Priority Setting as an Ethical Imperative in Managing Global Dialysis Access and Improving Kidney Care

Global kidney health priorities-perspectives from the ISN-GKHA

Kidney diseases have become a global epidemic with significant public health impact. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is set to become the fifth largest cause of death by 2040, with major impacts on low-resource countries. This review is based on a recent report of the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA) which uncovered gaps in key vehicles of kidney care delivery assessed using World Health Organization building blocks for health systems (financing, services delivery, workforce, access to essential medicines, health information systems and leadership/governance). High-income countries had more centres for kidney replacement therapies (KRT), higher KRT access, higher allocation of public funds to KRT, larger workforces, more health information systems, and higher government recognition of CKD and KRT as health priorities than low-income nations. Evidence identified from the current ISN-GKHA initiative should serve as template for generating and advancing policies and partnerships to address the global burden of kidney disease. The results provide opportunities for kidney health policymakers, nephrology leaders and organizations to initiate consultations to identify strategies for improving care delivery and access in equitable, resource-sensitive manners. Policies to increase use of public funding for kidney care, lower the cost of KRT and increase workforces should be a high priority in low-resource nations, while strategies that expand access to kidney care and maintain current status of care should be prioritized in high-income countries. In all countries, the perspectives of people with CKD should be exhaustively explored to identify core kidney care priorities.

Ethics in humanitarian settings-relevance and consequences for dialysis and kidney care

With the increasing frequency and severity of disasters and the increasing number of patients living with kidney disease, on dialysis and with transplants around the world, the need for kidney care in humanitarian settings is increasing. Almost all humanitarian emergencies pose a threat to kidney health because all treatments are highly susceptible to interruption, and interruption can be deadly. Providing support for people requiring dialysis in humanitarian settings can be complex and is associated with many trade-offs. The global kidney care community must become familiar with the ethics, principles and duties essential to meeting the overarching goals of ethical and effective disaster relief. Ethics principles and values must be considered on the individual, public health and global levels. The wellbeing of a single patient must be considered in the context of the competing needs of many others, and optimal treatment may not be possible due to resource constraints. Public health ethics principles, including considerations of triage and resource allocation, maximization of benefit and feasibility, often become directly relevant at the bedside. Individuals delivering humanitarian relief must be well trained, competent, respectful and professional, while involved organizations need to uphold the highest professional and ethical standards. There may be dissonance between ethical guidance and practical realities in humanitarian settings, which for inexperienced individuals may present significant challenges. Sustaining dialysis care in emergencies brings these issues starkly to the fore. Preparedness for dialysis in emergencies is an ethical imperative that mandates multisectoral stakeholder engagement and action, development of surge response plans, clinical and ethics guidance, and transparent priority setting. This manuscript outlines common ethics challenges and considerations that apply in all humanitarian actions, and illustrates their relevance to kidney care as a whole, using examples of how these may apply to dialysis and kidney disaster relief efforts in humanitarian settings.

Structures, Organization, and Delivery of Kidney Care to Children Living in Low-Resource Settings

Introduction

There is a disparity in the availability of health care for children in resource-constrained countries. The International Pediatric Nephrology Association (IPNA) commissioned an initiative exploring the challenges in the care of children with kidney disease in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) with a focus on human, diagnostic, and therapeutic resources.

Methods

A survey was sent by e-mail to all members of IPNA and its affiliated regional or national societies residing in LMICs. Data were extracted from individual responses after merging duplicate data. Descriptive analysis was done using Microsoft Excel.

Results

Responses were obtained from 245 centers across 62 countries representing 88% of the LMIC pediatric population. Regional disparity in the availability of basic diagnostic and therapeutic resources was noted. Even when resources were available, they were not accessible or affordable in 15% to 20% of centers. Acute and chronic dialysis were available in 85% and 75% of centers respectively. Lack of trained nurses, pediatric-specific supplies, and high costs were barriers to providing dialysis in these regions. Kidney transplantation was available in 32% of centers, with the cost of transplantation and lack of surgical expertise reported as barriers. About 65% of centers reported that families with chronic disease opted to discontinue care, with financial burden as the most common reason cited.

Conclusion

The survey highlights the existing gaps in workforce, diagnostic, and therapeutic resources for pediatric kidney care in resource-constrained regions. We need to strengthen the health care workforce, address disparities in health care resources and funding, and advocate for equitable access to medications, and kidney replacement therapy (KRT).

