Identification of patients undergoing chronic kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data: validation study based on OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry.

Objective: To validate primary and secondary care codes in electronic health records to identify people receiving chronic kidney replacement therapy based on gold standard registry data. Design: Validation study using data from OpenSAFELY and the UK Renal Registry, with the approval of NHS England. Setting: Primary and secondary care electronic health records from people registered at 45% of general practices in England on 1 January 2020, linked to data from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, part of the NHS England OpenSAFELY covid-19 service. Participants: 38 745 prevalent patients (recorded as receiving kidney replacement therapy on 1 January 2020 in UKRR data, or primary or secondary care data) and 10 730 incident patients (starting kidney replacement therapy during 2020), from a population of 19 million people alive and registered with a general practice in England on 1 January 2020. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity and positive predictive values of primary and secondary care code lists for identifying prevalent and incident kidney replacement therapy cohorts compared with the gold standard UKRR data on chronic kidney replacement therapy. Agreement across the data sources overall, and by treatment modality (transplantation or dialysis) and personal characteristics. Results: Primary and secondary care code lists were sensitive for identifying the UKRR prevalent cohort (91.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.8% to 91.6%) and 92.0% (91.6% to 92.4%), respectively), but not the incident cohort (52.3% (50.3% to 54.3%) and 67.9% (66.1% to 69.7%)). Positive predictive values were low (77.7% (77.2% to 78.2%) for primary care data and 64.7% (64.1% to 65.3%) for secondary care data), particularly for chronic dialysis (53.7% (52.9% to 54.5%) for primary care data and 49.1% (48.0% to 50.2%) for secondary care data). Sensitivity decreased with age and index of multiple deprivation in primary care data, but the opposite was true in secondary care data. Agreement was lower in children, with 30% (295/980) featuring in all three datasets. Half (1165/2315) of the incident patients receiving dialysis in UKRR data had a kidney replacement therapy code in the primary care data within three months of the start date of the kidney replacement therapy. No codes existed whose exclusion would substantially improve the positive predictive value without a decrease in sensitivity. Conclusions: Codes used in primary and secondary care data failed to identify a small proportion of prevalent patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. Codes also identified many patients who were not recipients of chronic kidney replacement therapy in UKRR data, particularly dialysis codes. Linkage with UKRR kidney replacement therapy data facilitated more accurate identification of incident and prevalent kidney replacement therapy cohorts for research into this vulnerable population. Poor coding has implications for any patient care (including eligibility for vaccination, resourcing, and health policy responses in future pandemics) that relies on accurate reporting of kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data.

Patient stratification using plasma cytokines and their regulators in sepsis: relationship to outcomes, treatment effect and leucocyte transcriptomic subphenotypes.

RATIONALE: Heterogeneity of the host response within sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and more widely critical illness, limits discovery and targeting of immunomodulatory therapies. Clustering approaches using clinical and circulating biomarkers have defined hyper-inflammatory and hypo-inflammatory subphenotypes in ARDS associated with differential treatment response. It is unknown if similar subphenotypes exist in sepsis populations where leucocyte transcriptomic-defined subphenotypes have been reported. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether inflammatory clusters based on cytokine protein abundance were seen in sepsis, and the relationships with previously described transcriptomic subphenotypes. METHODS: Hierarchical cluster and latent class analysis were applied to an observational study (UK Genomic Advances in Sepsis (GAinS)) (n=124 patients) and two clinical trial datasets (VANISH, n=155 and LeoPARDS, n=484) in which the plasma protein abundance of 65, 21, 11 circulating cytokines, cytokine receptors and regulators were quantified. Clinical features, outcomes, response to trial treatments and assignment to transcriptomic subphenotypes were compared between inflammatory clusters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified two (UK GAinS, VANISH) or three (LeoPARDS) inflammatory clusters. A group with high levels of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines was seen that was associated with worse organ dysfunction and survival. No interaction between inflammatory clusters and trial treatment response was found. We found variable overlap of inflammatory clusters and leucocyte transcriptomic subphenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that differences in response at the level of cytokine biology show clustering related to severity, but not treatment response, and may provide complementary information to transcriptomic sepsis subphenotypes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20769191, ISRCTN12776039.

