Reliability and Utility of the Surprise Question in CKD Stages 4 to 5.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic uncertainty is one barrier to engaging in goals-of-care discussions in chronic kidney disease (CKD). The surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") is a tool to assist in prognostication. However, it has not been studied in non-dialysis-dependent CKD and its reliability is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 388 patients at least 60 years of age with non-dialysis-dependent CKD stages 4 to 5 who were seen at an outpatient nephrology clinic. PREDICTOR: Trinary (ie, Yes, Neutral, or No) and binary (Yes or No) surprise question response. OUTCOMES: Mortality, test-retest reliability, and blinded inter-rater reliability. MEASUREMENTS: Baseline comorbid conditions, Charlson Comorbidity Index, cause of CKD, and baseline laboratory values (ie, serum creatinine/estimated glomerular filtration rate, serum albumin, and hemoglobin). RESULTS: Median patient age was 71 years with median follow-up of 1.4 years, during which time 52 (13%) patients died. Using the trinary surprise question, providers responded Yes, Neutral, and No for 202 (52%), 80 (21%), and 106 (27%) patients, respectively. About 5%, 15%, and 27% of Yes, Neutral, and No patients died, respectively (P<0.001). Trinary surprise question inter-rater reliability was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.72), and test-retest reliability was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72). The trinary surprise question No response had sensitivity and specificity of 55% and 76%, respectively (95% CIs, 38%-71% and 71%-80%, respectively). The binary surprise question had sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 49%-80%; P=0.3 vs trinary), but lower specificity of 68% (95% CI, 63%-73%; P=0.02 vs trinary). LIMITATIONS: Single center, small number of deaths. CONCLUSIONS: The surprise question associates with mortality in CKD stages 4 to 5 and demonstrates moderate to good reliability. Future studies should examine how best to deploy the surprise question to facilitate advance care planning in advanced non-dialysis-dependent CKD.

Spectrum of Kidney Diseases in Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Infection.

OBJECTIVES: To study the pathologic spectrum of kidney diseases in patients with hepatitis C virus infection (HCV+). METHODS: Native kidney biopsy specimens in HCV+ patients were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 9,836 native kidney biopsy specimens were evaluated from January 2007 to December 2016, of which 273 (2.8%) were from HCV+ patients, and of these, 115 (42.1%) had diagnoses consistent with HCV-associated glomerulonephritis (GN). Non-HCV-associated kidney diseases comprised most diagnoses (158 cases, 57.9%) including non-immune complex-mediated kidney diseases (127 cases, 46.5%) and other immune complex-mediated glomerular diseases (31 cases, 11.4%). Forty-one (40.6%) patients had HCV-associated GN among 101 HCV+ patients from 2007 to 2011 vs 74 (43.0%) patients with HCV-associated GN among 172 HCV+ patients from 2012 to 2016. HCV-associated GN showed five morphologic patterns: focal proliferative (5.2%), diffuse mesangial proliferative (50.4%), diffuse membranoproliferative (28.7%), proliferative GN with crescentic lesions (7.8%), and membranous patterns (7.8%). CONCLUSIONS: We found a spectrum of pathologic changes in renal biopsy specimens of HCV+ patients, with most having diseases unrelated to HCV infection, HCV-associated GN showing five morphologic patterns, and availability of effective HCV antiviral therapy not yet resulting in major changes in the spectrum of kidney diseases in these patients.

Relationship between assays of glycemia in diabetic subjects with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Relative to hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), glycated albumin (GA) more accurately reflects recent glycemic control in diabetic patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. These assays have yet to be compared in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: HbA(1c) and GA were simultaneously measured in 303 diabetic subjects: 70 with CKD prior to dialysis (CKD-stage 4), 184 with CKD after transplantation (TXP-stage 3) and 49 non-nephropathy controls. RESULTS: Mean estimated GFR was 76, 46 and 26 ml/min in controls, TXP-3 and CKD-4 cases, respectively. Mean (SD) HbA(1c) (%) and GA (%) concentrations were 7.30 (1.40) and 16.8 (4.9) in controls, 7.28 (1.66) and 21.5 (6.4) in CKD-4 cases, and 7.21 (1.62) and 21.2 (5.5) in TXP-3 cases, respectively. The GA:HbA(1c) ratio differed significantly between non-nephropathy controls and both groups of CKD patients (both p < 0.001), but not between CKD-4 and TXP-3 cases (p = 0.92). The glucose:HbA(1c) ratio was inversely associated with GFR in all 254 nephropathy cases (r = -0.13; p = 0.04), while glucose:GA did not vary significantly based upon GFR (r = -0.08; p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between glycated albumin and HbA(1c) is influenced by the presence of reduced GFR in diabetic patients with CKD. The accuracy of the HbA(1c) assay in diabetic subjects with severe nephropathy requires further investigation, although HbA(1c) performs relatively well with milder CKD.

Nephrology Provider Prognostic Perceptions and Care Delivered to Older Adults with Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prognostic uncertainty is one barrier that impedes providers in engaging patients with CKD in shared decision making and advance care planning. The surprise question has been shown to identify patients at increased risk of dying. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In our prospective observational study, 488 patients ≥60 years of age with CKD stage 4 or 5 were enrolled. Binary surprise question (i.e., "Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") responses were recorded, and dialysis planning preferences, presence of advance care planning documentation, and care preceding death were abstracted. RESULTS: The median patient age was 71 (65-77) years old. Providers responded no and yes to the surprise question for 171 (35%) and 317 (65%) patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 1.9 (1.5-2.1) years, during which 18% of patients died (33% of surprise question no, 10% of surprise question yes; P<0.001). In patients with a known RRT preference (58%), 13% of surprise question no participants had a preference for conservative management (versus 2% of yes counterparts; P<0.001). A medical order (i.e., physician order for life-sustaining treatment) was documented in 13% of surprise question no patients versus 5% of yes patients (P=0.004). Among surprise question no decedents, 41% died at home or hospice, 38% used hospice services, and 54% were hospitalized in the month before death. In surprise question yes decedents, 39% died at home or hospice (P=0.90 versus no), 26% used hospice services (P=0.50 versus no), and 67% were hospitalized in the month before death (P=0.40 versus surprise question no). CONCLUSIONS: Nephrologists' prognostic perceptions were associated with modest changes in care, highlighting a critical gap in conservative management discussions, advance care planning, and end of life care among older adults with CKD stages 4 and 5 and high-risk clinical characteristics. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2017_09_18_CJASNPodcast_17_11.mp3.

Dental management in patients with hypertension: challenges and solutions.

Hypertension is a chronic illness affecting more than a billion people worldwide. The high prevalence of the disease among the American population is concerning and must be considered when treating dental patients. Its lack of symptoms until more serious problems occur makes the disease deadly. Dental practitioners can often be on the frontlines of prevention of hypertension by evaluating preoperative blood pressure readings, performing risk assessments, and knowing when to consider medical consultation of a hypertensive patient in a dental setting. In addition, routine follow-up appointments and patients seen on an emergent basis, who may otherwise not be seen routinely, allow the oral health provider an opportunity to diagnose and refer for any unknown disease. It is imperative to understand the risk factors that may predispose patients to hypertension and to be able to educate them about their condition. Most importantly, the oral health care provider is in a pivotal position to play an active role in the management of patients presenting with a history of hypertension because many antihypertensive agents interact with pharmacologic agents used in the dental practice. The purpose of this review is to provide strategies for managing and preventing complications when treating the patient with hypertension who presents to the dental office.

Glycated albumin and risk of death and hospitalizations in diabetic dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Relative to hemoglobin (Hb) A(1c), glycated albumin (GA) more accurately reflects glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus and ESRD. We determined the association between GA, HbA(1c), and glucose levels with survival and hospitalizations in diabetic dialysis patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Quarterly GA levels were measured for up to 2.33 years in 444 prevalent patients with diabetes and ESRD. Proportional hazard time-dependent covariate models were computed with adjustment for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and laboratory variables. Similar analyses were performed for available HbA(1c) and monthly random serum glucose determinations. RESULTS: The participants were 53% male, 54% African American, 43% Caucasian, 90% on hemodialysis, with a mean (SD) age of 62 (12) years and median follow-up duration of 2.25 years. GA and HbA(1c) mean ± SD 21.5% ± 6.0%, median 20.4% and mean ± SD 6.9% ± 6.6%, median 1.6%, respectively. There were 156 deaths during the observation period. In best-fit models, predictors of death included increasing GA, increasing age, presence of peripheral vascular disease, decreasing serum albumin, and decreasing hemoglobin concentrations. HbA(1c) and random serum glucose concentrations were not predictive of survival. Increasing GA levels were associated with hospitalization in the 17 days after measurement, whereas HbA(1c) was not. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the HbA(1c) and random serum glucose values, GA accurately predicts the risk of death and hospitalizations in patients with diabetes mellitus and ESRD. The GA assay should be considered by clinicians who care for patients with diabetes on dialysis.

Comparison of glycated albumin and hemoglobin A1c concentrations in diabetic subjects on peritoneal and hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Relative to hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), percentage of glycated albumin (GA%) more accurately reflects recent glycemic control in diabetic hemodialysis (HD) patients. METHODS: To determine the accuracy of glycemic assays in a larger sample including patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD), HbA(1c) and GA% were measured in 519 diabetic subjects: 55 on PD, 415 on HD, and 49 non-nephropathy controls. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD serum glucose levels were higher in HD and PD patients relative to non-nephropathy controls (HD 169.7 +/- 62 mg/dL, PD 168.6 +/- 66 mg/dL, controls 146.1 +/- 66 mg/dL; p = 0.03 HD vs controls, p = 0.13 PD vs controls). GA% was also higher in HD and PD patients (HD 20.6% +/- 8.0%, PD 19.0% +/- 5.7%, controls 15.7% +/- 7.7%; p < 0.02 HD vs controls and PD vs controls). HbA(1c) was paradoxically lower in dialysis patients (HD 6.78% +/- 1.6%, PD 6.87% +/- 1.4%, controls 7.3% +/- 1.4%; p = 0.03 HD vs controls, p = 0.12 PD vs controls). The serum glucose/HbA(1c) ratio differed significantly between dialysis patients and controls (p < 0.0001 HD vs controls, p = 0.002 PD vs controls), while serum glucose/GA% ratio was similar across groups (p = 0.96 HD vs controls, p = 0.64 PD vs controls). In best-fit multivariate models with HbA(1c) or GA% as outcome variable, dialysis status was a significant predictor of HbA(1c) but not GA%. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between HbA(1c) and GA% differs in diabetic patients with end-stage renal disease who perform either PD or HD compared to those without nephropathy. HbA(1c) significantly underestimates glycemic control in peritoneal and hemodialysis patients relative to GA%.