Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know Into What We do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages, it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary-care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Mind the gap in kidney care: Translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

Staphylococcus lugdunensis Peritoneal Dialysis-Related Peritonitis: A Matched Comparative Analysis.

Rationale & Objective: Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S lugdunensis) is a coagulase-negative staphylococcus species that has been increasingly recognized to cause serious infections with virulence resembling Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus). No studies have evaluated the characteristics and outcomes of patients with S lugdunensis peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis compared with those with S aureus peritonitis. We aim to evaluate the clinical course of peritonitis as caused by these organisms. Study Design: A retrospective matched comparative analysis involving a single tertiary center from July 2000 to July 2020. Setting & Participants: Forty-eight episodes of S aureus peritonitis were matched to 19 cases of S lugdunensis peritonitis. Analytical Approach: The cases were individually matched for year of peritonitis, sex, age (±10 years), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (±3). A comparative analysis was performed between the 2 organisms. The outcome includes responses at day 5 of peritonitis and the rate of complete response. Results: There is a higher predilection of diabetes in those with S aureus peritonitis than in those with S lugdunensis (64.6% vs 31.6%; P = 0.03). Patients with S aureus peritonitis also have a much higher total cell count at presentation (4,463.9 ± 5,479.5 vs 1,807.9 ± 3,322.7; P = 0.05); a higher prevalence of poor response at day 5 (50.0% vs 15.8%; P = 0.03); a lower rate of complete response (64.6% vs 94.7%; P = 0.01) and are more prone to relapse with the same organism (29.2% vs 0%, respectively; P = 0.01) as compared to those with S lugdunensis. Limitations: The result of this small retrospective study involving a single center may not be generalizable to other centers. There is also no data for comparative analysis on other coagulase-negative staphylococci such as Staphylococcus epidermidis, which belongs to the same family as S lugdunensis. Conclusions: Although S aureus peritonitis is more virulent with significant morbidity, S lugdunensis can cause similarly serious peritonitis. This largest case series of S lugdunensis peritonitis enabled better characterization of clinical features and outcomes of patients with S lugdunensis peritonitis.

Staphylococcus lugdunensis is a coagulase-negative staphylococcus species that has been increasingly recognized to cause serious infections with virulence resembling Staphylococcus aureus. No studies have evaluated the characteristics and outcomes of patients with S lugdunensis peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis compared those with S aureus peritonitis. This largest retrospective matched comparative analysis of S lugdunensis peritonitis enabled better characterization of clinical features and outcomes of patients with S lugdunensis. Our result suggested that although S. aureus peritonitis is more virulent with significant morbidity, S lugdunensis can cause similarly serious peritonitis. Regardless, S lugdunensis remains susceptible to most antibiotics and penicillin group, penicillin G in particular, can be considered as the first line antibiotic.

Mind the Gap in Kidney Care: Translating What We Know Into What We Do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay. DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.8216.

Mind the gap in kidney care: translating what we know into what we do.

Historically, it takes an average of 17 years to move new treatments from clinical evidence to daily practice. Given the highly effective treatments now available to prevent or delay kidney disease onset and progression, this is far too long. The time is now to narrow the gap between what we know and what we do. Clear guidelines exist for the prevention and management of common risk factors for kidney disease, such as hypertension and diabetes, but only a fraction of people with these conditions worldwide are diagnosed, and even fewer are treated to target. Similarly, the vast majority of people living with kidney disease are unaware of their condition, because in the early stages it is often silent. Even among patients who have been diagnosed, many do not receive appropriate treatment for kidney disease. Considering the serious consequences of kidney disease progression, kidney failure, or death, it is imperative that treatments are initiated early and appropriately. Opportunities to diagnose and treat kidney disease early must be maximized beginning at the primary care level. Many systematic barriers exist, ranging from patient to clinician to health systems to societal factors. To preserve and improve kidney health for everyone everywhere, each of these barriers must be acknowledged so that sustainable solutions are developed and implemented without further delay.

The effect of Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors on hemoglobin level in diabetic kidney disease: A retrospective cohort study.