Preterm Formula, Fortified or Unfortified Human Milk for Very Preterm Infants, the PREMFOOD Study: A Parallel Randomised Feasibility Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Uncertainty exists regarding optimal supplemental diet for very preterm infants if the mother's own milk (MM) is insufficient. We evaluated feasibility for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) powered to detect important differences in health outcomes. METHODS: In this open, parallel, feasibility trial, we randomised infants 25+0-31+6 weeks of gestation by opt-out consent to one of three diets: unfortified human milk (UHM) (unfortified MM and/or unfortified pasteurised human donor milk (DM) supplement), fortified human milk (FHM) (fortified MM and/or fortified DM supplement), and unfortified MM and/or preterm formula (PTF) supplement from birth to 35+0 weeks post menstrual age. Feasibility outcomes included opt-outs, adherence rates, and slow growth safety criteria. We also obtained anthropometry, and magnetic resonance imaging body composition data at term and term plus 6 weeks (opt-in consent). RESULTS: Of 35 infants randomised to UHM, 34 to FHM, and 34 to PTF groups, 21, 19, and 24 infants completed imaging at term, respectively. Study entry opt-out rate was 38%; 6% of parents subsequently withdrew from feeding intervention. Two infants met predefined slow weight gain thresholds. There were no significant between-group differences in term total adipose tissue volume (mean [SD]: UHM: 0.870 L [0.35 L]; FHM: 0.889 L [0.31 L]; PTF: 0.809 L [0.25 L], p = 0.66), nor in any other body composition measure or anthropometry at either timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: Randomisation to UHM, FHM, and PTF diets by opt-out consent was acceptable to parents and clinical teams, associated with safe growth profiles and no significant differences in body composition. Our data provide justification to proceed to a larger RCT.

Impact of COVID-19 on patient experience of kidney care: a rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, a pandemic state was declared due to SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19). Patients with kidney disease, especially those on replacement therapies, proved more susceptible to severe infection. This rapid literature review aims to help understand how the pandemic impacted patient experience of kidney care. METHODS: It was conducted in accordance with Cochrane Rapid Review interim guidance. Search terms, 'coronavirus', 'kidney care', and 'patient-reported experience' and terms with similar semantic meaning, identified 1,117 articles in Medline, Scopus, and Worldwide Science. Seventeen were included in the narrative synthesis. RESULTS: The findings were summarised into three themes: remote consultation and telemedicine (n = 9); psychosocial impact (n = 2); and patient satisfaction and patient-reported experience (n = 6). Patients were mostly satisfied with remote consultations, describing them as convenient and allowing avoidance of hospital visits. Anxieties included missing potentially important clinical findings due to lack of physical examination, poor digital literacy, and technical difficulties. Psychosocial impact differed between treatment modalities-transplant recipients expressing feelings of instability and dread of having to return to dialysis, and generally, were less satisfied, citing reduced ability to work and difficulty accessing medications. Those on home dialysis treatments tended to feel safer. Findings focused on aspects of patient experience of kidney care during the pandemic rather than a holistic view. CONCLUSIONS: There was little direct evaluation of modality differences and limited consideration of health inequalities in care experiences. A fuller understanding of these issues would guide policy agendas to support patient experience during future public health crises.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on services for patients with chronic kidney disease: findings of a national survey of UK kidney centres.

