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.

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.

Utility, Appropriateness, and Content of Electronic Consultations Across Medical Subspecialties.

BACKGROUND: Electronic consultations (e-consults) can facilitate patient access to specialists, minimize travel, and reduce unnecessary in-person visits. However, metrics to enable study of e-consults and their effect on processes and patient care are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess novel metrics of e-consult appropriateness and utility. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary and specialty care practices at 2 large academic and 2 community hospitals of an integrated health system. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with e-consult requests to 5 specialties-hematology, infectious disease, dermatology, rheumatology, and psychiatry-between October 2017 and November 2018. MEASUREMENTS: The appropriateness of e-consult inquiries was assessed by review of medical records and defined as meeting the following 4 criteria: not answerable by reviewing evidence-based summary sources ("point-of-care resource test"), not merely requesting logistic information, having appropriate clinical urgency, and having appropriate patient complexity. Interrater agreement in assessments of e-consult appropriateness was assessed by the κ statistic. Utility of e-consults was assessed by the rate of avoided visits (AVs), defined by the absence of an in-person visit to the same specialty within 120 days. RESULTS: Overall, 6512 eligible e-consults were made by 1096 referring providers to 121 specialist consultants. Inquiries were characterized as diagnostic, therapeutic, for provider education, or at the request of the patient. Most consultations were answered within 1 day, with variation across specialties (73.1% for psychiatry to 87.8% for infectious disease). Overall, 70.2% of e-consults met all 4 criteria for appropriateness; the frequency of unmet criteria varied among specialties. Raters agreed on the appropriateness of 94% of e-consults (κ = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79]), indicating moderate agreement. The overall rate of AVs across the 5 specialties was 81.2%; the highest rate was in psychiatry (92.6%) and the lowest in dermatology (61.9%). LIMITATION: Generalizability is unknown outside a single integrated health system, where requesting and consulting providers share a common electronic health record. CONCLUSION: Novel metrics to assess the appropriateness and utility of e-consults provide meaningful insight into practice, provide a rubric for comparison in future studies in additional settings, and suggest areas to improve resource use and patient care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Development of an electronic health record-based chronic kidney disease registry to promote population health management.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) based chronic kidney disease (CKD) registries are central to population health strategies to improve CKD care. In 2015, Partners Healthcare System (PHS), encompassing multiple academic and community hospitals and outpatient care facilities in Massachusetts, developed an EHR-based CKD registry to identify opportunities for quality improvement, defined as improvement on both process measures and outcomes measures associated with clinical care. METHODS: Patients are included in the registry based on the following criteria: 1) two estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) results < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 separated by 90 days, including the most recent eGFR being < 60 ml/min/1.73m2; or 2) the most recent two urine protein values > 300 mg protein/g creatinine on either urine total protein/creatinine ratio or urine albumin/creatinine ratio; or 3) an EHR problem list diagnosis of end stage renal disease (ESRD). The registry categorizes patients by CKD stage and includes rates of annual testing for eGFR and proteinuria, blood pressure control, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), nephrotoxic medication use, hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunization, vascular access placement, transplant status, CKD progression risk; number of outpatient nephrology visits, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: The CKD registry includes 60,503 patients and has revealed several opportunities for care improvement including 1) annual proteinuria testing performed for 17% (stage 3) and 31% (stage 4) of patients; 2) ACE-I/ARB used in 41% (stage 3) and 46% (stage 4) of patients; 3) nephrotoxic medications used among 23% of stage 4 patients; and 4) 89% of stage 4 patients lack HBV immunity. For advanced CKD patients there are opportunities to improve vascular access placement, transplant referrals and outpatient nephrology contact. CONCLUSIONS: A CKD registry can identify modifiable care gaps across the spectrum of CKD care and enable population health strategy implementation. No linkage to Social Security Death Master File or US Renal Data System (USRDS) databases limits our ability to track mortality and progression to ESRD.