Comparative Effectiveness of Dynamic Treatment Strategies for Medication Use and Dosage: Emulating a Target Trial Using Observational Data.

BACKGROUND: Availability of detailed data from electronic health records (EHRs) has increased the potential to examine the comparative effectiveness of dynamic treatment strategies using observational data. Inverse probability (IP) weighting of dynamic marginal structural models can control for time-varying confounders. However, IP weights for continuous treatments may be sensitive to model choice. METHODS: We describe a target trial comparing strategies for treating anemia with darbepoetin in hemodialysis patients using EHR data from the UK Renal Registry 2004 to 2016. Patients received a specified dose (microgram/week) or did not receive darbepoetin. We compared 4 methods for modeling time-varying treatment: (A) logistic regression for zero dose, standard linear regression for log dose; (B) logistic regression for zero dose, heteroscedastic linear regression for log dose; (C) logistic regression for zero dose, heteroscedastic linear regression for log dose, multinomial regression for patients who recently received very low or high doses; and (D) ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: For this dataset, method (C) was the only approach that provided a robust estimate of the mortality hazard ratio (HR), with less-extreme weights in a fully weighted analysis and no substantial change of the HR point estimate after weight truncation. After truncating IP weights at the 95th percentile, estimates were similar across the methods. CONCLUSIONS: EHR data can be used to emulate target trials estimating the comparative effectiveness of dynamic strategies adjusting treatment to evolving patient characteristics. However, model checking, monitoring of large weights, and adaptation of model strategies to account for these is essential if an aspect of treatment is continuous.

Predictors of quality of life in patients within the first year of commencing haemodialysis based on baseline data from the PIVOTAL trial and associations with the study outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Impaired quality of life is common in patients with end-stage kidney disease. We report the baseline quality of life measures in participants from the PIVOTAL randomized controlled trial and the potential relationship with the primary outcome (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure hospitalisation), and associations with key baseline characteristics. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 2141 patients enrolled in the PIVOTAL trial. Quality of life was measured using EQ5D index, Visual Analogue Scale, and the KD-QoL [Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score]. RESULTS: Mean baseline EQ5D index and visual analogue scale scores were 0.68 and 60.7 and 33.7 (Physical Component Score) and 46.0 (Mental Component Score), respectively. Female sex, higher Body Mass Index, diabetes mellitus, history of myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure were associated with significantly worse EQ5D index and visual analogue scale. Higher C-reactive protein levels and lower transferrin saturation were associated with worse quality of life. Haemoglobin was not an independent predictor of quality of life. A lower transferrin saturation was an independent predictor of worse physical component score. A higher C-reactive protein level was associated with most aspects of worse quality of life. Impaired functional status was associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: Quality of life was impaired in patients starting haemodialysis. A higher C-reactive protein level level was a consistent independent predictor of the majority of worse quality of life. Transferrin saturation ≤ 20% was associated with worse physical component score of quality of life. Baseline quality of life was predictive of all-cause mortality and the primary outcome measure. EUDRACT REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2013-002267-25.

High-dose intravenous iron reduces myocardial infarction in patients on haemodialysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of high-dose iron vs. low-dose intravenous (IV) iron on myocardial infarction (MI) in patients on maintenance haemodialysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a pre-specified analysis of secondary endpoints of the Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients trial (PIVOTAL) randomized, controlled clinical trial. Adults who had started haemodialysis within the previous year, who had a ferritin concentration <400 µg per litre and a transferrin saturation <30% were randomized to high-dose or low-dose IV iron. The main outcome measure for this analysis was fatal or non-fatal MI. Over a median of 2.1 years of follow-up, 8.4% experienced a MI. Rates of type 1 MIs (3.2/100 patient-years) were 2.5 times higher than type 2 MIs (1.3/100 patient-years). Non-ST-elevation MIs (3.3/100 patient-years) were 6 times more common than ST-elevation MIs (0.5/100 patient-years). Mortality was high after non-fatal MI (1- and 2-year mortality of 40% and 60%, respectively). In time-to-first event analyses, proactive high-dose IV iron reduced the composite endpoint of non-fatal and fatal MI [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.93, P = 0.01] and non-fatal MI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; P = 0.01) when compared with reactive low-dose IV iron. There was less effect of high-dose IV iron on recurrent MI events than on the time-to-first event analysis. CONCLUSION: In total, 8.4% of patients on maintenance haemodialysis had an MI over 2 years. High-dose compared to low-dose IV iron reduced MI in patients receiving haemodialysis. EUDRACT REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2013-002267-25.