BACKGROUND: Services for patients with kidney disease underwent radical adaptations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We undertook an online national survey of UK kidney centres to understand the nature, range, and degree of variation in these changes and to explore factors contributing to differing practice. METHODS: The survey was designed by a multidisciplinary team of kidney professionals, service users and researchers. It enquired about centre services and staffing, including psychosocial provision, and changes to these in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Links to the survey were sent to all 68 UK kidney centres and remained active from December 2021 to April 2022, and a revised version to nurses in late 2022 for additional data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Content analysis on free-text responses identified common themes. RESULTS: Analysable responses were received from 41 out of the 68 UK centres (60%), with partial data from an additional 7 (11%). Adaptations were system-wide and affected all aspects of service provision. Some changes were almost universal such as virtual consultations for outpatient appointments, with significant variation in others. Outpatient activity varied from fully maintained to suspended. Many centres reduced peritoneal dialysis access provision but in some this was increased. Centres considered that changes to transplant surgical services and for patients with advanced CKD approaching end-stage kidney disease had the greatest impact on patients. Few centres implemented adjustments aimed at vulnerable and underrepresented groups, including the frail elderly, people with language and communication needs, and those with mental health needs. Communication issues were attributed to rapid evolution of the pandemic, changing planning guidance and lack of resources. Staffing shortages, involving all staff groups particularly nurses, mainly due to COVID-19 infection and redeployment, were compounded by deficiencies in staffing establishments and high vacancy levels. Centres cited three main lessons influencing future service delivery, the need for service redesign, improvements in communication, and better support for staff. CONCLUSION: Kidney centre responses to the pandemic involved adaptations across the whole service. Though some changes were almost universal, there was wide variation in other areas. Exploring the role of centre characteristics may help planning for potential future severe service disruptions.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR and SRR databases.

Background: Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK. Methods: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR). Results: Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 1852) or molnupiravir (n = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.71]; P = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13-1.21); P = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P > .05). Conclusions: In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves.

Comparative effectiveness of two- and three-dose COVID-19 vaccination schedules involving AZD1222 and BNT162b2 in people with kidney disease: a linked OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry cohort study.

Background: Kidney disease is a key risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality and suboptimal vaccine response. Optimising vaccination strategies is essential to reduce the disease burden in this vulnerable population. We therefore compared the effectiveness of two- and three-dose schedules involving AZD1222 (AZ; ChAdOx1-S) and BNT162b2 (BNT) among people with kidney disease in England. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study among people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease. Using linked primary care and UK Renal Registry records in the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, we identified adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease, dialysis recipients, and kidney transplant recipients. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare COVID-19-related outcomes and non-COVID-19 death after two-dose (AZ-AZ vs BNT-BNT) and three-dose (AZ-AZ-BNT vs BNT-BNT-BNT) schedules. Findings: After two doses, incidence during the Delta wave was higher in AZ-AZ (n = 257,580) than BNT-BNT recipients (n = 169,205; adjusted hazard ratios [95% CIs] 1.43 [1.37-1.50], 1.59 [1.43-1.77], 1.44 [1.12-1.85], and 1.09 [1.02-1.17] for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, COVID-19-related death, and non-COVID-19 death, respectively). Findings were consistent across disease subgroups, including dialysis and transplant recipients. After three doses, there was little evidence of differences between AZ-AZ-BNT (n = 220,330) and BNT-BNT-BNT recipients (n = 157,065) for any outcome during a period of Omicron dominance. Interpretation: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe kidney disease, two doses of BNT conferred stronger protection than AZ against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease. A subsequent BNT dose levelled the playing field, emphasising the value of heterologous RNA doses in vulnerable populations. Funding: National Core Studies, Wellcome Trust, MRC, and Health Data Research UK.

Development and Evaluation of Machine Learning in Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detecting Metastases in Patients With Lung or Colon Cancer: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study.

OBJECTIVES: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) has been demonstrated to be efficient and cost-effective for cancer staging. The study aim was to develop a machine learning (ML) algorithm to improve radiologists' sensitivity and specificity for metastasis detection and reduce reading times. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 438 prospectively collected WB-MRI scans from multicenter Streamline studies (February 2013-September 2016) was undertaken. Disease sites were manually labeled using Streamline reference standard. Whole-body MRI scans were randomly allocated to training and testing sets. A model for malignant lesion detection was developed based on convolutional neural networks and a 2-stage training strategy. The final algorithm generated lesion probability heat maps. Using a concurrent reader paradigm, 25 radiologists (18 experienced, 7 inexperienced in WB-/MRI) were randomly allocated WB-MRI scans with or without ML support to detect malignant lesions over 2 or 3 reading rounds. Reads were undertaken in the setting of a diagnostic radiology reading room between November 2019 and March 2020. Reading times were recorded by a scribe. Prespecified analysis included sensitivity, specificity, interobserver agreement, and reading time of radiology readers to detect metastases with or without ML support. Reader performance for detection of the primary tumor was also evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-three evaluable WB-MRI scans were allocated to algorithm training (245) or radiology testing (50 patients with metastases, from primary 117 colon [n = 117] or lung [n = 71] cancer). Among a total 562 reads by experienced radiologists over 2 reading rounds, per-patient specificity was 86.2% (ML) and 87.7% (non-ML) (-1.5% difference; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.4%, 3.5%; P = 0.39). Sensitivity was 66.0% (ML) and 70.0% (non-ML) (-4.0% difference; 95% CI, -13.5%, 5.5%; P = 0.344). Among 161 reads by inexperienced readers, per-patient specificity in both groups was 76.3% (0% difference; 95% CI, -15.0%, 15.0%; P = 0.613), with sensitivity of 73.3% (ML) and 60.0% (non-ML) (13.3% difference; 95% CI, -7.9%, 34.5%; P = 0.313). Per-site specificity was high (>90%) for all metastatic sites and experience levels. There was high sensitivity for the detection of primary tumors (lung cancer detection rate of 98.6% with and without ML [0.0% difference; 95% CI, -2.0%, 2.0%; P = 1.00], colon cancer detection rate of 89.0% with and 90.6% without ML [-1.7% difference; 95% CI, -5.6%, 2.2%; P = 0.65]). When combining all reads from rounds 1 and 2, reading times fell by 6.2% (95% CI, -22.8%, 10.0%) when using ML. Round 2 read-times fell by 32% (95% CI, 20.8%, 42.8%) compared with round 1. Within round 2, there was a significant decrease in read-time when using ML support, estimated as 286 seconds (or 11%) quicker ( P = 0.0281), using regression analysis to account for reader experience, read round, and tumor type. Interobserver variance suggests moderate agreement, Cohen κ = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.81 (with ML), and Cohen κ = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47, 0.81 (without ML). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a significant difference in per-patient sensitivity and specificity for detecting metastases or the primary tumor using concurrent ML compared with standard WB-MRI. Radiology read-times with or without ML support fell for round 2 reads compared with round 1, suggesting that readers familiarized themselves with the study reading method. During the second reading round, there was a significant reduction in reading time when using ML support.

What data collection methods work best for COVID19 outbreak surveillance for people with end stage kidney disease? An observational cohort study using the UK Renal Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) are vulnerable to severe illness from COVID-19. Timely, accurate surveillance is essential for planning and implementing infection control at local, regional and national levels. Our aim was to compare two methods of data collection for COVID-19 infections amongst KRT patients in England. METHODS: Adults receiving KRT in England were linked to two sources of data on positive COVID-19 tests recorded March-August 2020: (1) submissions from renal centres to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) and (2) Public Health England (PHE) laboratory data. Patient characteristics, cumulative incidence by modality (in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD), home HD, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and transplant), and 28-day survival were compared between the two sources. RESULTS: 2,783/54,795 patients (5.1%) had a positive test in the combined UKRR-PHE dataset. Of these 2,783, 87% had positive tests in both datasets. Capture was consistently high for PHE (> 95% across modalities) but varied for UKRR (ranging from ICHD 95% to transplant 78%, p < 0.0001). Patients captured only by PHE were more likely to be on transplant or home therapies (OR 3.5 95% CI [2.3-5.2] vs. ICHD) and to be infected in later months (OR 3.3 95%CI [2.4-4.6] for May-June, OR 6.5 95%CI [3.8-11.3] for July-August, vs. March-April), compared to patients in both datasets. Stratified by modality, patient characteristics and 28-day survival were similar between datasets. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing ICHD treatment the collection of data submitted directly by renal centres allows constant monitoring in real time. For other KRT modalities, using a national swab test dataset through frequent linkage may be the most effective method. Optimising central surveillance can improve patient care by informing interventions and assisting planning at local, regional and national levels.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.

