lower risk of modality failure.

Risk of vascular access complications with frequent hemodialysis.

Frequent hemodialysis requires using the vascular access more often than with conventional hemodialysis, but whether this increases the risk for access-related complications is unknown. In two separate trials, we randomly assigned 245 patients to receive in-center daily hemodialysis (6 days per week) or conventional hemodialysis (3 days per week) and 87 patients to receive home nocturnal hemodialysis (6 nights per week) or conventional hemodialysis, for 12 months. The primary vascular access outcome was time to first access event (repair, loss, or access-related hospitalization). Secondary outcomes were time to all repairs and time to all losses. In the Daily Trial, 77 (31%) of 245 patients had a primary outcome event: 33 repairs and 15 losses in the daily group and 17 repairs, 11 losses, and 1 hospitalization in the conventional group. Overall, the risk for a first access event was 76% higher with daily hemodialysis than with conventional hemodialysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.79; P=0.017); among the 198 patients with an arteriovenous (AV) access at randomization, the risk was 90% higher with daily hemodialysis (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.25; P=0.02). Daily hemodialysis patients had significantly more total AV access repairs than conventional hemodialysis patients (P=0.011), with 55% of all repairs involving thrombectomy or surgical revision. Losses of AV access did not differ between groups (P=0.58). We observed similar trends in the Nocturnal Trial, although the results were not statistically significant. In conclusion, frequent hemodialysis increases the risk of vascular access complications. The nature of the AV access repairs suggests that this risk likely results from increased hemodialysis frequency rather than heightened surveillance.

Meta-analysis evaluating apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis.

Background: Warfarin is considered the primary oral anticoagulant for patients with atrial fibrillation and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis. Although warfarin can offer significant stroke prevention in this population, the accompanying major bleeding risks make warfarin nearly prohibitive. Apixaban was shown to be superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with a lower risk of bleeding and mortality in a large, randomized trial of individuals with mostly normal renal function but none with ESRD. Methods: We systematically reviewed evidence comparing apixaban versus warfarin for atrial fibrillation in this population, and evaluated outcomes of stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding using random-effects models. The main safety outcome was major bleeding, and the main effectiveness outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. Results: We found five observational studies of 10 036 patients (2638 receiving apixaban, and 7398 receiving warfarin) meeting inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in major bleeding with apixaban as compared to warfarin (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.61; p < .0001). Apixaban was also associated with a reduction in intracranial bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37-0.92; p = .02) and in gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.73; p < .0001). Furthermore, apixaban was associated with a reduction in stroke/systemic embolism (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82; p < .0001). Conclusion: Apixaban was associated with superior outcomes and reduced adverse events compared to warfarin in observational studies of patients with atrial fibrillation on dialysis. Randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Characterizing Cluster-Based Frailty Phenotypes in a Multicenter Prospective Cohort of Kidney Transplant Candidates.

Frailty is associated with a higher risk of death among kidney transplant candidates. Currently available frailty indices are often based on clinical impression, physical exam or an accumulation of deficits across domains of health. In this paper we investigate a clustering based approach that partitions the data based on similarities between individuals to generate phenotypes of kidney transplant candidates. We analyzed a multicenter cohort that included several features typically used to determine an individual's level of frailty. We present a clustering based phenotyping approach, where we investigated two clustering approaches-i.e. neural network based Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) with hierarchical clustering, and KAMILA (KAy-means for MIxed LArge data sets). Our clustering results partition the individuals across 3 distinct clusters. Clusters were used to generate and study feature-level phenotypes of each group.

Pathways for Diagnosing and Treating CKD-Associated Pruritus: A Narrative Review.

