Patient and physician perspectives on treatment burden in end-stage kidney disease: a nominal group technique study.

OBJECTIVES: The treatment workload associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is high. The treatment burdens experienced by patients with ESKD are not well understood. In this study, we aimed to elucidate the most important areas of treatment burden for discussion in a clinical encounter from the perspectives of patients with ESKD and nephrologists. We sought to explore possible solutions to these high priority treatment burden challenges. DESIGN: Nominal group technique (NGT) sessions. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Three in-person NGT sessions were conducted with 19 patients with dialysis-dependent ESKD from one tertiary treatment centre (mean age 64 years; range 47-82). All patients were either retired or on a disability pension; 74% perceived moderate or severe treatment burden; and 90% spent more than 11 hours on treatment-related activities per week (range 11-30). One online NGT session was conducted with six nephrologists from two Australian states. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a ranked list of treatment burden priorities. The secondary outcome was potential solutions to these treatment burden challenges. RESULTS: Every patient group ranked health system issues as the most important treatment burden priority. This encompassed lack of continuity and coordination of care, dissatisfaction with frequent healthcare encounters and challenges around healthcare access. Psychosocial burdens on patients and families were perceived to be the most important area of treatment burden by physicians, and were ranked the second highest priority by patients. CONCLUSIONS: Discussing treatment burden in a clinical encounter may lead to a better understanding of patients' capacity to cope with their treatment workload. This could facilitate tailored care, improve health outcomes, treatment sustainability and patients' overall quality of life.

Adverse outcome of human islet-allogeneic blood interaction.

BACKGROUND: A report of inflammatory damage when islets come into contact with allogeneic blood prompted us to confirm the finding. METHODS: Fresh handpicked human islets were incubated in blood group matched, nonsensitized allogeneic blood. Destruction was quantified by assaying the supernatants for proinsulin release and by blood clot histology. The effect on global hemostasis was assessed by thromboelastography (TEG), and heparin-bonded tubing was used to assess the effect on blood cellular counts. In separate experiments, islets were incubated in allogeneic blood with heparin or Reopro (monoclonal anti-GpIIbIIIa). Islets were also incubated in serum, and cryosections were stained for C1q, C4, C3, C5b-9, immunoglobulin (Ig)M, and IgG binding using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Histologic assessment showed severe destruction in 37% of islets in contact with allogeneic blood versus none in controls and a sevenfold increase in proinsulin release from controls (n = 6)(P < 0.005). TEG (n = 11) showed accelerated coagulation in the presence of islets (P < 0.001). Analysis of blood cellular counts (n = 3) showed consumption of platelets, neutrophils, and monocytes in the presence of islets (P < 0.001). Inhibition of coagulation with heparin (n = 3) or inhibition of platelet aggregation with Reopro (n = 3), separately or together (n = 3), did not make a substantial improvement in the destruction in terms of histology or proinsulin release. Immunohistochemical staining (n = 4) revealed C1q, C4, C3, and C5b-9 deposition along with IgG binding. IgM binding was weak if anything. CONCLUSION: This study confirms and extends the finding that human islet-allogeneic blood interaction results in significant destruction of islet tissue with activation of the coagulation cascade and platelet, neutrophil, and monocyte consumption. There was evidence for activation of complement by the classical pathway along with IgG binding.

Outcomes of early versus late nephrology referral in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As late provision of specialist care, before starting dialysis therapy, is believed to be associated with increased morbidity and mortality, a systematic review was undertaken to evaluate clinical outcomes relating to early versus late referral of patients to nephrology services. METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched up until September 2008 for studies of early versus late nephrology referral in adult (>18 years) patients with chronic kidney disease. Early referral was defined by the time period at which patients were referred to a nephrologist. FINDINGS: No randomized controlled trials were found. Twenty-seven longitudinal cohort studies were included in the final review, providing data on 17,646 participants; 11,734 were referred early and 5912 (33%) referred late. Comparative mortality was higher in patients referred to a specialist late versus those referred early. Odds ratios (OR) for mortality reductions in patients referred early were evident at 3 months (OR 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.59) and remained at 5 years (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.38-0.53), both P <.00001. Initial hospitalization was 8.8 days shorter with early referral (95% CI, -10.7 to -7.0 days; P <.00001). Differences in mortality and hospitalization data between the 2 groups were not explained by differences in prevalence of diabetes mellitus, previous coronary artery disease, blood pressure control, serum phosphate, and serum albumin. However, early referral was associated with better preparation and placement of dialysis access. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show reduced mortality and hospitalization, better uptake of peritoneal dialysis, and earlier placement of arteriovenous fistula for hemodialysis with early nephrology referral.