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.

Patient-reported outcome measures for life participation in peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD) endure an ongoing regimen of daily fluid exchanges and are at risk of potentially life-threatening complications and debilitating symptoms that can limit their ability to participate in life activities. The aim of the study was to identify the characteristics, content and psychometric properties of measures for life participation used in research in PD. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to May 2020 for all studies that reported life participation in patients on PD. The characteristics, dimensions of life participation and psychometric properties of these measures were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 301 studies included, 17 (6%) were randomized studies and 284 (94%) were nonrandomized studies. Forty-two different measures were used to assess life participation. Of these, 23 (55%) were used in only one study. Fifteen (36%) measures were specifically designed to assess life participation, while 27 (64%) measures assessed broader constructs, such as quality of life, but included questions on life participation. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form were the most frequently used measures [122 (41%) and 86 (29%) studies, respectively]. Eight (19%) measures had validation data to support their use in patients on PD. CONCLUSIONS: The many measures currently used to assess life participation in patients receiving PD vary in their characteristics, content and validation. Further work to pilot and validate potential measures is required to establish a core patient-reported outcome measure to assess life participation in patients receiving PD.

Building a bridge between patients and transplant healthcare professionals - a descriptive study.

This article describes a pathway for collaboration between transplant healthcare professionals and organ recipients. Under the umbrella of the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) a joint initiative started from three Sections and Committees of ESOT: EDTCO (European Donation and Transplant Coordination Organisation), ETHAP (European Transplant Allied Healthcare Professionals) and ELPAT (Ethical, Legal and Psycho-social Aspects of Transplantation). The formal 'kick-off' of the Advisory Board Meeting of the European Transplant Patient Organisation (ETPO) was during the ESOT congress in 2019. The aim was to produce a series of statements to serve as a path to dialogue between patients and transplant professionals and to define the next steps towards giving a voice to the patient network. To include the patients' perspectives, two surveys have been performed. The results identified the unmet needs and lead to a proposal for future plans. Educational activities have since started leading to a patient learning workstream. All initiatives taken have one purpose: to include patients, give them a voice and build a foundation for collaboration between patients and transplant professionals. ESOT has created a platform for mutual understanding, learning and a collaborative partnership between ETPO and European donation and transplant professionals.

Biological variation of measured and estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease.

When assessing changes in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) it is important to differentiate pathological change from intrinsic biological and analytical variation. GFR is measured using complex reference methods (e.g., iohexol clearance). In clinical practice measurement of creatinine and cystatin C are used in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] or Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] equations to provide estimated GFR. Here we studied the biological variability of measured and estimated GFR in twenty nephrology outpatients (10 male, 10 female; median age 71, range 50-80 years) with moderate CKD (GFR 30-59 ml/min per 1.73 m2). Patients underwent weekly GFR measurement by iohexol clearance over four consecutive weeks. Simultaneously, GFR was estimated using the MDRD, CKD-EPIcreatinine, CKD-EPIcystatinC and CKD-EPIcreatinine+cystatinC equations. Within-subject biological variation expressed as a percentage [95% confidence interval] for the MDRD (5.0% [4.3-6.1]), CKD-EPIcreatinine (5.3% [4.5-6.4]), CKD-EPIcystatinC (5.3% [4.5-6.5]), and CKD-EPIcreatinine+cystatinC (5.0% [4.3-6.2]) equations were broadly equivalent. The within-subject biological variation for MDRD and CKD- EPIcreatinine+cystatinC estimated GFR were each significantly lower than that of the measured GFR (6.7% [5.6-8.2]). Reference change values, the point at which a true change in a biomarker in an individual can be inferred to have occurred with 95% probability were calculated. By the MDRD equation, positive and negative reference change values were 15.1% and 13.1% respectively. If an individual's baseline MDRD estimated GFR (ml/min per 1.73 m2) was 59, significant increases or decreases would be to values over 68 or under 51 respectively. Within-subject variability of estimated GFR was lower than measured GFR. Reference change values can be used to understand GFR changes in clinical practice. Thus, estimates of GFR are at least as reliable as measured GFR for monitoring patients over time.

How to increase kidney transplant activity throughout Europe-an advocacy review by the European Kidney Health Alliance.

Kidney transplantation offers better outcomes and quality of life at lower societal costs compared with other options of renal replacement therapy. In this review of the European Kidney Health Alliance, the current status of kidney transplantation throughout Europe and suggestions for improvement of transplantation rates are reported. Although the European Union (EU) has made considerable efforts in the previous decade to stimulate transplantation activity, the discrepancies among European countries suggest that there is still room for improvement. The EU efforts have partially been neutralized by external factors such as economic crises or legal issues, especially the illicit manipulation of waiting lists. Hence, growth in the application of transplantation throughout Europe virtually remained unchanged over the last few years. Continued efforts are warranted to further stimulate transplantation rates, along with the current registration and data analysis efforts supported by the EU in the Effect of Differing Kidney Disease Treatment Modalities and Organ Donation and Transplantation Practices on Health Expenditure and Patient Outcomes project. Future actions should concentrate on organization, harmonization and improvement of the legal consent framework, population education and financial stimuli.

Implementing personalized medicine in diabetic kidney disease: Stakeholders' perspectives.

The promise of personalized medicine to deliver "the right treatments at the right time to the right person" is the next frontier in healthcare. However, to implement personalized medicine in chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus and diabetic kidney disease (DKD), a number of different aspects need to be taken into account. Better risk stratification and more precise options for treatment need to be developed and included in clinical practice guidelines. A patient's unique psychological, social and environmental situation also drive disease progression and outcomes. Appraising the cost effectiveness of precision medicines is necessary, not just as the cost of new therapies, but also the cost of diagnosis with novel methodologies and averted complications. As the prevalence of DKD grows worldwide to epidemic proportions, challenges such as global disparities in resources, access to healthcare and prevalence need to be addressed. This review considers these issues to achieve the short and longer-term goals of implementing personalized medicine in clinical practice.

The eGFR-C study: accuracy of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation using creatinine and cystatin C and albuminuria for monitoring disease progression in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease--prospective longitudinal study in a multiethnic population.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists regarding the optimal method to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) for disease detection and monitoring. Widely used GFR estimates have not been validated in British ethnic minority populations. METHODS/DESIGN: Iohexol measured GFR will be the reference against which each estimating equation will be compared. The estimating equations will be based upon serum creatinine and/or cystatin C. The eGFR-C study has 5 components: 1) A prospective longitudinal cohort study of 1300 adults with stage 3 chronic kidney disease followed for 3 years with reference (measured) GFR and test (estimated GFR [eGFR] and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio) measurements at baseline and 3 years. Test measurements will also be undertaken every 6 months. The study population will include a representative sample of South-Asians and African-Caribbeans. People with diabetes and proteinuria (ACR ≥30 mg/mmol) will comprise 20-30% of the study cohort.2) A sub-study of patterns of disease progression of 375 people (125 each of Caucasian, Asian and African-Caribbean origin; in each case containing subjects at high and low risk of renal progression). Additional reference GFR measurements will be undertaken after 1 and 2 years to enable a model of disease progression and error to be built.3) A biological variability study to establish reference change values for reference and test measures.4) A modelling study of the performance of monitoring strategies on detecting progression, utilising estimates of accuracy, patterns of disease progression and estimates of measurement error from studies 1), 2) and 3).5) A comprehensive cost database for each diagnostic approach will be developed to enable cost-effectiveness modelling of the optimal strategy.The performance of the estimating equations will be evaluated by assessing bias, precision and accuracy. Data will be modelled as a linear function of time utilising all available (maximum 7) time points compared with the difference between baseline and final reference values. The percentage of participants demonstrating large error with the respective estimating equations will be compared. Predictive value of GFR estimates and albumin-to-creatinine ratio will be compared amongst subjects that do or do not show progressive kidney function decline. DISCUSSION: The eGFR-C study will provide evidence to inform the optimal GFR estimate to be used in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN42955626.

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.

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.

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.

Accuracy of glomerular filtration rate estimation using creatinine and cystatin C for identifying and monitoring moderate chronic kidney disease: the eGFR-C study.

Background: Estimation of glomerular filtration rate using equations based on creatinine is widely used to manage chronic kidney disease. In the UK, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation is recommended. Other published equations using cystatin C, an alternative marker of kidney function, have not gained widespread clinical acceptance. Given higher cost of cystatin C, its clinical utility should be validated before widespread introduction into the NHS. Objectives: Primary objectives were to: (1) compare accuracy of glomerular filtration rate equations at baseline and longitudinally in people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease, and test whether accuracy is affected by ethnicity, diabetes, albuminuria and other characteristics; (2) establish the reference change value for significant glomerular filtration rate changes; (3) model disease progression; and (4) explore comparative cost-effectiveness of kidney disease monitoring strategies. Design: A longitudinal, prospective study was designed to: (1) assess accuracy of glomerular filtration rate equations at baseline (n = 1167) and their ability to detect change over 3 years (n = 875); (2) model disease progression predictors in 278 individuals who received additional measurements; (3) quantify glomerular filtration rate variability components (n = 20); and (4) develop a measurement model analysis to compare different monitoring strategy costs (n = 875). Setting: Primary, secondary and tertiary care. Participants: Adults (≥ 18 years) with stage 3 chronic kidney disease. Interventions: Estimated glomerular filtration rate using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equations. Main outcome measures: Measured glomerular filtration rate was the reference against which estimating equations were compared with accuracy being expressed as P30 (percentage of values within 30% of reference) and progression (variously defined) studied as sensitivity/specificity. A regression model of disease progression was developed and differences for risk factors estimated. Biological variation components were measured and the reference change value calculated. Comparative costs of monitoring with different estimating equations modelled over 10 years were calculated. Results: Accuracy (P30) of all equations was ≥ 89.5%: the combined creatinine-cystatin equation (94.9%) was superior (p < 0.001) to other equations. Within each equation, no differences in P30 were seen across categories of age, gender, diabetes, albuminuria, body mass index, kidney function level and ethnicity. All equations showed poor (< 63%) sensitivity for detecting patients showing kidney function decline crossing clinically significant thresholds (e.g. a 25% decline in function). Consequently, the additional cost of monitoring kidney function annually using a cystatin C-based equation could not be justified (incremental cost per patient over 10 years = £43.32). Modelling data showed association between higher albuminuria and faster decline in measured and creatinine-estimated glomerular filtration rate. Reference change values for measured glomerular filtration rate (%, positive/negative) were 21.5/-17.7, with lower reference change values for estimated glomerular filtration rate. Limitations: Recruitment of people from South Asian and African-Caribbean backgrounds was below the study target. Future work: Prospective studies of the value of cystatin C as a risk marker in chronic kidney disease should be undertaken. Conclusions: Inclusion of cystatin C in glomerular filtration rate-estimating equations marginally improved accuracy but not detection of disease progression. Our data do not support cystatin C use for monitoring of glomerular filtration rate in stage 3 chronic kidney disease. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN42955626. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/103/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 35. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Chronic kidney disease, which affects approximately 14% of the adult population, often has no symptoms but, in some people, may later develop into kidney failure. Kidney disease is most often detected using a blood test called creatinine. Creatinine does not identify everyone with kidney disease, or those most likely to develop more serious kidney disease. An alternative blood test called cystatin C may be more accurate, but it is more expensive than the creatinine test. We compared the accuracy of these two tests in more than 1000 people with moderate kidney disease. Participants were tested over 3 years to see if the tests differed in their ability to detect worsening kidney function. We also wanted to identify risk factors associated with loss of kidney function, and how much the tests normally vary to better understand what results mean. We compared the accuracy and costs of monitoring people with the two markers. Cystatin C was found slightly more accurate than the creatinine test at estimating kidney function when comparing the baseline single measurements (95% accurate compared to 90%), but not at detecting worsening function over time. This means that the additional cost of monitoring people over time with cystatin C to detect kidney disease progression could not be justified. Kidney test results could vary by up to 20% between tests without necessarily implying changes in underlying kidney function ­ this is the normal level of individual variation. Cystatin C marginally improved accuracy of kidney function testing but not ability to detect worsening kidney function. Cystatin C improves identification of moderate chronic kidney disease, but our results do not support its use for routine monitoring of kidney function in such patients.

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. DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.8216.

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study.

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK.