Prognostic Models in Nephrology: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Go from Here? Mapping Out the Evidence in a Scoping Review.

Prognostic models can strongly support individualized care provision and well-informed shared decision making. There has been an upsurge of prognostic research in the field of nephrology, but the uptake of prognostic models in clinical practice remains limited. Therefore, we map out the research field of prognostic models for kidney patients and provide directions on how to proceed from here. We performed a scoping review of studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for patients with CKD. We searched all published models in PubMed and Embase and report predicted outcomes, methodological quality, and validation and/or updating efforts. We found 602 studies, of which 30.1% concerned CKD populations, 31.6% dialysis populations, and 38.4% kidney transplantation populations. The most frequently predicted outcomes were mortality ( n =129), kidney disease progression ( n =75), and kidney graft survival ( n =54). Most studies provided discrimination measures (80.4%), but much less showed calibration results (43.4%). Of the 415 development studies, 28.0% did not perform any validation and 57.6% performed only internal validation. Moreover, only 111 models (26.7%) were externally validated either in the development study itself or in an independent external validation study. Finally, in 45.8% of development studies no useable version of the model was reported. To conclude, many prognostic models have been developed for patients with CKD, mainly for outcomes related to kidney disease progression and patient/graft survival. To bridge the gap between prediction research and kidney patient care, patient-reported outcomes, methodological rigor, complete reporting of prognostic models, external validation, updating, and impact assessment urgently need more attention.

Discussing results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients and healthcare professionals in routine dialysis care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide insight into patients' experienced health and needs, and can improve patient-professional communication. However, little is known about how to discuss PROM results. This study aimed to provide in-depth knowledge of patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences with and perspectives on discussing PROM results as part of routine dialysis care. DESIGN: A qualitative study was performed using an interpretive description approach. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 patients and healthcare professionals. Interviews focused on general and specific situations (eg, addressing sensitive topics or when no medical treatment is available). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using thematic analysis. SETTING: Participants were purposively sampled from eight dialysis centres across the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with 10 patients receiving dialysis treatment and 12 healthcare professionals (nephrologists and nurses). RESULTS: Patients and healthcare professionals provided practical guidance for optimal discussion about PROM results. First, patients and healthcare professionals emphasised that PROM results should always be discussed and indicated how to create a suitable setting, adequately prepare, deal with time constraints and use PROMs as a tool for personalised holistic consultations. Second, patients should actively participate and healthcare professionals should take a guiding role. A trusting patient-professional relationship was considered a prerequisite and patient-professional interaction was described as a collaboration in which both contribute their knowledge, experiences and ideas. Third, follow-up after discussing PROM results was considered important, including evaluations and actions (eg, symptom management) structurally embedded into the multidisciplinary treatment process. These general themes also applied to the specific situations, for example: results should also be discussed when no medical treatment is available. Though, healthcare professionals were expected to take more initiative and a leading role when discussing sensitive topics. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into how to organise and conduct conversations about PROM results and lays the foundation for training healthcare professionals to optimally discuss PROM results in routine nephrology care. Further research is needed to provide guidance on follow-up actions in response to specific PROM results.

Comprehensive comparison of stroke risk score performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis among 6 267 728 patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Multiple risk scores to predict ischaemic stroke (IS) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been developed. This study aims to systematically review these scores, their validations and updates, assess their methodological quality, and calculate pooled estimates of the predictive performance. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies developing, validating, or updating risk scores for IS in AF patients. Methodological quality was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). To assess discrimination, pooled c-statistics were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. We identified 19 scores, which were validated and updated once or more in 70 and 40 studies, respectively, including 329 validations and 76 updates-nearly all on the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2. Pooled c-statistics were calculated among 6 267 728 patients and 359 373 events of IS. For the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2, pooled c-statistics were 0.644 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.635-0.653] and 0.658 (0.644-0.672), respectively. Better discriminatory abilities were found in the newer risk scores, with the modified-CHADS2 demonstrating the best discrimination [c-statistic 0.715 (0.674-0.754)]. Updates were found for the CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 only, showing improved discrimination. Calibration was reasonable but available for only 17 studies. The PROBAST indicated a risk of methodological bias in all studies. CONCLUSION: Nineteen risk scores and 76 updates are available to predict IS in patients with AF. The guideline-endorsed CHA2DS2-VASc shows inferior discriminative abilities compared with newer scores. Additional external validations and data on calibration are required before considering the newer scores in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID CRD4202161247 (PROSPERO).

Person centred care provision and care planning in chronic kidney disease: which outcomes matter? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies : Care planning in CKD: which outcomes matter?

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Explore priorities related to outcomes and barriers of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) regarding person centred care and care planning. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative studies. SEARCH STRATEGY & SOURCES: In July 2018 six bibliographic databases, and reference lists of included articles were searched for qualitative studies that included adults with CKD stages 1-5, not on dialysis or conservative management, without a previous kidney transplantation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Three independent reviewers extracted and inductively coded data using thematic synthesis. Reporting quality was assessed using the COREQ and the review reported according to PRISMA and ENTREQ statements. RESULTS: Forty-six studies involving 1493 participants were eligible. The period after diagnosis of CKD is characterized by feelings of uncertainty, social isolation, financial burden, resentment and fear of the unknown. Patients show interest in ways to return to normality and remain in control of their health in order to avoid further deterioration of kidney function. However, necessary information is often unavailable or incomprehensible. Although patients and healthcare professionals share the predominant interest of whether or not dialysis or transplantation is necessary, patients value many more outcomes that are often unrecognized by their healthcare professionals. We identified 4 themes with 6 subthemes that summarize these findings: 'pursuing normality and control' ('pursuing normality'; 'a search for knowledge'); 'prioritizing outcomes' ('reaching kidney failure'; 'experienced health'; 'social life'; 'work and economic productivity'); 'predicting the future'; and 'realising what matters'. Reporting quality was moderate for most included studies. LIMITATIONS: Exclusion of non-English articles. CONCLUSIONS: The realisation that patients' priorities do not match those of the healthcare professionals, in combination with the prognostic ambiguity, confirms fatalistic perceptions of not being in control when living with CKD. These insights may contribute to greater understanding of patients' perspectives and a more person-centred approach in healthcare prioritization and care planning within CKD care.

Acute kidney injury and kidney replacement therapy in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) can affect hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with estimates ranging between 0.5% and 40%. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting incidence, mortality and risk factors for AKI in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We systematically searched 11 electronic databases until 29 May 2020 for studies in English reporting original data on AKI and kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Incidences of AKI and KRT and risk ratios for mortality associated with AKI were pooled using generalized linear mixed and random-effects models. Potential risk factors for AKI were assessed using meta-regression. Incidences were stratified by geographic location and disease severity. RESULTS: A total of 3042 articles were identified, of which 142 studies were included, with 49 048 hospitalized COVID-19 patients including 5152 AKI events. The risk of bias of included studies was generally low. The pooled incidence of AKI was 28.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.8-39.5] among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from the USA and Europe (20 studies) and 5.5% (95% CI 4.1-7.4) among patients from China (62 studies), whereas the pooled incidence of KRT was 7.7% (95% CI 5.1-11.4; 18 studies) and 2.2% (95% CI 1.5-3.3; 52 studies), respectively. Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit, the incidence of KRT was 20.6% (95% CI 15.7-26.7; 38 studies). Meta-regression analyses showed that age, male sex, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and chronic kidney disease were associated with the occurrence of AKI; in itself, AKI was associated with an increased risk of mortality, with a pooled risk ratio of 4.6 (95% CI 3.3-6.5). CONCLUSIONS: AKI and KRT are common events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with estimates varying across geographic locations. Additional studies are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and optimal treatment of AKI in these patients.