Anemia typically develops early in the course of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). There are data to show that dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors affect hematopoietic growth factor activity and hemoglobin level. We retrospectively reviewed 443 DKD patients who were started on DDP-4 inhibitor therapy in 2019. Their hemoglobin level at baseline (6-12 months before treatment), pretreatment (0-6 months before treatment), and post-treatment periods (within 6 months after DPP-4 inhibitor), concomitant estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), HbA1c, peripheral blood white cell and platelet counts were reviewed. The severity of kidney failure was classified according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stages. The hemoglobin level had a small but significant decline from 11.98 ± 2.07 to 11.87 ± 2.12 g/dL from pretreatment to post-treatment period (paired Student t test, P < .0001). From the pre- to post-treatment period, the decline of hemoglobin level was 0.10 ± 0.89 g/dL, which was significantly less than that from baseline to pretreatment period (0.24 ± 0.90 g/dL, P = .0008). The change in hemoglobin level had a positive correlation with the change in HbA1c level (R = 0.218, P < .0001), but did not correlate with the type of DPP-4 inhibitor or pretreatment eGFR. There was no significant change in peripheral blood white cell or platelet count during the same period. DPP-4 inhibitor ameliorates hemoglobin decline in DKD. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitor on hemoglobin is statistically significant but clinically modest, and did not correlate with the concomitant change in kidney function.

Peritoneal dialysis after failed kidney allograft: Comparing patients with and without pd before transplant.

BACKGROUND: The result of published studies on the clinical outcome of peritoneal dialysis (PD) after kidney allograft failure is conflicting. There are also few published data on the outcome of patients who had PD before kidney transplant and then return to PD after allograft failure. METHODS: We reviewed 100 patients who were started on PD after kidney allograft failure between 2001 and 2020 (failed transplant group); 50 of them received PD before transplant. We compared the clinical outcome to 200 new PD patients matched for age, sex, and diabetic status (control group). RESULTS: The patients were followed for 45.8 ± 40.5 months. the 2-year patient survival rate was 83.3% and 87.8% for the failed transplant and control groups, respectively (log rank test, p = 0.2). The corresponding 2-year technique survival rate 66.5% and 71.7% (p = 0.5). The failed transplant and control groups also had similar hospitalization rate and peritonitis rate. In the failed transplant group, there was also no difference in patient survival, technique survival, hospitalization, or peritonitis rate between those with and without PD before transplant. In the failed transplant group, patients who had PD before transplant and then returned to PD after allograft failure had substantial increase in D/P4 (0.585 ± 0.130 to 0.659 ± 0.111, paired t-test, p = 0.032) and MTAC creatinine (7.74 ± 3.68 to 9.73 ± 3.00 ml/min/1.73m2, p = 0.047) from the time before the transplant to the time after PD was resumed after failed allograft. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcome of PD patients with a failed kidney allograft is similar to other PD patients. However, patients who have a history of PD before kidney transplant and then return to PD after allograft failure have increased peritoneal transport parameters.

Relationship between Serial Serum Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio, Cardiovascular Mortality, and All-Cause Mortality in Chinese Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: It is believed that the excessive cardiovascular (CV) burden of patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) is closely associated with chronic inflammation. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is an inflammatory marker that was shown to correlate with CV outcomes. However, little is known about the significance of serial monitoring of serum NLR. We aimed to determine the prognostic value of serial NLR on all-cause mortality and CV mortality in PD patients. METHODS: Serial measurement of NLR was obtained from 225 incident PD patients in a single center, with each measurement 1 year apart. Patients were divided into two groups ("high" vs. "low") by the median value of NLR. The primary and secondary outcome measure was all-cause and CV mortality, respectively. RESULTS: After a median of follow-up for 43.9 months, patients with lower baseline NLR demonstrated a higher survival rate (p = 0.01). Patients with persistently high NLR values on serial measurement had the lowest survival rate (p = 0.03). Multivariate Cox regression showed that this group of patients had significantly higher all-cause mortality (HR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.09-2.79, p = 0.02). However, the NLR failed to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship with CV mortality. CONCLUSIONS: While baseline NLR was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in PD patients, persistent elevation in NLR appeared to further amplify the risk. Regular monitoring of serial serum NLR may enable early identification of patients who are at risk of adverse outcome.