Dialysis Initiation and All-Cause Mortality Among Incident Adult Patients With Advanced CKD: A Meta-analysis With Bias Analysis

Treatment Decision Making for Older Kidney Patients during COVID-19

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted medical care across health care settings for older patients with advanced CKD. Understanding how shared decision making for kidney treatment decisions was influenced by the uncertainty of an evolving pandemic can provide insights for supporting shared decision making through the current and future public health crises.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed thematic and narrative analyses of semistructured interviews with patients (CKD stages 4 and 5, age 70+), care partners, and clinicians from Boston, Portland (Maine), San Diego, and Chicago from August to December 2020.

RESULTS

We interviewed 76 participants (39 patients, 17 care partners, and 20 clinicians). Among patient participants, 13 (33%) patients identified as Black, and seven (18%) had initiated dialysis. Four themes with corresponding subthemes emerged related to treatment decision making and the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) adapting to changed educational and patient engagement practices (patient barriers to care and new opportunities for telemedicine); (2) reconceptualizing vulnerability (clinician awareness of illness severity increased and limited discussions of patient COVID-19 vulnerability); (3) embracing home-based dialysis but not conservative management (openness to home-based modalities and limited discussion of conservative management and advanced care planning); and (4) satisfaction and safety with treatment decisions despite conditions of uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Although clinicians perceived greater vulnerability among older patients CKD and more readily encouraged home-based modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic, their discussions of vulnerability, advance care planning, and conservative management remained limited, suggesting areas for improvement. Clinicians reported burnout caused by the pandemic, increased time demands, and workforce limitations, whereas patients remained satisfied with their treatment choices despite uncertainty.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

Decision Aid for Renal Therapy (DART), NCT03522740.

Using Human-Centered Design Principles to Create a Decision Aid on Conservative Kidney Management for Advanced Kidney Disease

Background

Most patients are unaware of approaches to treating advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) other than dialysis.

Methods

We developed a dedicated decision aid on conservative kidney management using human-centered design principles in three phases: (1) discovery: engagement of informants to understand their needs and preferences; (2) design: multiple rapid cycles of ideation, prototyping, and testing of a decision aid with a small group of informants; and (3) implementation: testing the decision aid in real-world settings with attention to how the decision aid can be further refined. Informants included a national patient advisory committee on kidney diseases, 50 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD and 35 of their family members, and 16 clinicians recruited from the greater Seattle area between June 2019 and September 2021.

Results

Findings from the discovery phase informed an initial prototype of the decision aid, which included five sections: a description of kidney disease and its signs and symptoms, an overview of conservative kidney management and the kinds of supports provided, self-reflection exercises to elicit patients' values and goals, the pros and cons of conservative kidney management, and the option of changing one's mind about conservative kidney management. The prototype underwent several rounds of iteration during its design phase, which resulted in the addition of an introductory section describing the intended audience and more detailed information in other sections. Findings from its implementation phase led to the addition of examples of common questions that patients and family members had about conservative kidney management and a final section on other related educational resources.

Conclusions

Human-centered design principles supported a systematic and collaborative approach between researchers, patients, family members, and clinicians for developing a decision aid on conservative kidney management.

Long-term Outcomes Among Patients With Advanced Kidney Disease Who Forgo Maintenance Dialysis: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

An understanding of the long-term outcomes of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease not treated with maintenance dialysis is needed to improve shared decision-making and care practices for this population.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate survival, use of health care resources, changes in quality of life, and end-of-life care of patients with advanced kidney disease who forgo dialysis.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

MEDLINE, Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were searched from inception through December 3, 2021, for all English language longitudinal studies of adults in whom there was an explicit decision not to pursue maintenance dialysis. Two investigators independently reviewed all studies and selected those reporting survival, use of health care resources, changes in quality of life, or end-of-life care during follow-up. Studies of patients who initiated and then discontinued maintenance dialysis and patients in whom it was not clear that there was an explicit decision to forgo dialysis were excluded. One author abstracted all study data, of which 12% was independently adjudicated by a second author (<1% error rate).

FINDINGS

Forty-one cohort studies comprising 5102 patients (range, 11-812 patients) were included in this systematic review (5%-99% men; mean age range, 60-87 years). Substantial heterogeneity in study designs and measures used to report outcomes limited comparability across studies. Median survival of cohorts ranged from 1 to 41 months as measured from a baseline mean estimated glomerular filtration rate ranging from 7 to 19 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients generally experienced 1 to 2 hospital admissions, 6 to 16 in-hospital days, 7 to 8 clinic visits, and 2 emergency department visits per person-year. During an observation period of 8 to 24 months, mental well-being improved, and physical well-being and overall quality of life were largely stable until late in the illness course. Among patients who died during follow-up, 20% to 76% had enrolled in hospice, 27% to 68% died in a hospital setting and 12% to 71% died at home; 57% to 76% were hospitalized, and 4% to 47% received an invasive procedure during the final month of life.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many patients who do not pursue dialysis survived several years and experienced sustained quality of life until late in the illness course. Nonetheless, use of acute care services was common and intensity of end-of-life care highly variable across cohorts. These findings suggest that consistent approaches to the study of conservative kidney management are needed to enhance the generalizability of findings and develop models of care that optimize outcomes among conservatively managed patients.

OUP accepted manuscript

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.

Punt Politics as Failure of Health System Stewardship: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic Response in Brazil and Mexico

We present a new concept, Punt Politics, and apply it to the COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) in two epicenters of the pandemic: Mexico and Brazil. Punt Politics refers to national leaders in federal systems deferring or deflecting responsibility for health systems decision-making to sub-national entities without evidence or coordination. The fragmentation of authority and overlapping functions in federal, decentralized political systems make them more susceptible to coordination problems than centralized, unitary systems. We apply the concept to pandemics, which require national health system stewardship, using sub-national NPI data that we developed and curated through the Observatory for the Containment of COVID-19 in the Americas to illustrate Punt Politics in Mexico and Brazil. Both countries suffer from protracted, high levels of COVID-19 mortality and inadequate pandemic responses, including little testing and disregard for scientific evidence. We illustrate how populist leadership drove Punt Politics and how partisan politics contributed to disabling an evidence-based response in Mexico and Brazil. These cases illustrate the combination of decentralization and populist leadership that is most conducive to punting responsibility. We discuss how Punt Politics reduces health system functionality, providing lessons for other countries and future pandemic responses, including vaccine rollout.

Methods to Address Confounding and Other Biases in Meta-Analyses: Review and Recommendations

Meta-analyses contribute critically to cumulative science, but they can produce misleading conclusions if their constituent primary studies are biased, for example by unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized studies. We provide practical guidance on how meta-analysts can address confounding and other biases that affect studies' internal validity, focusing primarily on sensitivity analyses that help quantify how biased the meta-analysis estimates might be. We review a number of sensitivity analysis methods to do so, especially recent developments that are straightforward to implement and interpret and that use somewhat less stringent statistical assumptions than do earlier methods. We give recommendations for how these newer methods could be applied in practice and illustrate using a previously published meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses can provide informative quantitative summaries of evidence strength, and we suggest reporting them routinely in meta-analyses of potentially biased studies. This recommendation in no way diminishes the importance of defining study eligibility criteria that reduce bias and of characterizing studies' risks of bias qualitatively. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 43 is April 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.