Technological Innovations to Improve Patient Engagement in Nephrology.

Technological innovation has accelerated exponentially over the last 2 decades. From the rise of smartphones and social media in the early 2000s to the mainstream accessibility of artificial intelligence (AI) in 2023, digital advancements have transformed the way we live and work. These innovations have permeated health care, covering a spectrum of applications from virtual reality training platforms to AI-powered clinical decision support tools. In this review, we explore fascinating recent innovations that have and can facilitate patient engagement in nephrology. These include integrated care mobile applications, wearable health monitoring tools, virtual/augmented reality consultation and education platforms, AI-powered appointment booking systems, and patient information tools. We also discuss potential pitfalls in implementation and paradigms to adopt that may protect patients from unintended consequences of being cared for in a digitalized health care system.

Living with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Patient and Clinician Perspective.

Comorbid type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with poor health outcomes and a high economic burden. Management of these conditions remains a significant challenge for current healthcare systems. The objective of this article is to describe the experiences of patients living with T2D and CKD and their thoughts on how communication between patients and their clinicians could be improved despite the multiple comorbidities that need to be addressed. We present the individual perspectives of three patient authors, followed by relevant discussion around the management of CKD in patients with T2D by clinician authors.Audio abstract available for this article. Audio Abstract. In this audio introduction, the authors Patrick Gee (a patient author) and Eugene Wright (a clinician author) provide a brief overview and discuss the key findings of their article titled "Living with Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The Patient and Clinician Perspective".

People living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D for short) and chronic kidney disease (CKD for short) may have worse health over time. Managing long-term health conditions can be expensive for those living with the conditions and for healthcare systems. To optimize their quality of life, people with T2D and CKD need the necessary resources to better manage their conditions. Healthcare professionals desire the best outcomes for their patients. Currently, communication between healthcare professionals and their patients is suboptimal, and ineffective communication creates a barrier to effective optimal care. The aim of this article is to describe the experiences of three people living with T2D and CKD (patients), who are also authors of the article. They outline their thoughts on how communication between patients and healthcare professionals might be improved when managing multiple conditions. We also present responses from three healthcare professionals (clinicians), who are co-authors of this article, to the points made by the patients, as well as their views on how to manage these long-term conditions.

Moving from Evidence to Implementation of Breakthrough Therapies for Diabetic Kidney Disease.

Diabetic kidney disease is the most frequent cause of kidney failure, accounting for half of all cases worldwide. Moreover, deaths from diabetic kidney disease increased 106% between 1990 and 2013, with most attributed to cardiovascular disease. Recommended screening and monitoring for diabetic kidney disease are conducted in less than half of patients with diabetes. Standard-of-care treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker is correspondingly low. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid antagonist are highly effective therapies to reduce kidney and cardiovascular risks in diabetic kidney disease. However, <20% of eligible patients are receiving these agents. Critical barriers are high out-of-pocket drug costs and low reimbursement rates. Data demonstrating clinical and cost-effectiveness of diabetic kidney disease care are needed to garner payer and health care system support. The pharmaceutical industry should collaborate on value-based care by increasing access through affordable drug prices. Additionally, multidisciplinary models and communication technologies tailored to individual health care systems are needed to support optimal diabetic kidney disease care. Community outreach efforts are also central to make care accessible and equitable. Finally, it is imperative that patient preferences and priorities shape implementation strategies. Access to care and implementation of breakthrough therapies for diabetic kidney disease can save millions of lives by preventing kidney failure, cardiovascular events, and premature death. Coalitions composed of patients, families, community groups, health care professionals, health care systems, federal agencies, and payers are essential to develop collaborative models that successfully address this major public health challenge.

Patient partnership in cardiovascular clinical trials.

