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.

Current status of health systems financing and oversight for end-stage kidney disease care: a cross-sectional global survey.

OBJECTIVES: The Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) is a multinational, cross-sectional survey designed to assess the current capacity for kidney care across all world regions. The 2017 GKHA involved 125 countries and identified significant gaps in oversight, funding and infrastructure to support care for patients with kidney disease, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Here, we report results from the survey for the second iteration of the GKHA conducted in 2018, which included specific questions about health financing and oversight of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care worldwide. SETTING: A cross-sectional global survey. PARTICIPANTS: Key stakeholders from 182 countries were invited to participate. Of those, stakeholders from 160 countries participated and were included. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes included cost of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), funding for dialysis and transplantation, funding for conservative kidney management, extent of universal health coverage, out-of-pocket costs for KRT, within-country variability in ESKD care delivery and oversight systems for ESKD care. Outcomes were determined from a combination of desk research and input from key stakeholders in participating countries. RESULTS: 160 countries (covering 98% of the world's population) responded to the survey. Economic factors were identified as the top barrier to optimal ESKD care in 99 countries (64%). Full public funding for KRT was more common than for conservative kidney management (43% vs 28%). Among countries that provided at least some public coverage for KRT, 75% covered all citizens. Within-country variation in ESKD care delivery was reported in 40% of countries. Oversight of ESKD care was present in all high-income countries but was absent in 13% of low-income, 3% of lower-middle-income, and 10% of upper-middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Significant gaps and variability exist in the public funding and oversight of ESKD care in many countries, particularly for those in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

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.