The ERA Registry Annual Report 2021: a summary.

Background: The European Renal Association (ERA) Registry collects data on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). This paper is a summary of the ERA Registry Annual Report 2021, including a comparison across treatment modalities. Methods: Data was collected from 54 national and regional registries from 36 countries, of which 35 registries from 18 countries contributed individual patient data and 19 registries from 19 countries contributed aggregated data. Using this data, incidence and prevalence of KRT, kidney transplantation rates, survival probabilities and expected remaining lifetimes were calculated. Result: In 2021, 533.2 million people in the general population were covered by the ERA Registry. The incidence of KRT was 145 per million population (pmp). In incident patients, 55% were 65 years or older, 64% were male, and the most common primary renal disease (PRD) was diabetes (22%). The prevalence of KRT was 1040 pmp. In prevalent patients, 47% were 65 years or older, 62% were male, and the most common PRDs were diabetes and glomerulonephritis/sclerosis (both 16%). On 31 December 2021, 56% of patients received haemodialysis, 5% received peritoneal dialysis, and 39% were living with a functioning graft. The kidney transplantation rate in 2021 was 37 pmp, a majority coming from deceased donors (66%). For patients initiating KRT between 2012-2016, 5-year survival probability was 52%. Compared to the general population, life expectancy was 65% and 68% shorter for males and females receiving dialysis, and 40% and 43% shorter for males and females living with a functioning graft.

Post COVID-19 condition imposes significant burden in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease: A nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The burden of post COVID-19 condition (PCC) is not well studied in patients with advanced kidney disease. METHODS: A large prospective cohort of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated patients with chronic kidney disease stages G4-G5 (CKD G4/5), on dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients (KTR) were included. Antibody levels were determined after vaccination. Presence of long-lasting symptoms was assessed in patients with and without prior COVID-19 and compared using logistic regression. In patients with prior COVID-19, PCC was defined according to the WHO definition. RESULTS: Two hundred sixteen CKD G4/5 patients, 375 dialysis patients, and 2005 KTR were included. Long-lasting symptoms were reported in 204/853 (24%) patients with prior COVID-19 and in 297/1743 (17%) patients without prior COVID-19 (aOR: 1.45 (1.17-1.78)], P < 0.001). PCC was prevalent in 29% of CKD G4/5 patients, 21% of dialysis patients, and 24% of KTR. In addition, 69% of patients with PCC reported (very) high symptom burden. Odds of PCC was lower per 10-fold increase in antibody level after vaccination (aOR 0.82 [0.70-0.96], P = 0.01) and higher in case of COVID-19 related hospital admission (aOR 4.64 [2.61-8.25], P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CKD G4/5 patients, dialysis patients, and KTR are at risk for PCC with high symptom burden after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, especially if antibody levels are low and in case of hospitalization due to COVID-19.

A comparison of the epidemiology of kidney replacement therapy between Europe and the United States: 2021 data of the ERA Registry and the USRDS.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: This paper compares the most recent data on the incidence and prevalence of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), kidney transplantation rates, and mortality on KRT from Europe to those from the United States (US), including comparisons of treatment modalities (haemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and kidney transplantation (KTx)). METHODS: Data were derived from the annual reports of the European Renal Association (ERA) Registry and the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). The European data include information from national and regional renal registries providing the ERA Registry with individual patient data. Additional analyses were performed to present results for all participating European countries together. RESULTS: In 2021, the KRT incidence in the US (409.7 per million population (pmp)) was almost 3-fold higher than in Europe (144.4 pmp). Despite the substantial difference in KRT incidence, approximately the same proportion of patients initiated HD (Europe: 82%, US: 84%), PD (14%; 13% respectively), or underwent pre-emptive KTx (4%; 3% respectively). The KRT prevalence in the US (2436.1 pmp) was 2-fold higher than in Europe (1187.8 pmp). Within Europe, approximately half of all prevalent patients were living with a functioning graft (47%), while in the US, this was one third (32%). The number of kidney transplantations performed was almost twice as high in the US (77.0 pmp) compared to Europe (41.6 pmp). The mortality of patients receiving KRT was 1.6-fold higher in the US (157.3 per 1000 patient years) compared to Europe (98.7 per 1000 patient years). CONCLUSIONS: The US had a much higher KRT incidence, prevalence, and mortality compared to Europe, and despite a higher kidney transplantation rate, a lower proportion of prevalent patients with a functioning graft.

