Cannabis Use, Perspectives, and Experiences Among Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Descriptive Patient Survey.

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease experience high burden of symptoms, negatively affecting their quality of life. Medication therapy is often initiated to address these symptoms but is limited by variable efficacy and high pill burden. There is interest among clinicians and patients to explore cannabis and cannabinoids as an alternative treatment to manage symptoms related to kidney disease. Objective: The objectives were to characterize cannabis use among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD), to describe patient perspectives on cannabis, and to explore patient experiences with their kidney health care team related to cannabis. Design: This was a descriptive, cross-sectional paper-based patient survey. Setting/Participants: Patients receiving maintenance HD at Toronto General Hospital in the ambulatory setting between July and August 2020 were included. Methods: A 33-item questionnaire was developed to address the study questions based on existing cannabis questionnaires and input from kidney specialist physicians, pharmacists, kidney nurse practitioners, and patients. The questionnaire was distributed to patients during their in-center HD session. Patients who chose to participate in the study completed the questionnaire and returned it to the study team. Results: In total, there were 52 respondents, of which 11 (21%) reported cannabis use in the preceding 3 months, and 23 (44%) reported historical cannabis use. Baseline characteristics were similar between those who used cannabis and those who did not, with a possible trend of cannabis users being younger. The most commonly reported reasons for using cannabis were recreation and symptom management. Those who reported using cannabis for symptom management were doing so without medical authorization or documentation. Common symptoms that cannabis was used to self-treat were insomnia, anxiety, and/or non-neuropathic pain. Dried flower was the most common type of product used, and smoking was the most common route. Care gaps and opportunities to improve patient care related to cannabis use were identified, related to monitoring and management of adverse effects, management of drug interactions, harm reduction strategies, informed decision-making, and prescriber education. Limitations: The overall participation rate was low, at approximately 17%, possibly related to the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of interest, or fear of revealing cannabis use. Non-response bias is a possible limitation as this was a voluntary survey. The questionnaire was limited to multiple-choice and Likert scale questions, therefore limiting the depth of patient responses. Conclusions: Our study showed that cannabis use among patients receiving HD is common and comparable with the general population. Patients may be using cannabis to self-manage symptoms related to kidney disease, without the involvement of the health care team. Multiple opportunities to improve patient care related to cannabis use were identified.

Contexte: Les symptômes liés à l'insuffisance rénale représentent un lourd fardeau pour les patients qui en sont atteints, ce qui affecte négativement leur qualité de vie. Un traitement médicamenteux est souvent prescrit pour soulager les symptômes, mais il est limité par son efficacité variable et le nombre élevé de médicaments. Les patients et les cliniciens sont ouverts à explorer d'autres avenues pour gérer les symptômes de l'insuffisance rénale, notamment la consommation de cannabis et de cannabinoïdes. Objectifs: Caractériser la consommation de cannabis chez les patients recevant des traitements d'hémodialyse (HD) chronique; décrire les perspectives des patients sur le cannabis et examiner les expériences des patients avec leurs équipes de soins en lien avec la consommation de cannabis. Type d'étude: Enquête transversale descriptive sous forme d'un questionnaire papier remis aux patients. Cadre et sujets de l'étude: Les patients qui suivaient des traitements d'HD chronique en ambulatoire à l'Hôpital général de Toronto en juillet et août 2020. Méthodologie: Pour répondre aux objectifs de l'étude, un questionnaire en 33 points a été élaboré à partir de questionnaires existants sur la consommation de cannabis et des commentaires de néphrologues, pharmaciens, infirmières praticiennes en néphrologie et patients. Le questionnaire a été distribué aux patients pendant une séance d'HD en centre. Les personnes qui ont choisi de participer à l'étude l'ont rempli et l'ont renvoyé à l'équipe de recherche. Résultats: En tout, 52 personnes ont répondu au questionnaire, desquelles 11 (21%) ont déclaré avoir consommé du cannabis dans les trois mois précédents et 23 (44%) en avoir consommé dans le passé. Les caractéristiques initiales des consommateurs de cannabis étaient semblables à celles des personnes qui n'en consommaient pas; les consommateurs de cannabis ayant tendance à être plus jeunes. On consommait principalement du cannabis pour le côté récréatif et pour gérer les symptômes. Les personnes qui consommaient du cannabis pour gérer leurs symptômes le faisaient sans documentation ou indication médicale. Le cannabis était consommé pour l'auto-traitement de symptômes courants comme l'insomnie, l'anxiété et/ou la douleur non neurogène. Le plus souvent, le cannabis était fumé, et la fleur séchée était le produit le plus utilisé. Des lacunes dans les soins et des occasions d'améliorer les soins aux patients ont été identifiées en lien avec la consommation de cannabis, celles-ci concernaient la surveillance et la gestion des effets indésirables, la gestion des interactions médicamenteuses, les stratégies de réduction des risques, la prise de décisions éclairées et l'éducation des prescripteurs. Limites: Le taux de participation global a été faible (environ 17%), possiblement en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19, d'un manque d'intérêt ou de la réticence à révéler la consommation de cannabis. La participation était volontaire, un biais de non-réponse est donc possible. Le questionnaire n'était constitué que de questions à choix multiples et à échelle de Likert, ce qui limite la profondeur des réponses. Conclusion: Notre étude montre que la consommation de cannabis chez les patients sous HD est courante et comparable à celle de la population générale. Les patients peuvent consommer du cannabis pour soulager les symptômes liés à l'insuffisance rénale sans intervention de l'équipe de soins. Le sondage a permis d'identifier plusieurs occasions d'améliorer les soins aux patients en lien avec la consommation de cannabis.

Prescribing patterns and medications costs in patients on maintenance hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Polypharmacy is a significant clinical issue for patients on dialysis but has been incompletely studied. We investigated the prevalence and costs of polypharmacy in a population-based cohort of participants treated with hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). METHODS: We studied adults aged ≥ 20 years in Alberta, Canada receiving maintenance HD or PD as of March 31, 2019. We characterized participants as users of 0-29 drug categories of interest and those aged ≥ 65 as users/non-users of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM). We calculated the number of drug categories, daily pill burden, total annual cost, and annual cost per participant, and compared this to an age- and sex-matched cohort from the general Alberta population. RESULTS: Among 2 248 participants (mean age 63 years; 39% female) on HD (n = 1 781) or PD (n = 467), the median number of prescribed drug categories was 6 [interquartile range (IQR) 4, 8]; median daily pill burden was 8.0 (IQR 4.6, 12.6) pills/day, with 5% prescribed ≥ 21.7 pills/day, and 16.5% prescribed ≥ 15 pills/day. Twelve % were prescribed at least one drug that is contraindicated in kidney failure. The median annual per participant cost was ${\$}$3,831, totaling approximately ${\$}$11.6 million annually for all participants. When restricting to the 1 063 participants aged ≥ 65, the median number of PIM categories was 2 (IQR 1, 2), with a median PIM pill burden of 1.2 pills/day (IQR 0.5, 2.4). Compared to PD participants, HD participants had similar daily pill burden, higher use of PIM, and higher annual per participant cost. Pill burden and associated costs for participants on dialysis were more than 3-fold and 10-fold higher, respectively, compared to the matched participants from the general population. CONCLUSION: Participants on dialysis have markedly higher use of prescription medications and associated costs than the general population. Effective methods to de-prescribe in the dialysis population are needed.

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.

Drug stewardship in chronic kidney disease to achieve effective and safe medication use.

People living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) often experience multimorbidity and require polypharmacy. Kidney dysfunction can also alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medications, which can modify their risks and benefits; the extent of these changes is not well understood for all situations or medications. The principle of drug stewardship is aimed at maximizing medication safety and effectiveness in a population of patients through a variety of processes including medication reconciliation, medication selection, dose adjustment, monitoring for effectiveness and safety, and discontinuation (deprescribing) when no longer necessary. This Review is aimed at serving as a resource for achieving optimal drug stewardship for patients with CKD. We describe special considerations for medication use during pregnancy and lactation, during acute illness and in patients with cancer, as well as guidance for the responsible use of over-the-counter drugs, herbal remedies, supplements and sick-day rules. We also highlight inequities in medication access worldwide and suggest policies to improve access to quality and essential medications for all persons with CKD. Further strategies to promote drug stewardship include patient education and engagement, the use of digital health tools, shared decision-making and collaboration within interdisciplinary teams. Throughout, we position the person with CKD at the centre of all drug stewardship efforts.

Multi-level strategies to improve equitable timely person-centred osteoarthritis care for diverse women: qualitative interviews with women and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Women are more likely to develop osteoarthritis (OA), and have greater OA pain and disability compared with men, but are less likely to receive guideline-recommended management, particularly racialized women. OA care of diverse women, and strategies to improve the quality of their OA care is understudied. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies to overcome barriers of access to OA care for diverse women. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with key informants and used content analysis to identify themes regarding what constitutes person-centred OA care, barriers of OA care, and strategies to support equitable timely access to person-centred OA care. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 women who varied by ethno-cultural group (e.g. African or Caribbean Black, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Pakistani, Caucasian), age, region of Canada, level of education, location of OA and years with OA; and 31 healthcare professionals who varied by profession (e.g. family physician, nurse practitioner, community pharmacist, physio- and occupational therapists, chiropractors, healthcare executives, policy-makers), career stage, region of Canada and type of organization. Participants within and across groups largely agreed on approaches for person-centred OA care across six domains: foster a healing relationship, exchange information, address emotions, manage uncertainty, share decisions and enable self-management. Participants identified 22 barriers of access and 18 strategies to overcome barriers at the patient- (e.g. educational sessions and materials that accommodate cultural norms offered in different languages and formats for persons affected by OA), healthcare professional- (e.g. medical and continuing education on OA and on providing OA care tailored to intersectional factors) and system- (e.g. public health campaigns to raise awareness of OA, and how to prevent and manage it; self-referral to and public funding for therapy, greater number and ethno-cultural diversity of healthcare professionals, healthcare policies that address the needs of diverse women, dedicated inter-professional OA clinics, and a national strategy to coordinate OA care) levels. CONCLUSIONS: This research contributes to a gap in knowledge of how to optimize OA care for disadvantaged groups including diverse women. Ongoing efforts are needed to examine how best to implement these strategies, which will require multi-sector collaboration and must engage diverse women.

Identifying strategies that support equitable person-centred osteoarthritis care for diverse women: content analysis of guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Women are disproportionately impacted by osteoarthritis (OA) but less likely than men to access early diagnosis and management, or experience OA care tailored through person-centred approaches to their needs and preferences, particularly racialized women. One way to support clinicians in optimizing OA care is through clinical guidelines. We aimed to examine the content of OA guidelines for guidance on providing equitable, person-centred care to disadvantaged groups including women. METHODS: We searched indexed databases and websites for English-language OA-relevant guidelines published in 2000 or later by non-profit organizations. We used manifest content analysis to extract data, and summary statistics and text to describe guideline characteristics, person-centred care (PCC) using a six-domain PCC framework, OA prevalence or barriers by intersectional factors, and strategies to improve equitable access to OA care. RESULTS: We included 36 OA guidelines published from 2003 to 2021 in 8 regions or countries. Few (39%) development panels included patients. While most (81%) guidelines included at least one PCC domain, guidance was often brief or vague, few addressed exchange information, respond to emotions and manage uncertainty, and none referred to fostering a healing relationship. Few (39%) guidelines acknowledged or described greater prevalence of OA among particular groups; only 3 (8%) noted that socioeconomic status was a barrier to OA care, and only 2 (6%) offered guidance to clinicians on how to improve equitable access to OA care: assess acceptability, availability, accessibility, and affordability of self-management interventions; and employ risk assessment tools to identify patients without means to cope well at home after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that OA guidelines do not support clinicians in caring for diverse persons with OA who face disadvantages due to intersectional factors that influence access to and quality of care. Developers could strengthen OA guidelines by incorporating guidance for PCC and for equity that could be drawn from existing frameworks and tools, and by including diverse persons with OA on guideline development panels. Future research is needed to identify multi-level (patient, clinician, system) strategies that could be implemented via guidelines or in other ways to improve equitable, person-centred OA care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was informed by a team of researchers, collaborators, and thirteen diverse women with lived experience, who contributed to planning, and data collection, analysis and interpretation by reviewing study materials and providing verbal (during meetings) and written (via email) feedback.

Development and Validation of Patient Education Tools for Deprescribing in Patients on Hemodialysis.

Background: Deprescribing is a patient-centered solution to reducing polypharmacy in patients on hemodialysis (HD). In a deprescribing pilot study, patients were hesitant to participate due to limited understanding of their own medications and their unfamiliarity with the concept of deprescribing. Therefore, patient education materials designed to address these knowledge gaps can overcome barriers to shared decision-making and reduce hesitancy regarding deprescribing. Objective: To develop and validate a medication-specific, patient education toolkit (bulletin and video) that will supplement an upcoming nationwide deprescribing program for patients on HD. Methods: Patient education tools were developed based on the content of previously validated deprescribing algorithms and literature searches for patients' preferences in education. A preliminary round of validation was completed by 5 clinicians to provide feedback on the accuracy and clarity of the education tools. Then, 3 validation rounds were completed by patients on HD across 3 sites in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto. Content and face validity were evaluated on a 4-point and 5-point Likert scale, respectively. The content validity index (CVI) score was calculated after each round, and revisions were made based on patient feedback. Results: A total of 105 patients participated in the validation. All 10 education tools achieved content and face validity after 3 rounds. The CVI score was 1.0 for most of the tools, with 0.95 being the lowest value. Face validity ranged from 72% to 100%, with majority scoring above 90%. Conclusion: Ten patient education tools on deprescribing were developed and validated by patients on HD. These validated, medication-specific education tools are the first of its kind for patients on HD and will be used in a nationwide implementation study alongside the validated deprescribing algorithms developed by our research group.

Contexte: La déprescription est une solution axée sur le patient pour réduire la polypharmacie chez les patients sous hémodialyse (HD). Dans une étude pilote sur la déprescription, les patients ont hésité à participer en raison de leur compréhension limitée de leurs propres médicaments et de leur manque de connaissance du concept de déprescription. Par conséquent, du matériel éducatif conçu pour combler ces lacunes dans les connaissances des patients pourrait surmonter les obstacles à la prise de décision partagée et réduire les hésitations à l'égard de la déprescription. Objectifs: Développer et valider une trousse d'information (bulletin et vidéo) pour les patients portant sur les médicaments. Cette trousse viendra compléter un futur programme national de déprescription pour les patients sous HD. Méthodologie: Des outils d'éducation pour les patients ont été développés à partir du contenu d'algorithmes de déprescription validés précédemment et de recherches documentaires sur les préférences des patients en matière d'éducation. Une ronde préliminaire de validation a été complétée par cinq cliniciens afin d'obtenir des commentaires sur l'exactitude et la clarté des outils d'éducation. Trois cycles de validation ont ensuite été réalisés par des patients sous HD dans trois sites: Vancouver, Winnipeg et Toronto. La validité du contenu et la validité apparente ont été évaluées à l'aide d'échelles de Likert à 4 et 5 points, respectivement. L'indice de validité du contenu (IVC) a été calculé après chaque ronde et des révisions ont été effectuées en fonction des commentaires des patients. Résultats: En tout, 105 patients ont participé à la validation. La validité du contenu et la validité apparente ont été atteintes pour les dix outils d'éducation après trois rondes auprès des patients. L'IVC s'établissait à 1,0 pour la plupart des outils évalués; 0,95 était la valeur d'indice la plus faible. La validité apparente variait entre 72% et 100%, la majorité des outils ayant obtenu un score supérieur à 90%. Conclusion: Dix outils d'éducation pour les patients portant sur la déprescription ont été développés et validés par des patients sous HD. Ces outils d'éducation validés portant spécifiquement sur les médicaments sont les premiers du genre conçus pour les patients sous HD. Ils seront utilisés dans le cadre d'une étude nationale de mise en œuvre, parallèlement aux algorithmes validés de déprescription qui ont été développés par notre groupe de recherche.

Development and Validation of Nine Deprescribing Algorithms for Patients on Hemodialysis to Decrease Polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is ubiquitous in patients on hemodialysis (HD), and increases risk of adverse events, medication interactions, nonadherence, and mortality. Appropriately applied deprescribing can potentially minimize polypharmacy risks. Existing guidelines are unsuitable for nephrology clinicians as they lack specific instructions on how to deprescribe and which safety parameters to monitor. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate deprescribing algorithms for nine medication classes to decrease polypharmacy in patients on HD. DESIGN: Questionnaires and materials sent electronically. PARTICIPANTS: Nephrology practitioners across Canada (nephrologists, nurse practitioners, renal pharmacists). METHODS: A literature search was performed to develop the initial algorithms via Lynn's method for development of content-valid clinical tools. Content and face validity of the algorithms was evaluated over three interview rounds using Lynn's method for determining content validity. Canadian nephrology clinicians each evaluated three algorithms (15 clinicians per round, 45 clinicians in total) by rating each algorithm component on a four-point Likert scale for relevance; face validity was rated on a five-point scale. After each round, content validity index of each component was calculated and revisions made based on feedback. If content validity was not achieved after three rounds, additional rounds were completed until content validity was achieved. RESULTS: After three rounds of validation, six algorithms achieved content validity. After an additional round, the remaining three algorithms achieved content validity. The proportion of clinicians rating each face validity statement as "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" ranged from 84% to 95% (average of all five questions, across three rounds). LIMITATIONS: Algorithm development was guided by existing deprescribing protocols intended for the general population and the expert opinions of our study team, due to a lack of background literature on HD-specific deprescribing protocols. There is no universally accepted method for the validation of clinical decision-making tools. CONCLUSIONS: Nine medication-specific deprescribing algorithms for patients on HD were developed and validated by clinician review. Our algorithms are the first medication-specific, patient-centric deprescribing guidelines developed and validated for patients on HD.

CONTEXTE: La polypharmacie est très répandue chez les patients hémodialysés et augmente le risque d'événements indésirables, d'interactions médicamenteuses, d'inobservance au traitement et de mortalité. La déprescription, appliquée de façon appropriée, peut réduire les risques associés à la polypharmacie. Les directives de déprescription existantes ne conviennent cependant pas aux cliniciens en néphrologie puisqu'elles ne renferment aucune indication spécifique sur la manière de procéder ni sur les paramètres de sécurité à surveiller. OBJECTIF: Développer et valider des algorithmes de déprescription pour neuf classes de médicaments en vue de réduire la polypharmacie chez les patients hémodialysés. CONCEPTION: Des questionnaires et des documents envoyés par voie électronique. PARTICIPANTS: Des praticiens en néphrologies de partout au Canada (néphrologues, infirmières-praticiennes, pharmaciens spécialisés en néphrologie). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une recherche bibliographique a été effectuée pour développer les algorithmes initiaux avec la méthode de Lynn pour le développement d'outils cliniques à contenu validé. Le contenu et la validité apparente des algorithmes ont été évalués au cours de trois cycles d'interviews par la méthode de Lynn pour déterminer la validité d'un contenu. Les praticiens interviewés (15 par cycle, pour un total de 45) ont chacun évalué trois algorithmes en classant la pertinence de leurs composants sur une échelle de Likert en quatre points, et en classant leur validité apparente sur une échelle en cinq points. Après chaque cycle, l'indice de validité du contenu a été calculé pour chaque composant et des correctifs ont été apportés en fonction de la rétroaction. Si la validité du contenu n'était pas atteinte après trois cycles, des cycles supplémentaires étaient effectués jusqu'à ce que celle-ci soit atteinte. RÉSULTATS: Six algorithmes ont atteint la validité après trois cycles de validation. Les trois algorithmes restants l'ont atteint après un cycle supplémentaire. La proportion de cliniciens ayant attribué la mention de validité apparente « d'accord ¼ ou « tout à fait d'accord ¼ se situait entre 84 et 95 % (moyenne des cinq questions, sur trois cycles). LIMITES: Le développement des algorithmes repose sur les protocoles de déprescription existants, destinés à la population générale, et sur l'avis des experts de notre équipe d'étude puisque la documentation portant sur des protocoles de déprescription spécifiques aux patients hémodialysés est insuffisante. Il n'existe aucune méthode universellement acceptée pour valider les outils de décision clinique. CONCLUSION: Neuf algorithmes de déprescription spécifiques aux patients hémodialysés ont été développés et validés par révision des cliniciens. Nos algorithmes sont les premiers guides de déprescription développés et validés spécifiquement pour les médicaments des patients hémodialysés. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: Sans objet ­ il s'agit d'une série de questionnaires.

Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: (1) To provide commentary on the 2017 update to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD); (2) to apply the evidence-based guideline update for implementation within the Canadian health care system; (3) to provide comment on the care of children with chronic kidney disease (CKD); and (4) to identify research priorities for Canadian patients. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The KDIGO 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of CKD-MBD. METHODS: The commentary committee co-chairs selected potential members based on their knowledge of the Canadian kidney community, aiming for wide representation from relevant disciplines, academic and community centers, and different geographical regions. KEY FINDINGS: We agreed with many of the recommendations in the clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of CKD-MBD. However, based on the uncommon occurrence of abnormalities in calcium and phosphate and the low likelihood of severe abnormalities in parathyroid hormone (PTH), we recommend against screening and monitoring levels of calcium, phosphate, PTH, and alkaline phosphatase in adults with CKD G3. We suggest and recommend monitoring these parameters in adults with CKD G4 and G5, respectively. In children, we agree that monitoring for CKD-MBD should begin in CKD G2, but we suggest measuring ionized calcium, rather than total calcium or calcium adjusted for albumin. With regard to vitamin D, we suggest against routine screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults with CKD G3-G5 and G1T-G5T and suggest following population health recommendations for adequate vitamin D intake. We recommend that the measurement and management of bone mineral density (BMD) be according to general population guidelines in CKD G3 and G3T, but we suggest against routine BMD testing in CKD G4-G5, CKD G4T-5T, and in children with CKD. Based on insufficient data, we also recommend against routine bone biopsy in clinical practice for adults with CKD or CKD-T, or in children with CKD, although we consider it an important research tool. LIMITATIONS: The committee relied on the evidence summaries produced by KDIGO. The CSN committee did not replicate or update the systematic reviews.

JUSTIFICATION: (1) Commenter les recommandations du KDIGO 2017 (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) sur les bonnes pratiques cliniques pour le diagnostic, l'évaluation et le traitement des troubles du métabolisme minéral osseux associés aux maladies rénales chroniques (TMO-MRC); (2) appliquer les lignes directrices actualisées et fondées sur les données probantes en vue de leur mise en œuvre dans le système de soins de santé canadien; (3) commenter les soins prodigués aux enfants atteints d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) et (4) définir les priorités de recherche des patients Canadiens. SOURCES: Les recommandations du KDIGO 2017 (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) sur les bonnes pratiques cliniques pour le diagnostic, l'évaluation et le traitement des troubles du métabolisme minéral osseux associés aux maladies rénales chroniques (TMO-MRC). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les coprésidents du comité ont sélectionné les membres potentiels sur la base de leur connaissance du secteur de la santé rénale au Canada, tout en visant une bonne représentation de toutes les disciplines concernées, des centres universitaires et communautaires et des différentes régions géographiques. PRINCIPAUX COMMENTAIRES: Nous approuvons un grand nombre des recommandations du KDIGO. Cependant, compte tenu de la rareté des anomalies du calcium et du phosphate et de la faible probabilité d'anomalies graves de la PTH (hormone parathyroïde), nous déconseillons le dépistage et la surveillance des taux de calcium, de phosphate, de PTH et de phosphatase alcaline chez les adultes atteints d'IRC de stade G3. Nous suggérons de mesurer ces paramètres chez les adultes de stade G4 et nous le recommandons pour les patients de stade G5. Chez les enfants, nous appuyons la recommandation de commencer la surveillance des TMO-MRC dès le stade G2, mais nous suggérons de mesurer le calcium ionisé plutôt que les taux de calcium total ou de calcium corrigé en fonction de l'albumine. En ce qui concerne la vitamine D, nous déconseillons le dépistage de routine des carences chez les adultes atteints d'IRC de stade G3 à G5 et G1T à G5T; nous suggérons plutôt de suivre les recommandations visant la population générale pour un apport adéquat en vitamine D. Nous recommandons que la mesure et la prise en charge de la densité minérale osseuse (DMO) se fassent en suivant les recommandations pour la population générale chez les adultes atteints d'IRC de stade G3 et G3T, mais nous déconseillons les tests de DMO de routine chez les adultes de stades G4-G5 et G4T-G5T, de même que chez les enfants atteints d'IRC. En raison de données insuffisantes, nous déconseillons également la pratique systématique d'une biopsie osseuse chez les adultes atteints d'IRC ou d'IRC-TMO, ainsi que chez les enfants atteints d'IRC, bien que nous la considérions comme un important outil de recherche. LIMITES: Le comité s'est appuyé sur le résumé des preuves rédigé par le KDIGO. Le comité de la SCN n'a pas reproduit ou mis à jour les revues systématiques.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at heightened risk for polypharmacy. We examined potentially inappropriate prescribing in this population and whether introducing pharmacists into the ambulatory kidney care model was associated with improved prescribing practices. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases. We included patients with an eGFR ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ≥66 years of age followed in multidisciplinary kidney clinics in Ontario, Canada (n = 25,016 from 28 centres). The primary outcome was the absence of a statin prescription or the receipt of a potentially inappropriate prescription defined by the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria® and a modified Delphi panel that identified key drugs of concern in CKD. We calculated the crude cumulative incidence and incidence rate for the primary outcome and used change-point regression to determine if a change occurred following pharmacist introduction. RESULTS: There were 6,007 (24%) and 16,497 patients (66%) not prescribed a statin and with ≥1 potentially inappropriate prescription, respectively. The rate of potentially inappropriate prescribing was 125.6 per 100 person-years and was higher in more recent years. The change-point regression analysis included 2,275 patients from two centres. No immediate change was detected at pharmacist introduction, but potentially inappropriate prescribing was increasing pre-pharmacist introduction, and this rising trend was reversed post-pharmacist introduction. The incidence of potentially inappropriate prescribing still remained high post-pharmacist introduction. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially inappropriate prescribing practices were common. Incorporating pharmacists into the kidney care model may improve prescribing practices. The role of pharmacists in the ambulatory kidney care team warrants further investigation in a randomized controlled trial.

Lower opioid and higher adjuvant analgesic use in patients on haemodialysis: A single-centre cross-sectional study.

WHAT IS KNOWN: Opioids are often used to treat chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in patients on haemodialysis. Altered pharmacokinetics in this population increases risk for opioid-related adverse events. Although useful in pain management, there is a lack of opioid prescribing guidance for end-stage kidney disease. OBJECTIVE: To characterize opioid usage for CNCP in an outpatient haemodialysis unit. METHODS: Cross-sectional, single-centre, retrospective cohort study of 272 patients receiving outpatient haemodialysis between 01 June and 31 December 2017. Prevalence of prescription or non-prescription opioids, formulation, indication, dosing, prescriber type and therapeutic effectiveness were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 27 (10%, aged 58 + 12.1 years, 59% women) patients received opioids for CNCP during the study period. Pain aetiology was diverse; 14 (52%) patients experienced multiple concurrent chronic pain conditions. Hydromorphone (55%) and oxycodone (37%) were the most common prescriptions. A majority (85%) of patients used non-opioid analgesics as adjunct therapy, while half (48%) used benzodiazepines or zopiclone concurrently. Patients who completed a pain scale (n = 10) reported a median pain intensity of 6.8/10 ([IQR], 4.5-7.3). DISCUSSION: Opioid usage was lower than expected despite a higher prevalence of concurrent chronic pain conditions. Though this was within opioid usage guidelines, pain may not be sufficiently controlled. High concomitant use of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs introduces the potential for additive adverse effects. Judicious opioid usage can be facilitated with stewardship to effectively treat pain while avoiding associated harms and manage potential drug-drug interactions with common concomitant medications. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The prevalence of chronic opioid use for non-cancer pain in haemodialysis patients was lower than expected at our centre. Despite following the recommended guidelines, pain management was relatively ineffective, and concomitant use of non-opioid analgesics was widespread. Opioid stewardship is recommended to optimize pain treatment and mitigate drug interaction risks.

