Primary and secondary care service use and costs associated with frailty in an ageing population: longitudinal analysis of an English primary care cohort of adults aged 50 and over, 2006-2017.

BACKGROUND: Frailty becomes more prevalent and healthcare needs increase with age. Information on the impact of frailty on population level use of health services and associated costs is needed to plan for ageing populations. AIM: To describe primary and secondary care service use and associated costs by electronic Frailty Index (eFI) category. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort using electronic health records. Participants aged ≥50 registered in primary care practices contributing to the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre, 2006-2017. METHODS: Primary and secondary care use (totals and means) were stratified by eFI category and age group. Standardised 2017 costs were used to calculate primary, secondary and overall costs. Generalised linear models explored associations between frailty, sociodemographic characteristics. Adjusted mean costs and cost ratios were produced. RESULTS: Individual mean annual use of primary and secondary care services increased with increasing frailty severity. Overall cohort care costs for were highest in mild frailty in all 12 years, followed by moderate and severe, although the proportion of the population with severe frailty can be expected to increase over time. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, compared to the fit category, individual annual costs doubled in mild frailty, tripled in moderate and quadrupled in severe. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing levels of frailty are associated with an additional burden of individual service use. However, individuals with mild and moderate frailty contribute to higher overall costs. Earlier intervention may have the most potential to reduce service use and costs at population level.

Change in treatment burden among people with multimorbidity: Protocol of a follow up survey and development of efficient measurement tools for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Treatment burden is the effort required of patients to look after their health and the impact this has on their functioning and wellbeing. It is likely treatment burden changes over time as circumstances change for patients and health services. However, there are a lack of population-level studies of treatment burden change and factors associated with this change over time. Furthermore, there are currently no practical screening tools for treatment burden in time-pressured clinical settings or at population level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a three-year follow-up of a cross-sectional survey of 723 people with multimorbidity (defined as three or more long-term conditions; LTCs) registered at GP practices in in Dorset, England. The survey will repeat collection of information on treatment burden (using the 10-item Multimorbidity Treatment Burden Questionnaire (MTBQ) and a novel single-item screening tool), sociodemographics, medications, LTCs, health literacy and financial resource, as at baseline. Descriptive statistics will be used to compare change in treatment burden since the baseline survey in 2019 and associations of treatment burden change will be assessed using regression methods. Diagnostic test accuracy metrics will be used to evaluate the single-item treatment burden screening tool using the MTBQ as the gold-standard. Routine primary care data (including demographics, medications, LTCs, and healthcare usage data) will be extracted from medical records for consenting participants. A forward-stepwise, likelihood-ratio logistic regression model building approach will be employed in order to assess the utility of routine data metrics in quantifying treatment burden in comparison to self-reported treatment burden using the MTBQ. IMPACT: To the authors' knowledge, this will be the first study investigating longitudinal aspects of treatment burden. Findings will improve understanding of the extent to which treatment burden changes over time for people with multimorbidity and factors contributing to this change, as well as allowing better identification of people at risk of high treatment burden.

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.

Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.

The association of socioeconomic status with incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Socioeconomic status may be negatively associated with AKI as some risk factors for AKI such as chronic kidney disease, diabetes and heart failure are socially distributed. This study explored the socioeconomic gradient of the incidence and mortality of AKI, after adjusting for important mediators such as comorbidities. METHODS: Linked primary care and laboratory data from two large acute hospitals in the south of England, sourced from the Care and Health Information Analytics database, were used to identify AKI cases over a 1-year period (2017-18) from a population of 580 940 adults. AKI was diagnosed from serum creatinine patterns using a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes-based definition. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities and prescribed medication (in incidence analyses) and AKI severity (in mortality analyses), were used to assess the association of area deprivation (using Index of Multiple Deprivation for place of residence) with AKI risk and all-cause mortality over a median (interquartile range) of 234 days (119-356). RESULTS: Annual incidence rate of first AKI was 1726/100 000 (1.7%). The risk of AKI was higher in the most deprived compared with the least deprived areas [adjusted odds ratio = 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-2.01 and 1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.72 for <65 and >65 year old, respectively] after controlling for age, sex, comorbidities and prescribed medication. Adjusted risk of mortality post first AKI was higher in the most deprived areas (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Social deprivation was associated with higher incidence of AKI and poorer survival even after adjusting for the higher presence of comorbidities. Such social inequity should be considered when devising strategies to prevent AKI and improve care for AKI patients.

The clinical utility and cost impact of cystatin C measurement in the diagnosis and management of chronic kidney disease: A primary care cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To reduce over-diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) resulting from the inaccuracy of creatinine-based estimates of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), UK and international guidelines recommend that cystatin-C-based estimates of GFR be used to confirm or exclude the diagnosis in people with GFR 45-59 ml/min/1.73 m2 and no albuminuria (CKD G3aA1). Whilst there is good evidence for cystatin C being a marker of GFR and risk in people with CKD, its use to define CKD in this manner has not been evaluated in primary care, the setting in which most people with GFR in this range are managed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 1,741 people with CKD G3a or G3b defined by 2 estimated GFR (eGFR) values more than 90 days apart were recruited to the Renal Risk in Derby study between June 2008 and March 2010. Using Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, we compared GFR estimated from creatinine (eGFRcreat), cystatin C (eGFRcys), and both (eGFRcreat-cys) at baseline and over 5 years of follow-up. We analysed the proportion of participants with CKD G3aA1 reclassified to 'no CKD' or more advanced CKD with the latter two equations. We further assessed the impact of using cystatin-C-based eGFR in risk prediction equations for CKD progression and all-cause mortality and investigated non-GFR determinants of eGFRcys. Finally, we estimated the cost implications of implementing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance to use eGFRcys to confirm the diagnosis in people classified as CKD G3aA1 by eGFRcreat. Mean eGFRcys was significantly lower than mean eGFRcreat (45.1 ml/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 44.4 to 45.9, versus 53.6 ml/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 53.0 to 54.1, P < 0.001). eGFRcys reclassified 7.7% (50 of 653) of those with CKD G3aA1 by eGFRcreat to eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. However, a much greater proportion (59.0%, 385 of 653) were classified to an eGFR category indicating more severe CKD. A similar pattern was seen using eGFRcreat-cys, but lower proportions were reclassified. Change in eGFRcreat and eGFRcys over 5 years were weakly correlated (r = 0.33, P < 0.001), but eGFRcys identified more people as having CKD progression (18.2% versus 10.5%). Multivariable analysis using eGFRcreat as an independent variable identified age, smoking status, body mass index, haemoglobin, serum uric acid, serum albumin, albuminuria, and C reactive protein as non-GFR determinants of eGFRcys. Use of eGFRcys or eGFRcreat-cys did not improve discrimination in risk prediction models for CKD progression and all-cause mortality compared to similar models with eGFRcreat. Application of the NICE guidance, which assumed cost savings, to participants with CKD G3aA1 increased the cost of monitoring by £23 per patient, which if extrapolated to be applied throughout England would increase the cost of testing and monitoring CKD by approximately £31 million per year. Limitations of this study include the lack of a measured GFR and the potential lack of ethnic diversity in the study cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of current guidelines on eGFRcys testing in our study population of older people in primary care resulted in only a small reduction in diagnosed CKD but classified a greater proportion as having more advanced CKD than eGFRcreat. Use of eGFRcys did not improve risk prediction in this population and was associated with increased cost. Our data therefore do not support implementation of these recommendations in primary care. Further studies are warranted to define the most appropriate clinical application of eGFRcys and eGFRcreat-cys.

The ascending rank of chronic kidney disease in the global burden of disease study.