Incidence and Severity of COVID-19 in Relation to Anti-Receptor-Binding Domain IgG Antibody Level after COVID-19 Vaccination in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) elicit an impaired immune response after COVID-19 vaccination; however, the exact clinical impact remains unclear. We therefore analyse the relationship between antibody levels after vaccination and the risk of COVID-19 in a large cohort of KTRs. All KTRs living in the Netherlands were invited to send a blood sample 28 days after their second COVID-19 vaccination for measurement of their IgG antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-RBD IgG). Information on COVID-19 was collected from the moment the blood sample was obtained until 6 months thereafter. Multivariable Cox and logistic regression analyses were performed to analyse which factors affected the occurrence and severity (i.e., hospitalization and/or death) of COVID-19. In total, 12,159 KTRs were approached, of whom 2885 were included in the analyses. Among those, 1578 (54.7%) became seropositive (i.e., anti-RBD IgG level >50 BAU/mL). Seropositivity was associated with a lower risk for COVID-19, also after adjusting for multiple confounders, including socio-economic status and adherence to COVID-19 restrictions (HR 0.37 (0.19-0.47), p = 0.005). When studied on a continuous scale, we observed a log-linear relationship between antibody level and the risk for COVID-19 (HR 0.52 (0.31-0.89), p = 0.02). Similar results were found for COVID-19 severity. In conclusion, antibody level after COVID-19 vaccination is associated in a log-linear manner with the occurrence and severity of COVID-19 in KTRs. This implies that if future vaccinations are indicated, the aim should be to reach for as high an antibody level as possible and not only seropositivity to protect this vulnerable patient group from disease.

The ERA Registry Annual Report 2020: a summary.

Background: The European Renal Association (ERA) Registry collects data on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in patients with ESKD. This paper is a summary of the ERA Registry Annual Report 2020, also including comparisons among primary renal disease (PRD) groups. Methods: Data were collected from 52 national and regional registries from 34 European countries and countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea: 35 registries from 18 countries providing individual level data and 17 registries from 17 countries providing aggregated data. Using this data, KRT incidence and prevalence, kidney transplantation rates, expected remaining lifetimes and survival probabilities were calculated. Results: A general population of 654.9 million people was covered by the ERA Registry in 2020. The overall incidence of KRT was 128 per million population (p.m.p.). In incident KRT patients, 54% were older than 65 years, 63% were men and the most common PRD was diabetes mellitus (21%). Regarding initial treatment modality in incident patients, 85% received haemodialysis (HD), 11% received peritoneal dialysis (PD) and 4% received a pre-emptive kidney transplant. On 31 December 2020, the prevalence of KRT was 931 p.m.p. In prevalent patients, 45% were older than 65 years, 60% were men and glomerulonephritis was the most common PRD (18%). Of these patients, 58% were on HD, 5% on PD and 37% were living with a kidney transplant. The overall kidney transplantation rate in 2020 was 28 p.m.p., with a majority of kidney grafts from deceased donors (71%). The unadjusted 5-year survival, based on incident dialysis patient from 2011-15, was 41.8%. For patients having received a deceased donor transplant, the unadjusted 5-year survival probability was 86.2% and for patients having received a living donor transplant it was 94.4%. When comparing data by PRD group, differences were found regarding the distribution of age groups, sex and treatment modality received.

Decreasing incidence of dialysis in older patients in The Netherlands as compared with other European countries: an international perspective.

