A systematic review of symptoms experienced by children and young people with kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Kidney failure at any age has a significant impact on quality of life (QoL) but the overall symptom burden for children and young people (CYP) is poorly described. Kidney failure has no cure and whilst transplantation is the preferred management option, it is not always possible, with patients requiring supportive care at the end of their lives. AIM: To use the literature to understand the symptom burden for CYP with kidney failure who are approaching end-of-life. METHODS: Using three databases, a systematic literature review was performed to identify eligible studies to extract data on symptoms experienced in CYP aged < 21 years with kidney failure. Data extraction was completed by two authors using a pre-designed proforma. Study quality assessment was undertaken using the BMJ AXIS tool. RESULTS: A total of 20,003 titles were screened to yielding 35 eligible studies including 2,862 CYP with chronic kidney disease (CKD), of whom 1,624 (57%) had CKD stage 5. The studies included a median of 30 (range 7-241) patients. Symptoms were subcategorised into eight groups: sleep, mental health, gastrointestinal, dermatology, ear, nose and throat (ENT), neurology, multiple symptoms, and ophthalmology. The prevalences of the most commonly reported symptoms were: restless leg syndrome 16.7-45%, sleep disordered breathing 20-46%, hypersomnia 14.3-60%, depression 12.5-67%, anxiety 5.3-34%, overall gastrointestinal symptoms 43-82.6%, nausea and vomiting 15.8-68.4%, abdominal pain 10.5-67.4%, altered appetite or anorexia 19-90%, xerosis 53.5-100%, pruritis 18.6-69%, headache 24-76.2% and ophthalmological symptoms 26%. Within each subgroup, the symptom definitions used were heterogeneous, the methods of assessment were varied and some symptoms, such as pain and constipation, were poorly represented. CONCLUSIONS: There is a marked lack of evidence relating to the symptom burden for CYP with CKD. This study highlights the high symptom prevalence, particularly in relation to sleep, mental health, headache, dermatological and gastrointestinal symptoms. There is a need for consensus recommendations on the evaluation and management of symptoms for CYP with CKD approaching end-of-life. PROSPERO ID: CRD42022346120.

Preoperative conservative treatment is insufficiently described in clinical trials of lumbar fusion: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: To identify how pre-surgical conservative care is characterized and reported in randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion, including duration and type of treatment. METHODS: The study design is a scoping review. Data sources include PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials published in English between January 1, 2005, and February 15, 2022, assessing lumbar fusion as the intervention were included in this review. RESULTS: Of 166 studies, 62.0% reported a failure in conservative care prior to lumbar fusion, but only 15.1% detailed the type of specific conservative care received. None of the trials provided sufficient details to understand the nature of the pre-surgical conservative treatment, such as frequency, recency/timing, or dosage of conservative interventions. CONCLUSION: Although roughly two-thirds of trials reported that patients failed conservative care prior to receiving a lumbar fusion, few studies named the conservative intervention provided and no studies provided any details regarding dosing or recency of care. This lack of information creates ambiguity in the surgical decision-making process, setting the assumption that all patients received adequate conservative care prior to surgery. Details about pre-surgical conservative care should be disclosed to allow for appropriate clinical application, decision-making, and interpretation of treatment effects.

How Do Kidney Disease Clinicians View Kidney Supportive Care and Palliative Care? A Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Kidney supportive care (KSC) is a developing area in medicine that integrates the expertise of kidney and palliative care practitioners to improve symptoms and quality of life for people with advanced kidney disease. The intersection of the practical aspects of KSC (including care activities and clinical referrals) with palliative and end-of-life care (EOLC) are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to explore kidney disease clinicians' experiences of KSC, palliative care, and EOLC. STUDY DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative study using semistructured focus groups. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Kidney disease clinicians (18 physicians, 3 trainees, and 33 kidney disease nurses) from 5 public hospitals were recruited across Victoria, Australia. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis of focus group transcripts. RESULTS: The 2 overarching themes highlighted by clinicians were their perception that their health care systems insufficiently addressed the needs of people with advanced kidney disease, as well as their aspirations to develop KSC services to improve health care experiences. Three subthemes were identified related to limitations in health care systems: (1) variation in the clinical scope of KSC, (2) limited integration of palliative care, and (3) experiences of challenging and compromised provision of EOLC. The second theme described aspirations for future KSC services to be more inclusive, seamless, and collaborative across health care providers with capacity to respond to meet changing palliative care needs. LIMITATIONS: Findings may not be transferable to contexts outside of Victoria, Australia; data were collected in 2017-2018 and may not reflect current or future experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney clinicians described systemic challenges and compromises in care experiences and the need for development of KSC services. They expressed that this development would require a consistent and systematic approach that integrates palliative care and embeds KSC as part of kidney health service delivery.

Comprehensive conservative care: what doctors say, what patients hear.

The demographic evolution of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) has led to the advent of an alternative treatment option to kidney replacement therapy in the past couple of decades. The KDIGO controversies on Kidney Supportive Care called this approach "comprehensive conservative care" (CCC) and defined it as planned holistic patient-centered care for patients with CKD stage 5 that does not include dialysis. Although the benefit of this treatment option is now well-recognized, especially for the elderly, and comorbid and frail patients, its development remains limited in practice. While shared decision-making and advance care planning represent the cornerstones of the CCC approach, one of the main barriers in its development is the perfectible communication between nephrologists and patients, but also between all healthcare professionals involved in the care of advanced CKD patients. As a result, a significant gap has opened up between what doctors say and what patients hear. Indeed, although CCC is reported by nephrologists to be widely available in their facilities, few of their patients say that they have actually heard of it. The objectives of this review are to explore discrepancies between what doctors say and what patients hear, to identify the factors underlying this gap, and to formulate practical proposals for narrowing this gap in practice.

Economic evaluation of dialysis and comprehensive conservative care for chronic kidney disease using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L; a comparison of evaluation instruments.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) patients often require long-term care, and while Hemodialysis (HD) is the standard treatment, Comprehensive Conservative Care (CCC) is gaining popularity as an alternative. Economic evaluations comparing their cost-effectiveness are crucial. This study aims to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing HD and CCC using the EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O instruments to assessing healthcare interventions in CKD patients. METHODS: This short-term economic evaluation involved 183 participants (105 HD, 76 CCC) and collected data on demographics, comorbidities, laboratory results, treatment costs, and HRQoL measured by ICECAP-O and EQ-5D-5L. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) and Net Monetary Benefit (NMB) were calculated separately for each instrument, and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) assessed uncertainty. RESULTS: CCC demonstrated significantly lower costs (mean difference $8,544.52) compared to HD. Both EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O indicated higher Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for both groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CCC dominated HD in terms of HRQoL measures, with ICERs of -$141,742.67 (EQ-5D-5L) and -$4,272.26 (ICECAP-O). NMB was positive for CCC and negative for HD, highlighting its economic feasibility. CONCLUSION: CCC proves a preferable and more cost-effective treatment option than HD for CKD patients aged 65 and above, regardless of the quality-of-life measure used for QALY calculations. Both EQ-5D-5L and ICECAP-O showed similar results in cost-utility analysis.