Medication Holds in CKD During Acute Volume-Depleting Illnesses: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a "Sick-Day" Protocol.

Rationale & Objective: Some drugs prescribed for chronic kidney disease (CKD) may become hazardous on sick days with volume depletion by increasing the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) and kidney function loss; however, the risks and benefits of their use during intercurrent illness is unknown. Study Design: 6-month pragmatic trial examining a sick-day protocol to determine if withholding prespecified drugs during a volume-depleting illness reduces the incidence AKI or kidney function loss in CKD. Setting & Participants: 315 veterans with stage 3-5 CKD, treated with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitor blocker, diuretic, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or metformin were randomized into the study with n = 159 and n = 156 in sick-day protocol and usual care groups, respectively. Intervention: Sick-day protocol administered via interactive voice response system (IVRS) or usual care with 6-month follow-up. Outcomes: The outcomes of the study are as follows: (1) Change in kidney function, (2) incidence of AKI based on International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes and ambulatory laboratory testing, (3) urgent service utilizations, and (4) sick days. Results: The mean age was 70.1 ± 7.4 and 69.2 ± 8.1 years, with a mean baseline glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 43.1 ± 13.1 and 43.8 ± 13.0 mL/min/1.73 m2, and 112 (70%) and 100 (64%) of participants with diabetes in the sick-day protocol and usual care groups, respectively. The mean change in GFR in the sick-day protocol and usual care groups from baseline to 6-month follow-up, adjusting for baseline GFR, was -0.71 (95% CI, -2.11 to 0.69) and -0.72 (95% CI, -2.12 to 0.68), respectively, with no significant difference, P = 0.99. Hospitalizations in the sick-day protocol and usual care groups were 11.5/100 and 8.4/100 events per person-months, respectively, with the adjusted rate ratio not significantly increased (prevalence ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.96-1.76). Participants interacted with the IVRS in 81% of expected weeks and 19 had one or more qualifying events. In 33 true sick days, participants correctly followed the protocol in only 14. Limitations: Low incidence of sick days over the 6-month period of the study. Conclusions: The sick-day protocol was not associated with a significant reduction in AKI episodes or kidney function loss in a high-risk CKD population. Engagement with the IVRS was high, but successful implementation of the sick-day protocol was not optimal. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03141905.

Commentary on the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in CKD.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize and explain the new guideline on blood pressure (BP) management in chronic kidney disease (CKD) published by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), an independent global nonprofit organization which develops and implements evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in kidney disease. KDIGO issued its first clinical practice guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure (BP) in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) for patients not receiving dialysis in 2012 and now updated the guideline in 2021. RECENT FINDINGS: Recommendations in this update were developed based on systematic literature reviews and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendation following the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The updated guideline includes five chapters covering BP measurement techniques, lifestyle interventions for lowering BP, and management of BP in three target populations, namely adults (with and without diabetes), kidney transplant recipients, and children. A dedicated chapter on BP measurement emphasizing standardized preparation and measurement protocols for office BP measurement is a new addition, following protocols used in large randomized trials of BP targets with pivotal clinical outcomes. Based on the available evidence, and in particular in the CKD subgroup of the SPRINT trial, the 2021 guideline suggests a systolic BP target of <120 mm Hg, based on standardized measurements, for most individuals with CKD not receiving dialysis, with the exception of kidney transplant recipients and children. This recommendation is strictly contingent on the measurement of BP using standardized office readings and not routine office readings.

Management of Blood Pressure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Not Receiving Dialysis: Synopsis of the 2021 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 clinical practice guideline for the management of blood pressure (BP) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis is an update of the KDIGO 2012 guideline on the same topic and reflects new evidence on the risks and benefits of BP-lowering therapy among patients with CKD. It is intended to support shared decision making by health care professionals working with patients with CKD worldwide. This article is a synopsis of the full guideline. METHODS: The KDIGO leadership commissioned 2 co-chairs to convene an international Work Group of researchers and clinicians. After a Controversies Conference in September 2017, the Work Group defined the scope of the evidence review, which was undertaken by an evidence review team between October 2017 and April 2020. Evidence reviews were done according to the Cochrane Handbook. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to guide the development of the recommendations and rate the strength and quality of the evidence. Practice points were included to provide guidance when evidence was insufficient to make a graded recommendation. The guideline was revised after public consultation between January and March 2020. RECOMMENDATIONS: The updated guideline comprises 11 recommendations and 20 practice points. This synopsis summarizes key recommendations pertinent to the diagnosis and management of high BP in adults with CKD, excluding those receiving kidney replacement therapy. In particular, the synopsis focuses on recommendations for standardized BP measurement and a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg, because these recommendations differ from some other guidelines.

