A Unifying Approach for GFR Estimation: Recommendations of the NKF-ASN Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: In response to a national call for re-evaluation of the use of race in clinical algorithms, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) established a Task Force to reassess inclusion of race in the estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in the United States and its implications for diagnosis and management of patients with, or at risk for, kidney diseases. PROCESS & DELIBERATIONS: The Task Force organized its activities over 10 months in phases to (1) clarify the problem and evidence regarding GFR estimating equations in the United States (described previously in an interim report), and, in this final report, (2) evaluate approaches to address use of race in GFR estimation, and (3) provide recommendations. We identified 26 approaches for the estimation of GFR that did or did not consider race and narrowed our focus, by consensus, to 5 of those approaches. We holistically evaluated each approach considering 6 attributes: assay availability and standardization; implementation; population diversity in equation development; performance compared with measured GFR; consequences to clinical care, population tracking, and research; and patient centeredness. To arrive at a unifying approach to estimate GFR, we integrated information and evidence from many sources in assessing strengths and weaknesses in attributes for each approach, recognizing the number of Black and non-Black adults affected. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) For US adults (>85% of whom have normal kidney function), we recommend immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the United States because it does not include race in the calculation and reporting, included diversity in its development, is immediately available to all laboratories in the United States, and has acceptable performance characteristics and potential consequences that do not disproportionately affect any one group of individuals. (2) We recommend national efforts to facilitate increased, routine, and timely use of cystatin C, especially to confirm estimated GFR in adults who are at risk for or have chronic kidney disease, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone. If ongoing evidence supports acceptable performance, the CKD-EPI eGFR-cystatin C (eGFRcys) and eGFR creatinine-cystatin C (eGFRcr-cys_R) refit without the race variables should be adopted to provide another first-line test, in addition to confirmatory testing. (3) Research on GFR estimation with new endogenous filtration markers and on interventions to eliminate race and ethnic disparities should be encouraged and funded. An investment in science is needed for newer approaches that generate accurate, unbiased, and precise GFR measurement and estimation without the inclusion of race, and that promote health equity and do not generate disparate care. IMPLEMENTATION: This unified approach, without specification of race, should be adopted across the United States. High-priority and multistakeholder efforts should implement this solution.

Diagnosis, Education, and Care of Patients with APOL1-Associated Nephropathy: A Delphi Consensus and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: APOL1 variants contribute to the markedly higher incidence of ESKD in Blacks compared with Whites. Genetic testing for these variants in patients with African ancestry who have nephropathy is uncommon, and no specific treatment or management protocol for APOL1-associated nephropathy currently exists. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, racially diverse group of 14 experts and patient advocates participated in a Delphi consensus process to establish practical guidance for clinicians caring for patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy. Consensus group members took part in three anonymous voting rounds to develop consensus statements relating to the following: (1) counseling, genotyping, and diagnosis; (2) disease awareness and education; and (3) a vision for management of APOL1-associated nephropathy in a future when treatment is available. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant evidence published from January 1, 2009 to July 14, 2020. RESULTS: The consensus group agreed on 55 consensus statements covering such topics as demographic and clinical factors that suggest a patient has APOL1-associated nephropathy, as well as key considerations for counseling, testing, and diagnosis in current clinical practice. They achieved consensus on the need to increase awareness among key stakeholders of racial health disparities in kidney disease and of APOL1-associated nephropathy and on features of a successful education program to raise awareness among the patient community. The group also highlighted the unmet need for a specific treatment and agreed on best practice for management of these patients should a treatment become available. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary group of experts and patient advocates defined consensus-based guidance on the care of patients who may have APOL1-associated nephropathy.

Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases: An Interim Report from the NKF-ASN Task Force.