Characterising patients and clinician experiences in comprehensive conservative care for kidney failure in Northern Queensland.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive conservative care (CCC) is an emerging treatment option in kidney failure (KF), but its implementation has been restricted by a limited understanding of KF populations, outcomes and clinician experiences. AIMS: This pilot study aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients who are opting for (CCC) in North Queensland, Australia. It also aimed to highlight clinician factors impacting treatment discussions. METHODS: It was an observational study facilitated through an online cross-sectional survey to nephrologists, nephrology advanced trainees and nurse practitioners working across North Queensland. RESULTS: Study participants disagreed with the statement that patients commencing dialysis are more likely to have cardiac co-morbidities (46.7%), diabetes (40.0%), stroke (60.0%), liver disease (60.0%), chronic lung disease (53.3%), cognitive impairment (60.0%) and use of mobility aids (80.0%) than those commencing CCC. Conversely, they agreed that patients commencing dialysis are more likely to be independent (66.7%) and living in their private residence (40.0%). The median frailty score in patients choosing dialysis was 3.0 (interquartile range (IQR) 2.8-3.3), while that of patients selecting CCC was 4.5 (IQR 3.8-7.0). Our participants were aware of at least one clinical prognostication tool, and the one most frequently used was the 'Surprise Question' (46.2%, n = 6). Overall, our participants demonstrated low confidence (median 8.0%, IQR 6.0-8.0%) in facilitating CCC discussions. CONCLUSION: Patients who are highly co-morbid and frail and have functional impairment are suitable candidates for CCC. More focus needs to be placed on objective prognostication of patients and the upskilling of clinicians to advocate for, and deliver, CCC.

Shared Decision Making Among Older Adults With Advanced CKD.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Older adults with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) face difficult decisions about dialysis initiation. Although shared decision making (SDM) can help align patient preferences and values with treatment options, the extent to which older patients with CKD experience SDM remains unknown. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of patient surveys examining decisional readiness, treatment options education, care partner support, and SDM. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 70 years or older from Boston, Chicago, San Diego, or Portland (Maine) with nondialysis advanced CKD. PREDICTORS: Decisional readiness factors, treatment options education, and care partner support. OUTCOMES: Primary: SDM measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) instrument, with higher scores reflecting greater SDM. Exploratory: Factors associated with SDM. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We used multivariable linear regression models to examine the associations between SDM and predictors, controlling for demographic and health factors. RESULTS: Among 350 participants, mean age was 78 ± 6 years, 58% were male, 13% identified as Black, and 48% had diabetes. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 52 ± 28. SDM item agreement ranged from 41% of participants agreeing that "my doctor and I selected a treatment option together" to 73% agreeing that "my doctor told me that there are different options for treating my medical condition." In multivariable analysis adjusted for demographic characteristics, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, and diabetes, being "well informed" and "very well informed" about kidney treatment options, having higher decisional certainty, and attendance at a kidney treatment options class were independently associated with higher SDM-Q-9 scores. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional study design limits the ability to make temporal associations between SDM and the predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Many older patients with CKD do not experience SDM when making dialysis decisions, emphasizing the need for greater access to and delivery of education for individuals with advanced CKD.

Challenges to Shared Decision Making About Treatment of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study of Patients and Clinicians.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Greater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics. LIMITATIONS: Thematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.

Barriers to conservative care from patients' and nephrologists' perspectives: the CKD-REIN study.

BACKGROUND: Conservative care is increasingly considered an alternative to kidney replacement therapy for kidney failure management, mostly among the elderly. We investigated its status and the barriers to its implementation from patients' and providers' perspectives. METHODS: We analysed data from 1204 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2] enrolled at 40 nationally representative nephrology clinics (2013-16) who completed a self-administered questionnaire about the information they received and their preferred treatment option, including conservative care, if their kidneys failed. Nephrologists (n = 137) also reported data about their clinics' resources and practices regarding conservative care. RESULTS: All participating facilities reported they were routinely able to offer conservative care, but only 37% had written protocols and only 5% had a person or team primarily responsible for it. Overall, 6% of patients were estimated to use conservative care. Among nephrologists, 82% reported they were fairly or extremely comfortable discussing conservative care, but only 28% usually or always offered this option for older (>75 years) patients approaching kidney failure. They used various terminology for this care, with conservative management and non-dialysis care mentioned most often. Among patients, 5% of those >75 years reported receiving information about this option and 2% preferring it. CONCLUSIONS: Although reported by nephrologists to be widely available and easily discussed, conservative care is only occasionally offered to older patients, most of whom report they were not informed of this option. The lack of a person or team responsible for conservative care and unclear information appear to be key barriers to its implementation.

