Real-Life Anemia Management Among Patients with Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease in Three European Countries.

Background: Anemia is prevalent among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet current evidence indicates that treatment may not adhere to Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines. We aimed to document the management of patients with non-dialysis-dependent (NDD)-CKD receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) therapy in Europe. Methods: This retrospective, observational study extracted information from medical records in Germany, Spain, and the UK. Eligible patients were adults with NDD-CKD stages 3b-5 who initiated ESA therapy for anemia between January and December 2015. Anemia was defined as hemoglobin (Hb) <13.0 g/dL (males) or <12.0 g/dL (females). Data regarding ESA treatment, treatment response, concomitant iron therapy and blood transfusions were extracted up to 24 months post-ESA initiation, and data on CKD progression until abstraction date. Results: Eight hundred and forty-eight medical records were abstracted. Approximately 40% received no iron therapy prior to ESA initiation. At ESA initiation, mean ± standard deviation Hb level was 9.8 ± 1.0 g/dL. Most patients received darbepoetin alfa, and switching between ESAs was rare (8.5% of patients). Concomitant intravenous and oral iron therapy was prescribed for 36% and 42% of patients, respectively, during initial ESA therapy. Mean Hb levels reached the target level (10-12 g/dL) within 3-6 months of ESA initiation. Hb, transferrin saturation, and ferritin levels were infrequently monitored from 3 months post-ESA initiation. Rates of blood transfusion, dialysis, and diagnosis of end-stage renal disease were 16.4%, 19.3%, and 24.6%, respectively. Rates of kidney transplant and death were 4.8% and 8.8%, respectively. Conclusion: Among ESA-treated patients, ESA initiation was in accordance with KDIGO guidelines, but subsequent monitoring of Hb and iron deficiency were suboptimal.

A cohort study of duplicate faecal immunochemical testing in patients at risk of colorectal cancer from North-West England.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to investigate if duplicate faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) sampling improves the negative and positive predictive value of patients thought to be at risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Specifically, we aimed to investigate whether the proportion of FIT-negative CRC missed by a single FIT test in symptomatic patients could be reduced by duplicate FIT testing. DESIGN: A retrospective service evaluation cohort study of the diagnostic accuracy of duplicate FIT testing. SETTING: Patients referred from primary care with suspected CRC to four secondary care trusts in North-West England. PARTICIPANTS: 28 622 patients over 18-years-old with lower gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of CRC who completed two FIT samples. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The performance of duplicate FIT for detecting CRC at a threshold of 10 µgHb/g. RESULTS: The sensitivity if either test was >10 µgHb/g was 0.978 (0.955-0.989), specificity was 0.662 (0.657-0.668), positive predictive value 0.031 (0.028-0.035) and negative predictive value 1.00 (0.999-1.00). Despite two-thirds of patients (18952) being negative following two tests, at this threshold only seven CRC were missed over a 26-month period. All seven patients had other high-risk features which should have prompted investigation. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that in routine NHS practice, a duplicate FIT sample strategy together with clinical evaluation for evidence of anaemia and weight loss is superior to a single FIT sample alone and would allow symptomatic patients to be managed in primary care without the need for urgent referral to secondary care for urgent colonic imaging.

Assessing the robustness of direct meta-analysis in the presence of heterogeneity.

AIM: To assess robustness of findings in recent systematic reviews of atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients in the presence of heterogeneity. METHODS: Relative efficacy was measured in seven direct comparisons of mean difference (MD) in average positive and negative syndrome scale total score and comparisons between conventional meta-analysis results and four alternate meta-analytic strategies using the difference in MD (ΔMD). RESULTS: MDs in positive and negative syndrome scale total score were smaller in the conventional meta-analyses than those for three of the four analytic strategies. Such differences were small (all ΔMD <4). No considerable differences in effect size were observed in the limit meta-analysis comparison (|ΔMD| <1). CONCLUSION: The analyses validated the systematic review results and demonstrate the value of confirmatory sensitivity analysis.