For almost two decades, equations that use serum creatinine, age, sex, and race to eGFR have included "race" as Black or non-Black. Given considerable evidence of disparities in health and healthcare delivery in African American communities, some regard keeping a race term in GFR equations as a practice that differentially influences access to care and kidney transplantation. Others assert that race captures important non GFR determinants of serum creatinine and its removal from the calculation may perpetuate other disparities. The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and American Society of Nephrology (ASN) established a task force in 2020 to reassess the inclusion of race in the estimation of GFR in the United States and its implications for diagnosis and subsequent management of patients with, or at risk for, kidney diseases. This interim report details the process, initial assessment of evidence, and values defined regarding the use of race to estimate GFR. We organized activities in phases: (1) clarify the problem and examine evidence, (2) evaluate different approaches to address use of race in GFR estimation, and (3) make recommendations. In phase one, we constructed statements about the evidence and defined values regarding equity and disparities; race and racism; GFR measurement, estimation, and equation performance; laboratory standardization; and patient perspectives. We also identified several approaches to estimate GFR and a set of attributes to evaluate these approaches. Building on evidence and values, the attributes of alternative approaches to estimate GFR will be evaluated in the next phases and recommendations will be made.

A Unifying Approach for GFR Estimation: Recommendations of the NKF-ASN Task Force on Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: In response to a national call for re-evaluation of the use of race in clinical algorithms, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) established a Task Force to reassess inclusion of race in the estimation of GFR in the United States and its implications for diagnosis and management of patients with, or at risk for, kidney diseases. PROCESS DELIBERATIONS: The Task Force organized its activities over 10 months in phases to ( 1 ) clarify the problem and evidence regarding eGFR equations in the United States (described previously in an interim report), and, in this final report, ( 2 ) evaluate approaches to address use of race in GFR estimation, and ( 3 ) provide recommendations. We identified 26 approaches for the estimation of GFR that did or did not consider race and narrowed our focus, by consensus, to five of those approaches. We holistically evaluated each approach considering six attributes: assay availability and standardization; implementation; population diversity in equation development; performance compared with measured GFR; consequences to clinical care, population tracking, and research; and patient centeredness. To arrive at a unifying approach to estimate GFR, we integrated information and evidence from many sources in assessing strengths and weaknesses in attributes for each approach, recognizing the number of Black and non-Black adults affected. RECOMMENDATIONS: ( 1 ) For US adults (>85% of whom have normal kidney function), we recommend immediate implementation of the CKD-EPI creatinine equation refit without the race variable in all laboratories in the United States because it does not include race in the calculation and reporting, included diversity in its development, is immediately available to all laboratories in the United States, and has acceptable performance characteristics and potential consequences that do not disproportionately affect any one group of individuals. ( 2 ) We recommend national efforts to facilitate increased, routine, and timely use of cystatin C, especially to confirm eGFR in adults who are at risk for or have CKD, because combining filtration markers (creatinine and cystatin C) is more accurate and would support better clinical decisions than either marker alone. If ongoing evidence supports acceptable performance, the CKD-EPI eGFR-cystatin C (eGFRcys) and eGFR creatinine-cystatin C (eGFRcr-cys_R) refit without the race variables should be adopted to provide another first-line test, in addition to confirmatory testing. ( 3 ) Research on GFR estimation with new endogenous filtration markers and on interventions to eliminate race and ethnic disparities should be encouraged and funded. An investment in science is needed for newer approaches that generate accurate, unbiased, and precise GFR measurement and estimation without the inclusion of race, and that promote health equity and do not generate disparate care. IMPLEMENTATION: This unified approach, without specification of race, should be adopted across the United States. High-priority and multistakeholder efforts should implement this solution.

Patient perspectives and involvement in precision medicine research.

The Kidney Precision Medicine Project will advance understanding of chronic kidney disease attributed to diabetes or hypertension and acute kidney injury through a protocol kidney biopsy used for deep phenotyping with state-of-the-art methodology. To guide scientific inquiry toward clinically meaningful benefit, patients are equal partners for priority setting, study design and conduct, and dissemination of findings. Patients from stakeholder organizations, recruitment sites, tissue interrogation sites, and the Central Hub are represented on the Community Engagement Committee. This unique collaboration between patients and scientists has set a new standard for inclusion in precision medicine research.

