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.

Quality of life in patients on chronic dialysis in South Africa: a comparative mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of treated end-stage renal disease and low transplant rates in Africa leads to longer durations on dialysis. Dialysis should not only be aimed at prolonging lives but also improve quality of life (QOL). Using mixed methods, we investigated the QOL of patients on chronic haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study at Tygerberg Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. All the PD patients were being treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. The KDQOL-SF 1.3 questionnaire was used for the quantitative phase of the study. Thereafter, focus-group interviews were conducted by an experienced facilitator in groups of HD and PD patients. Electronic recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed manually to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients completed questionnaires and 36 of them participated in the focus group interviews. There was no difference between PD and HD patients in the overall KDQOL-SF scores. PD patients scored lower with regard to symptoms (P = 0.005), energy/fatigue (P = 0.025) and sleep (P = 0.023) but scored higher for work status (P = 0.005) and dialysis staff encouragement (P = 0.019) than those on HD. Symptoms and complications were verbalised more in the PD patients, with fear of peritonitis keeping some housebound. PD patients were more limited by their treatment modality which impacted on body image, sexual function and social interaction but there were less dietary and occupational limitations. Patients on each modality acknowledged the support received from family and dialysis staff but highlighted the lack of support from government. PD patients had little opportunity for interaction with one another and therefore enjoyed less support from fellow patients. CONCLUSIONS: PD patients experienced a heavier symptom burden and greater limitations related to their dialysis modality, especially with regards to social functioning. The mixed-methods approach helped to identify several issues affecting quality of life which are amenable to intervention.