Patients are ultimately the end-users of medical therapies and need to be actively integrated as contributors and decision-makers in the process of product development throughout product lifecycles. This is increasingly being recognized by patients, investigators, regulators, payers, sponsors, and medical journals. However, cardiovascular research remains behind other fields in terms of the extent of patient involvement and awareness of clinical trials in cardiovascular research. True patient partnerships in cardiovascular therapeutic development may permit more rapid recognition of unmet needs, ensure alignment of product development priorities with patient priorities, improve efficiency of trials (e.g. recruitment), and ensure outcomes of value to patients are being measured in trials (e.g. quality of life). This paper reviews ongoing initiatives and remaining opportunities to accomplish contributive patient involvement in cardiovascular clinical research.

Transforming the Care of Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease.

Diabetes and its associated complications pose an immediate threat to humankind. Diabetic kidney disease is one of the most devastating complications, increasing the risk of death more than ten-fold over the general population. Until very recently, the only drugs proven and recommended to slow the progression of diabetic kidney disease were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers, which act by inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system. Despite their efficacy as kidney and cardiovascular protective therapies and as antihypertensive agents, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors have been grossly underutilized. Moreover, even when renin-angiotensin system inhibitors are used, patients still have a high residual risk of diabetic kidney disease progression. Finally, the kidney-protective effect of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors has been categorically demonstrated only in patients with macroalbuminuria included in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) and Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trials, not in other individuals. The lack of new therapies to treat diabetic kidney disease over the past 2 decades has therefore represented a tremendous challenge for patients and health care providers alike. In recent years, a number of powerful new therapies have emerged that promise to transform care of patients with diabetes and kidney disease. The challenge to the community is to ensure rapid implementation of these treatments. This white paper highlights advances in treatment, opportunities for patients, challenges, and possible solutions to advance kidney health, and introduces the launch of the Diabetic Kidney Disease Collaborative at the American Society of Nephrology, to aid in accomplishing these goals.

SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for adults with type 2 diabetes: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What are the benefits and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when added to usual care (lifestyle interventions and/or other diabetes drugs) in adults with type 2 diabetes at different risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Clinical decisions about treatment of type 2 diabetes have been led by glycaemic control for decades. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are traditionally used in people with elevated glucose level after metformin treatment. This has changed through trials demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefits independent of medications' glucose-lowering potential. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel issued risk-stratified recommendations concerning the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes• Three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation against starting SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists.• More than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak against starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD and CKD: Strong recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak recommendation for starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• For those committed to further reducing their risk for CVD and CKD outcomes: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors rather than GLP-1 receptor agonists. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists created these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (764 randomised trials included 421 346 participants) of benefits and harms found that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists generally reduce overall death, and incidence of myocardial infarctions, and end-stage kidney disease or kidney failure (moderate to high certainty evidence). These medications exert different effects on stroke, hospitalisations for heart failure, and key adverse events in different subgroups. Absolute effects of benefit varied widely based on patients' individual risk (for example, from five fewer deaths in the lowest risk to 48 fewer deaths in the highest risk, for 1000 patients treated over five years). A prognosis review identified 14 eligible risk prediction models, one of which (RECODe) informed most baseline risk estimates in evidence summaries to underpin the risk-stratified recommendations. Concerning patients' values and preferences, the recommendations were supported by evidence from a systematic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a guideline panel survey. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: We stratified the recommendations by the levels of risk for CVD and CKD and systematically considered the balance of benefits, harms, other considerations, and practical issues for each risk group. The strong recommendation for SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with CVD and CKD reflects what the panel considered to be a clear benefit. For all other adults with type 2 diabetes, the weak recommendations reflect what the panel considered to be a finer balance between benefits, harms, and burdens of treatment options. Clinicians using the guideline can identify their patient's individual risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes using credible risk calculators such as RECODe. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids may support well informed treatment choices, including shared decision making.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent COVID-19