A Province-wide, Cross-sectional Study of Demographics and Medication Use of Patients in Hemodialysis Units Across Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of polypharmacy as they have the highest pill burden of all chronically ill patient populations, with an estimated average of 12 medications per day. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate prescribing patterns of outpatient medications in patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. This was done to identify potential candidate medications for future quality improvement initiations to optimize prescribing. DESIGN: We conducted a descriptive retrospective cross-sectional study in the province of Ontario, Canada, using several linked health care databases housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES). SETTING: We considered outpatient medications dispensed to patients eligible for the Ontario Drug Benefit program. PATIENTS: Patients were receiving chronic in-center hemodialysis at one of the 69 facilities in the province of Ontario, Canada as of October 1, 2013. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed whether any of our 28 study medications of interest were recently dispensed (within the prior 120 days), the type of prescribing physician, and the associated medication costs. The 28 included medications of interest (ie, proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines) were selected because they may not have a true indication for dialysis patients and/or there are safety concerns with their use in this population. Results are presented as median (25th, 75th percentile). METHODS: We conducted this study at ICES according to a prespecified protocol approved by the Research Ethics Board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto, Ontario). RESULTS: A total of 3094 patients on chronic in-center hemodialysis received a study drug of interest (age: 76.5 years [SD: 7.3]), 44% women). Patients were dispensed 11 (8, 14) unique medication products with more than two-thirds of patients dispensed 9 or more different medications. The median number of annual health care visits was 7 (3-15) with more than half the cohort receiving prescriptions from 3 or more specialists. The 10 most commonly dispensed study medications cost more than 3 million dollars in direct costs in 1 year. LIMITATIONS: Our study was also subjected to some limitations of health care databases. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is frequent in in-center hemodialysis patients. To decrease polypharmacy and its associated negative outcomes, health care providers need to implement tools to optimize medication use and deprescribe medications that lack evidence for efficacy and safety in hemodialysis patients. Therefore, strategies to improve prescribing and discontinue ineffective medications warrant testing for better patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

CONTEXTE: Parmi la population atteinte d'une maladie chronique, le patient hémodialysé présente la charge médicamenteuse la plus lourde, soit une prise moyenne estimée à 12 médicaments distincts chaque jour. OBJECTIF: Nous avons analysé les habitudes de prescription externe de médicaments chez les patients hémodialysés en centre hospitalier afin de cibler des médicaments qui pourraient représenter des cibles d'amélioration pour une prescription médicamenteuse optimisée. TYPE D'ÉTUDEL: Il s'agit d'une étude transversale, descriptive et rétrospective menée en Ontario, au Canada. L'étude tire ses données de plusieurs bases interreliées, hébergées à l'Institut de recherche en services de santé (IRSS). CADRE DE L'ÉTUDE: Notre analyse s'est concentrée sur les médicaments prescrits aux patients ambulatoires admissibles au Programme de médicaments de l'Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Étaient considérés dans l'étude tous les patients hémodialysés à long terme à l'un des 69 établissements prodiguant l'hémodialyse en Ontario depuis le 1er octobre 2013. MESURES: Nous avons vérifié si l'un des 28 médicaments d'intérêt avait été administré (au cours des 120 jours précédents), et nous avons noté la spécialité du médecin prescripteur et les coûts associés au traitement. Les 28 médicaments considérés (p. ex. inhibiteurs de la pompe à protons, benzodiazépines) ont été sélectionnés pour au moins l'une des deux raisons suivantes : i) il n'existe pas de réelle indication pour le traitement de patients hémodialysés; ii) l'innocuité du médicament n'est pas claire pour la population étudiée. Les résultats sont présentés sous forme de médiane et de percentile (du 25e au 75e centile). MÉTHODOLOGIE: L'étude a été menée à l'IRSS conformément au protocole préalablement approuvé par le comité d'éthique en recherche du Centre des sciences de la santé Sunnybrook (à Toronto). RÉSULTATS: Un total de 3 094 patients hémodialysés prenaient au moins un médicament d'intérêt; 44 % étaient de sexe féminin, et l'âge moyen était de 76,5 ans (ÉT : 7,3). Les patients prenaient 11 (8 à 14) médicaments distincts, et plus des deux tiers d'entre eux en prenaient au moins neuf. Le nombre de visites médicales annuelles médian était de 7 (3 à 15). Plus de la moitié de la population à l'étude recevait des prescriptions médicamenteuses de trois prescripteurs ou plus. Les 10 médicaments les plus communément prescrits représentaient des coûts directs annuels de plus de 3 millions de dollars. LIMITES: Les bases de données en santé utilisées comportaient certaines contraintes pour notre étude. CONCLUSION: La polypharmacie est fréquente chez les patients hémodialysés en centre. Pour endiguer le phénomène et ses répercussions, les fournisseurs de soins de santé doivent implanter des outils d'optimisation de la médication chez les patients hémodialysés et cesser tout médicament dont l'innocuité ou l'efficacité n'ont pas été suffisamment démontrées chez ces patients. On devra donc tester des stratégies d'amélioration des habitudes de prescription pour atteindre de meilleurs résultats sur les plans de la santé du patient et des coûts de soins de santé.

Targeted Deprescribing in an Outpatient Hemodialysis Unit: A Quality Improvement Study to Decrease Polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy in hemodialysis patients can result in adverse patient outcomes. Deprescribing tools can reduce polypharmacy, yet no method exists for an outpatient hemodialysis population. DESIGN: Quality improvement study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 240 patients in a tertiary-care outpatient hemodialysis unit. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN: We aimed to: (1) develop a deprescribing tool for target medications with poor evidence for efficacy and safety, (2) determine its effectiveness in decreasing polypharmacy, and (3) monitor patient safety and satisfaction. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the proportion of target medications completely deprescribed after 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of target medications completely deprescribed after 6 months, average number of medications per patient before and after deprescription, and proportion of successful deprescriptions for each target medication. MEASUREMENTS: Number of medications deprescribed at 4 weeks and 6 months. Patient safety and satisfaction were monitored using drug-specific monitoring parameters. RESULTS: A deprescribing tool for specific medications was developed and implemented in the hemodialysis unit. 5 medication classes were selected: quinine, diuretics, α1-blockers, proton pump inhibitors, and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins). All 240 patients in the unit were screened using the deprescribing tool. There were 171 of 240 (71%) patients prescribed at least 1 of the 5 target medications, and after applying the tool, 35 of 40 (88%) eligible patients had the medications deprescribed. There were 31 of 40 (78%) target medications completely deprescribed. 6 months after the study, only 5 of 31 (16%) medications discontinued were represcribed. At the end of the study, 57% of patients were taking fewer medications than at baseline. No adverse events were observed. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study that relied on patient self-reporting of medication use and adherence to our recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing tools can be applied successfully in an outpatient hemodialysis unit to reduce polypharmacy while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction.

Systematic review of the risk of adverse outcomes associated with vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors for the treatment of cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic therapy targeted at vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is now used to treat several types of cancer. We did a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to summarize the adverse effects of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi), focusing on those with vascular pathogenesis. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library until April 19, 2012 to identify parallel RCTs comparing a VEGFi with a control among adults with any cancer. We pooled the risk of mortality, vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and thromboembolism), hypertension and new proteinuria using random-effects models and calculated unadjusted relative risk (RR). We also did meta-regression and assessed publication bias. We retrieved 83 comparisons from 72 studies (n = 38,078) on 11 different VEGFi from 7901 identified citations. The risk of mortality was significantly lower among VEGFi recipients than controls (pooled RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 0.98, I2 = 0%, tau2 = 0; risk difference 2%). Compared to controls, VEGFi recipients had significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.61 to 7.80, I2 = 0%, tau2 = 0), arterial thrombotic events (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.59, I2 = 0%, tau2 = 0); hypertension (RR 3.46, 95% CI 2.89 to 4.15, I2 = 58%, tau2 = 0.16), and new proteinuria (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.94, I2 = 87%, tau2 = 0.65). The absolute risk difference was 0.8% for MI, 1% for arterial thrombotic events, 15% for hypertension and 12% for new proteinuria. Meta-regression did not suggest any statistically significant modifiers of the association between VEGFi treatment and any of the vascular events. Limitations include heterogeneity across the trials. CONCLUSIONS: VEGFi increases the risk of MI, hypertension, arterial thromboembolism and proteinuria. The absolute magnitude of the excess risk appears clinically relevant, as the number needed to harm ranges from 7 to 125. These adverse events must be weighed against the lower mortality associated with VEGFi treatment.

Cost savings using a protocol approach to manage anemia in a hemodialysis unit.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend using anemia management protocols to guide treatment. The objective of this study was to determine if an anemia management protocol would improve hemoglobin (Hgb) indices in hemodialysis patients and to measure whether the protocol would reduce the use and cost of darbepoetin alfa (DBO) and intravenous (IV) iron in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: An anemia management protocol was created and implemented for hemodialysis patients at our institution. A retrospective observational review of the use of DBO and IV iron as well as changes in Hgb, transferrin saturation and ferritin in 174 patients was conducted 6 months before and after implementation of the anemia protocol. RESULTS: The number of Hgb measurements in the target range increased from 44.3 to 46.0% (p = 0.48) after protocol implementation. The mean weekly dose of DBO was reduced from 34.56 ± 31.12 to 31.11 ± 28.64 µg post-protocol implementation (p = 0.011), which translated to a cost savings of USD 41,649 over 6 months. The mean monthly IV iron dose also decreased from 139.56 ± 98.83 to 97.65 ± 79.05 mg (p < 0.005), a cost savings of USD 18,594 over the same time period. CONCLUSION: The use of an anemia management protocol resulted in the deprescribing of DBO and iron agents while increasing the number of patients in the target Hgb range, which led to significant cost savings in the treatment of anemia.