Reassessing the Inclusion of Race in Diagnosing Kidney Diseases: An Interim Report From the NKF-ASN Task Force.

For almost 2 decades, equations that use serum creatinine, age, sex, and race to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have included "race" as Black or non-Black. Given considerable evidence of disparities in health and health care delivery in African American communities, some regard keeping a race term in GFR equations as a practice that differentially influences access to care and kidney transplantation. Others assert that race captures important non-GFR determinants of serum creatinine and its removal from the calculation may perpetuate other disparities. The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and American Society of Nephrology (ASN) established a task force in 2020 to reassess the inclusion of race in the estimation of GFR in the United States and its implications for diagnosis and subsequent management of patients with, or at risk for, kidney diseases. This interim report details the process, initial assessment of evidence, and values defined regarding the use of race to estimate GFR. We organized activities in phases: (1) clarify the problem and examine evidence, (2) evaluate different approaches to address use of race in GFR estimation, and (3) make recommendations. In phase 1, we constructed statements about the evidence and defined values regarding equity and disparities; race and racism; GFR measurement, estimation, and equation performance; laboratory standardization; and patient perspectives. We also identified several approaches to estimate GFR and a set of attributes to evaluate these approaches. Building on evidence and values, the attributes of alternative approaches to estimate GFR will be evaluated in the next phases and recommendations will be made.

International consensus definitions of clinical trial outcomes for kidney failure: 2020.

Kidney failure is an important outcome for patients, clinicians, researchers, healthcare systems, payers, and regulators. However, no harmonized international consensus definitions of kidney failure and key surrogates of progression to kidney failure exist specifically for clinical trials. The International Society of Nephrology convened an international multi-stakeholder meeting to develop consensus on this topic. A core group, experienced in design, conduct, and outcome adjudication of clinical trials, developed a database of 64 randomized trials and the 163 included definitions relevant to kidney failure. Using an iterative process, a set of proposed consensus definitions were developed and subsequently vetted by the larger multi-stakeholder group of 83 participants representing 18 different countries. The consensus of the meeting participants was that clinical trial kidney failure outcomes should be comprised of a composite that includes receipt of a kidney transplant, initiation of maintenance dialysis, and death from kidney failure; it may also include outcomes based solely on laboratory measurements of glomerular filtration rate: a sustained low glomerular filtration rate and a sustained percent decline in glomerular filtration rate. Discussion included important considerations, such as (i) recognition of existing nomenclature for kidney failure; (ii) applicability across resource settings; (iii) ease of understanding for all stakeholders; and (iv) avoidance of inappropriate complexity so that the definitions can be used across ranges of populations and trial methodologies. The final definitions reflect the consensus for use in clinical trials.

Measuring Symptoms Across the Spectrum of Chronic Kidney Disease: Strategies for Incorporation Into Kidney Care.

Many people across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience a large symptom burden. Measuring symptoms can be a way of responding to the concerns of patients and their priorities of care and may help to improve overall outcomes, including health-related quality of life. The objective of this article is to discuss approaches to measuring symptoms across the spectrum of CKD and to highlight strategies to facilitate the incorporation of routine symptom assessment into kidney care. Specifically, we discuss the use of validated patient-reported outcome measures in CKD as they relate to measuring symptoms, including their benefits and limitations, and describe commonly used patient-reported outcome measures. We discuss potential barriers that should be considered when contemplating the development of a program to routinely measure and address symptoms. Finally, we outline a systematic, stepwise approach to measuring symptoms with implementation strategies to address the common barriers. Although the principles outlined in this article can be applied to research and audit, the principal focus is on symptom measurement aimed at informing clinical practice and directly improving patient outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness of an individualized model of hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis: a study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial (the TwoPlus trial).

BACKGROUND: Most patients starting chronic in-center hemodialysis (HD) receive conventional hemodialysis (CHD) with three sessions per week targeting specific biochemical clearance. Observational studies suggest that patients with residual kidney function can safely be treated with incremental prescriptions of HD, starting with less frequent sessions and later adjusting to thrice-weekly HD. This trial aims to show objectively that clinically matched incremental HD (CMIHD) is non-inferior to CHD in eligible patients. METHODS: An unblinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be conducted across diverse healthcare systems and dialysis organizations in the USA. Adult patients initiating chronic hemodialysis (HD) at participating centers will be screened. Eligibility criteria include receipt of fewer than 18 treatments of HD and residual kidney function defined as kidney urea clearance ≥3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine output ≥500 mL/24 h. The 1:1 randomization, stratified by site and dialysis vascular access type, assigns patients to either CMIHD (intervention group) or CHD (control group). The CMIHD group will be treated with twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy (i.e., oral loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and potassium binders). The CHD group will receive thrice-weekly HD according to usual care. Throughout the study, patients undergo timed urine collection and fill out questionnaires. CMIHD will progress to thrice-weekly HD based on clinical manifestations or changes in residual kidney function. Caregivers of enrolled patients are invited to complete semi-annual questionnaires. The primary outcome is a composite of patients' all-cause death, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes. We aim to enroll 350 patients, which provides ≥85% power to detect an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.9 between CMIHD and CHD with an IRR non-inferiority of 1.20 (α = 0.025, one-tailed test, 20% dropout rate, average of 2.06 years of HD per patient participant), and 150 caregiver participants (of enrolled patients). DISCUSSION: Our proposal challenges the status quo of HD care delivery. Our overarching hypothesis posits that CMIHD is non-inferior to CHD. If successful, the results will positively impact one of the highest-burdened patient populations and their caregivers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05828823. Registered on 25 April 2023.

Kidney Biopsy Utility: Patient and Clinician Perspectives from the Kidney Precision Medicine Project.

Rationale & Objective: Limited data exist on patient perspectives of the implications of kidney biopsies. We explored patients' perspectives alongside those of clinicians to better understand how kidney biopsies affect patients' viewpoints and the clinical utility of biopsies. Study Design: Prospective Cohort Study. Setting & Participants: Patient participants and clinicians in the Kidney Precision Medicine Project, a prospective cohort study of patients who undergo a research protocol biopsy, at 9 recruitment sites across the United States. Surveys were completed at enrollment before biopsy and additional timepoints after biopsy (participants: 28 days, 6 months; clinicians: 2 weeks). Analytical Approach: Kappa statistics assessed prebiopsy etiology concordance between clinicians and participants. Participant perspectives after biopsy were analyzed using a thematic approach. Clinician ratings of clinical management value were compared to prebiopsy ratings with Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests and paired t tests. Results: A total of 167 participants undergoing biopsy (124 participants with chronic kidney disease [CKD], 43 participants with acute kidney injury [AKI]) and 58 clinicians were included in this study. CKD participants and clinicians had low etiology concordance for the 2 leading causes of CKD: diabetes (k = 0.358) and hypertension (k = 0.081). At 28 days postbiopsy, 46 (84%) participants reported that the biopsy affected their understanding of their diagnosis, and 21 (38%) participants reported that the results of the biopsy affected their medications. Participants also shared biopsy impressions in free-text responses, including impacts on lifestyle and concurrent condition management. The biopsy positively shifted clinician perceptions of the procedure's clinical management benefits, while perceptions of prognostic value decreased and diagnostic ratings remained unchanged. Limitations: Our study did not have demographic data of clinicians and could not provide insight into postbiopsy experiences for participants who did not respond to follow-up surveys. Conclusions: Participant perspectives of the personal implications of kidney biopsy can be integrated into shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Enhanced biopsy reports and interactions between nephrologists and pathologists could augment the management and prognostic value of kidney biopsies. Plain-Language Summary: The utility of kidney biopsy is debated among clinicians, and patients' perspectives are even less explored. To address these gaps, we synthesized perspectives from clinicians and patient participants of the Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP). Both before and after biopsy, clinicians were surveyed on how the procedure affected their clinical management, diagnosis, and prognosis. After biopsy, participants shared how the procedure affected their diagnosis, medication, and lifestyle changes. Clinicians and patients shared an appreciation for the biopsy's impact on medical management but diverged in their takeaways on diagnosis and prognosis. These findings highlight the need for greater collaboration between patients and clinicians, particularly as they navigate shared decision-making when considering kidney biopsy.