Heart Failure Hospitalization in Adults Receiving Hemodialysis and the Effect of Intravenous Iron Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the effect of intravenous iron on heart failure events in hemodialysis patients. BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common and deadly complication in patients receiving hemodialysis and is difficult to diagnose and treat. METHODS: The study analyzed heart failure events in the PIVOTAL (Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients) trial, which compared intravenous iron administered proactively in a high-dose regimen with a low-dose regimen administered reactively. Heart failure hospitalization was an adjudicated outcome, a component of the primary composite outcome, and a prespecified secondary endpoint in the trial. RESULTS: Overall, 2,141 participants were followed for a median of 2.1 years. A first fatal or nonfatal heart failure event occurred in 51 (4.7%) of 1,093 patients in the high-dose iron group and in 70 (6.7%) of 1,048 patients in the low-dose group (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.94; P = 0.023). There was a total of 63 heart failure events (including first and recurrent events) in the high-dose iron group and 98 in the low-dose group, giving a rate ratio of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87; P = 0.0084). Most patients presented with pulmonary edema and were mainly treated by mechanical removal of fluid. History of heart failure and diabetes were independent predictors of a heart failure event. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a lower-dose regimen, high-dose intravenous iron decreased the occurrence of first and recurrent heart failure events in patients undergoing hemodialysis, with large relative and absolute risk reductions. (UK Multicentre Open-label Randomised Controlled Trial Of IV Iron Therapy In Incident Haemodialysis Patients; 2013-002267-25).

Changes in quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in living-donor and deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients and those awaiting transplantation in the UK ATTOM programme: a longitudinal cohort questionnaire survey with additional qualitative interviews.

OBJECTIVE: To examine quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in kidney transplant recipients and those awaiting transplantation. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort questionnaire surveys and qualitative semi-structured interviews using thematic analysis with a pragmatic approach. SETTING: Completion of generic and disease-specific PROMs at two time points, and telephone interviews with participants UK-wide. PARTICIPANTS: 101 incident deceased-donor (DD) and 94 incident living-donor (LD) kidney transplant recipients, together with 165 patients on the waiting list (WL) from 18 UK centres recruited to the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) programme completed PROMs at recruitment (November 2011 to March 2013) and 1 year follow-up. Forty-one of the 165 patients on the WL received a DD transplant and 26 received a LD transplant during the study period, completing PROMs initially as patients on the WL, and again 1 year post-transplant. A subsample of 10 LD and 10 DD recipients participated in qualitative semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: LD recipients were younger, had more educational qualifications and more often received a transplant before dialysis. Controlling for these and other factors, cross-sectional analyses at 12 months post-transplant suggested better QoL, renal-dependent QoL and treatment satisfaction for LD than DD recipients. Patients on the WL reported worse outcomes compared with both transplant groups. However, longitudinal analyses (controlling for pre-transplant differences) showed that LD and DD recipients reported similarly improved health status and renal-dependent QoL (p<0.01) pre-transplant to post-transplant. Patients on the WL had worsened health status but no change in QoL. Qualitative analyses revealed transplant recipients' expectations influenced their recovery and satisfaction with transplant. CONCLUSIONS: While cross-sectional analyses suggested LD kidney transplantation leads to better QoL and treatment satisfaction, longitudinal assessment showed similar QoL improvements in PROMs for both transplant groups, with better outcomes than for those still wait-listed. Regardless of transplant type, clinicians need to be aware that managing expectations is important for facilitating patients' adjustment post-transplant.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease for patients not receiving dialysis represents an update to the KDIGO 2012 guideline on this topic. Development of this guideline update followed a rigorous process of evidence review and appraisal. Guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence. The strength of recommendations is based on the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The scope includes topics covered in the original guideline, such as optimal blood pressure targets, lifestyle interventions, antihypertensive medications, and specific management in kidney transplant recipients and children. Some aspects of general and cardiovascular health, such as lipid and smoking management, are excluded. This guideline also introduces a chapter dedicated to proper blood pressure measurement since all large randomized trials targeting blood pressure with pivotal outcomes used standardized preparation and measurement protocols adhered to by patients and clinicians. Based on previous and new evidence, in particular the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) results, we propose a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg using standardized office reading for most people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not receiving dialysis, the exception being children and kidney transplant recipients. The goal of this guideline is to provide clinicians and patients a useful resource with actionable recommendations supplemented with practice points. The burden of the recommendations on patients and resources, public policy implications, and limitations of the evidence are taken into consideration. Lastly, knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research are provided.