Rapid cost-effectiveness analysis: hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis for patients with acute kidney injury in Rwanda

BACKGROUND

To ensure the long-term sustainability of its Community-Based Health Insurance scheme, the Government of Rwanda is working on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to prioritize its resources for health. The objectives of the study were to rapidly assess (1) the cost-effectiveness and (2) the budget impact of providing PD versus HD for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) in the tertiary care setting in Rwanda.

METHODS

A rapid cost-effectiveness analysis for patients with AKI was conducted to support prioritization. An 'adaptive' HTA approach was undertaken by adjusting the international Decision Support Initiative reference case for time and data constraints. Available local and international data were used to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with hemodialysis (HD) in the tertiary hospital setting.

RESULTS

The analysis found that HD was slightly more effective and slightly more expensive in the payer perspective for most patients with AKI (aged 15-49). HD appeared to be cost-effective when only comparing these two dialysis strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 378,174 Rwandan francs (RWF) or 367 United States dollars (US$), at a threshold of 0.5 × gross domestic product per capita (RWF 444,074 or US$431). Sensitivity analysis found that reducing the cost of HD kits would make HD even more cost-effective. Uncertainty regarding PD costs remains. Budget impact analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of the biggest cost driver, HD kits, could produce significantly more savings in five years than switching to PD. Thus, price negotiations could significantly improve the efficiency of HD provision.

CONCLUSION

Dialysis is costly and covered by insurance in many countries for the financial protection of patients. This analysis enabled policymakers to make evidence-based decisions to improve the efficiency of dialysis provision.

Inequities in kidney health and kidney care

Health inequity refers to the existence of unnecessary and unfair differences in the ability of an individual or community to achieve optimal health and access appropriate care. Kidney diseases, including acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, are the epitome of health inequity. Kidney disease risk and outcomes are strongly associated with inequities that occur across the entire clinical course of disease. Insufficient investment across the spectrum of kidney health and kidney care is a fundamental source of inequity. In addition, social and structural inequities, including inequities in access to primary health care, education and preventative strategies, are major risk factors for, and contribute to, poorer outcomes for individuals living with kidney diseases. Access to affordable kidney care is also highly inequitable, resulting in financial hardship and catastrophic health expenditure for the most vulnerable. Solutions to these injustices require leadership and political will. The nephrology community has an important role in advocacy and in identifying and implementing solutions to dismantle inequities that affect kidney health.

Chronic Kidney Disease Burden in Low-Resource Settings: Regional Perspectives

The burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has increased exponentially worldwide but more so in low- and middle-income countries. Specific risk factors in these regions expose their populations to an increased risk of CKD, such as genetic risk with APOL1 among populations of West African heritage or farmers with CKD of unknown etiology that spans various countries across several continents to immigrant/indigenous populations in both low- and high-income countries. Low- and middle-income economies also have the double burden of communicable and noncommunicable diseases, both contributing to the high prevalence of CKD. The economies are characterized by low health expenditure, sparse or nonexistent health insurance and welfare programs, and predominant out-of-pocket spending for medical care. This review highlights the challenges in populations with CKD from low-resource settings globally and explores how health systems can help ameliorate the CKD burden.

Challenges to the right to health in sub-Saharan Africa: reflections on inequities in access to dialysis for patients with end-stage kidney failure

Realization of the individual’s right to health in settings such as sub-Saharan Africa, where health care adequate resources are lacking, is challenging. This paper demonstrates this challenge by illustrating the example of dialysis, which is an expensive but life-saving treatment for people with kidney failure. Dialysis resources, if available in sub-Saharan Africa, are generally limited but in high demand, and clinicians at the bedside are faced with deciding who lives and who dies. When resource limitations exist, transparent and objective priority setting regarding access to such expensive care is required to improve equity across all health needs in a population. This process however, which weighs individual and population health needs, denies some the right to health by limiting access to health care.