General population-based studies, the chronic kidney disease (CKD) prognosis consortium and renal registries worldwide have contributed to the description of the scale of CKD as a public health problem. Since 1990, CKD has been included in the list of non-communicable diseases investigated by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study. The GBD represents a systematic, high-quality, scientific effort to quantify the comparative magnitude of health loss from all major diseases, injuries and risk factors. This article provides an outline of the place of CKD in the ranking of these diseases and the change over time. Whereas age-standardized death and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) rates due to non-communicable diseases in general have been declining, such favourable trends do not exist for CKD. Altogether the GBD reports indicate increasing rates for death and DALYs due to CKD with huge variation across the globe. A substantial component of the observed increase in mortality attributable to CKD relates to that caused by diabetes mellitus and hypertension. For the increase in DALYs, CKD due to diabetes mellitus appears to be the main contributor. It is possible that these trends are in part due to new data becoming available or different coding behaviour over time, including greater specificity of coding. Although some feel there is evidence of overdiagnosis, it seems clear that in many regions CKD and its risk factors are a growing public health problem and in some of them rank very high as cause of years of life lost and DALYs. Therefore, public health policies to address this problem as well as secondary prevention in high-risk groups remain greatly needed.

Assessment of proteinuria in patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3: albuminuria and non-albumin proteinuria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Proteinuria assessment is key in investigating chronic kidney disease (CKD) but uncertainty exists regarding optimal methods. Albuminuria, reflecting glomerular damage, is usually measured, but non-albumin proteinuria (NAP), reflecting tubular damage, may be important. This study investigated the prevalence and associations of albuminuria and NAP, and the optimum number of urine specimens required. METHODS: 1,741 patients with CKD stage 3, recruited from primary care, underwent medical history, clinical assessment, blood sampling, and submitted three early morning urine samples for albumin to creatinine ratio (uACR) and protein to creatinine ratios (uPCR). Albuminuria was defined as uACR ≥ 3 mg/mmol in at least two of three samples. Isolated NAP was defined as uPCR ≥ 17 mg/mmol in two of three samples and uACR <3 mg/mmol in all three. Prevalence and associations of albuminuria and NAP, degree of agreement between single uACR and average of three uACRs, and urine albumin to protein ratio (uAPR  =  uACR/uPCR) were identified. RESULTS: Albuminuria prevalence was 16% and NAP 6%. Using a <1 mg/mmol threshold for uACR reduced NAP prevalence to 3.6%. Independent associations of albuminuria were: males (OR 3.06 (95% CI, 2.23-4.19)), diabetes (OR 2.14 (1.53-3.00)), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate ((OR 2.06 (1.48-2.85) 30-44 vs 45-59), and high sensitivity CRP ((OR 1.70 (1.25-2.32)). NAP was independently associated with females (OR 6.79 (3.48-13.26)), age (OR 1.62 (1.02-2.56) 80 s vs 70-79) and high sensitivity CRP ((OR 1.74 (1.14-2.66)). Of those with uPCR ≥ 17 mg/mmol, 62% had uAPR<0.4. Sensitivity of single uACR was 95%, specificity 98%, PPV 90%. Bland Altman plot one vs average of three uACRs showed: mean difference 0.0064 mg/mmol (SD 4.69, limits of agreement -9.19 to +9.20, absolute mean difference 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: In CKD stage 3, albuminuria has associations distinct from those of isolated NAP (except for inflammatory markers). Single uACR categorised albuminuria but average of three performed better for quantification.

Chronic kidney disease, albuminuria and socioeconomic status in the Health Surveys for England 2009 and 2010.

BACKGROUND: Renal replacement therapy rates are inversely related to socioeconomic status (SES) in developed countries. The relationship between chronic kidney disease (CKD) and SES is less clear. This study examined the relationships between SES and CKD and albuminuria in England. METHODS: Data from the Health Survey for England 2009 and 2010 were combined. The prevalence of CKD 3-5 and albuminuria was calculated, and logistic regression used to determine their association with five individual-level measures and one area-level measure of SES. RESULTS: The prevalence of CKD 3-5 was 5.2% and albuminuria 8.0%. Age-sex-adjusted CKD 3-5 was associated with lack of qualifications [odds ratio (OR) 2.27 (95% confidence interval 1.40-3.69)], low income [OR 1.50 (1.02-2.21)] and renting tenure [OR 1.36 (1.01-1.84)]. Only tenure remained significant in fully adjusted models suggesting that co-variables were on the causal pathway. Albuminuria remained associated with several SES measures on full adjustment: low income [OR 1.55 (1.14-2.11)], no vehicle [OR 1.38 (1.05-1.81)], renting [OR 1.31 [1.03-1.67)] and most deprived area-level quintile [OR 1.55 (1.07-2.25)]. CONCLUSIONS: CKD 3-5 and albuminuria were associated with low SES using several measures. For albuminuria this was not explained by known measured causal factors.