Survival of patients who opt for dialysis versus conservative care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a treatment option for patients with kidney failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at comparing survival outcomes between dialysis and CC in studies where patients made an explicit treatment choice. METHODS: Five databases were systematically searched from origin through 25 February 2021 for studies comparing survival outcomes among patients choosing dialysis versus CC. Adjusted and unadjusted survival rates were extracted and meta-analysis performed where applicable. Risk of bias analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. RESULTS: A total of 22 cohort studies were included covering 21 344 patients. Most studies were prone to selection bias and confounding. Patients opting for dialysis were generally younger and had fewer comorbid conditions, fewer functional impairments and less frailty than patients who chose CC. The unadjusted median survival from treatment decision or an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 ranged from 20 and 67 months for dialysis and 6 and 31 months for CC. Meta-analysis of 12 studies that provided adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality showed a pooled adjusted HR of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57) for patients choosing dialysis compared with CC. In subgroups of patients with older age or severe comorbidities, the reduction of mortality risk remained statistically significant, although analyses were unadjusted. CONCLUSIONS: Patients opting for dialysis have an overall lower mortality risk compared with patients opting for CC. However, a high risk of bias and heterogeneous reporting preclude definitive conclusions and results cannot be translated to an individual level.

Development of an online patient decision aid for kidney failure treatment modality decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) support patients and clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM). Real-world outcome information may improve patients' risk perception, and help patients make decisions congruent with their expectations and values. Our aim was to develop an online PtDA to support kidney failure treatment modality decision-making, that: 1) provides patients with real-world outcome information, and 2) facilitates SDM in clinical practice. METHODS: The International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) development process model was complemented with a user-centred and convergent mixed-methods approach. Rapid prototyping was used to develop the PtDA with a multidisciplinary steering group in an iterative process of co-creation. The results of an exploratory evidence review and a needs-assessment among patients, caregivers, and clinicians were used to develop the PtDA. Seven Dutch teaching hospitals and two national Dutch outcome registries provided real-world data on selected outcomes for all kidney failure treatment modalities. Alpha and beta testing were performed to assess the prototype and finalise development. An implementation strategy was developed to guide implementation of the PtDA in clinical practice. RESULTS: The 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' consists of three components designed to help patients and clinicians engage in SDM: 1) a paper hand-out sheet, 2) an interactive website, and 3) a personal summary sheet. A 'patients-like-me' infographic was developed to visualise survival probabilities for each treatment modality on the website. Other treatment outcomes were incorporated as event rates (e.g. hospitalisation rates) or explained in text (e.g. the flexibility of each treatment modality). No major revisions were needed after alpha and beta testing. During beta testing, some patients ignored the survival probabilities because they considered these too confronting. Nonetheless, patients agreed that every patient has the right to choose whether they want to view this information. Patients and clinicians believed that the PtDA would help patients make informed decisions, and that it would support values- and preferences-based decision-making. Implementation of the PtDA has started in October 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' was designed to facilitate SDM in clinical practice and contains real-world outcome information on all kidney failure treatment modalities. It is currently being investigated for its effects on SDM in a clinical trial.

Where to start? A two stage residual inclusion approach to estimating influence of the initial provider on health care utilization and costs for low back pain in the US.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic testing and treatment recommendations can vary when medical care is sought by individuals for low back pain (LBP), leading to variation in quality and costs of care. We examine how the first provider seen by an individual at initial diagnosis of LBP influences downstream utilization and costs. METHODS: Using national private health insurance claims data, individuals age 18 or older were retrospectively assigned to cohorts based on the first provider seen at the index date of LBP diagnosis. Exclusion criteria included individuals with a diagnosis of LBP or any serious medical conditions or an opioid prescription recorded in the 6 months prior to the index date. Outcome measures included use of imaging, back surgery rates, hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, early- and long-term opioid use, and costs (out-of-pocket and total costs of care) twelve months post-index date. We used a two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) estimation approach comparing copay for the initial provider visit and differential distance as the instrumental variable to reduce selection bias in the choice of first provider, controlling for demographics. RESULTS: Among 3,799,593 individuals, cost and utilization varied considerably based on the first provider seen by the patient. Copay and differential distance provided similar results, with copay preserving a greater sample size. The frequency of early opioid prescription was significantly lower when care began with an acupuncturist or chiropractor, and highest for those who began with an emergency medicine physician or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN). Long-term opioid prescriptions were low across most providers except physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians and APRNs. The frequency and time to serious illness varied little across providers. Total cost of care was lowest when starting with a chiropractor ($5093) or primary care physician ($5660), and highest when starting with an orthopedist ($9434) or acupuncturist ($9205). CONCLUSION: The first provider seen by individuals with LBP was associated with large differences in health care utilization, opioid prescriptions, and cost while there were no differences in delays in diagnosis of serious illness.