Stroke in Hemodialysis Patients Randomized to Different Intravenous Iron Strategies: A Prespecified Analysis from the PIVOTAL Trial.

Background: People with kidney failure treated with hemodialysis (HD) are at increased risk of stroke compared with similarly aged people with normal kidney function. One concern is that treatment of renal anemia might increase stroke risk. We studied risk factors for stroke in a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial of intravenous iron treatment strategies in HD. Methods: We analyzed data from the Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) trial, focusing on variables associated with risk of stroke. The trial randomized 2141 adults who had started HD <12 months earlier and who were receiving an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) to high-dose IV iron administered proactively or low-dose IV iron administered reactively in a 1:1 ratio. Possible stroke events were independently adjudicated. We performed analyses to identify variables associated with stroke during follow-up and assessed survival following stroke. Results: During a median 2.1 years of follow-up, 69 (3.2%) patients experienced a first postrandomization stroke. Fifty-seven (82.6%) were ischemic strokes, and 12 (17.4%) were hemorrhagic strokes. There were 34 postrandomization strokes in the proactive arm and 35 postrandomization strokes in the reactive arm (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 1.44; P=0.66). In multivariable models, women, diabetes, history of prior stroke at baseline, higher baseline systolic BP, lower serum albumin, and higher C-reactive protein were independently associated with stroke events during follow-up. Hemoglobin, total iron, and ESA dose were not associated with risk of stroke. Fifty-eight percent of patients with a stroke event died during follow-up compared with 23% without a stroke. Conclusions: In patients on HD, stroke risk is broadly associated with risk factors previously described to increase cardiovascular risk in this population. Proactive intravenous iron does not increase stroke risk.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL), 2013-002267-25.

Perspectives on blood pressure by patients on haemo- and peritoneal dialysis.

AIM: The management of blood pressure in patients requiring dialysis remains challenging and controversial. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients treated with peritoneal or haemodialysis regarding blood pressure, to inform patient-centred management. METHODS: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of qualitative data from multiple data sets derived from the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative. We extracted and analysed the responses of adult patients (aged 18 years or over) on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and their caregivers. Qualitative data were extracted from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys and two consensus workshops completed as part of the SONG-Haemodialysis and SONG-Peritoneal dialysis projects. RESULTS: Collectively, the studies involved 644 patients and caregivers from 86 countries. We identified four themes: helpless and incapacitated (including the subthemes of disabling and debilitating symptoms, limiting ability to work, fear of "crashes" - a sudden drop in blood pressure - forced to depend on others); dismissed and ignored (disregarded as a problem, lacking information, education and reassurance); escalating medication burden; and taking control for improved self-management (determining thresholds in fluid management, establishing a routine for proactive monitoring). CONCLUSION: Blood pressure symptoms are debilitating for patients on dialysis and exacerbated by a perceived lack of information about how to understand and manage these symptoms. More patient-centred management of blood pressure, particularly symptom-causing blood pressure, in patients on dialysis is likely to substantially improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Investigating Ethnic Disparity in Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation in the UK: Patient-Identified Reasons for Non-Donation among Family Members.

