Changes in Treatment of Patients with Incident ESKD during the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

COVID-19 pandemic and initiation of treatment for atrial fibrillation: a nationwide analysis of claims data

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted the delivery of medical care. It remains unclear whether individuals diagnosed with new onset disease during the pandemic were less likely to initiate treatments after diagnosis. We sought to evaluate changes in the treatment initiation of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we identified individuals with incident AF from 01/01/2016-09/30/2021 using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. The primary outcome was initiation of oral anticoagulation (OAC) within 30 days of AF diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included initiation of OAC within 180 days of diagnosis, initiation of warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), rhythm control medications and electrical cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis. We constructed interrupted time series analyses to examine changes in the outcomes following the onset of the pandemic.

RESULTS

A total of 573,524 patients (age 73.0 ± 10.9 years) were included in the study. There were no significant changes in the initiation of OAC, DOAC, and rhythm control medications associated with the onset of the pandemic. There was a significant decrease in initiation of electrical cardioversion associated with the onset of the pandemic. The rate of electronic cardioversion within 30 days of diagnosis decreased by 4.9% per 1,000 patients after the onset of the pandemic and decreased by about 35% in April 2020, compared to April 2019, from 5.53% to 3.58%.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the OAC initiation within 30 days of AF diagnosis but was associated with a decline in the provision of procedures for patients newly diagnosed with AF.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on services for patients with chronic kidney disease: findings of a national survey of UK kidney centres

BACKGROUND

Services for patients with kidney disease underwent radical adaptations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We undertook an online national survey of UK kidney centres to understand the nature, range, and degree of variation in these changes and to explore factors contributing to differing practice.

METHODS

The survey was designed by a multidisciplinary team of kidney professionals, service users and researchers. It enquired about centre services and staffing, including psychosocial provision, and changes to these in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Links to the survey were sent to all 68 UK kidney centres and remained active from December 2021 to April 2022, and a revised version to nurses in late 2022 for additional data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Content analysis on free-text responses identified common themes.

RESULTS

Analysable responses were received from 41 out of the 68 UK centres (60%), with partial data from an additional 7 (11%). Adaptations were system-wide and affected all aspects of service provision. Some changes were almost universal such as virtual consultations for outpatient appointments, with significant variation in others. Outpatient activity varied from fully maintained to suspended. Many centres reduced peritoneal dialysis access provision but in some this was increased. Centres considered that changes to transplant surgical services and for patients with advanced CKD approaching end-stage kidney disease had the greatest impact on patients. Few centres implemented adjustments aimed at vulnerable and underrepresented groups, including the frail elderly, people with language and communication needs, and those with mental health needs. Communication issues were attributed to rapid evolution of the pandemic, changing planning guidance and lack of resources. Staffing shortages, involving all staff groups particularly nurses, mainly due to COVID-19 infection and redeployment, were compounded by deficiencies in staffing establishments and high vacancy levels. Centres cited three main lessons influencing future service delivery, the need for service redesign, improvements in communication, and better support for staff.

CONCLUSION

Kidney centre responses to the pandemic involved adaptations across the whole service. Though some changes were almost universal, there was wide variation in other areas. Exploring the role of centre characteristics may help planning for potential future severe service disruptions.

Increased Access, Persistent Disparities: Trends in Disparities in Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Use, 2009-2019

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) use has increased in the United States since 2009, but how this has affected disparities in PD use is unclear. We used data from the United States Renal Data System to identify a cohort of incident dialysis patients from 2009 to 2019. We used logistic regression models to examine how odds of PD use changed by demographic characteristics. The incident PD population increased by 203% from 2009 to 2019, and the odds of PD use increased in every subgroup. PD use increased more among older people because the odds for those aged 75 years or older increased 15% more per 5-year period compared with individuals aged 18-44 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64 to 1.73 versus OR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.50). The odds of PD use increased 5% more per 5-year period among Hispanic people compared with White people (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.53 to 1.63 versus OR 1.51, 95% CI, 1.48 to 1.53). There was no difference in odds of PD initiation among people who were Black, Asian, or of another race. The odds of PD use increased 5% more for people living in urban areas compared with people living in nonurban areas (5-year OR 1.54, 95% CI, 1.52 to 1.56 versus 5-year OR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.50). The odds of PD use increased 7% more for people living in socioeconomically advantaged areas compared with people living in more deprived areas (5-year OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.56 to 1.63 for neighborhoods with lowest Social Deprivation Index versus 5-year OR 1.50, 95% CI, 1.48 to 1.53 in the most deprived areas). Expansion of PD use led to a reduction in disparities for older people and for Hispanic people. Although PD use increased across all strata of socioeconomic deprivation, the gap in PD use between people living in the least deprived areas and those living in the most deprived areas widened.