Asking the right questions: towards a person-centered conception of shared decision-making regarding treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease in older patients.

An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient's values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient's perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient's relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

Effectiveness of the ICCMS caries management system for children: a 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial compared, in 6-7-year-old Colombian children, the effectiveness of the ICCMS (International Caries Classification and Management System) with a conventional caries-management system (CCMS) in terms of individual caries-risk, caries lesions, and secondarily, oral-health-related knowledge/attitudes/practices, and number of appointments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: With ethical approval, 240 6-7-year olds from six Colombian clinics were recruited. Trained examiners conducted the following baseline/follow-up assessments: Caries risk (Cariogram-ICCMS); caries severity/activity staging (ICDAS-merged combined radiographic/visual); sealants/fillings/missing teeth, and oral-health-related knowledge, attitudes and practices. Children received their randomly allocated (ICCMS/CCMS) care from dental practitioners. Outcomes: caries-risk control (children); caries-progression control (tooth surfaces); oral-health-related knowledge/attitudes/practices improvement (parents/children), and appointments' number (children). Descriptive and non-parametric/parametric bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Three-year-follow-up: n = 187 (77.9%; ICCMS: n = 92; CCMS: n = 95) disclosed a baseline-to-3-year overall high-caries-risk children decrease (ICCMS: 60.9-0%, p < .001; CCMS: 54.7-5.3%, p < .001) (p > .05). ICCMS versus CCMS showed: fewer tooth-surface caries progression (6.2% vs 7.1%, p = .010) and fewer active-caries lesions (49.8% vs. 59.1%, p < .05); higher proportion of children with ≥2/day fluoride-toothpaste tooth-brushing practice (p < .05); similar mean number of appointments (10.9 ± 5.9 vs. 10.0 ± 3.8, p = .15). CONCLUSION: Both caries-management systems showed similar effectiveness in caries-risk control, with ICCMS more effectively controlling tooth-surface caries progression and improving toothbrushing practices.

Patient Education for Kidney Failure Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Education programs are needed for people with advanced chronic kidney disease to understand kidney failure treatment options and participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about the content and accessibility of current education programs or whether they support SDM. STUDY DESIGN: Stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods design incorporating qualitative observations and interviews, and a quantitative content analysis of slide presentations. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Four sites located in Boston, Chicago, Portland (Maine), and San Diego. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis based on the Ottawa Framework (observations and interviews) and descriptive statistical analysis (slide presentations). RESULTS: Data were collected from observations of 9 education sessions, 5 semistructured interviews with educators, and 133 educational slide presentations. Sites offered group classes or one-on-one sessions. Development, quality, and accuracy of educational materials varied widely. Educators emphasized dialysis (often in-center hemodialysis), with little mention of conservative management. Educators reported patients were often referred too late to education sessions and that some patients become overwhelmed if they learn of the implications of kidney failure in a group setting. Commonly, sessions were general and did not provide opportunities for tailored information most supportive of SDM. Few nephrologists were involved in education sessions or aware of the educational content. Content gaps included prognosis, decision support, mental health and cognition, advance care planning, cost, and diet. Slide presentations used did not consistently reflect best practices related to health literacy. LIMITATIONS: Findings may not be broadly generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: Education sessions focused on kidney failure treatment options do not consistently follow best practices related to health literacy or for supporting SDM. To facilitate SDM, the establishment of expectations for kidney failure treatment options should be clearly defined and integrated into the clinical workflow. Addressing content gaps, health literacy, and communication with nephrologists is necessary to improve patient education in the setting of advanced chronic kidney disease.

