Improving treatment decisions using personalized risk assessment from the International IgA Nephropathy Prediction Tool.

Immunosuppression in IgA nephropathy (IgAN) should be reserved for patients at high-risk of disease progression, which KDIGO guidelines determine based solely on proteinuria 1g or more/day. To investigate if treatment decisions can be more accurately accomplished using individualized risk from the International IgAN Prediction Tool, we simulated allocation of a hypothetical immunosuppression therapy in an international cohort of adults with IgAN. Two decision rules for treatment were applied based on proteinuria of 1g or more/day or predicted risk from the Prediction Tool above a threshold probability. An appropriate decision was defined as immunosuppression allocated to patients experiencing the primary outcome (50% decline in eGFR or ESKD) and withheld otherwise. The net benefit and net reduction in treatment are the proportion of patients appropriately allocated to receive or withhold immunosuppression, adjusted for the harm from inappropriate decisions, calculated for all threshold probabilities from 0-100%. Of 3299 patients followed for 5.1 years, 522 (15.8%) experienced the primary outcome. Treatment allocation based solely on proteinuria of 1g or more/day had a negative net benefit (was harmful) because immunosuppression was increasingly allocated to patients without progressive disease. Compared to using proteinuria, treatment allocation using the Prediction Tool had a larger net benefit up to 23.4% (95% confidence interval 21.5-25.2%) and a larger net reduction in treatment up to 35.1% (32.3-37.8%). Thus, allocation of immunosuppression to high-risk patients with IgAN can be substantially improved using the Prediction Tool compared to using proteinuria.

Considerations on equity in management of end-stage kidney disease in low- and middle-income countries.

Achievement of equity in health requires development of a health system in which everyone has a fair opportunity to attain their full health potential. The current, large country-level variation in the reported incidence and prevalence of treated end-stage kidney disease indicates the existence of system-level inequities. Equitable implementation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) programs must address issues of availability, affordability, and acceptability. The major structural factors that impact equity in KRT in different countries are the organization of health systems, overall health care spending, funding and delivery models, and nature of KRT prioritization (transplantation, hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, and conservative care). Implementation of KRT programs has the potential to exacerbate inequity unless equity is deliberately addressed. In this review, we summarize discussions on equitable provision of KRT in low- and middle-income countries and suggest areas for future research.

Cardiovascular risk assessment beyond Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation: a role for organ damage markers.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk assessment in the clinical practice is mostly based on risk charts, such as Framingham risk score and Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation (SCORE). These enable clinicians to estimate the impact of cardiovascular risk factors and assess individual cardiovascular risk profile. Risk charts, however, do not take into account subclinical organ damage, which exerts independent influence on risk and may amplify the estimated risk profile. Inclusion of organ damage markers in the assessment may thus contribute to improve this process. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the influence of implementation of SCORE charts with widely available indexes of organ damage, with the purpose to ameliorate individual risk assessment. METHODOLOGY: We searched www.Pubmed.gov for evidence about the predictive value of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), microalbuminuria (MAU) and metabolic syndrome on different risk profiles estimated by SCORE. Interventional and observational trials including at least 200 patients and published after 2000 were selected. RESULTS: The presence of organ damage as well as the number of abnormal parameters indicating organ damage is associated with increased cardiovascular risk, independently of SCORE. In the area of high risk, the impact of different markers of organ damage is heterogeneous. Combined risk models of SCORE and subclinical organ damage have major impact on risk stratification and may impact on recommendation in primary prevention in all SCORE categories. CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests a tangible clinical advantage of adding the evaluation of simple organ damage markers to risk charts in cardiovascular risk prediction.