Six-Year Evaluation of Same-Day Discharge following Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether same-day discharge increased the incidence of 30-day readmission (30dR) after conventional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 253 patients with HCC underwent 521 transarterial chemoembolization procedures between 2013 and 2020. TACE was performed with 50-mg doxorubicin/10-mg mitomycin C/5-10-mL ethiodized oil/particles. Patients not requiring intravenous pain medications were discharged after a 3-hour observation, and 30dR was tracked. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of 30dR in same-day discharge patients versus patients admitted for observation using the chi-square test. Secondary objectives assessed factors associated with overnight admission and factors predictive of 30dR using generalized estimated equation calculations and logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the cohort, 24 readmissions occurred within 30 days (4.6%). Same-day discharge was completed after 331 TACE procedures with sixteen 30dRs (4.8%). Patients admitted overnight were readmitted 8 times after 190 TACE procedures (4.2%). This difference was not statistically significant (P = .4). Factors predicting overnight admission included female sex (58/190 [30.5%] vs 58/331 [17.5%], P < .001) and tumor size of ≥3.8 cm (104/190 [55%] vs 85/190 [45%]). Factors predicting 30dR included female sex (10/116 [8.6%] vs 14/405 [0.2%]) and younger age (median [interquartile range], 63 years [55-65 years] vs 65 years [59-71 years]). At regression, factors predictive of 30dR were Child-Pugh Class B/C (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; P = .04) and female sex (OR, 2.9; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day discharge after conventional TACE is a safe and effective strategy with 30dR rate of <5%, similar to overnight observation.

Association of the End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices Payment Model With Home Dialysis Use at Kidney Failure Onset From 2016 to 2022

IMPORTANCE

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services designed a mandatory payment model to incentivize home dialysis use: the End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices (ETC). Outpatient dialysis facilities and health care professionals providing nephrology services were randomly assigned to ETC participation at the hospital referral region level.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between ETC and home dialysis use in the incident dialysis population in its first 18 months of implementation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cohort study with controlled, interrupted time series analysis of the US End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Reporting System database was conducted, using generalized estimating equations. All adults initiating home-based dialysis in the US between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2022, without a prior kidney transplant were included in the analysis.

EXPOSURES

Prior to vs after ETC onset in January 1, 2021, and random assignment to ETC participation of facilities and health care professionals involved in patient care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Percentage of patients started on incident home dialysis and yearly change in percentage initiating home dialysis.

RESULTS

A total of 817 177 adults initiated home dialysis during the study period, of whom 750 314 were included in the study cohort. The cohort included 41.4% women; 26.2% of the patients were Black, 17.4% were Hispanic, and 49.1% were White. Approximately half (49.6%) of the patients were aged at least 65 years. A total of 31.2% received care from health care professionals assigned to ETC participation, and 33.6% had Medicare fee-for-service coverage. Overall, home dialysis use increased from 10.0% in January 2016 to 17.4% in June 2022. Home dialysis use increased more in ETC markets than in non-ETC markets after January 2021 (by 1.07%; 95% CI, 0.16%-1.97%). The rate of increase in home dialysis use in the entire cohort nearly doubled after January 2021 to 1.66% per year (95% CI, 1.14%-2.19%) compared with before 2021, when the rate was 0.86% per year (95% CI, 0.75%-0.97%), but the difference in rate of increase in home dialysis use was not significant between ETC and non-ETC markets.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study noted that, although the overall rate of dialysis use at home was greater after ETC implementation, the increase occurred more among patients in ETC markets than among those in non-ETC markets. These findings suggest that federal policy and financial incentives affected care for the entire incident dialysis population in the US.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the kidney community: lessons learned and future directions

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately affected patients with kidney disease, causing significant challenges in disease management, kidney research and trainee education. For patients, increased infection risk and disease severity, often complicated by acute kidney injury, have contributed to high mortality. Clinicians were faced with high clinical demands, resource shortages and novel ethical dilemmas in providing patient care. In this review, we address the impact of COVID-19 on the entire spectrum of kidney care, including acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, dialysis and transplantation, trainee education, disparities in health care, changes in health care policies, moral distress and the patient perspective. Based on current evidence, we provide a framework for the management and support of patients with kidney disease, infection mitigation strategies, resource allocation and support systems for the nephrology workforce.