Purpose of Review: Chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus is a common, persistent, and distressing itch experienced by patients across the CKD spectrum. Although the disorder is associated with adverse outcomes and poor health-related quality of life, it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. The purpose of this narrative review is to offer health care providers guidance on how to effectively identify, assess, and treat patients with CKD-associated pruritus, with the goal of reducing symptom burden and improving patient-important outcomes, such as quality of life (QoL). Sources of Information: A panel of nephrologists and researchers from across Canada and the United States was assembled to develop this narrative review based on the best available data, current treatment guidelines, and their clinical experiences. Methods: A panel of nephrologists who actively care for patients with pruritus receiving dialysis from across Canada was assembled. Two researchers from the United States were also included based on their expertise in the diagnosis and management of CKD-associated pruritus. Throughout Spring 2023, the panel met to discuss key topics in the identification, assessment, and management of CKD-associated pruritus. Panel members subsequently developed summaries of the pertinent information based on the best available data, current treatment guidelines, and added information on their own clinical experiences. In all cases, approval of the article was sought and achieved through discussion. Key Findings: This narrative review provides pragmatic guidance addressing: (1) methods for screening CKD-associated pruritus, (2) assessing severity, (3) management of CKD-associated pruritus, and (4) suggested areas for future research. The panel developed a 3-pillar framework for proactive assessment and severity scoring in CKD-aP: systematic screening for CKD-associated pruritus (pillar 1), assessment of pruritus intensity (pillar 2), and understanding the impact of CKD-associated pruritus on the patient's QoL (pillar 3). Management of CKD-associated pruritus can include ensuring optimization of dialysis adequacy, achieving mineral metabolism targets (ie, calcium, phosphate, and parathyroid hormone). However, treatment of CKD-associated pruritus usually requires additional interventions. Patients, regardless of CKD-associated pruritus severity, should be counseled on adequate skin hydration and other non-pharmacological strategies to reduce pruritus. Antihistamines should be avoided in favor of evidence-based treatments, such as difelikefalin and gabapentin. Limitations: A formal systematic review (SR) of the literature was not undertaken, although published SRs were reviewed. The possibility for bias based on the experts' own clinical experiences may have occurred. Key takeaways are based on the current available evidence, of which head-to-head clinical trials are lacking. Funding: This work was funded by an arm's length grant from Otsuka Canada Pharmaceutical Inc. (the importer and distributer of difelikefalin in Canada). LiV Medical Education Agency Inc. provided logistical and editorial support.

Motif de la revue: Le prurit associé à l'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) est une démangeaison cutanée fréquente, persistante et invalidante que les patients de tout le specter de l'IRC peuvent ressentir. Bien que le prurit soit associé à des effets indésirables et à une mauvaise qualité de vie liée à la santé, il demeure sous-diagnostiqué et sous-traité. L'objectif de cette revue narrative est d'offrir des conseils aux professionnels de la santé sur la façon d'identifier, d'évaluer et de traiter efficacement les patients atteints de prurit associé à l'IRC; ceci dans le but de réduire la charge des symptômes et d'améliorer les résultats importants pour les patients, notamment leur qualité de vie (QdV). Sources de l'information: Un comité de néphrologues et de chercheurs de partout au Canada et des États-Unis a été constitué pour élaborer la présente revue narrative à partir des meilleures données disponibles, des lignes directrices actuelles pour le traitement et de leurs expériences cliniques. Méthodologie: Un groupe de néphrologues canadiens qui s'occupent activement de patients dialysés souffrant de prurit a été constitué. Deux chercheurs des États-Unis ont été inclus au groupe en raison de leur expertise dans le diagnostic et la prise en charge du prurit associé à l'IRC. Le comité s'est réuni tout au long du printemps 2023 pour discuter de sujets clés en lien avec l'identification, l'évaluation et la prise en charge du prurit associé à l'IRC. Les membres du comité ont par la suite rédigé des résumés des informations pertinentes en se basant sur les meilleures données disponibles et les lignes directrices actuelles pour le traitement, auxquels ils ont ajouté des informations issues de leurs propres expériences cliniques. Dans tous les cas, l'approbation du manuscrit a été sollicitée et obtenue par discussion. Principaux résultats: Cette revue narrative offre des conseils pragmatiques sur les points suivants: (1) les méthodes de dépistage du prurit associé à l'IRC; (2) l'évaluation de sa gravité; (3) sa prise en charge; et (4) les domaines suggérés pour de futures recherches. Le comité a développé un cadre à trois piliers pour l'évaluation proactive du prurit associé à l'IRC et l'établissement d'un score de gravité: le dépistage systématique du prurit associé à l'IRC (pilier 1), l'évaluation de son intensité (pilier 2) et la compréhension de son impact sur la QdV du patient (pilier 3). La prise en charge du prurit associé à l'IRC peut inclure l'optimisation de l'adéquation de la dialyse et l'atteinte des cibles du métabolisme minéral (c.-à-d. calcium, phosphate et hormone parathyroïdienne). Cependant, son traitement nécessite habituellement des interventions supplémentaires. Les patients, quelle que soit la gravité du prurit associé à l'IRC, devraient être avisés d'hydrater adéquatement leur peau et informés des autres stratégies non pharmacologiques afin de réduire le prurit. On devrait éviter les antihistaminiques et les remplacer par des traitements fondés sur des données probantes comme la difélikéfaline et la gabapentine. Limites: Aucune revue systématique de la littérature n'a été formellement entreprise, bien que les revues systématiques publiées aient été examinées. La possibilité d'un biais fondé sur les expériences cliniques des experts est envisageable. Les principales conclusions de cette étude sont fondées sur les données probantes actuellement disponibles, pour lesquelles il n'existe pas d'essais cliniques comparatifs. Financement: Ces travaux ont été financés par une subvention indépendante d'Otsuka Canada Pharmaceutical Inc. (l'importateur et distributeur de la difélikéfaline au Canada). Un soutien logistique et éditorial a été fourni par liV Medical Education Agency Inc.

Medication Deprescribing in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Prospective Controlled Quality Improvement Study.

Rationale & Objective: Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), including some potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs are associated with an increased risk of medication harm (eg, falls, fractures, hospitalization). Deprescribing is a solution that proposes to stop, reduce, or switch medications to a safer alternative. Although deprescribing pairs well with routine medication reviews, it can be complex and time-consuming. Whether clinical decision support improves the process and increases deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis is unknown. This study aimed to test the efficacy of the clinical decision support software MedSafer at increasing deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis. Study Design: Prospective controlled quality improvement study with a contemporaneous control. Setting & Participants: Patients prescribed ≥5 medications in 2 outpatient dialysis units in Montréal, Canada. Exposures: Patient health data from the electronic medical record were input into the MedSafer web-based portal to generate reports listing candidate PIMs for deprescribing. At the time of a planned biannual medication review (usual care), treating nephrologists in the intervention unit additionally received deprescribing reports, and patients received EMPOWER brochures containing safety information on PIMs they were prescribed. In the control unit, patients received usual care alone. Analytical Approach: The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed was compared between the intervention and control units following a planned medication review to determine the effect of using MedSafer. The absolute risk difference with 95% CI and number needed to treat were calculated. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed. Secondary outcomes include the reduction in the mean number of prescribed drugs and PIMs from baseline. Results: In total, 195 patients were included (127, control unit; 68, intervention unit); the mean age was 64.8 ± 15.9 (SD), and 36.9% were women. The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed in the control unit was 3.1% (4/127) vs 39.7% (27/68) in the intervention unit (absolute risk difference, 36.6%; 95% CI, 24.5%-48.6%; P < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 3). Limitations: This was a single-center nonrandomized study with a type 1 error risk. Deprescribing durability was not assessed, and the study was not powered to reduce adverse drug events. Conclusions: Deprescribing clinical decision support and patient EMPOWER brochures provided during medication reviews could be an effective and scalable intervention to address PIMs in the dialysis population. A confirmatory randomized controlled trial is needed.

Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications, some of which are potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs can increase a patient's pill burden and are associated with an increased risk of harm (some examples include falls, fractures, and hospitalization). Deprescribing is a proposed solution that aims to highlight medications that can be stopped, reduced, or switched to a safer option, under supervision of a health care provider. We aimed to determine if a quality improvement intervention in the dialysis unit could increase deprescribing compared to usual care. The study took place in 2 outpatient hemodialysis units where usual care involves nurses and nephrologists performing medication reviews twice a year. The intervention was a deprescribing report that was generated with the help of a software tool called MedSafer, along with brochures for patients with information on PIMs they were taking. In the intervention unit, we increased the number of patients who had a medication safely deprescribed by 36.6% more than on the control unit. Although the study was small, a future larger study in dialysis patients might show that a computer software such as MedSafer can prevent harmful complications from taking too many medications.

Differences in Racial and Ethnic Disparities Between First and Repeat Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest patients with graft failure had better access to repeat kidney transplantation (re-KT) than transplant-naive dialysis accessing first KT. This was postulated to be because of better familiarity with the transplant process and healthcare system; whether this advantage is equitably distributed is not known. We compared the magnitude of racial/ethnic disparities in access to re-KT versus first KT. METHODS: Using United States Renal Data System, we identified 104 454 White, Black, and Hispanic patients with a history of graft failure from 1995 to 2018, and 2 357 753 transplant-naive dialysis patients. We used adjusted Cox regression to estimate disparities in access to first and re-KT and whether the magnitude of these disparities differed between first and re-KT using a Wald test. RESULTS: Black patients had inferior access to both waitlisting and receiving first KT and re-KT. However, the racial/ethnic disparities in waitlisting for (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.80) and receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.58-0.64) was greater than the racial/ethnic disparities in first KT (waitlisting: aHR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.93; Pinteraction = 0.001; KT: aHR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64-0.72; Pinteraction < 0.001). For Hispanic patients, ethnic disparities in waitlisting for re-KT (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) were greater than for first KT (aHR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.16; Pinteraction < 0.001). However, the disparity in receiving re-KT (aHR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72-0.80) was similar to that for first KT (aHR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.68-0.79; Pinteraction = 0.55). Inferences were similar when restricting the cohorts to the Kidney Allocation System era. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike White patients, Black and Hispanic patients with graft failure do not experience improved access to re-KT. This suggests that structural and systemic barriers likely persist for racialized patients accessing re-KT, and systemic changes are needed to achieve transplant equity.