Perspectives on Conservative Care in Advanced Kidney Disease: A Qualitative Study of US Patients and Family Members.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Little is known about perceptions of conservative care among patients with advanced kidney disease in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study using cognitive interviewing about attitudes regarding conservative care using decision aids on treatments for advanced kidney disease developed outside the United States. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 14 patients 75 years or older with advanced kidney disease, defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate≤20mL/min/1.73m2 and not receiving maintenance dialysis, and 6 of their family members. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis of participants' reactions to descriptions of conservative care taken from various clinical care decision aids. RESULTS: Participants were mostly White (n=15) and had at least some college education (n=16). Four themes emerged from analysis of interviews: (1) core elements of conservative care: aspects of conservative care that were appealing to participants included a whole-person, team-based, and structured approach to care that focused on symptom management, maintaining current lifestyle, and managing health setbacks; (2) importance of how conservative care is framed: participants were more receptive to conservative care when this was framed as an active rather than passive treatment approach and were receptive to statements of uncertainty about future course of illness and prognosis; (3) an explicit approach to shared decision making: participants believed decisions about conservative care and dialysis should address considerations about risk and benefits of treatment options, family and clinician perspectives, and patients' goals, values, and preferences; and (4) relationship between conservative care and dialysis: although conservative care models outside the United States are generally intended to serve as an alternative to dialysis, participants' comments implied that they did not see conservative care and dialysis as mutually exclusive. LIMITATIONS: Themes identified may not generalize to the broader population of US patients with advanced kidney disease and their family members. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were favorably disposed to a whole-person multidisciplinary approach to conservative care, especially when framed as an active treatment approach. Models of conservative care excluding the possibility of dialysis were less embraced, suggesting that current models will require adaptation to meet the needs of US patients and their families.

Recommendations for Public Policy Changes to Improve Supportive Care for Seriously Ill Patients With Kidney Disease.

National and international nephrology organizations have identified substantial unmet supportive care needs of patients with kidney disease and issued recommendations. In the United States, the most recent comprehensive effort to change kidney care, the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, does not explicitly address supportive care needs, although it attempts to implement more patient-centered care. This Perspective from the leaders of the Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients advocates for urgent policy changes to improve patient-centered care and the quality of life of seriously ill patients with kidney disease. It argues for the provision of supportive care by an interdisciplinary team led by nephrology clinicians to improve shared decision-making, advance care planning, pain and symptom management, the explicit offering of active medical management without dialysis as an option for patients who may not benefit from dialysis, and the removal by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and all other payors of financial and regulatory disincentives to quality supportive care, including hospice, for patients with or approaching kidney failure. It also emphasizes that all educational and accreditation programs for nephrology clinicians include kidney supportive care and its essential role in the care of patients with kidney disease.

The Prepare for Kidney Care Study: prepare for renal dialysis versus responsive management in advanced chronic kidney disease.

Shared decision making in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires unbiased information on survival and person-centred outcomes known to matter to patients: quality of life, symptom burden and support from family and healthcare professionals. To date, when deciding between dialysis and conservative care, patients have had to rely on evidence from small observational studies. Clinicians recognize that like is not being compared with like in these studies, and interpret the results differently. Furthermore, support differs considerably between renal units. What patients choose therefore depends on which renal unit they attend. To address this, a programme of work has been underway in the UK. After reports on survival and symptoms from a small number of renal units, a national, mixed-methods study-the Conservative Kidney Management Assessment of Practice Patterns Study-mapped out conservative care practices and attitudes in the UK. This led to the Prepare for Kidney Care study, a randomized controlled trial comparing preparation for dialysis versus preparation for conservative care. Although powered to detect a positivist 0.345 difference in quality-adjusted life years between the two treatments, this trial also takes a realist approach with a range of person-centred secondary outcomes and embedded qualitative research. To understand generalizability, it is nested in an observational cohort study, which is nested in a CKD registry. Challenges to recruitment and retention have been rapidly identified and addressed using an established embedded mixed methods approach-the QuinteT recruitment intervention. This review considers the background to and progress with recruitment to the trial.