Associations of COVID-19 Outcomes with Dialysis Modalities and Settings

How maintenance dialysis modality, dialysis setting, and residence in a nursing facility have jointly associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes in the United States is relevant to future viral outbreaks. Using Medicare claims, we determined the incidence of COVID-19-related infection, hospitalization, and death between March 15, 2020 and June 5, 2021. The exposure was one of five combinations of dialysis modality and care setting: in-facility hemodialysis without a recent history of skilled nursing facility care, in-facility hemodialysis with a recent history of skilled nursing facility care, hemodialysis in a skilled nursing facility, home hemodialysis, and (home) peritoneal dialysis. Patient-weeks were pooled to estimate the adjusted associations of event incidence with each dialysis modality/setting during four intervals in 2020-2021. Relative to in-facility hemodialysis without a recent history of skilled nursing facility care, home dialysis was associated with 36%-60% lower odds of all events during weeks 12-23 of 2020; 24%-37% lower odds of all events during weeks 24-37 of 2020; 20%-33% lower odds of infection and hospitalization during the winter of 2020-2021; and similar odds of all events thereafter. In contrast, exposure to skilled nursing facilities was associated with 570%-1140% higher odds of all events during spring of 2020, although excess risk attenuated as the pandemic transpired, especially among patients who received hemodialysis in skilled nursing facilities. In conclusion, home dialysis was associated with lower risks of COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, and death until vaccines were available, whereas care in skilled nursing facilities was associated with higher risks.

COVID-19 in dialysis: clinical impact, immune response, prevention, and treatment

The COVID-19 pandemic has profound adverse effects on the population on dialysis. Patients requiring dialysis are at an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality, and many have experienced psychological distress as well as delayed or suboptimal care. COVID-19 survivors have prolonged viral shedding, but generally develop a robust and long-lasting humoral immune response that correlates with initial disease severity. However, protection against reinfection is incomplete. A growing body of evidence reveals delayed and blunted immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Administration of a third dose within 1 to 2 months of prime-boost vaccination significantly increases antibody levels, in particular in patients with poor initial responses. Patients on dialysis have inferior immune responses to adenoviral vector vaccines than to mRNA vaccines. The immunogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine is markedly better than that of the BNT162b2 vaccine, most likely by virtue of its higher mRNA content. Despite suboptimal immune responses in patients on dialysis, preliminary data suggest that vaccination partially protects against infection and severe disease requiring hospitalization. However, progressive waning of immunity and emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants with a high potential of immune escape call for a booster dose in all patients on dialysis 4 to 6 months after prime-boost vaccination. Patients with persistent poor vaccine responses may be candidates for primary prophylaxis strategies. In the absence of specific data in patients on dialysis, therapeutic strategies in the event of established COVID-19 must be extrapolated from evidence obtained in the population not on dialysis. Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies may be an attractive option after a high-risk exposure or during the early course of infection.

COVID-19 and kidney disease: insights from epidemiology to inform clinical practice

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous studies have aimed to address the challenges faced by patients with kidney disease and their caregivers. These studies addressed areas of concern such as the high infection and mortality risk of patients on in-centre haemodialysis and transplant recipients. However, the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from these studies has in some instances been challenging, owing to barriers in aspects of usual care, data limitations and problematic methodological practices. In many settings, access to SARS-CoV-2 testing differed substantially between patient groups, whereas the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied over time and place because of differences in viral prevalence, targeted public health policies and vaccination rates. The absence of baseline kidney function data posed problems in the classification of chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury in some studies, potentially compromising the generalizability of findings. Study findings also require attentive appraisal in terms of the effects of confounding, collider bias and chance. As this pandemic continues and in the future, the implementation of sustainable and integrated research infrastructure is needed in settings across the world to minimize infection transmission and both prevent and plan for the short-term and long-term complications of infectious diseases. Registries can support the real-world evaluation of vaccines and therapies in patients with advanced kidney disease while enabling monitoring of rare complications.

Patients with kidney disease are at particular risk of the adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, epidemiological studies have been performed to inform clinical care; however, these studies have faced a number of methodological challenges. This Review discusses current understanding of the effects of COVID-19 on patients with kidney disease and some of the major obstacles encountered when conducting epidemiological research in a pandemic setting.

Patients who are receiving in-centre dialysis have a higher risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 than members of the general population, owing to their limited ability to isolate.

Studies have found a dose–response of increasing risk of mortality from COVID-19 with decreasing kidney function, with particularly high mortality seen in people with kidney failure and those on kidney replacement therapy.

Evidence of how infection risk can be mitigated in patients with chronic kidney disease is often of poor quality due to the many challenges of conducting epidemiological research in fragmented health-care settings.

Observational studies of associations between risk factors, such as chronic kidney disease or transplantation, and outcomes, such as COVID-19-related mortality, can be distorted as a result of collider bias, and thus care must be taken in study design and evaluation.

Recognizing the challenges that affect epidemiological studies in pandemic settings together with information on local health contexts enables rigorous assessment of study quality; adequate reporting of aspects relevant to local care availability enables readers to identify studies that contribute robust findings to the literature.

To confront the challenges wrought by future pandemics, a sustainable and integrated global infrastructure is needed to identify evidence-based approaches to minimize infection transmission and adverse outcomes.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: the disruptor that maintenance dialysis never anticipated

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has upended maintenance dialysis in the United States. I review changes in prevalence, incidence, mortality, and other clinical outcomes among patients undergoing dialysis since March 2020, highlighting vulnerabilities in the current system and opportunities for improved care in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of dialysis patients in the United States declined between March 2020 and March 2021, an unprecedented year-over-year drop in the census. Some of the decline can be attributed to an early drop in patients initiating dialysis but most of the decline can be attributed to excess mortality. Kidney transplants also declined during the early part of the pandemic. Home dialysis utilization increased during 2020 but that increase was largely in line with secular trends. The rate of hospitalization for causes other than COVID-19 fell significantly during 2020.

SUMMARY

The epidemiology of dialysis in the United States is clearly modifiable, as it reflects decisions to initiate treatment, prescribe home therapies, and hospitalize patients with acute medical needs. On the other hand, some outcomes are powerfully guided by health outcomes in the general population, thus limiting the ability of dialysis providers and nephrologists to influence outcomes.

Persistently high hepatitis C rates in haemodialysis patients in Brazil [a systematic review and meta-analysis]

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing HCV infection rates in haemodialysis patients in Brazil (Prospero CRD #42021275068). We included studies on patients under haemodialysis, comprising both convenience samples and exhaustive information from selected services. Patients underwent HCV serological testing with or without confirmation by HCV RNA PCR. Exclusion criteria were the following: absence of primary empirical information and studies without information on their respective settings, study year, accurate infection rates, or full specification of diagnostic tests. Studies with samples ≤ 30 and serial assessments with repeated information were also excluded. Reference databases included PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science for the period 1989–2019. A systematic review was carried out, followed by two independent meta-analyses: (i) studies with data on HCV prevalence and (ii) studies with a confirmatory PCR (i.e., active infection), respectively. A comprehensive set of different methods and procedures were used: forest plots and respective statistics, polynomial regression, meta-regression, subgroup influence, quality assessment, and trim-and-fill analysis. 29 studies and 11,290 individuals were assessed. The average time patients were in haemodialysis varied from 23.5 to 56.3 months. Prevalence of HCV infection was highly heterogeneous, with a pronounced decrease from 1992 to 2001, followed by a plateau and a slight decrease in recent years. The summary measure for HCV prevalence was 34% (95% CI 26–43%) for studies implemented before 2001. For studies implemented after 2001, the corresponding summary measure was 11% (95% CI 8–15%). Estimates for prevalence of active HCV infection were also highly heterogeneous. There was a marked decline from 1996 to 2001, followed by a plateau and a slight increase after 2010. The summary measure for active HCV infection was 19% (95% CI 15–25%) in studies carried out before 2001. For studies implemented after 2001, the corresponding summary measure was 9% (95% CI 6–13%). Heterogeneity was pervasive, but different analyses helped to identify its underlying sources. Besides the year each study was conducted, the findings differed markedly between geographic regions and were heavily influenced by the size of the studies and publication biases. Our systematic review and meta-analysis documented a substantial decline in HCV prevalence among Brazilian haemodialysis patients from 1992 to 2015. CKD should be targeted with specific interventions to prevent HCV infection, and if prevention fails, prompt diagnosis and treatment. Although the goal of HCV elimination by 2030 in Brazil remains elusive, it is necessary to adopt measures to achieve micro-elimination and to launch initiatives towards targeted interventions to curb the spread of HCV in people with CKD, among other high-risk groups. This is of particular concern in the context of a protracted COVID-19 pandemic and a major economic and political crisis.