Suboptimal blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease stage 3: baseline data from a cohort study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Poorly controlled hypertension is independently associated with mortality, cardiovascular risk and disease progression in chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the UK, CKD stage 3 is principally managed in primary care, including blood pressure (BP) management. Controlling BP is key to improving outcomes in CKD. This study aimed to investigate associations of BP control in people with CKD stage 3. METHODS: 1,741 patients with CKD 3 recruited from 32 general practices for the Renal Risk in Derby Study underwent medical history, clinical assessment and biochemistry testing. BP control was assessed by three standards: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI) and Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare characteristics of people achieving and not achieving BP control. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with BP control. RESULTS: The prevalence of hypertension was 88%. Among people with hypertension, 829/1426 (58.1%) achieved NICE BP targets, 512/1426 (35.9%) KDOQI targets and 859/1426 (60.2%) KDIGO targets. Smaller proportions of people with diabetes and/or albuminuria achieved hypertension targets. 615/1426 (43.1%) were only taking one antihypertensive agent. On multivariable analysis, BP control (NICE and KDIGO) was negatively associated with age (NICE odds ratio (OR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.17-0.43) 70-79 compared to <60), diabetes (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.25-0.43)), and albuminuria (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42-0.74)). For the KDOQI target, there was also association with males (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.96)) but not diabetes (target not diabetes specific). Older people were less likely to achieve systolic targets (NICE target OR 0.17 (95% CI 0.09,0.32) p < 0.001) and more likely to achieve diastolic targets (OR 2.35 (95% CI 1.11,4.96) p < 0.001) for people >80 compared to < 60). CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal BP control was common in CKD patients with hypertension in this study, particularly those at highest risk of adverse outcomes due to diabetes and or albuminuria. This study suggests there is scope for improving BP control in people with CKD by using more antihypertensive agents in combination while considering issues of adherence and potential side effects.

Socio-economic disparities in the distribution of cardiovascular risk in chronic kidney disease stage 3.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: For most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk exceeds risk of progression to end-stage renal disease. This study aimed to investigate the distribution of cardiovascular risk in CKD stage 3 by socio-economic status (SES; measured by area deprivation and educational attainment) and CKD diagnosis awareness. METHODS: 1,741 patients with CKD 3 recruited from primary-care practices for the Renal Risk in Derby Study were assessed for cardiovascular risk factors. Ten-year cardiovascular risk, estimated using Framingham and QRISK2 risk prediction algorithms in eligible subgroups, was dichotomised at ≥ 20% (a threshold for clinical action in the UK), and compared by SES and awareness of CKD diagnosis using logistic regression. RESULTS: Patients with lower SES had greater adjusted odd ratios (OR) of smoking, diabetes and previous CVD, but not of central obesity, hypertension, elevated total/high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol ratio or albuminuria. Using Framingham scoring (n = 672), the adjusted OR of having ≥ 20% 10-year risk were 2.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-5.84] in the lowest deprivation quintile compared to the highest, 2.52 (95% CI: 1.52-4.00) in those without qualifications compared to those with qualifications, and 1.54 (95% CI: 1.09-2.17) in those unaware of their CKD diagnosis compared to those aware of it. QRISK2 scoring (n = 1,071) showed a similar association with education status [OR: 2.45 (95% CI: 1.63-3.67)] and lack of CKD awareness [OR: 1.46 (95% CI: 1.05-2.03)], but not with deprivation [OR: 1.12 (95% CI: 0.55-2.27)]. CONCLUSION: An elevated CVD risk is associated with a lower education status and lack of awareness of CKD diagnosis in people with CKD 3.