Health-related quality of life and symptoms of conservative care versus dialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a viable alternative to maintenance dialysis for selected older patients to treat end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). This systematic review compares both treatment pathways on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms, which are major outcomes for patients and clinicians when deciding on preferred treatment. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus and PsycINFO from inception to 1 October 2019 for studies comparing patient-reported HRQoL outcomes or symptoms between patients who chose either CC or dialysis for ESKD. RESULTS: Eleven observational cohort studies were identified comprising 1718 patients overall. There were no randomized controlled trials. Studies were susceptible to selection bias and confounding. In most studies, patients who chose CC were older and had more comorbidities and worse functional status than patients who chose dialysis. Results were broadly consistent across studies, despite considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Patient-reported physical health outcomes and symptoms appeared to be worse in patients who chose CC compared with patients who chose dialysis but had not yet started, but similar compared with patients on dialysis. Mental health outcomes were similar between patients who chose CC or dialysis, including before and after dialysis start. In patients who chose dialysis, the burden of kidney disease and impact on daily life increased after dialysis start. CONCLUSIONS: The available data, while heterogeneous, suggest that in selected older patients, CC has the potential to achieve similar HRQoL and symptoms compared with a dialysis pathway. High-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these provisional findings.

CariesCare International adapted for the pandemic in children: Caries OUT multicentre single-group interventional study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive caries care has shown effectiveness in controlling caries progression and improving health outcomes by controlling caries risk, preventing initial-caries lesions progression, and patient satisfaction. To date, the caries-progression control effectiveness of the patient-centred risk-based CariesCare International (CCI) system, derived from ICCMS™ for the practice (2019), remains unproven. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic a previously planned multi-centre RCT shifted to this "Caries OUT" study, aiming to assess in a single-intervention group in children, the caries-control effectiveness of CCI adapted for the pandemic with non-aerosols generating procedures (non-AGP) and reducing in-office time. METHODS: In this 1-year multi-centre single-group interventional trial the adapted-CCI effectiveness will be assessed in one single group in terms of tooth-surface level caries progression control, and secondarily, individual-level caries progression control, children's oral-health behaviour change, parents' and dentists' process acceptability, and costs exploration. A sample size of 258 3-5 and 6-8 years old patients was calculated after removing half from the previous RCT, allowing for a 25% dropout, including generally health children (27 per centre). The single-group intervention will be the adapted-CCI 4D-cycle caries care, with non-AGP and reduced in-office appointments' time. A trained examiner per centre will conduct examinations at baseline, at 5-5.5 months (3 months after basic management), 8.5 and 12 months, assessing the child's CCI caries risk and oral-health behaviour, visually staging and assessing caries-lesions severity and activity without air-drying (ICDAS-merged Epi); fillings/sealants; missing/dental-sepsis teeth, and tooth symptoms, synthetizing together with parent and external-trained dental practitioner (DP) the patient- and tooth-surface level diagnoses and personalised care plan. DP will deliver the adapted-CCI caries care. Parents' and dentists' process acceptability will be assessed via Treatment-Evaluation-Inventory questionnaires, and costs in terms of number of appointments and activities. Twenty-one centres in 13 countries will participate. DISCUSSION: The results of Caries OUT adapted for the pandemic will provide clinical data that could help support shifting the caries care in children towards individualised oral-health behaviour improvement and tooth-preserving care, improving health outcomes, and explore if the caries progression can be controlled during the pandemic by conducting non-AGP and reducing in-office time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively-registered-ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04666597-07/12/2020: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AGM4&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00019IE&ts=2&cx=uwje3h . Protocol-version 2: 27/01/2021.