Introduction: After decades of increasing dialysis incidence, we observed a decreasing trend in the Netherlands in the last decade. We compared this trend with trends in other European countries. Materials and Methods: Aggregated data for calendar years 2001-2019 from the Dutch registries of kidney replacement therapy patients and the European Renal Association Registry were used. Dialysis incidence in the Netherlands was compared with that in 11 other European countries/regions using three age groups: 20-64, 65-74, and ≥75 years, taking into account pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) incidence. Time trends were assessed as annual percentage change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using joinpoint regression analysis. Results: Between 2001 and 2019 the Dutch dialysis incidence decreased slightly among patients aged 20-64 years (APC -0.9, 95% CI -1.4; -0.5). For patients 65-74 and ≥75 years old, a peak was seen in 2004 and 2009, respectively. Afterwards, the decrease was most marked in patients aged ≥75 years: APC -3.2 (-4.1; -2.3) versus APC -1.8 (-2.2; -1.3) for patients 65-74 years old. PKT incidence increased significantly during the study period but remained limited compared to the observed decrease in dialysis incidence, especially among older patients. Large differences in dialysis incidence were observed among European countries/regions. A decreasing dialysis incidence among older patients was also seen in Austria, Denmark, England/Wales, Finland, Scotland, and Sweden. Conclusions: The Dutch dialysis incidence decreased most profoundly among older patients. This was also observed in several other European countries/regions. Although PKT incidence increased, it can only explain a minor part of the decrease in dialysis incidence.

Impact of immunosuppressive treatment and type of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on antibody levels after three vaccinations in patients with chronic kidney disease or kidney replacement therapy.

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or kidney replacement therapy demonstrate lower antibody levels after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination compared with healthy controls. In a prospective cohort, we analysed the impact of immunosuppressive treatment and type of vaccine on antibody levels after three SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. Methods: Control subjects (n = 186), patients with CKD G4/5 (n = 400), dialysis patients (n = 480) and kidney transplant recipients (KTR) (n = 2468) were vaccinated with either mRNA-1273 (Moderna), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) in the Dutch SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programme. Third vaccination data were available in a subgroup of patients (n = 1829). Blood samples and questionnaires were obtained 1 month after the second and third vaccination. Primary endpoint was the antibody level in relation to immunosuppressive treatment and type of vaccine. Secondary endpoint was occurrence of adverse events after vaccination. Results: Antibody levels after two and three vaccinations were lower in patients with CKD G4/5 and dialysis patients with immunosuppressive treatment compared with patients without immunosuppressive treatment. After two vaccinations, we observed lower antibody levels in KTR using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) compared with KTR not using MMF [20 binding antibody unit (BAU)/mL (3-113) vs 340 BAU/mL (50-1492), P < .001]. Seroconversion was observed in 35% of KTR using MMF, compared with 75% of KTR not using MMF. Of the KTR who used MMF and did not seroconvert, eventually 46% seroconverted after a third vaccination. mRNA-1273 induces higher antibody levels as well as a higher frequency of adverse events compared with BNT162b2 in all patient groups. Conclusions: Immunosuppressive treatment adversely affects the antibody levels after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with CKD G4/5, dialysis patients and KTR. mRNA-1273 vaccine induces a higher antibody level and higher frequency of adverse events.

"What matters to you?": The relevance of patient priorities in dialysis care for assessment and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients are confronted with numerous, complex problems, which make it difficult to identify individual patient's most prominent problems. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify dialysis patients' most prominent problems from a patient perspective and (2) to calculate disease-specific norms for questionnaires measuring these problems. METHODS: One hundred seventy-five patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis completed a priority list on several domains of functioning (e.g., physical health, mental health, social functioning, and daily activities) and a set of matching questionnaires assessing patient functioning on these domains. Patient priorities were assessed by calculating the importance ranking of each domain on the priority list. Subsequently, disease-specific norm scores were calculated for all questionnaires, both for the overall sample and stratified by patient characteristics. RESULTS: Fatigue was listed as patients' most prominent problem. Priorities differed between male and female patients, younger and older patients, and home and center dialysis patients, which was also reflected in their scores on the corresponding domains of functioning. Therefore, next to general norm scores, we calculated corrections to the general norms to take account of patient characteristics (i.e., sex, age, and dialysis type). CONCLUSIONS: Results highlight the importance of having attention for the specific priorities and needs of each individual patient. Adequate disease-specific, norm-based assessment is not only necessary for diagnostic procedures but is an essential element of patient-centered care: It will help to better understand and respect individual patient needs and tailor treatment accordingly.

