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.

Trimming the fat: is there a health economic case for the use of new lipid-lowering drugs in chronic kidney disease? A scoping review.

Background: Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at a very high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). New lipid-lowering agents offer hope of improved outcomes where traditional agents have been less efficacious, yet the cost of these agents needs consideration in this population before their widespread application. Objective: We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of novel lipid-lowering therapies for a CKD population. Methods: We searched four electronic databases, one government registry and the reference lists of included literature to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of novel lipid-lowering agents in CKD. Costs were converted to a single currency to allow cross-country comparisons. Completeness of reporting was analysed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Results were synthesized in narrative form with graphical representation of cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Of the 1041 identified studies, 4 met the inclusion criteria. None were specific to a CKD-only population. All examined the impact of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9is) in the secondary prevention of ASCVD. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of new agents compared with standard care were between €7288 and €112 530 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the degree of cardiovascular risk of the underlying populations. Conclusion: This review found PCSK9is were moderately cost-effective in populations with high cardiovascular risk. People with CKD were included as an undifferentiated subpopulation in the primary studies, but application of these findings to CKD-specific populations should be interpreted with caution. There is insufficient evidence for a health economic case to support novel lipid-lowering therapies for advanced CKD.

No evidence of a legacy effect on survival following randomization to extended hours dialysis in the ACTIVE Dialysis trial.

AIM: Extended hours haemodialysis is associated with superior survival to standard hours. However, residual confounding limits the interpretation of this observation. We aimed to determine the effect of a period of extended hours dialysis on long-term survival among participants in the ACTIVE Dialysis trial. METHODS: Two-hundred maintenance haemodialysis recipients were randomized to extended hours dialysis (median 24 h/wk) or standard hours dialysis (median 12 h/wk) for 12 months. Further pre-specified observational follow up occurred at 24, 36 and 60 months. Vital status and modality of renal replacement therapy were ascertained. RESULTS: Over the 5 years, 38 participants died, 30 received a renal transplant, and 6 were lost to follow up. Total weekly dialysis hours did not differ between standard and extended groups during the follow-up period (14.1 hours [95%CI 13.4-14.8] vs 14.8 hours [95%CI 14.1-15.6]; P = .16). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for extended hours 0.91 [95%CI 0.48-1.72]; P = .77). Similar results were obtained after censoring participants at transplantation, and after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Subgroup analysis did not reveal differences in treatment effect by region, dialysis setting or vintage (P-interaction .51, .54, .12, respectively). CONCLUSION: Twelve months of extended hours dialysis did not improve long-term survival nor affect dialysis hours after the intervention period. An urgent need remains to further define the optimal dialysis intensity across the broad range of dialysis recipients.

Inequities in the global representation of sites participating in large, multicentre dialysis trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The number of dialysis recipients is growing worldwide, making it important that the full range of patient populations are represented in randomised trials. As trial recruitment has not previously been examined at a global level, we compared the location of trial sites recruiting to large multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in dialysis to the global distribution of dialysis recipients. METHODS: A systematic review (2007-2016) was conducted to identify RCTs enrolling ≥100 dialysis patients from ≥2 sites. The number and location of sites were extracted from manuscripts and trial registration. The proportion of sites from each International Society of Nephrology global region was divided by the proportion of the global dialysis population in that region to determine a 'representation index' (RI), where 1.0 indicated that the number of sites was proportionate to the number of dialysis recipients in that region. RESULTS: We identified 180 RCTs, recruiting from 6172 sites in 54 countries. Eastern and Central Europe had the highest RI at 2.45. Other well-represented regions were Western Europe (2.20), North America (2.06), and Russia and newly independent states (1.36). Africa had the lowest RI at 0.05, followed by South Asia (0.08), Latin America (0.15), Middle East (0.27), North-East Asia (0.41), and South-East Asia and Oceania (0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Regions of the world with growing numbers of dialysis patients are poorly represented in large, multicentre RCTs. Efforts to boost trial participation in these regions are required to ensure that generalisable and relevant information is available to local healthcare providers.

Arteriovenous access practices in Australian and New Zealand dialysis units.

BACKGROUND: The creation and maintenance of dialysis vascular access is associated with significant morbidity. Structured management pathways can reduce this morbidity, yet practice patterns in Australia and New Zealand are not known. We aimed to describe the arteriovenous access practices in dialysis units in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: An online survey comprising 51 questions was completed by representatives from dialysis units from both countries. In addition to descriptive analysis, responses were compared between units inside and outside of major cities. RESULTS: Of 64 contacted units, 48 (75%) responded (Australia 43, New Zealand 5), representing 38% of dialysis units in Australia and New Zealand. While 94% of units provided pre-dialysis education, only 60% reported a structured pre-dialysis pathway and 69% had a dedicated vascular access nurse. Most units routinely monitored fistula/graft function using flow rate measurement (73%) or recirculation studies (63%). A minority used routine ultrasound (35%). Thrombectomy, fistuloplasty and peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion were rarely performed by nephrologists (4%, 4% and 17% of units, respectively). Units outside of a major city were less likely to have access to a local vascular access surgeon (6/13 (46%) vs 35/35 (100%), P < 0.001). There were no other significant differences between units on the basis of location. CONCLUSION: Much variation exists in unit management of arteriovenous access. Structured pre-dialysis pathways and dedicated vascular access nurses may be underutilised in Australia and New Zealand. The use of regular access blood flow measurement and ultrasound is common in both countries despite a lack of data supporting its effectiveness. There is room for both practice improvement and a need for further evidence to ensure optimal arteriovenous access care.