Comparison of Outcomes of In-Centre Haemodialysis Patients between the 1st and 2nd COVID-19 Outbreak in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: A UK Renal Registry Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This retrospective cohort study compares in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) patients' outcomes between the 1st and 2nd waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. METHODS: All people aged ≥18 years receiving ICHD at 31 December 2019, who were still alive and not in receipt of a kidney transplant at 1 March and who had a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 March 2020 and 31 January 2021, were included. The COVID-19 infections were split into two "waves": wave 1 from March to August 2020 and wave 2 from September 2020 to January 2021. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19, multivariable Cox models for risk of positivity, median, and 95% credible interval of reproduction number in dialysis units were calculated separately for wave 1 and wave 2. Survival and hazard ratios for mortality were described with age- and sex-adjusted Kaplan-Meier plots and multivariable Cox proportional models. RESULTS: 4,408 ICHD patients had COVID-19 during the study period. Unadjusted survival at 28 days was similar in both waves (wave 1 75.6% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 73.7-77.5], wave 2 76.3% [95% CI 74.3-78.2]), but death occurred more rapidly after detected infection in wave 1. Long vintage treatment and not being on the transplant waiting list were associated with higher mortality in both waves. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of death of patients on ICHD treatment with COVID-19 remained unchanged between the first and second outbreaks. This highlights that this vulnerable patient group needs to be prioritized for interventions to prevent severe COVID-19, including vaccination, and the implementation of measures to reduce the risk of transmission alone is not sufficient.

Symptom clusters in chronic kidney disease and their association with people's ability to perform usual activities.

BACKGROUND: People living with a long-term condition, such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), often suffer from multiple symptoms simultaneously, making symptom management challenging. This study aimed to identify symptom clusters in adults with CKD across treatment groups and investigate their association with people's ability to perform their usual activities. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of both cross-sectional and longitudinal data collected as part of a national service improvement programme in 14 kidney centres in England, UK. This data included symptom severity (17 items, POS-S Renal) and the extent to which people had problems performing their usual activities (single item, EQ-5D-5L). We categorised data by treatment group: haemodialysis (n = 1,462), transplantation (n = 866), peritoneal dialysis (n = 127), or CKD without kidney replacement therapy (CKD non-KRT; n = 684). We used principal component analysis to identify symptom clusters per treatment group, and proportional odds models to assess the association between clusters and usual activities. RESULTS: Overall, clusters related to: lack of energy and mobility; gastrointestinal; skin; and mental health. Across groups, the 'lack of energy and mobility' clusters were associated with having problems with usual activities, with odds ratios (OR) ranging between 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.57) for haemodialysis and 1.56 for peritoneal dialysis (95% CI, 1.28-1.90). This association was confirmed longitudinally in haemodialysis (n = 399) and transplant (n = 249) subgroups. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest that healthcare professionals should consider routinely assessing symptoms in the 'lack of energy & mobility' cluster in all people with CKD, regardless of whether they volunteer this information; not addressing these symptoms is likely to be related to them having problems with performing usual activities. Future studies should explore why symptoms within clusters commonly co-occur and how they interrelate. This will inform the development of cluster-level symptom management interventions with enhanced potential to improve outcomes for people with CKD.

Patient activation and its association with symptom burden and quality of life across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease stages in England.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage one's own health is termed patient activation and can be assessed using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). This measure is increasingly recommended for use in chronic kidney disease (CKD), but there is a need to better understand patient activation within this population. This work aimed to explore the association of PAM with patient-reported outcomes, namely symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to understand the relationship between patient activation and outcomes which are of importance to people with CKD. METHODS: Non-dialysis, dialysis, and kidney transplant patients from 14 renal units across England completed a survey comprising questionnaires assessing patient activation, symptom burden, and HRQoL. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to determine HRQoL and symptom burden subgroups in the data. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between patient activation and symptom burden and HRQoL classes separately, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation and treatment modality. RESULTS: Three thousand thirteen participants (mean age 61.5 years, 61.8% males, and 47% haemodialysis) were included in the analysis. Patient activation was strongly associated with both the HRQoL and symptom burden classes identified, with highly activated patients more likely to report higher HRQoL (P = < 0.0001; OR 29.2, 95% CI 19.5-43.9) and fewer symptoms (P = < 0.0001; OR 25.9, 95% CI 16.8-40.2). CONCLUSION: Lower activation levels are associated with a higher symptom burden and reduced HRQoL across the trajectory of CKD stages and treatment modalities. Therefore, targeted and holistic self-management support focussing on improving activation may have the potential to improve aspects of health experience which are valued by individuals living with kidney disease.

Centre variation in mortality following post-hospitalization acute kidney injury: analysis of a large national cohort.

BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) is important to drive ongoing quality improvement in patient care. In this study we describe the development of a case mix-adjusted 30-day mortality indicator for patients with post-hospitalization AKI (PH-AKI) across England to facilitate identification of any unwarranted centre variation in outcomes. METHODS: We utilized a routinely collected national dataset of biochemically detected AKI cases linked with national hospitals administrative and mortality data. A total of 250 504 PH-AKI episodes were studied across 103 National Health Service hospital trusts between January 2017 and December 2018. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated for each trust using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, primary diagnosis, comorbidity score, AKI severity, month of AKI and admission method. RESULTS: The mean 30-day mortality rate was high, at 28.6%. SMRs for 23/103 trusts were classed as outliers, 12 above and 11 below the 95% confidence limits. Patients with PH-AKI had mortality rates >5 times higher than the overall hospitalized population in 90/136 diagnosis groups and >10 times higher in 60/136 groups. Presentation at trusts with a co-located specialist nephrology service was associated with a lower mortality risk, as was South Asian or Black ethnicity. Deprivation, however, was associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicentre analysis of mortality for patients with biochemically ascertained PH-AKI to date, demonstrating once again the considerable risk associated with developing even mild elevations in serum creatinine. Mortality rates varied considerably across centres and those identified as outliers will now need to carefully interrogate local care pathways to understand and address the reasons for this, with national policy required to tackle the identified health disparities.

Outcomes of patients with COVID-19 on kidney replacement therapy: a comparison among modalities in England.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease is a recognized risk factor of poor outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the UK Renal Registry database of people on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) at the end of 2019 in England and who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 to analyse the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 among different KRT modalities. Comparisons with 2015-2019 mortality data were used to estimate excess deaths. RESULTS: A total of 2783 individuals on KRT tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Patients from more-deprived areas {most deprived versus least deprived hazard ratio [HR] 1.20 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.39]} and those with diabetes compared with those without [HR 1.51 (95% CI 1.39-1.64)] were more likely to test positive. Approximately 25% of in-centre haemodialysis and transplanted patients died within 28 days of testing positive compared with 36% of those on home therapies. Mortality was higher in those ≥80 years of age compared with those 60-79 years [odds ratio (OR) 1.71 (95% CI 1.34-2.19)] and much lower in those listed for transplantation compared with those not listed [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.40-0.80)]. Overall, excess mortality in 2020 for people on KRT was 36% higher than the 2015-2019 average. Excess deaths peaked in April 2020 at the height of the pandemic and were characterized by wide ethnic and regional disparities. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of COVID-19 on the English KRT population highlights their extreme vulnerability and emphasizes the need to protect and prioritize this group for vaccination. COVID-19 has widened underlying inequalities in people with kidney disease, making interventions that address health inequalities a priority.

The ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report 2018: a summary.

BACKGROUND: The European Renal Association - European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry collects data on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) via national and regional renal registries in Europe and countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. This article summarizes the 2018 ERA-EDTA Registry Annual Report, and describes the epidemiology of KRT for kidney failure in 34 countries. METHODS: Individual patient data on patients undergoing KRT in 2018 were provided by 34 national or regional renal registries and aggregated data by 17 registries. The incidence and prevalence of KRT, the kidney transplantation activity and the survival probabilities of these patients were calculated. RESULTS: In 2018, the ERA-EDTA Registry covered a general population of 636 million people. Overall, the incidence of KRT for kidney failure was 129 per million population (p.m.p.), 62% of patients were men, 51% were ≥65 years of age and 20% had diabetes mellitus as cause of kidney failure. Treatment modality at the onset of KRT was haemodialysis (HD) for 84%, peritoneal dialysis (PD) for 11% and pre-emptive kidney transplantation for 5% of patients. On 31 December 2018, the prevalence of KRT was 897 p.m.p., with 57% of patients on HD, 5% on PD and 38% living with a kidney transplant. The transplant rate in 2018 was 35 p.m.p.: 68% received a kidney from a deceased donor, 30% from a living donor and for 2% the donor source was unknown. For patients commencing dialysis during 2009-13, the unadjusted 5-year survival probability was 42.6%. For patients receiving a kidney transplant within this period, the unadjusted 5-year survival probability was 86.6% for recipients of deceased donor grafts and 93.9% for recipients of living donor grafts.

Sociodemographic features and mortality of individuals on haemodialysis treatment who test positive for SARS-CoV-2: A UK Renal Registry data analysis.

Kidney disease is a recognised risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes. Up to 30 June 2020, the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) collected data for 2,385 in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) patients with COVID-19 in England and Wales. Overall unadjusted survival at 1 week after date of positive COVID-19 test was 87.5% (95% CI 86.1-88.8%); mortality increased with age, treatment vintage and there was borderline evidence of Asian ethnicity (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.94-1.44) being associated with higher mortality. Compared to the general population, the relative risk of mortality for ICHD patients with COVID-19 was 45.4 and highest in younger adults. This retrospective cohort study based on UKRR data supports efforts to protect this vulnerable patient group.

Levosimendan in septic shock in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction: a subgroup analysis of the LeoPARDS randomised trial.

PURPOSE: Myocardial dysfunction is common in sepsis but optimal treatment strategies are unclear. The inodilator, levosimendan was suggested as a possible therapy; however, the levosimendan to prevent acute organ dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial found it to have no benefit in reducing organ dysfunction in septic shock. In this study we evaluated the effects of levosimendan in patients with and without biochemical cardiac dysfunction and examined its non-inotropic effects. METHODS: Two cardiac biomarkers, troponin I (cTnI) and N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and five inflammatory mediators were measured in plasma from patients recruited to the LeoPARDS trial at baseline and over the first 6 days. Mean total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and 28-day mortality were compared between patients with normal and raised cTnI and NT-proBNP values, and between patients above and below median values. RESULTS: Levosimendan produced no benefit in SOFA score or 28-day mortality in patients with cardiac dysfunction. There was a statistically significant treatment by subgroup interaction (p = 0.04) in patients with NT-proBNP above or below the median value. Those with NT-proBNP values above the median receiving levosimendan had higher SOFA scores than those receiving placebo (mean daily total SOFA score 7.64 (4.41) vs 6.09 (3.88), mean difference 1.55, 95% CI 0.43-2.68). Levosimendan had no effect on the rate of decline of inflammatory biomarkers. CONCLUSION: Adding levosimendan to standard care in septic shock was not associated with less severe organ dysfunction nor lower mortality in patients with biochemical evidence of cardiac dysfunction.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect by baseline risk of mortality in critically ill patients: re-analysis of three recent sepsis and ARDS randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) generate heterogeneous trial populations. Non-random variation in the treatment effect of an intervention due to differences in the baseline risk of death between patients in a population represents one form of heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). We assessed whether HTE in two sepsis and one ARDS RCTs could explain indeterminate trial results and inform future trial design. METHODS: We assessed HTE for vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan in sepsis and simvastatin in ARDS patients, on 28-day mortality, using the total Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score as the baseline risk measurement, comparing above (high) and below (low) the median score. Secondary risk measures were the acute physiology component of APACHE II and predicted risk of mortality using the APACHE II score. HTE was quantified both in additive (difference in risk difference (RD)) and multiplicative (ratio of relative risks (RR)) scales using estimated treatment differences from a logistic regression model with treatment risk as the interaction term. RESULTS: The ratio of the odds of death in the highest APACHE II quartile was 4.9 to 7.4 times compared to the lowest quartile, across the three trials. We did not observe HTE for vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan in the two sepsis trials. In the HARP-2 trial, simvastatin reduced mortality in the low APACHE II group and increased mortality in the high APACHE II group (difference in RD = 0.34 (0.12, 0.55) (p = 0.02); ratio of RR 3.57 (1.77, 7.17) (p < 0.001). The HTE patterns were inconsistent across the secondary risk measures. The sensitivity analyses of HTE effects for vasopressin, hydrocortisone and levosimendan were consistent with the main analyses and attenuated for simvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: We assessed HTE in three recent ICU RCTs, using multivariable baseline risk of death models. There was considerable within-trial variation in the baseline risk of death. We observed potential HTE for simvastatin in ARDS, but no evidence of HTE for vasopressin, hydrocortisone or levosimendan in the two sepsis trials. Our findings could be explained either by true lack of HTE (no benefit of vasopressin, hydrocortisone or levosimendan vs comparator for any patient subgroups) or by lack of power to detect HTE. Our results require validation using similar trial databases.

Transcriptomic Signatures in Sepsis and a Differential Response to Steroids. From the VANISH Randomized Trial.

RATIONALE: There remains uncertainty about the role of corticosteroids in sepsis with clear beneficial effects on shock duration, but conflicting survival effects. Two transcriptomic sepsis response signatures (SRSs) have been identified. SRS1 is relatively immunosuppressed, whereas SRS2 is relatively immunocompetent. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to categorize patients based on SRS endotypes to determine if these profiles influenced response to either norepinephrine or vasopressin, or to corticosteroids in septic shock. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed of a double-blind, randomized clinical trial in septic shock (VANISH [Vasopressin vs. Norepinephrine as Initial Therapy in Septic Shock]). Patients were included within 6 hours of onset of shock and were randomized to receive norepinephrine or vasopressin followed by hydrocortisone or placebo. Genome-wide gene expression profiling was performed and SRS endotype was determined by a previously established model using seven discriminant genes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Samples were available from 176 patients: 83 SRS1 and 93 SRS2. There was no significant interaction between SRS group and vasopressor assignment (P = 0.50). However, there was an interaction between assignment to hydrocortisone or placebo, and SRS endotype (P = 0.02). Hydrocortisone use was associated with increased mortality in those with an SRS2 phenotype (odds ratio = 7.9; 95% confidence interval = 1.6-39.9). CONCLUSIONS: Transcriptomic profile at onset of septic shock was associated with response to corticosteroids. Those with the immunocompetent SRS2 endotype had significantly higher mortality when given corticosteroids compared with placebo. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (ISRCTN 20769191).