There is ethnic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplants in the UK. This study asked kidney patients from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups why members of their family were not able to be living kidney donors. Responses were compared with responses from White individuals. This questionnaire-based mixed-methods study included adults transplanted between 1/4/13-31/3/17 at 14 UK hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate why relatives could not donate, selecting all options applicable from: Age; Health; Weight; Location; Financial/Cost; Job; Blood group; No-one to care for them after donation. A box entitled 'Other-please give details' was provided for free-text entries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse the association between the likelihood of selecting each reason for non-donation and the participant's self-reported ethnicity. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. In total, 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). There was strong evidence that Black, Asian and minority ethnic group individuals were more likely than White people to indicate that family members lived too far away to donate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.30-4.58), were prevented from donating by financial concerns (aOR = 2.95, 95% CI 2.02-4.29), were unable to take time off work (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18-3.02), were "not the right blood group" (aOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.35-2.01), or had no-one to care for them post-donation (aOR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.60-5.35). Four qualitative themes were identified from responses from Black, Asian and minority ethnic group participants: 'Burden of disease within the family'; 'Differing religious interpretations'; 'Geographical concerns'; and 'A culture of silence'. Patients perceive barriers to living kidney donation in the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population. If confirmed, these could be targeted by interventions to redress the observed ethnic inequity.

Changes in Blood Pressure and Arterial Hemodynamics following Living Kidney Donation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Effect of a Reduction in GFR after Nephrectomy on Arterial Stiffness and Central Hemodynamics (EARNEST) study was a multicenter, prospective, controlled study designed to investigate the associations of an isolated reduction in kidney function on BP and arterial hemodynamics. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Prospective living kidney donors and healthy controls who fulfilled criteria for donation were recruited from centers with expertise in vascular research. Participants underwent office and ambulatory BP measurement, assessment of arterial stiffness, and biochemical tests at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 469 participants were recruited, and 306 (168 donors and 138 controls) were followed up at 12 months. In the donor group, mean eGFR was 27 ml/min per 1.73 m2 lower than baseline at 12 months. Compared with baseline, at 12 months the mean within-group difference in ambulatory day systolic BP in donors was 0.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 1.9) and 0.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -0.7 to 2.0) in controls. The between-group difference was -0.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -2.8 to 1.7; P=0.62). The mean within-group difference in pulse wave velocity in donors was 0.3 m/s (95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.4) and 0.2 m/s (95% confidence interval, -0.0 to 0.4) in controls. The between-group difference was 0.1 m/s (95% confidence interval, -0.2 to 0.3; P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in ambulatory peripheral BP and pulse wave velocity in kidney donors at 12 months after nephrectomy were small and not different from controls. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01769924 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01769924).

Obesity, Sex, Race, and Early Onset Hypertension: Implications for a Refined Investigation Strategy.

Investigation for secondary causes is recommended in early onset hypertension. However, obesity is associated with higher blood pressure (BP), so investigation for alternative secondary causes may not be necessary in all obese patients. We sought to define a rational approach to investigation across strata of age, body mass index (BMI) sex and race, based on BP distributions in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2005 to 2016. The majority (71% [95% CI, 59%-79%] and 64% [95% CI, 57%-69%] by European and US definitions respectively) of early onset hypertension cases were attributable to BP distribution shifts accompanying obesity and male sex. Male versus female sex, BMI>40 versus 18.2

Changes in quality of life, health status and other patient-reported outcomes following simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation (SPKT): a quantitative and qualitative analysis within a UK-wide programme.

We examined quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in 95 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant (SPKT) recipients and 41 patients wait-listed for SPKT recruited to the UK Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) programme. Wait-listed patients transplanted within 12 months of recruitment (n = 22) were followed 12 months post-transplant and compared with those still wait-listed (n = 19) to examine pre- to post-transplant changes. Qualitative interviews with ten SPKT recipients 12 months post-transplant were analysed thematically. Cross-sectional analyses showed several better 12-month outcomes for SPKT recipients compared with those still wait-listed, a trend to better health utilities but no difference in diabetes-specific QoL or diabetes treatment satisfaction. Pre- to post-transplant, SPKT recipients showed improved treatment satisfaction, well-being, self-reported health, generic QoL and less negative impact on renal-specific QoL (ps < 0.05). Health utility values were better overall in transplant recipients and neither these nor diabetes-specific QoL changed significantly in either group. Pre-emptive transplant advantages seen in 12-month cross-sectional analyses disappeared when controlling for baseline values. Qualitative findings indicated diabetes complications, self-imposed blood glucose monitoring and dietary restrictions continued to impact QoL negatively post-transplant. Unrealistic expectations of SPKT caused some disappointment. Measuring condition-specific PROMs over time will help in demonstrating the benefits and limitations of SPKT.

Inequity in Access to Transplantation in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the presence of a universal health care system, it is unclear if there is intercenter variation in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom. This study aims to assess whether equity exists in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom after adjustment for patient-specific factors and center practice patterns. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this prospective, observational cohort study including all 71 United Kingdom kidney centers, incident RRT patients recruited between November 2011 and March 2013 as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures study were analyzed to assess preemptive listing (n=2676) and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (n=1970) by center. RESULTS: Seven hundred and six participants (26%) were listed preemptively, whereas 585 (30%) were listed within 2 years of commencing dialysis. The interquartile range across centers was 6%-33% for preemptive listing and 25%-40% for listing after starting dialysis. Patient factors, including increasing age, most comorbidities, body mass index >35 kg/m2, and lower socioeconomic status, were associated with a lower likelihood of being listed and accounted for 89% and 97% of measured intercenter variation for preemptive listing and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis, respectively. Asian (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.72) and Black (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.71) participants were both associated with reduced access to preemptive listing; however Asian participants were associated with a higher likelihood of being listed after starting dialysis (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.79). As for center factors, being registered at a transplanting center (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.36 to 4.07) and a universal approach to discussing transplantation (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.78) were associated with higher preemptive listing, whereas using a written protocol was associated negatively with listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Patient case mix accounts for most of the intercenter variation seen in access to transplantation in the United Kingdom, with practice patterns also contributing some variation. Socioeconomic inequity exists despite having a universal health care system.

Mediators of Socioeconomic Inequity in Living-donor Kidney Transplantation: Results From a UK Multicenter Case-Control Study.

There is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplantation, but limited evidence as to why. We investigated possible mediators of the inequity. METHODS: This questionnaire-based case-control study included 14 UK hospitals. Participants were adults transplanted between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017. Living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (cases) were compared with deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients (controls). We collected data on mediators identified in earlier qualitative work: perceived social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12), patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13), and LDKT knowledge (Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test). We performed mediation analyses to investigate what proportion of the effect of socioeconomic position (education and income) on case-control status was mediated by these variables. RESULTS: One thousand two-hundred and forty questionnaires were returned (40% response). Receipt of an LDKT over a deceased-donor kidney transplant was associated with higher socioeconomic position [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) university degree versus no degree aOR = 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.84), P = 0.001 and aOR per +£1000 increase in monthly household income after tax 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.17), P < 0.001] higher perceived social support (aOR per +1-point Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12 score = 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08), P < 0.001), higher levels of patient activation (aOR per +1 patient activation measure level = 1.35 (95% CI, 1.24-1.48), P < 0.001), and greater LDKT knowledge (aOR per + 1-point Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test score = 1.59 (95% CI, 1.49-1.69), P < 0.001). Mediation analyses revealed that perceived social support, patient activation, and LDKT knowledge together mediate 48.5% (95% CI, 12.7-84.3, P = 0.008) of the association between university education and LDKT status, and 46.0% (95% CI, 28.7-63.4, P < 0.001) of the association between income and LDKT status. CONCLUSIONS: LDKT knowledge, perceived social support, and patient activation are associated with the socioeconomic position of people with kidney disease, and mediate approximately 50% of the association between the socioeconomic position and receipt of an LDKT. Interventions that target these factors may redress observed socioeconomic inequity.

Intravenous Iron Dosing and Infection Risk in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PIVOTAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and observational studies have raised concerns that giving intravenous (IV) iron to patients, such as individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis, might increase the risk of infections. The Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) trial randomized 2141 patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis for ESKD to a high-dose or a low-dose IV iron regimen, with a primary composite outcome of all-cause death, heart attack, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Comparison of infection rates between the two groups was a prespecified secondary analysis. METHODS: Secondary end points included any infection, hospitalization for infection, and death from infection; we calculated cumulative event rates for these end points. We also interrogated the interaction between iron dose and vascular access (fistula versus catheter). RESULTS: We found no significant difference between the high-dose IV iron group compared with the lose-dose group in event rates for all infections (46.5% versus 45.5%, respectively, which represented incidences of 63.3 versus 69.4 per 100 patient years, respectively); rates of hospitalization for infection (29.6% versus 29.3%, respectively) also did not differ. We did find a significant association between risk of a first cardiovascular event and any infection in the previous 30 days. Compared with patients undergoing dialysis with an arteriovenous fistula, those doing so via a catheter had a higher incidence of having any infection, hospitalization for infection, or fatal infection, but IV iron dosing had no effect on these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The high-dose and low-dose IV iron groups exhibited identical infection rates. Risk of a first cardiovascular event strongly associated with a recent infection.