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.

Itching in dialysis patients: impact on health-related quality of life and interactions with sleep problems and psychological symptoms-results from the RENINE/PROMs registry.

BACKGROUND: Itching (pruritus) is common in dialysis patients, but little is known about its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), sleep problems and psychological symptoms. This study investigates the impact of itching in dialysis patients by looking into the persistence of itching, the effect of itching on the course of HRQOL and the combined effect of itching with sleep problems and with psychological symptoms on HRQOL. METHODS: Data were obtained from the RENINE/PROMs registry and included 2978 dialysis patients who completed patient-reported outcome measures between 2018 and 2020. Itching, sleep problems and psychological symptoms were assessed with the Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI) and HRQOL with the 12-item Short Form Health Survey. Effects of itching on HRQOL and interactions with sleep problems and psychological symptoms were investigated cross-sectionally and longitudinally using linear regression and linear mixed models. RESULTS: Half of the patients experienced itching and in 70% of them, itching was persistent. Itching was associated with a lower physical and mental HRQOL {-3.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.12 to -2.59) and -3.79 [95% CI -4.56 to -3.03]}. HRQOL remained stable during 2 years and trajectories did not differ between patients with or without itching. Sleep problems (70% versus 52%) and psychological symptoms (36% versus 19%) were more common in patients with itching. These symptoms had an additional negative effect on HRQOL but did not interact with itching. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of itching, its impact on HRQOL over time and the additional effect on HRQOL of sleep problems and psychological symptoms emphasize the need for recognition and effective treatment of itching to reduce symptom burden and improve HRQOL.

A randomized crossover study comparing different tacrolimus formulations to reduce intrapatient variability in tacrolimus exposure in kidney transplant recipients.

A high intrapatient variability (IPV) in tacrolimus exposure is a risk factor for poor long-term outcomes after kidney transplantation. The main objective of this trial was to investigate whether tacrolimus IPV decreases after switching patients from immediate-release (IR)-tacrolimus to either extended-release (ER)-tacrolimus or LifeCyclePharma (LCP)-tacrolimus. In this randomized, prospective, open-label, cross-over trial, adult kidney transplant recipients on a stable immunosuppressive regimen, including IR-tacrolimus, were randomized for conversion to ER-tacrolimus or LCP-tacrolimus, and for the order in which IR-tacrolimus and the once-daily formulations were taken. Patients were followed 6 months for each formulation, with monthly tacrolimus predose concentration assessments to calculate the IPV. The IPV was defined as the coefficient of variation (%) of dose corrected predose concentrations. Ninety-two patients were included for analysis of the primary outcome. No significant differences between the IPV of IR-tacrolimus (16.6%) and the combined once-daily formulations (18.3%) were observed (% difference +1.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.1% to -4.5%, p = 0.24). The IPV of LCP-tacrolimus (20.1%) was not significantly different from the IPV of ER-tacrolimus (16.5%, % difference +3.6%, 95% CI -0.1% to 7.3%, p = 0.06). In conclusion, the IPV did not decrease after switching from IR-tacrolimus to either ER-tacrolimus or LCP-tacrolimus. These results provide no arguments to switch kidney transplant recipients from twice-daily (IR) tacrolimus formulations to once-daily (modified-release) tacrolimus formulations when the aim is to lower the IPV.

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.

Nurse practitioner care improves renal outcome in patients with CKD.