Participant Experience with Protocol Research Kidney Biopsies in the Kidney Precision Medicine Project.

BACKGROUND: Kidney biopsies are procedures commonly performed in clinical nephrology and are increasingly used in research. In this study we aimed to evaluate the experiences of participants who underwent research kidney biopsies in the Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP). METHODS: KPMP research participants with acute kidney injury (AKI) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) were enrolled at nine recruitment sites in the United States between September 2019 to January 2023. At 28 days post-biopsy, participants were invited to complete a survey to share their experiences, including: motivation to participate in research; comprehension of informed consent; pain and anxiety during and after the biopsy procedure; overall satisfaction with KPMP participation; and impact of the study on their lives. The survey was developed in collaboration with the KPMP Community Engagement Committee and the Institute of Translational Health Sciences at the University of Washington. RESULTS: 111 participants completed the survey, 23 enrolled for AKI and 88 for CKD. Median age was 61 (IQR 48-67) years, 43% were women, 28% were Black, and 18% were of Hispanic ethnicity. Survey respondents most commonly joined KPMP to help future patients (59%). The consent form was understood by 99% and 97% recognized their important role in the study. Pain during the biopsy was reported by 50%, at a median level of 1 (IQR 0-3) on a 0-10 scale. Anxiety during the biopsy was described by 64% at a median level of 3 (IQR 1-5) on a 0-10 scale. More than half conveyed that KPMP participation impacted their diet, physical activity, and how they think about kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS: KPMP survey respondents were most commonly motivated to participate in research protocol kidney biopsies by altruism, with excellent understanding of the informed consent process.

Integrating Patient Priorities with Science by Community Engagement in the Kidney Precision Medicine Project.

The Kidney Precision Medicine Project (KPMP) is a multisite study designed to improve understanding of CKD attributed to diabetes or hypertension and AKI by performing protocol-driven kidney biopsies. Study participants and their kidney tissue samples undergo state-of-the-art deep phenotyping using advanced molecular, imaging, and data analytical methods. Few patients participate in research design or concepts for discovery science. A major goal of the KPMP is to include patients as equal partners to inform the research for clinically relevant benefit. The purpose of this report is to describe patient and community engagement and the value they bring to the KPMP. Patients with CKD and AKI and clinicians from the study sites are members of the Community Engagement Committee, with representation on other KPMP committees. They participate in KPMP deliberations to address scientific, clinical, logistic, analytic, ethical, and community engagement issues. The Community Engagement Committee guides KPMP research priorities from perspectives of patients and clinicians. Patients led development of essential study components, including the informed consent process, no-fault harm insurance coverage, the ethics statement, return of results plan, a "Patient Primer" for scientists and the public, and Community Advisory Boards. As members across other KPMP committees, the Community Engagement Committee assures that the science is developed and conducted in a manner relevant to study participants and the clinical community. Patients have guided the KPMP to produce research aligned with their priorities. The Community Engagement Committee partnership has set new benchmarks for patient leadership in precision medicine research.

Precision medicine in kidney disease: the patient's view.

Research in the field of nephrology continues to improve our understanding of the mechanisms that promote and drive kidney disease, including how human genetic variation might affect disease predisposition and progression. One of the goals of these research efforts is to inform and enable the implementation of precision medicine, whereby patient management is tailored to the individual according to the mechanisms underlying their disease to increase the chances of therapeutic success. To achieve this goal, we need a clearer understanding of the molecular pathways that underlie the many different causes of kidney failure. These research insights are being increasingly translated and implemented into clinical practice. In this Viewpoint, we asked three individuals who have been affected by kidney failure for their views on the importance of understanding the drivers of kidney disease and, on a personal level, what they hope might be achieved with this information.