Global variations in funding and use of hemodialysis accesses: an international report using the ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of contemporary data describing global variations in vascular access for hemodialysis (HD). We used the third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) to highlight differences in funding and availability of hemodialysis accesses used for initiating HD across world regions. METHODS: Survey questions were directed at understanding the funding modules for obtaining vascular access and types of accesses used to initiate dialysis. An electronic survey was sent to national and regional key stakeholders affiliated with the ISN between June and September 2022. Countries that participated in the survey were categorized based on World Bank Income Classification (low-, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-income) and by their regional affiliation with the ISN. RESULTS: Data on types of vascular access were available from 160 countries. Respondents from 35 countries (22% of surveyed countries) reported that > 50% of patients started HD with an arteriovenous fistula or graft (AVF or AVG). These rates were higher in Western Europe (n = 14; 64%), North & East Asia (n = 4; 67%), and among high-income countries (n = 24; 38%). The rates of > 50% of patients starting HD with a tunneled dialysis catheter were highest in North America & Caribbean region (n = 7; 58%) and lowest in South Asia and Newly Independent States and Russia (n = 0 in both regions). Respondents from 50% (n = 9) of low-income countries reported that > 75% of patients started HD using a temporary catheter, with the highest rates in Africa (n = 30; 75%) and Latin America (n = 14; 67%). Funding for the creation of vascular access was often through public funding and free at the point of delivery in high-income countries (n = 42; 67% for AVF/AVG, n = 44; 70% for central venous catheters). In low-income countries, private and out of pocket funding was reported as being more common (n = 8; 40% for AVF/AVG, n = 5; 25% for central venous catheters). CONCLUSIONS: High income countries exhibit variation in the use of AVF/AVG and tunneled catheters. In low-income countries, there is a higher use of temporary dialysis catheters and private funding models for access creation.

Capacity for the management of kidney failure in the International Society of Nephrology Oceania and South East Asia (OSEA) region: report from the 2023 ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA).

The International Society of Nephrology (ISN) region of Oceania and South East Asia (OSEA) is a mix of high- and low-income countries, with diversity in population demographics and densities. Three iterations of the ISN-Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) have been conducted, aiming to deliver in-depth assessments of global kidney care across the spectrum from early detection of CKD to treatment of kidney failure. This paper reports the findings of the latest ISN-GKHA in relation to kidney-care capacity in the OSEA region. Among the 30 countries and territories in OSEA, 19 (63%) participated in the ISN-GKHA, representing over 97% of the region's population. The overall prevalence of treated kidney failure in the OSEA region was 1203 per million population (pmp), 45% higher than the global median of 823 pmp. In contrast, kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in the OSEA region was less available than the global median (chronic hemodialysis, 89% OSEA region vs. 98% globally; peritoneal dialysis, 72% vs. 79%; kidney transplantation, 61% vs. 70%). Only 56% of countries could provide access to dialysis to at least half of people with incident kidney failure, lower than the global median of 74% of countries with available dialysis services. Inequalities in access to KRT were present across the OSEA region, with widespread availability and low out-of-pocket costs in high-income countries and limited availability, often coupled with large out-of-pocket costs, in middle- and low-income countries. Workforce limitations were observed across the OSEA region, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Extensive collaborative work within the OSEA region and globally will help close the noted gaps in kidney-care provision.

Capacity for the management of kidney failure in the International Society of Nephrology Latin America region: report from the 2023 ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA).

Successful management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Latin America (LA) continues to represent a challenge due to high disease burden and geographic disparities and difficulties in terms of capacity, accessibility, equity, and quality of kidney failure care. Although LA has experienced significant social and economic progress over the past decades, there are still important inequities in health care access. Through this third iteration of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas, the indicators regarding kidney failure care in LA are updated. Survey responses were received from 22 of 31 (71%) countries in LA representing 96.5% of its total population. Median CKD prevalence was 10.2% (interquartile range: 8.4%-12.3%), median CKD disability-adjusted life year was 753.4 days (interquartile range: 581.3-1072.5 days), and median CKD mortality was 5.5% (interquartile range: 3.2%-6.3%). Regarding dialysis modality, hemodialysis continued to be the most used therapy, whereas peritoneal dialysis reached a plateau and kidney transplantation increased steadily over the past 10 years. In 20 (91%) countries, >50% of people with kidney failure could access dialysis, and in only 2 (9%) countries, people who had access to dialysis could initiate dialysis with peritoneal dialysis. A mix of public and private systems collectively funded most aspects of kidney replacement therapy (dialysis and transplantation) with many people incurring up to 50% of out-of-pocket costs. Few LA countries had CKD/kidney replacement therapy registries, and almost no acute kidney injury registries were reported. There was large variability in the nature and extent of kidney failure care in LA mainly related to countries' funding structures and limited surveillance and management initiatives.

An update on the global disparities in kidney disease burden and care across world countries and regions.

BACKGROUND: Since 2015, the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) has spearheaded multinational efforts to understand the status and capacity of countries to provide optimal kidney care, particularly in low-resource settings. In this iteration of the ISN-GKHA, we sought to extend previous findings by assessing availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability of medicines, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and conservative kidney management (CKM). METHODS: A consistent approach was used to obtain country-level data on kidney care capacity during three phases of data collection in 2016, 2018, and 2022. The current report includes a detailed literature review of published reports, databases, and registries to obtain information on the burden of chronic kidney disease and estimate the incidence and prevalence of treated kidney failure. Findings were triangulated with data from a multinational survey of opinion leaders based on the WHO's building blocks for health systems (ie, health financing, service delivery, access to essential medicines and health technology, health information systems, workforce, and governance). Country-level data were stratified by the ISN geographical regions and World Bank income groups and reported as counts and percentages, with global, regional, and income level estimates presented as medians with interquartile ranges. FINDINGS: The literature review used information on prevalence of chronic kidney disease from 161 countries. The global median prevalence of chronic kidney disease was 9·5% (IQR 5·9-11·7) with the highest prevalence in Eastern and Central Europe (12·8%, 11·9-14·1). For the survey analysis, responses received covered 167 (87%) of 191 countries, representing 97·4% (7·700 billion of 7·903 billion) of the world population. Chronic haemodialysis was available in 162 (98%) of 165 countries, chronic peritoneal dialysis in 130 (79%), and kidney transplantation in 116 (70%). However, 121 (74%) of 164 countries were able to provide KRT to more than 50% of people with kidney failure. Children did not have access to haemodialysis in 12 (19%) of 62 countries, peritoneal dialysis in three (6%) countries, or kidney transplantation in three (6%) countries. CKM (non-dialysis management of people with kidney failure chosen through shared decision making) was available in 87 (53%) of 165 countries. The annual median costs of KRT were: US$19 380 per person for haemodialysis, $18 959 for peritoneal dialysis, and $26 903 for the first year of kidney transplantation. Overall, 74 (45%) of 166 countries allocated public funding to provide free haemodialysis at the point of delivery; use of this funding scheme increased with country income level. The median global prevalence of nephrologists was 11·8 per million population (IQR 1·8-24·8) with an 80-fold difference between low-income and high-income countries. Differing degrees of health workforce shortages were reported across regions and country income levels. A quarter of countries had a national chronic kidney disease-specific strategy (41 [25%] of 162) and chronic kidney disease was recognised as a health priority in 78 (48%) of 162 countries. INTERPRETATION: This study provides new information about the global burden of kidney disease and its treatment. Countries in low-resource settings have substantially diminished capacity for kidney care delivery. These findings have major policy implications for achieving equitable access to kidney care. FUNDING: International Society of Nephrology.

Renal replacement anticoagulant management: Protocol and analysis plan for an observational comparative effectiveness study of linked data sources.

Acute kidney injury is common in critical illness. In patients with severe acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy is needed to prevent harm from metabolic and electrolyte disturbances and fluid overload. In the UK, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the preferred modality, which requires anticoagulation. Over the last decade, conventional systemic heparin anticoagulation has started being replaced by regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT, which is now used in approximately 50% of ICUs. This shift towards regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT is occurring with little evidence of safety or longer term effectiveness. Renal replacement anticoagulant management (RRAM) is an observational comparative effectiveness study, utilising existing data sources to address the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the change to regional citrate anticoagulation for CRRT in UK ICUs. The study will use data from approximately 85,000 patients who were treated in adult, general ICUs participating in the case mix programme national clinical audit between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2017. A survey of health service providers' anticoagulation practices will be combined with treatment and hospital outcome data from the case mix programme and linked with long-term outcomes from the Civil Registrations (deaths), Hospital Episodes Statistics for England, Patient Episodes Data for Wales, and the UK Renal Registry datasets. The primary clinical effectiveness outcome is all-cause mortality at 90-days. The study will incorporate an economic evaluation with micro-costing of both regional citrate anticoagulation and systemic heparin anticoagulation. Study registration: NCT03545750.

The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2-5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3-5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure. METHODS: This is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases - Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary - and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up). DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10997319 . Registered on 10 October 2017.

Heparin versus citrate anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy in intensive care: the RRAM observational study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, 10% of admissions to intensive care units receive continuous renal replacement therapy with regional citrate anticoagulation replacing systemic heparin anticoagulation over the last decade. Regional citrate anticoagulation is now used in > 50% of intensive care units, despite little evidence of safety or effectiveness. AIM: The aim of the Renal Replacement Anticoagulant Management study was to evaluate the clinical and health economic impacts of intensive care units moving from systemic heparin anticoagulation to regional citrate anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy. DESIGN: This was an observational comparative effectiveness study. SETTING: The setting was NHS adult general intensive care units in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults receiving continuous renal replacement therapy in an intensive care unit participating in the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme national clinical audit between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Exposure - continuous renal replacement therapy in an intensive care unit after completion of transition to regional citrate anticoagulation. Comparator - continuous renal replacement therapy in an intensive care unit before starting transition to regional citrate anticoagulation or had not transitioned. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary effectiveness - all-cause mortality at 90 days. Primary economic - incremental net monetary benefit at 1 year. Secondary outcomes - mortality at hospital discharge, 30 days and 1 year; days of renal, cardiovascular and advanced respiratory support in intensive care unit; length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital; bleeding and thromboembolic events; prevalence of end-stage renal disease at 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental net monetary benefit. DATA SOURCES: Individual patient data from the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme were linked with the UK Renal Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics (for England), Patient Episodes Data for Wales and Civil Registrations (Deaths) data sets, and combined with identified periods of systemic heparin anticoagulation and regional citrate anticoagulation (survey of intensive care units). Staff time and consumables were obtained from micro-costing. Continuous renal replacement therapy system failures were estimated from the Post-Intensive Care Risk-adjusted Alerting and Monitoring data set. EuroQol-3 Dimensions, three-level version, health-related quality of life was obtained from the Intensive Care Outcomes Network study. RESULTS: Out of the 188 (94.9%) units that responded to the survey, 182 (96.8%) use continuous renal replacement therapy. After linkage, data were available from 69,001 patients across 181 intensive care units (60,416 during periods of systemic heparin anticoagulation use and 8585 during regional citrate anticoagulation use). The change to regional citrate anticoagulation was not associated with a step change in 90-day mortality (odds ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.08). Secondary outcomes showed step increases in days of renal support (difference in means 0.53 days, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.79 days), advanced cardiovascular support (difference in means 0.23 days, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.38 days) and advanced respiratory support (difference in means, 0.53 days, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.03 days) with a trend toward fewer bleeding episodes (odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.06) with transition to regional citrate anticoagulation. The micro-costing study indicated that regional citrate anticoagulation was more expensive and was associated with an estimated incremental net monetary loss (step change) of -£2376 (95% confidence interval -£3841 to -£911). The estimated likelihood of cost-effectiveness at 1 year was less than 0.1%. LIMITATIONS: Lack of patient-level treatment data means that the results represent average effects of changing to regional citrate anticoagulation in intensive care units. Administrative data are subject to variation in data quality over time, which may contribute to observed trends. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of regional citrate anticoagulation has not improved outcomes for patients and is likely to have substantially increased costs. This study demonstrates the feasibility of evaluating effects of changes in practice using routinely collected data. FUTURE WORK: (1) Prioritise other changes in clinical practice for evaluation and (2) methodological research to understand potential implications of trends in data quality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03545750. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Acute kidney injury, which prevents kidneys from working properly, is common in critically ill patients being treated in an intensive care unit. Patients with acute kidney injury are treated with a machine that takes over kidney functions, a process called continuous renal replacement therapy. Traditionally, as part of continuous renal replacement therapy, heparin (an anticoagulant that stops the blood from clotting) is added to the blood as it enters the continuous renal replacement therapy machine. Recently, citrate anticoagulation (an alternative to heparin) has been increasingly used in intensive care units in the UK. However, the increased use of citrate is happening without evidence that this is better for patients and cost-effective for the NHS. We aimed to find out whether or not changing to citrate anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy is more beneficial than heparin anticoagulation for patients with acute kidney injury treated in an intensive care unit. We also looked at whether or not changing to citrate is cost-effective for the NHS. We used routinely collected data from the Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre Case Mix Programme national clinical audit to identify 69,001 patients who received continuous renal replacement therapy in an intensive care unit in England or Wales between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2017. To get a more comprehensive view of the long-term effects of changing to citrate, we 'linked' data from the 69,001 patients together with other routinely collected data sets to get information on their hospital admissions, longer-term kidney problems and survival after leaving the intensive care unit. We combined this information with a survey of anticoagulant use in intensive care units in England and Wales to compare patients who received continuous renal replacement therapy with heparin and citrate. We found that the change to citrate was not associated with a significant change in the death rate at 90 days, but that it was more expensive for hospitals. Our findings suggest that the change to citrate-based anticoagulation may have been premature and should cause clinicians in intensive care units that are still using systemic heparin anticoagulation to pause before making this change.

Development of an intervention to improve access to living-donor kidney transplantation (the ASK study).

A living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is one of the best treatments for kidney failure. The UK's LDKT activity falls behind that of many other countries, and there is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access. We aimed to develop a UK-specific multicomponent intervention to support eligible individuals to access a LDKT. The intervention was designed to support those who are socioeconomically-deprived and currently disadvantaged, by targeting mediators of inequity identified in earlier work. We identified three existing interventions in the literature which target these mediators: a) the Norway model (healthcare practitioners contact patients' family with information about kidney donation), b) a home education model, and c) a Transplant candidate advocate model. We undertook intervention development using the Person-Based Approach (PBA). We performed in-depth qualitative interviews with people with advanced kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4), and renal and transplant healthcare practitioners (n = 15), analysed using thematic analysis. We investigated participant views on each proposed intervention component. We drafted intervention resources and revised these in light of comments from qualitative 'think-aloud' interviews. Four general themes were identified: i) Perceived cultural and societal norms; ii) Influence of family on decision-making; iii) Resource limitation, and iv) Evidence of effectiveness. For each intervention discussed, we identified three themes: for the Norway model: i) Overcoming communication barriers and assumptions; ii) Request from an official third party, and iii) Risk of coercion; for the home education model: i) Intragroup dynamics; ii) Avoidance of hospital, and iii) Burdens on participants; and for the transplant candidate advocates model: i) Vested interest of advocates; ii) Time commitment, and iii) Risk of misinformation. We used these results to develop a multicomponent intervention which comprises components from existing interventions that have been adapted to increase acceptability and engagement in a UK population. This will be evaluated in a future randomised controlled trial.

Hemodialysis Use and Practice Patterns: An International Survey Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Hemodialysis (HD) is the most common form of kidney replacement therapy. This study aimed to examine the use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care worldwide. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders (clinicians, policy makers, and consumer representatives) in 182 countries were convened by the International Society of Nephrology from July to September 2018. OUTCOMES: Use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, representatives from 160 (88%) countries participated. Median country-specific use of maintenance HD was 298.4 (IQR, 80.5-599.4) per million population (pmp). Global median HD use among incident patients with kidney failure was 98.0 (IQR, 81.5-140.8) pmp and median number of HD centers was 4.5 (IQR, 1.2-9.9) pmp. Adequate HD services (3-4 hours 3 times weekly) were generally available in 27% of low-income countries. Home HD was generally available in 36% of high-income countries. 32% of countries performed monitoring of patient-reported outcomes; 61%, monitoring of small-solute clearance; 60%, monitoring of bone mineral markers; 51%, monitoring of technique survival; and 60%, monitoring of patient survival. At initiation of maintenance dialysis, only 5% of countries used an arteriovenous access in almost all patients. Vascular access education was suboptimal, funding for vascular access procedures was not uniform, and copayments were greater in countries with lower levels of income. Patients in 23% of the low-income countries had to pay >75% of HD costs compared with patients in only 4% of high-income countries. LIMITATIONS: A cross-sectional survey with possibility of response bias, social desirability bias, and limited data collection preventing in-depth analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, findings reveal substantial variations in global HD use, availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability worldwide, with the lowest use evident in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Peritoneal Dialysis Use and Practice Patterns: An International Survey Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Approximately 11% of people with kidney failure worldwide are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study examined PD use and practice patterns across the globe. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders including clinicians, policy makers, and patient representatives in 182 countries convened by the International Society of Nephrology between July and September 2018. OUTCOMES: PD use, availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were received from 88% (n=160) of countries and there were 313 participants (257 nephrologists [82%], 22 non-nephrologist physicians [7%], 6 other health professionals [2%], 17 administrators/policy makers/civil servants [5%], and 11 others [4%]). 85% (n=156) of countries responded to questions about PD. Median PD use was 38.1 per million population. PD was not available in 30 of the 156 (19%) countries responding to PD-related questions, particularly in countries in Africa (20/41) and low-income countries (15/22). In 69% of countries, PD was the initial dialysis modality for≤10% of patients with newly diagnosed kidney failure. Patients receiving PD were expected to pay 1% to 25% of treatment costs, and higher (>75%) copayments (out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients) were more common in South Asia and low-income countries. Average exchange volumes were adequate (defined as 3-4 exchanges per day or the equivalent for automated PD) in 72% of countries. PD quality outcome monitoring and reporting were variable. Most countries did not measure patient-reported PD outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Low responses from policy makers; limited ability to provide more in-depth explanations underpinning outcomes from each country due to lack of granular data; lack of objective data. CONCLUSIONS: Large inter- and intraregional disparities exist in PD availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures around the world, with the greatest gaps observed in Africa and South Asia.

Availability, Accessibility, and Quality of Conservative Kidney Management Worldwide.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People with kidney failure typically receive KRT in the form of dialysis or transplantation. However, studies have suggested that not all patients with kidney failure are best suited for KRT. Additionally, KRT is costly and not always accessible in resource-restricted settings. Conservative kidney management is an alternate kidney failure therapy that focuses on symptom management, psychologic health, spiritual care, and family and social support. Despite the importance of conservative kidney management in kidney failure care, several barriers exist that affect its uptake and quality. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The Global Kidney Health Atlas is an ongoing initiative of the International Society of Nephrology that aims to monitor and evaluate the status of global kidney care worldwide. This study reports on findings from the 2018 Global Kidney Health Atlas survey, specifically addressing the availability, accessibility, and quality of conservative kidney management. RESULTS: Respondents from 160 countries completed the survey, and 154 answered questions pertaining to conservative kidney management. Of these, 124 (81%) stated that conservative kidney management was available. Accessibility was low worldwide, particularly in low-income countries. Less than half of countries utilized multidisciplinary teams (46%); utilized shared decision making (32%); or provided psychologic, cultural, or spiritual support (36%). One-quarter provided relevant health care providers with training on conservative kidney management delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, conservative kidney management is available in most countries; however, it is not optimally accessible or of the highest quality.

Mediators of Socioeconomic Inequity in Living-donor Kidney Transplantation: Results From a UK Multicenter Case-Control Study.

There is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplantation, but limited evidence as to why. We investigated possible mediators of the inequity. METHODS: This questionnaire-based case-control study included 14 UK hospitals. Participants were adults transplanted between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017. Living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (cases) were compared with deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients (controls). We collected data on mediators identified in earlier qualitative work: perceived social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12), patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13), and LDKT knowledge (Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test). We performed mediation analyses to investigate what proportion of the effect of socioeconomic position (education and income) on case-control status was mediated by these variables. RESULTS: One thousand two-hundred and forty questionnaires were returned (40% response). Receipt of an LDKT over a deceased-donor kidney transplant was associated with higher socioeconomic position [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) university degree versus no degree aOR = 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.84), P = 0.001 and aOR per +£1000 increase in monthly household income after tax 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.17), P < 0.001] higher perceived social support (aOR per +1-point Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12 score = 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08), P < 0.001), higher levels of patient activation (aOR per +1 patient activation measure level = 1.35 (95% CI, 1.24-1.48), P < 0.001), and greater LDKT knowledge (aOR per + 1-point Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test score = 1.59 (95% CI, 1.49-1.69), P < 0.001). Mediation analyses revealed that perceived social support, patient activation, and LDKT knowledge together mediate 48.5% (95% CI, 12.7-84.3, P = 0.008) of the association between university education and LDKT status, and 46.0% (95% CI, 28.7-63.4, P < 0.001) of the association between income and LDKT status. CONCLUSIONS: LDKT knowledge, perceived social support, and patient activation are associated with the socioeconomic position of people with kidney disease, and mediate approximately 50% of the association between the socioeconomic position and receipt of an LDKT. Interventions that target these factors may redress observed socioeconomic inequity.

Increasing access to integrated ESKD care as part of universal health coverage.

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle-income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.

Associations with Wellbeing and Medication Adherence in Young Adults Receiving Kidney Replacement Therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Young adults receiving kidney replacement therapy (KRT) have impaired quality of life and may exhibit low medication adherence. We tested the hypothesis that wellbeing and medication adherence are associated with psychosocial factors. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey for young adults on KRT. Additional clinical information was obtained from the UK Renal Registry. We compared outcomes by treatment modality using age- and sex-adjusted regression models, having applied survey weights to account for response bias by sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. We used multivariable linear regression to examine psychosocial associations with scores on the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and the eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. RESULTS: We recruited 976 young adults and 64% responded to the survey; 417 (71%) with transplants and 173 (29%) on dialysis. Wellbeing was positively associated with extraversion, openness, independence, and social support, and negatively associated with neuroticism, negative body image, stigma, psychologic morbidity, and dialysis. Higher medication adherence was associated with living with parents, conscientiousness, physician access satisfaction, patient activation, age, and male sex, and lower adherence was associated with comorbidity, dialysis, education, ethnicity, and psychologic morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Wellbeing and medication adherence were both associated with psychologic morbidity in young adults. Dialysis treatment is associated with poorer wellbeing and medication adherence.

Prevalence and Risk of Protein-Energy Wasting Assessed by Subjective Global Assessment in Older Adults With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease: Results From the EQUAL Study.

OBJECTIVES: Prevalence and risk factors for protein-energy wasting (PEW) are poorly studied in the nondialysis, older population with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). Our aim was to evaluate the prevalence of PEW in advanced stage CKD patients aged greater than 65 years. Furthermore, we aimed to describe risk factors for PEW in the overall study population and among obese individuals. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: The EQUAL study, a European Quality Study on treatment in advanced chronic kidney disease, is a multicenter prospective observational cohort study in six European countries. We included patients aged ≥65 years with incident glomerular filtration rate <20mL/min/1.73m2 not on dialysis attending nephrology care. PEW was assessed by 7-point Subjective Global Assessment (7-p SGA). RESULTS: In general, the study cohort (n = 1,334) was overweight (mean body mass index [BMI] 28.4 kg/m2). The majority of the patients had a normal nutritional status (SGA 6-7), 26% had moderate PEW (SGA 3-5), and less than 1% had severe PEW (SGA 1-2). Muscle wasting and loss of fat tissue were the most frequent alterations according to the SGA subscales, especially in those aged >80 years. The prevalence of PEW was higher among women, increased with age, and was higher in those with depression/dementia. PEW was the most common in those with underweight (BMI <22 kg/m2), 55% or normal weight (BMI 22-25 kg/m2), 40%. In obese individuals (BMI >30 kg/m2), 25% were diagnosed with protein wasting. Risk factors for SGA ≤5 in obese people were similar to those for the overall study population. CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study shows that the prevalence of PEW is high in patients with advanced CKD aged >65 years. The risk of PEW increases substantially with age and is commonly characterized by muscle wasting. Our study suggests that focus on nutrition should start early in the follow-up of older adults with CKD.

Access to kidney transplantation in European adults aged 75-84 years and related outcomes: an analysis of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry.

To what extent access to, and allocation of kidney transplants and survival outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years have changed over time in Europe is unclear. We included patients aged ≥75-84 years (termed older adults) receiving renal replacement therapy in thirteen European countries between 2005 and 2014. Country differences and time trends in access to, and allocation of kidney transplants were examined. Survival outcomes were determined by Cox regression analyses. Between 2005 and 2014, 1392 older adult patients received 1406 transplants. Access to kidney transplantation varied from ~0% (Slovenia, Greece and Denmark) to ~4% (Norway and various Spanish regions) of all older adult dialysis patients, and overall increased from 0.3% (2005) to 0.9% (2014). Allocation of kidney transplants to older adults overall increased from 0.8% (2005) to 3.2% (2014). Seven-year unadjusted patient and graft survival probabilities were 49.1% (95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 43.6; 54.4) and 41.7% (95% CI: 36.5; 46.8), respectively, with a temporal trend towards improved survival outcomes. In conclusion, in the European dialysis population aged ≥75-84 years access to kidney transplantation is low, and allocation of kidney transplants remains a rare event. Though both are increasing with time and vary considerably between countries. The trend towards improved survival outcomes is encouraging. This information can aid informed decision-making regarding treatment options.

The clinical epidemiology of young adults starting renal replacement therapy in the UK: presentation, management and survival using 15 years of UK Renal Registry data.

Background: Clinical epidemiology data for young adults on renal replacement therapy (RRT) are lacking. While mostly transplanted, they have an increased risk of graft loss during young adulthood. Methods: We combined the UK Renal Registry paediatric and adult databases to describe patient characteristics, transplantation and survival for young adults. We grouped patients 11-30 years of age starting RRT from 1999 to 2008 by age band and examined their course during 5 years of follow-up. Results: The cohort (n = 3370) was 58% male, 79% white and 29% had glomerulonephritis. Half (52%) started RRT on haemodialysis (HD). Most (78%) were transplanted (18% pre-emptive, 61% as second modality); 11% were not listed for transplant. Transplant timing varied by age group. The deceased:living donor kidney transplant ratio was 2:1 for 11-<16 year olds and 1:1 otherwise. Median deceased donor transplant waiting times ranged from 6 months if <16 years of age to 17 months if ≥21 years. Overall 8% died, with being on dialysis and not transplant listed versus transplanted {hazard ratio [HR] 16.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.8-25.4], P < 0.0001} and diabetes versus glomerulonephritis [HR 4.03 (95% CI 2.71-6.01), P < 0.0001] increasing mortality risk. Conclusions: This study highlights the frequent use of HD and the importance of transplant listing and diabetes for young adults. More than half the young adults in our cohort started renal replacement therapy on HD. One in 10 young adults were not listed for transplant by 5 years and were ∼20 times more likely to die than those who were transplanted. Diabetes as a primary renal disease was common among young adults and associated with increased mortality. Overall, almost 1 in 10 young adults had died by 5 years from the start of RRT.

Rationale and design of BISTRO: a randomized controlled trial to determine whether bioimpedance spectroscopy-guided fluid management maintains residual kidney function in incident haemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Preserved residual kidney function (RKF) and normal fluid status are associated with better patient outcomes in incident haemodialysis patients. The objective of this trial is to determine whether using bioimpedance technology in prescribing the optimal post-dialysis weight can reduce the rate of decline of RKF and potentially improve patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: 516 pateints commencing haemodialysis, aged >18 with RKF of > 3 ml/min/1.73 m2 or a urine volume >500 ml per day or per the shorter inter-dialytic period will be consented and enrolled into a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial. The intervention is incorporation of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BI) determination of normally hydrated weight to set a post-dialysis target weight that limits volume depletion, compared to current standard practice. Clinicians and participants will be blinded to BI measures in the control group and a standardized record capturing management of fluid status will be used in all participants. Primary outcome is preservation of residual kidney function assessed as time to anuria (≤100 ml/day or ≤200 ml urine volume in the short inter-dialytic period). A sample size of 516 was based upon a cumulative incidence of 30% anuria in the control group and 20% in the treatment group and 11% competing risks (death, transplantation) over 10 months, with up to 2 years follow-up. Secondary outcomes include rate of decline in small solute clearance, significant adverse events, hospitalization, loss of vascular access, cardiovascular events and interventions, dialysis efficacy and safety, dialysis-related symptoms and quality of life. Economic evaluation will be carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Analyses will be adjusted for patient characteristics and dialysis unit practice patterns relevant to fluid management. DISCUSSION: This trial will establish the added value of undertaking BI measures to support clinical management of fluid status and establish the relationship between fluid status and preservation of residual kidney function in incident haemodialysis patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCCTN Number: 11342007 , completed 26/04/2016; NIHR Portfolio number: CPMS31766; Sponsor: Keele University.