Clinical question What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? Why does this matter?There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. Updates This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Updates: This is the fourteenth version (thirteenth update) of the living guideline, replacing earlier versions (available as data supplements). New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Clinical question: What is the role of drugs in the treatment of patients with covid-19? Context: The evidence base for therapeutics for covid-19 is evolving with numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recently completed and underway. Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and subvariants are changing the role of therapeutics. What is new?: The guideline development group (GDG) defined 1.5% as a new threshold for an important reduction in risk of hospitalisation in patients with non-severe covid-19. Combined with updated baseline risk estimates, this resulted in stratification into patients at low, moderate, and high risk for hospitalisation. New recommendations were added for moderate risk of hospitalisation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, and for moderate and low risk of hospitalisation for molnupiravir and remdesivir. New pharmacokinetic evidence was included for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir, supporting existing recommendations for patients at high risk of hospitalisation. The recommendation for ivermectin in patients with non-severe illness was updated in light of additional trial evidence which reduced the high degree of uncertainty informing previous guidance. A new recommendation was made against the antiviral agent VV116 for patients with non-severe and with severe or critical illness outside of randomised clinical trials based on one RCT comparing the drug with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. The structure of the guideline publication has also been changed; recommendations are now ordered by severity of covid-19. About this guideline: This living guideline from the World Health Organization (WHO) incorporates new evidence to dynamically update recommendations for covid-19 therapeutics. The GDG typically evaluates a therapy when the WHO judges sufficient evidence is available to make a recommendation. While the GDG takes an individual patient perspective in making recommendations, it also considers resource implications, acceptability, feasibility, equity, and human rights. This guideline was developed according to standards and methods for trustworthy guidelines, making use of an innovative process to achieve efficiency in dynamic updating of recommendations. The methods are aligned with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and according to a pre-approved protocol (planning proposal) by the Guideline Review Committee (GRC). A box at the end of the article outlines key methodological aspects of the guideline process. MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation provides methodological support, including the coordination of living systematic reviews with network meta-analyses to inform the recommendations. The full version of the guideline is available online in MAGICapp and in PDF on the WHO website, with a summary version here in The BMJ. These formats should facilitate adaptation, which is strongly encouraged by WHO to contextualise recommendations in a healthcare system to maximise impact. Future recommendations: Recommendations on anticoagulation are planned for the next update to this guideline. Updated data regarding systemic corticosteroids, azithromycin, favipiravir and umefenovir for non-severe illness, and convalescent plasma and statin therapy for severe or critical illness, are planned for review in upcoming guideline iterations.

A living WHO guideline on drugs for COVID-19

What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? The latest version of this WHO living guidance focuses on remdesivir, following the 15 October 2020 preprint publication of results from the WHO SOLIDARITY trial. It contains a weak or conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19 The first version on this living guidance focused on corticosteroids. The strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19, and a weak or conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19 are unchanged.

APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplantation Outcomes Network (APOLLO): Design and Rationale.

INTRODUCTION: Much of the higher risk for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in African American individuals relates to ancestry-specific variation in the apolipoprotein L1 gene (APOL1). Relative to kidneys from European American deceased-donors, kidneys from African American deceased-donors have shorter allograft survival and African American living-kidney donors more often develop ESKD. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored APOL1 Long-term Kidney Transplantation Outcomes Network (APOLLO) is prospectively assessing kidney allograft survival from donors with recent African ancestry based on donor and recipient APOL1 genotypes. METHODS: APOLLO will evaluate outcomes from 2614 deceased kidney donor-recipient pairs, as well as additional living-kidney donor-recipient pairs and unpaired deceased-donor kidneys. RESULTS: The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, American Society of Transplantation, American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, and nearly all U.S. kidney transplant programs, organ procurement organizations (OPOs), and histocompatibility laboratories are participating in this observational study. APOLLO employs a central institutional review board (cIRB) and maintains voluntary partnerships with OPOs and histocompatibility laboratories. A Community Advisory Council composed of African American individuals with a personal or family history of kidney disease has advised the NIH Project Office and Steering Committee since inception. UNOS is providing data for outcome analyses. CONCLUSION: This article describes unique aspects of the protocol, design, and performance of APOLLO. Results will guide use of APOL1 genotypic data to improve the assessment of quality in deceased-donor kidneys and could increase numbers of transplanted kidneys, reduce rates of discard, and improve the safety of living-kidney donation.