A multinational cohort study of in-center daily hemodialysis and patient survival.

Increasing hemodialysis frequency from three to six times per week improves left-ventricular mass and health-related quality of life; however, effects on survival remain uncertain. To study this, we identified 556 patients in the International Quotidian Dialysis Registry who received daily hemodialysis (more than five times per week) between 2001 and 2010. Using propensity score-based matching, we matched 318 of these patients to 575 contemporaneous patients receiving conventional (three times weekly) hemodialysis in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. All patients had session times of <5 h, and received dialysis in the clinic or hospital setting. Mortality rates between groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. Mean dialysis frequency in the daily group was 5.8 sessions per week. Mean weekly treatment time was 15.7 h for daily and 11.9 h for conventional patients. During 1382 patient-years of follow-up, 170 patients died. Those receiving daily hemodialysis had a significantly higher mortality rate than those receiving conventional hemodialysis (15.6 and 10.9 deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively: hazard ratio 1.6). Similar results were found in prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Unlike previous studies, we found that in-center daily hemodialysis was not associated with any mortality benefit. Thus, decisions to undertake daily hemodialysis should be based on quality-of-life improvements, rather than on claims of improved survival.

Canadian Society of Nephrology guidelines for the management of patients with ESRD treated with intensive hemodialysis.

Intensive (longer and more frequent) hemodialysis has emerged as an alternative to conventional hemodialysis for the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease. However, given the differences in dialysis delivery and models of care associated with intensive dialysis, alternative approaches to patient management may be required. The purpose of this work was to develop a clinical practice guideline for the Canadian Society of Nephrology. We applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for guideline development and performed targeted systematic reviews and meta-analysis (when appropriate) to address prioritized clinical management questions. We included studies addressing the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease with short daily (≥5 days per week, <3 hours per session), long (3-4 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session), or long-frequent (≥5 days per week, ≥5.5 hours per session) hemodialysis. We included clinical trials and observational studies with or without a control arm (1990 and later). Based on a prioritization exercise, 6 interventions of interest included optimal vascular access type, buttonhole cannulation, antimicrobial prophylaxis for buttonhole cannulation, closed connector devices, and dialysate calcium and dialysate phosphate additives for patients receiving intensive hemodialysis. We developed 6 recommendations addressing the interventions of interest. Overall quality of the evidence was very low and all recommendations were conditional. We provide detailed commentaries to guide in shared decision making. The main limitation was the very low overall quality of evidence that precluded strong recommendations. Most included studies were small single-arm observational studies. Three randomized controlled trials were applicable, but provided only indirect evidence. Published information for patient values and preference was lacking. In conclusion, we provide 6 recommendations for the practice of intensive hemodialysis. However, due to very low-quality evidence, all recommendations were conditional. We therefore also highlight priorities for future research.

Vascular access for intensive maintenance hemodialysis: a systematic review for a Canadian Society of Nephrology clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Practices in vascular access management with intensive hemodialysis may differ from those used in conventional hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to inform clinical practice guidelines for the provision of intensive hemodialysis. SETTING & POPULATION: Adult patients receiving maintenance (>3 months) intensive hemodialysis (frequent [≥5 hemodialysis treatments per week] and/or long [>5.5 hours per hemodialysis treatment]). SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE (1990-2011) for randomized and observational studies. We also searched conference proceedings (2007-2011). INTERVENTIONS: (1) Central venous catheter (CVC) versus arteriovenous (AV) access, (2) buttonhole versus rope-ladder cannulation, (3) topical antimicrobial cream versus none in buttonhole cannulation, and (4) closed connector devices among CVC users. OUTCOMES: Access-related infection, survival, hospitalization, patency, access survival, intervention rates, and quality of life. RESULTS: We included 23, 7, and 5 reports describing effectiveness by access type, buttonhole cannulation, and closed connector device, respectively. No study directly compared CVC with AV access. On average, bacteremia and local infection rates were higher with CVC compared with AV access. Access intervention rates were higher with more frequent hemodialysis, but access survival did not differ. Buttonhole cannulation was associated with bacteremia rates similar to those seen with CVCs in some series. Topical mupirocin seemed to attenuate this effect. No direct comparisons of closed connector devices versus standard luer-locking devices were found. Low rates of actual or averted (near misses) air embolism and bleeding were reported with closed connector devices. LIMITATIONS: Overall, evidence quality was very low. Limited direct comparisons addressing main review questions, small sample sizes, selective outcome reporting, publication bias, and residual confounding were major factors. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights several differences in the management of vascular access in conventional and intensive hemodialysis populations. We identify a need for standardization of vascular access outcome reporting and a number of priorities for future research.