This paper unpacks what it means to recognize the right to health in sub-Saharan Africa, acknowledging the current resource availability and scarcity, and the larger socio-economic context. We argue, the first order of the right to health, which should always be realized, includes protection of health, i.e. prevention of disease through public health and health-in-all policy approaches. The second order right to health care would include provision of universal health coverage to all, such that risk factors and diseases can be effectively and equitably detected and treated early, to prevent disease progression or development of complications, and ultimately reduce the demand for expensive care. The third order right to health care would include equitable access to expensive care. In this paper, we argue that recognition of the inequities in realization of the right to health between individuals with “expensive” needs versus those with more affordable needs, countries must determine if, how, and when they will begin to provide such expensive care, so as to minimize these inequities as rapidly as possible. Such a process requires good governance, multi-stakeholder engagement, transparency, communication and a commitment to progress. We conclude the paper by emphasizing that striving towards the progressive realization of the right to health for all people living in SSA is key to achieving equity in access to quality health care and equitable opportunities for each individual to maximize their own state of health.

Ethical Issues in Kidney Transplant and Donation During COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease-19 pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus has faced the transplant community with unprecedented clinical challenges in a highly vulnerable patient category. These were associated with many uncertainties for patients and health care professionals and prompted many ethical debates regarding the safe delivery of kidney transplantation. In this article, we highlight some of the most important ethical questions that were raised during the pandemic and attempt to analyze ethical arguments in light of core principles of medical ethics to either suspend or continue kidney transplantation, and to mandate vaccination in transplant patients, transplant candidates, and, finally, health care providers. We have come up with frameworks to deal responsibly with these ethical challenges, and formulated recommendations to cope with the issues imposed on patients and transplant professionals.

Ethical Aspects of Kidney Donation and Transplantation for Migrants

Migrants represent a large and diverse population globally that includes international refugees, stateless persons, expatriate workers, and more. Many migrants face significant barriers in accessing health care, especially scarce and costly resources such as dialysis and kidney transplantation. Improving equity of access to these kidney replacement therapies for migrant populations may present a range of complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the setting of crises and when considering the use of residency status and citizenship as eligibility criteria for access to treatment. In this article, we discuss ethical obligations to provide kidney care for migrants, the implications of the self-sufficiency concept with regard to access to deceased donation and transplantation, factors that may influence evaluation of the risks and benefits of transplantation for migrants with insecure access to care, and the vulnerability of migrants to organ trafficking. We also present a set of general recommendations to assist in preventing and managing ethical dilemmas when making decisions about policy or practice regarding kidney care for migrants.

Bedside rationing and moral distress in nephrologists in sub- Saharan Africa

Background

Kidney diseases constitute an important proportion of the non-communicable disease (NCD) burden in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), though prevention, diagnosis and treatment of kidney diseases are less prioritized in public health budgets than other high-burden NCDs. Dialysis is not considered cost-effective, and for those patients accessing the limited service available, high out-of-pocket expenses are common and few continue care over time. This study assessed challenges faced by nephrologists in SSA who manage patients needing dialysis. The specific focus was to investigate if and how physicians respond to bedside rationing situations.

Methods

A survey was conducted among a randomly selected group of nephrologists from SSA. The questionnaire was based on a previously validated survey instrument. A descriptive and narrative approach was used for analysis.

Results

Among 40 respondents, the majority saw patients weekly with acute kidney injury (AKI) or end-stage kidney failure (ESKF) in need of dialysis whom they could not dialyze. When dialysis was provided, clinical compromises were common, and 66% of nephrologists reported lack of basic diagnostics and medication and > 80% reported high out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Several patient-, disease- and institutional factors influenced who got access to dialysis. Patients’ financial constraints and poor chances of survival limited the likelihood of receiving dialysis (reported by 79 and 78% of nephrologists respectively), while a patient’s being the family bread-winner increased the likelihood (reported by 56%). Patient and institutional constraints resulted in most nephrologists (88%) frequently having to make difficult choices, sometimes having to choose between patients. Few reported existence of priority setting guidelines. Most nephrologists (74%) always, often or sometimes felt burdened by ethical dilemmas and worried about patients out of hospital hours. As a consequence, almost 46% of nephrologists reported frequently regretting their choice of profession and 26% had considered leaving the country.

Conclusion

Nephrologists in SSA face harsh priority setting at the bedside without available guidance. The moral distress is high. While publicly funded dialysis treatment might not be prioritized in essential health care packages on the path to universal health coverage, the suffering of the patients, families and the providers must be acknowledged and addressed to increase fairness in these decisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02827-2.