Treatment goals for patients with CKD are often unrealized for many reasons, but support by nurse practitioners may improve risk factor levels in these patients. Here, we analyzed renal endpoints of the Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of Nurse Practitioners (MASTERPLAN) study after extended follow-up to determine whether strict implementation of current CKD guidelines through the aid of nurse practitioners improves renal outcome. In total, 788 patients with moderate to severe CKD were randomized to receive nurse practitioner support added to physician care (intervention group) or physician care alone (control group). Median follow-up was 5.7 years. Renal outcome was a secondary endpoint of the MASTERPLAN study. We used a composite renal endpoint of death, ESRD, and 50% increase in serum creatinine. Event rates were compared with adjustment for baseline serum creatinine concentration and changes in estimated GFR were determined. During the randomized phase, there were small but significant differences between the groups in BP, proteinuria, LDL cholesterol, and use of aspirin, statins, active vitamin D, and antihypertensive medications, in favor of the intervention group. The intervention reduced the incidence of the composite renal endpoint by 20% (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98; P=0.03). In the intervention group, the decrease in estimated GFR was 0.45 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) per year less than in the control group (P=0.01). In conclusion, additional support by nurse practitioners attenuated the decline of kidney function and improved renal outcome in patients with CKD.

Differences between hospitals in attainment of parathyroid hormone treatment targets in chronic kidney disease do not reflect differences in quality of care.

BACKGROUND: Transparency in quality of care (QoC) is stimulated and hospitals are compared and judged on the basis of indicators of performance on specific treatment targets. In patients with chronic kidney disease, QoC differed significantly between hospitals. In this analysis we explored additional parameters to explain differences between centers in attainment of parathyroid hormone (PTH) treatment targets. METHODS: Using MASTERPLAN baseline data, we selected one of the worst (center A) and one of the best (center B) performing hospitals. Differences between the two centers were analyzed from the year prior to start of the MASTERPLAN study until the baseline evaluation. Determinants of PTH were assessed. RESULTS: 101 patients from center A (median PTH 9.9 pmol/l, in 67 patients exceeding recommended levels) and 100 patients from center B (median PTH 6.5 pmol/l, in 34 patients exceeding recommended levels), were included. Analysis of clinical practice did not reveal differences in PTH management between the centers. Notably, hyperparathyroidism resulted in a change in therapy in less than 25% of patients. In multivariate analysis kidney transplant status, MDRD-4, and treatment center were independent predictors of PTH. However, when MDRD-6 (which accounts for serum urea and albumin) was used instead of MDRD-4, the center effect was reduced. Moreover, after calibration of the serum creatinine assays treatment center no longer influenced PTH. CONCLUSIONS: We show that differences in PTH control between centers are not explained by differences in treatment, but depend on incomparable patient populations and laboratory techniques. Therefore, results of hospital performance comparisons should be interpreted with great caution.

Multifactorial intervention with nurse practitioners does not change cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Strict implementation of guidelines directed at multiple targets reduces vascular risk in diabetic patients. Whether this also applies to patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain. To evaluate this, the MASTERPLAN Study randomized 788 patients with CKD (estimated GFR 20-70 ml/min) to receive additional intensive nurse practitioner support (the intervention group) or nephrologist care (the control group). The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. During a mean follow-up of 4.62 years, modest but significant decreases were found for blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, anemia, proteinuria along with the increased use of active vitamin D or analogs, aspirin and statins in the intervention group compared to the controls. No differences were found in the rate of smoking cessation, weight reduction, sodium excretion, physical activity, or glycemic control. Intensive control did not reduce the rate of the composite end point (21.3/1000 person-years in the intervention group compared to 23.8/1000 person-years in the controls (hazard ratio 0.90)). No differences were found in the secondary outcomes of vascular interventions, all-cause mortality or end-stage renal disease. Thus, the addition of intensive support by nurse practitioner care in patients with CKD improved some risk factor levels, but did not significantly reduce the rate of the primary or secondary end points.

