Identifying Major Barriers to Home Dialysis (The IM-HOME Study): Findings From a National Survey of Patients, Care Partners, and Providers.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Developing strategies to improve home dialysis use requires a comprehensive understanding of barriers. We sought to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis use from the perspective of patients, care partners, and providers. STUDY DESIGN: This is a convergent parallel mixed-methods study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We convened a 7-member advisory board of patients, care partners, and providers who collectively developed lists of major patient/care partner-perceived barriers and provider-perceived barriers to home dialysis. We used these lists to develop a survey that was distributed to patients, care partners, and providers-through the American Association of Kidney Patients and the National Kidney Foundation. The surveys asked participants to (1) rank their top 3 major barriers (quantitative) and (2) describe barriers to home dialysis (qualitative). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We compiled a list of the top 3 patient/care partner-perceived and top 3 provider-perceived barriers (quantitative). We also conducted a directed content analysis of open-ended survey responses (qualitative). RESULTS: There were 522 complete responses (233 providers; 289 patients/care partners). The top 3 patient/care partner-perceived barriers were fear of performing home dialysis; lack of space; and the need for home-based support. The top 3 provider-perceived barriers were poor patient education; limited mechanisms for home-based support staff, mental health, and education; and lack of experienced staff. We identified 9 themes through qualitative analysis: limited education; financial disincentives; limited resources; high burden of care; built environment/structure of care delivery that favors in-center hemodialysis; fear and isolation; perceptions of inequities in access to home dialysis; provider perspectives about patients; and patient/provider resiliency. LIMITATIONS: This was an online survey that is subject to nonresponse bias. CONCLUSIONS: The top 3 barriers to home dialysis for patient/care partners and providers incompletely overlap, suggesting the need for diverse strategies that simultaneously address patient-perceived barriers at home and provider-perceived barriers in the clinic. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: There are many barriers to home dialysis use in the United States. However, we know little about which barriers are the most important to patients and clinicians. This makes it challenging to develop strategies to increase home dialysis use. In this study, we surveyed patients, care partners, and clinicians across the country to identify the most important barriers to home dialysis, namely (1) patients/care partners identified fear of home dialysis, lack of space, and lack of home-based support; and (2) clinicians identified poor patient education, limited support for staff and patients, and lack of experienced staff. These findings suggest that patients and clinicians perceive different barriers and that both sets of barriers should be addressed to expand home dialysis use.

Funding Innovative Dialysis Technology in the United States: Home Dialysis and the ESRD Transitional Add-on Payment for New and Innovative Equipment and Supplies (TPNIES).

Innovative, patient-centered, and pragmatic dialysis technologies are urgently needed to accommodate the growing national interest in home dialysis use. To help achieve this goal, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are expanding reimbursement for eligible home dialysis machines through an existing payment mechanism, the transitional add-on payment for new and innovative equipment and supplies (TPNIES). This mechanism incentivizes the early adoption of innovative equipment into practice by reimbursing dialysis providers up to 26% of the total cost of approved home dialysis machines. Machines are evaluated for TPNIES eligibility using prespecified substantial clinical improvement (SCI) criteria that are derived from the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (for non-nephrology technologies). Although the SCI criteria may be suitable for some non-nephrology technologies, they have not been adapted to consider the unique and complex care inherent in home dialysis. Thus, many of the SCI criteria appear unsuitable for home dialysis machines. To better incentivize innovation, CMS should develop nephrology-specific transparent and pragmatic criteria for TPNIES. In this perspective, we provide an overview of the TPNIES payment mechanism, highlight areas of concern within the policy, and offer solutions for improving TPNIES that could better promote the adoption of new home dialysis machines.

Estimating Shortages in Capacity to Deliver Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, New York encountered shortages in continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) capacity for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury stage 3 requiring dialysis. To inform planning for current and future crises, we estimated CKRT demand and capacity during the initial wave of the US COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: We developed mathematical models to project nationwide and statewide CKRT demand and capacity. Data sources included the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model, the Harvard Global Health Institute model, and published literature. SETTING & POPULATION: US patients hospitalized during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February 6, 2020, to August 4, 2020). INTERVENTION: CKRT. OUTCOMES: CKRT demand and capacity at peak resource use; number of states projected to encounter CKRT shortages. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIMEFRAME: Health sector perspective with a 6-month time horizon. RESULTS: Under base-case model assumptions, there was a nationwide CKRT capacity of 7,032 machines, an estimated shortage of 1,088 (95% uncertainty interval, 910-1,568) machines, and shortages in 6 states at peak resource use. In sensitivity analyses, varying assumptions around: (1) the number of pre-COVID-19 surplus CKRT machines available and (2) the incidence of acute kidney injury stage 3 requiring dialysis requiring CKRT among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 resulted in projected shortages in 3 to 8 states (933-1,282 machines) and 4 to 8 states (945-1,723 machines), respectively. In the best- and worst-case scenarios, there were shortages in 3 and 26 states (614 and 4,540 machines). LIMITATIONS: Parameter estimates are influenced by assumptions made in the absence of published data for CKRT capacity and by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model's limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Several US states are projected to encounter CKRT shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings, although based on limited data for CKRT demand and capacity, suggest there being value during health care crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic in establishing an inpatient kidney replacement therapy national registry and maintaining a national stockpile of CKRT equipment.

Breaking down the complement system: a review and update on novel therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The complement system represents one of the more primitive forms of innate immunity. It has increasingly been found to contribute to pathologies in the native and transplanted kidney. We provide a concise review of the physiology of the complement cascade, and discuss current and upcoming complement-based therapies. RECENT FINDINGS: Current agents in clinical use either bind to complement components directly or prevent complement from binding to antibodies affixed to the endothelial surface. These include C1 esterase inhibitors, anti-C5 mAbs, anti-CD20 mAbs, and proteasome inhibitors. Treatment continues to show efficacy in the atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome and antibody-mediated rejection. Promising agents not currently available include CCX168, TP10, AMY-101, factor D inhibitors, coversin, and compstatin. Several new trials are targeting complement inhibition to treat antineutrophilic cystoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, C3 glomerulopathy, thrombotic microangiopathy, and IgA nephropathy. New agents for the treatment of the atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome are also in development. SUMMARY: Complement-based therapies are being considered for targeted therapy in the atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome and antibody-mediated rejection, C3 glomerulopathy, and ANCA-associated vasculitis. A few agents are currently in use as orphan drugs. A number of other drugs are in clinical trials and, overall, are showing promising preliminary results.

Hepatitis C virus infection in kidney transplantation-changing paradigms with novel agents.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a common cause of increased morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant patients. It is associated with posttransplant glomerulonephritis, chronic allograft nephropathy, and New Onset Diabetes after Transplant (NODAT). In the past, HCV was difficult to treat due to the presence of interferon alpha-based therapies that were difficult to tolerate and were associated with adverse side-effects, such as the risk of rejection. With the advent of oral directly acting antiviral therapies, the landscape for HCV and transplantation has changed. These agents are highly effective and well tolerated with minimal side-effects. Sustained viral response rates in excess of 90% are achieved with most current treatment regimens active against all HCV genotypes. These new agents may show an improvement in graft and patient survival while essentially eliminating the risk of acute rejection from the use of prior interferon-based HCV therapies. These agents may also result in an improvement in organ allocation for HCV donor/HCV recipient transplantation. This review is meant to discuss the epidemiology of HCV, the new oral direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) and future opportunities for research in the field of HCV related transplantation.

What is the optimal approach to a non- culprit stenosis after ST-elevation myocardial infarction - Conservative therapy or upfront revascularization? An updated meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Non-culprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of the published literature comparing a strategy of complete revascularization (CR) with culprit or target vessel revascularization (TVR)-only after STEMI in patients with multi-vessel disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus and Google-scholar databases from inception to March-2016 for clinical trials comparing CR with TVR during PCI for STEMI. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (MH-RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for individual outcomes was calculated using random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 7 randomized trials with 2004 patients were included in the final analysis. Mean follow-up was 25.4months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (MH-RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43-0.78, P<0.001), cardiac deaths (MH-RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.74, P=0.003) and repeat revascularization (MH-RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.27-0.48, P<0.001) were much lower in the CR group when compared to TVR. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (0.84, 95% CI: 0.57-1.25, P=0.394) or recurrent MI (MH-RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.34-1.26, P=0.205) between the two groups. CR appeared to be safe with no significant increase in adverse events including stroke rates (MH-RR: 2.19, 95% CI: 0.59-8.12, P=0.241), contrast induced nephropathy (MH-RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.34-1.57, P=0.423) or major bleeding episodes (MH-RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.34-1.54, P=0.399). CONCLUSIONS: CR strategy in STEMI patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is associated with reduction in MACE, cardiac mortality and need for repeat revascularization but with no decrease in the risk of subsequent MI or all-cause mortality. CR was safe however, with no increase in adverse events including stroke, stent thrombosis or contrast nephropathy when compared to TVR.