Cost-analysis of persistent hyperkalaemia in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients under nephrology care in Italy.

AIM: In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), hyperkalaemia (HK) (potassium level ≥ 5.0 mEq/L) is associated with poor clinical outcomes. This study provides novel insights by comparing management costs of CKD patients with normokalaemia vs those with persistent HK regularly followed in renal clinics in Italy. METHODS: To this aim, a Markov model over life-time horizon was developed. Time to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and time to death in CKD patients were derived from an observational multi-centre database including 1665 patients with non-dialysis CKD stage 1-5 under nephrology care in Italy (15 years follow-up). Resource use for CKD and HK management was obtained from the observational database, KDIGO international guidelines, and clinical expert opinion. RESULTS: Results showed that patients with normokalaemia vs persistent HK brought an average per patient lifetime cost-saving of €16 059 besides delayed onset of ESRD by 2.29 years and increased survival by 1.79 years with increment in total survival and dialysis-free survival in normokalaemia that decreased from early to advanced disease. Cost-saving related to normokalaemia increased at more advanced CKD; however, it was already evident at early stage (3388.97€ at stage 1-3a). OWSA confirmed cost-saving associated with normokalaemia across all parameter variations. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This model is the first to simulate the impact of HK in non-dialysis CKD patients on economic and clinical outcomes using real-world data from nephrology clinics. In these patients, persistent HK results into higher lifetime costs, besides poorer clinical outcomes, that are evident since the early stages of CKD. Maintaining normokalaemia should therefore be of main concern in CKD treatment planning to improve long-term economic and clinical outcomes.

[Remote patient monitoring in dialysis patients: the "change of pace" for home dialysis.] / Monitoraggio da remoto del paziente in dialisi: il cambio di passo per la dialisi domiciliare?

Lockdown and self-isolation are to date the only solution to limit the spread of recent outbreak of coronavirus disease (CoViD-19), highlighting the great advantage of home dialysis in a patient otherwise forced to travel from / to the dialysis center to receive this "life-saving" treatment. Indeed, to prevent spreading of CoViD-19 infection among extremely fragile dialysis patients, as well as among dialysis workers, hemodialysis (HD) centers are adopting specific procedures ("dedicated" dialysis facilities, portable osmosis, etc.) with a great economic and organizational commitment. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) represents a type of home dialysis therapy not yet adequately implemented to date, in spite of safe and simple practice, as well as similar dialytic efficiency vs in-center hemodialysis. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems have been developed in automated PD (APD) cyclers in order to improve the acceptance of this dialysis method, to increase the compliance to the prescribed therapy and to control treatment adequacy. In this review we assess the potential advantages of RPM in APD, that are the chance for patients to acquire greater independence and safety in the home treatment, to allow better access to care for residents in remote areas, faster resolution of problems, reduction in hospitalizations and mortality rates, as well as time and cost saving for both the patient and the staff. The use of medical devices (sphygmomanometer, glucometer, balance, etc.), connected by wireless to the clinician's portal, might also allow a wider diffusion of incremental dialysis, an integrated therapy that combines conservative management of ESKD patients with a soft dialysis based on the residual kidney function and symptomatology, with potential prognosis and economic benefits. Although the majority of the studies are small and observational, a wider use of RPM systems is desirable to broaden the spread of home dialysis, as we learnt from Coronavirus pandemic.

Quality of life of hemodialysis patients in Central and Southern Italy: cross-sectional comparison between Hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion (HFR) and Bicarbonate Hemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: in hemodialysis (HD) patients, poor health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) is prevalent and associated with adverse outcomes. HR-QoL is strictly linked to nutritional status of HD patients. Hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion (HFR) is an alternative dialysis technique that combines diffusion, convection and absorption. It reduces burden of inflammation and malnutrition and this effect may cause beneficial effect on HR-QoL. However no data on HR-QoL in HFR is currently available. METHODS: we designed a cross-sectional multicentre study in order to compare the HR-QoL in patients treated with HFR versus Bicarbonate HD (BHD). We enrolled adult patients HFR treated for at least 6 months, with life expectancy greater than six months and without overt cognitive deficit. The recruited patients in HFR were matched for age, gender, dialytic vintage and performance in activities of daily living (Barthel index) with BHD treated patients. SF-36 questionnaire for the assessment of HR-QoL was administered. RESULTS: one hundred fourteen patients (57 HFR vs 57 BHD) were enrolled (age 65.413.5 years; dialysis vintage 5.4 (3.3-10.3) years; 53% males) from 18 dialysis non-profit centres in central and southern Italy. As result of matching, no difference in age, gender, dialytic age and Barthel index was found between HFR and BHD patients. In HFR patients we observed better values of physical component score (PCS) of SF-36 than BHD patients (P=0.048), whereas no significant difference emerged in the mental component score (P=0.698). In particular HFR patients were associated with higher Physical Functioning (P=0.045) and Role Physical (P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: HFR is associated with better physical component of HR-QoL than BHD, independently of age, gender, dialysis vintage and invalidity score. Whether these findings translate into a survival benefit must be investigated by longitudinal studies.