Quality of care in patients with chronic kidney disease is determined by hospital specific factors.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines have set goals for risk factor management in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. These goals are often not met. In this analysis, we set out to assess the quality of risk factor management in CKD and to identify factors that determine the quality of care (QoC). For that purpose, baseline data of the MASTERPLAN (Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of Nurse practitioners) study have been used. MASTERPLAN is a multicentre study which evaluates the effect of a multifactorial intervention in prevalent CKD patients on cardiovascular (CV) events and progression of kidney failure. METHODS: QoC was quantified using a score based on the number of 11 defined treatment goals on target. The maximum score per patient was 11. RESULTS: The average (±SD) QoC score was 6.7 (±1.5). The average score per centre ranged from 5.9 to 6.9. In a multivariable analysis, centre proved to be a significant, independent determinant of QoC with a difference up to 0.7 between centres. This difference remained when adjustments were made for those risk factors primarily treated by pharmacotherapy. Other factors that were significantly related to the QoC were estimated glomerular filtration rate, Caucasian race, diabetes mellitus, diabetic nephropathy as cause of kidney disease and previous kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In CKD patients, risk factors for progression of kidney failure and CV events were inadequately controlled. Treatment centre proved to be an important determinant of QoC. This data may point towards the physician's interest and preference as important determinants of QoC. This is a potentially modifiable determinant of the quality of patient care [Trial registration ISRCTN registry: 73187232 (http://isrctn.org)].

Multifactorial approach and superior treatment efficacy in renal patients with the aid of nurse practitioners. Design of The MASTERPLAN Study [ISRCTN73187232].

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at a greatly increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Recently developed guidelines address multiple risk factors and life-style interventions. However, in current practice few patients reach their targets.A multifactorial approach with the aid of nurse practitioners was effective in achieving treatment goals and reducing vascular events in patients with diabetes mellitus and in patients with heart failure. We propose that this also holds for the CKD population. DESIGN: MASTERPLAN is a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial designed to evaluate whether a multifactorial approach with the aid of nurse-practicioners reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with CKD. Approximately 800 patients with a creatinine clearance (estimated by Cockcroft-Gault) between 20 to 70 ml/min, will be included. To all patients the same set of guidelines will be applied and specific cardioprotective medication will be prescribed. In the intervention group the nurse practitioner will provide lifestyle advice and actively address treatment goals. Follow-up will be five years. Primary endpoint is the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary endpoints are cardiovascular morbidity, overall mortality, decline of renal function, change in markers of vascular damage and change in quality of life. Enrollment has started in April 2004 and the study is on track with 700 patients included on October 15th, 2005. This article describes the design of the MASTERPLAN study.

Rationale and design of the MASTERPLAN study: Multifactorial approach and superior treatment efficacy in renal patients with the aid of nurse practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). In addition, patients with renal disease are exposed to a myriad of risk factors that increase their risk even further. The treatment of risk factors in these patients is paramount to reducing cardiovascular risk and for attenuating renal failure progression. It is well known that lifestyle interventions are difficult, and that medical treatment targets are seldom met. A multifactorial approach with the aid of nurse practitioners has shown to be beneficial for achieving treatment goals and reducing events in patients with diabetes mellitus and with heart failure. We propose that this will also hold for the CKD population. TRIAL DESIGN: A multicenter randomized clinical trial will be performed to study whether intensive medical care delivered by a nurse practitioner and a nephrologist will reduce cardiovascular risk compared to care provided by the nephrologist alone. The acronym MASTERPLAN describes the study: Multifactorial approach and superior treatment efficacy in renal patients with the aid of nurse practitioners. Eight hundred patients will be randomized to physician care or nurse practitioner support. For all patients the same set of guidelines and treatment goals will apply. Both groups will receive treatment according to current guidelines and have access to specific cardioprotective medication. Nurse practitioners will intensify therapy by promoting lifestyle intervention, and meticulous implementation of relevant guidelines. Patients will be followed-up for 5 yrs after baseline. Primary endpoints are all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality.