'We are somehow fixated on this being a diabetes drug': a qualitative study exploring the views of cardiologists and nephrologists about sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor initiation

BACKGROUND

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are now indicated for heart failure and chronic kidney disease (CKD), irrespective of the presence of diabetes. Hence, cardiologists and nephrologists have an important role in initiating these drugs.

AIMS

To explore cardiologists' and nephrologists' perspectives regarding initiating SGLT2i and their safety monitoring practices when initiating SGLT2i.

METHODS

Purposive and snowball approaches were used to recruit participants working in diverse areas in New South Wales, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 cardiologists and 12 nephrologists. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Emergent themes were identified from transcripts. An iterative general inductive approach was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

There was a reluctance amongst most non-heart-failure subspecialist cardiologists to initiate SGLT2i. Reasons included the perception of SGLT2i as diabetes drugs, concern about side effects, lack of experience and issues with follow-up. In contrast, nephrologists reported feeling confident to initiate SGLT2i. Nephrologists varied in their opinions about the severity of CKD at which SGLT2i initiation was reasonable and monitoring of renal function following initiation. Government subsidisation was an important factor in the decision to prescribe SGLT2i to people without diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the complex transition from the perception of SGLT2i as diabetes drugs to cardiometabolic and reno-protective agents. Interdisciplinary collaboration may enable greater confidence amongst specialists to initiate SGLT2i, including in patients with CKD. Additionally, there is a need for clear and detailed guidance about SGLT2i prescription in patients with renal dysfunction and renal function monitoring following SGLT2i initiation.

Perspectives of Pediatric Nephrologists, Intensivists and Nurses Regarding AKI Management and Expected Outcomes

Background

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill children is associated with increased risk for short- and long-term adverse outcomes. Currently, there is no systematic follow-up for children who develop AKI in intensive care unit (ICU).

Objective

This study aimed to assess variation regarding management, perceived importance, and follow-up of AKI in the ICU setting within and between healthcare professional (HCP) groups.

Design

Anonymous, cross-sectional, web-based surveys were administered nationally to Canadian pediatric nephrologists, pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) physicians, and PICU nurses, via professional listservs.

Setting

All Canadian pediatric nephrologists, PICU physicians, and nurses treating children in the ICU were eligible for the survey.

Patients

N/A.

Measurements

Surveys included multiple choice and Likert scale questions on current practice related to AKI management and long-term follow-up, including institutional and personal practice approaches, and perceived importance of AKI severity with different outcomes.

Methods

Descriptive statistics were performed. Categorical responses were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests; Likert scale results were compared using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Results

Surveys were completed by 34/64 (53%) pediatric nephrologists, 46/113 (41%) PICU physicians, and 82 PICU nurses (response rate unknown). Over 65% of providers reported hemodialysis to be prescribed by nephrology; a mix of nephrology, ICU, or a shared nephrology-ICU model was reported responsible for peritoneal dialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Severe hyperkalemia was the most important renal replacement therapy (RRT) indication for both nephrologists and PICU physicians (Likert scale from 0 [not important] to 10 [most important]; median = 10, 10, respectively). Nephrologists reported a lower threshold of AKI for increased mortality risk; 38% believed stage 2 AKI was the minimum compared to 17% of PICU physicians and 14% of nurses. Nephrologists were more likely than PICU physicians and nurses to recommend long-term follow-up for patients who develop any AKI during ICU stay (Likert scale from 0 [none] to 10 [all patients]; mean=6.0, 3.8, 3.7, respectively) (P < .05).

Limitations

Responses from all eligible HCPs in the country could not obtained. There may be differences in opinions between HCPs that completed the survey compared to those that did not. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of our study may not adequately reflect changes in guidelines and knowledge since survey completion, although no specific guidelines have been released in Canada since survey dissemination.

Conclusions

Canadian HCP groups have variable perspectives on pediatric AKI management and follow-up. Understanding practice patterns and perspectives will help optimize pediatric AKI follow-up guideline implementation.

Comprehensive Acute Kidney Injury Survivor Care: Protocol for the Randomized Acute Kidney Injury in Care Transitions Pilot Trial

BACKGROUND

Innovative care models are needed to address gaps in kidney care follow-up among acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors. We developed the multidisciplinary AKI in Care Transitions (ACT) program, which embeds post-AKI care in patients' primary care clinic.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this randomized pilot trial is to test the feasibility and acceptability of the ACT program and study protocol, including recruitment and retention, procedures, and outcome measures.

METHODS

The study will be conducted at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, a tertiary care center with a local primary care practice. Individuals who are included have stage 3 AKI during their hospitalization, do not require dialysis at discharge, have a local primary care provider, and are discharged to their home. Patients unable or unwilling to provide informed consent and recipients of any transplant within 100 days of enrollment are excluded. Consented patients are randomized to receive the intervention (ie, ACT program) or usual care. The ACT program intervention includes predischarge kidney health education from nurses and coordinated postdischarge laboratory monitoring (serum creatinine and urine protein assessment) and follow-up with a primary care provider and pharmacist within 14 days. The usual care group receives no specific study-related intervention, and any aspects of AKI care are at the direction of the treating team. This study will examine the feasibility of the ACT program, including recruitment, randomization and retention in a trial setting, and intervention fidelity. The feasibility and acceptability of participating in the ACT program will also be examined in qualitative interviews with patients and staff and through surveys. Qualitative interviews will be deductively and inductively coded and themes compared across data types. Observations of clinical encounters will be examined for discussion and care plans related to kidney health. Descriptive analyses will summarize quantitative measures of the feasibility and acceptability of ACT. Participants' knowledge about kidney health, quality of life, and process outcomes (eg, type and timing of laboratory assessments) will be described for both groups. Clinical outcomes (eg, unplanned rehospitalization) up to 12 months will be compared with Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

This study received funding from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality on April 21, 2021, and was approved by the Institutional Review Board on December 14, 2021. As of March 14, 2023, seventeen participants each have been enrolled in the intervention and usual care groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Feasible and generalizable AKI survivor care delivery models are needed to improve care processes and health outcomes. This pilot trial will test the ACT program, which uses a multidisciplinary model focused on primary care to address this gap.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05184894; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05184894.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/48109.

Therapeutic Cannabis Use in Kidney Disease: A Survey of Canadian Nephrologists

Rationale & Objective

Cannabis use may be helpful for symptom management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Knowledge, attitudes, and comfort with use of medical cannabis among kidney care providers may be limiting more widespread evaluation and use. We surveyed Canadian nephrologists regarding current prescribing habits, attitudes, and overall comfort level with cannabis products.

Study Design

We carried out a nationwide, mail-in survey focused on capturing general and practice demographics, current cannabis prescribing status, and knowledge and attitudes regarding therapeutic cannabis use in patients with CKD.

Setting & Population

This survey was distributed to every registered nephrologist in Canada.

Analytical Approach

The results of this survey are reported descriptively.

Results

Responses were received from 208 of 723 (29%) nephrologists. Only 21 (10.1%) respondents currently prescribe cannabis, with chronic pain syndromes being the most frequent reason for cannabis prescription (95.2%). Overall, 116 (55.5%) participants reported that changes in legality of cannabis did not influence their decision to prescribe cannabis. The majority of respondents (n = 123; 59%) indicated that they were uncomfortable with their knowledge of the medical cannabis literature. Most respondents (n=188; 91%) indicated that further studies exploring the efficacy and safety of cannabis would likely influence their prescribing habits.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include possible nonresponse bias and a lack of specific data on practice considerations for specific subpopulations, such as transplant patients.

Conclusions

Only a small minority of Canadian nephrologists currently prescribe cannabis, with relatively little practice change after legalization. There is broad support amongst Canadian nephrologists for encouraging their patients to enroll in efficacy/safety studies of cannabis in the CKD population. Ultimately, given limited therapeutic options available for symptom control in CKD, this survey demonstrates the potential for nationwide practice change if cannabis efficacy and safety can be demonstrated in this population.

The Implementation of a Virtual Home Dialysis Mentoring Program for Nephrologists

Virtual home dialysis physician mentorship is feasible.In total, 53% of participants perceived the program would change the perspective of participants on prescribing home dialysis.More research is needed to ascertain the effect of virtual mentorship on home dialysis incidence and attrition rates in a wider audience.

Differences in Hospitalization Outcomes of Kidney Disease between Patients Who Received Care by Nephrologists and Non-Nephrologist Physicians: A Propensity-Score-Matched Study

The influence of physician specialty on the outcomes of kidney diseases (KDs) remains underexplored. We aimed to compare the complications and mortality of patients with admissions for KD who received care by nephrologists and non-nephrologist (NN) physicians. We used health insurance research data in Taiwan to conduct a propensity-score matched study that included 17,055 patients with admissions for KD who received care by nephrologists and 17,055 patients with admissions for KD who received care by NN physicians. Multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 30-day mortality and major complications associated with physician specialty. Compared with NN physicians, care by nephrologists was associated with a reduced risk of 30-day mortality (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.25–0.35), pneumonia (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76–0.89), acute myocardial infarction (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54–0.87), and intensive care unit stay (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73–0.84). The association between nephrologist care and reduced admission adverse events was significant in every age category, for both sexes and various subgroups. Patients with admissions for KD who received care by nephrologists had fewer adverse events than those who received care by NN physicians. We suggest that regular nephrologist consultations or referrals may improve medical care and clinical outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Nephrologists' Attitudes Regarding Psychosocial Care in Hemodialysis Units

Background:

There is a high prevalence of psychosocial issues affecting patients with kidney failure.

Objective:

We sought to examine Canadian nephrologists’ attitudes and opinions regarding the importance of renal patient psychosocial care, nephrologists’ roles, and experience with psychosocial care in addition to what barriers, if any, prevent these physicians from providing psychosocial care to their patients.

Design:

A self-administered, survey questionnaire.

Setting:

Online.

Sample:

Canadian Society of Nephrology members who predominantly work in clinical care with adult, in-center hemodialysis patients.

Measurements:

Measurements of the survey include demographics, training, and nephrologists’ opinions regarding their role in administering psychosocial care, potential administrative and patient time constraints, accessibility of other health care workers for this activity, and factors that influence or impede physicians’ ability to address their patients’ psychosocial needs.

Methods:

A self-administered survey was sent to almost 500 members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology between November 2018 and December 2018. The survey questionnaire was designed to gather opinions and attitudes on psychosocial care delivery as well as potential influencing factors on nephrologists’ ability to provide this care. A univariate statistical analysis was used to analyze survey responses.

Results:

A total of 30 nephrologists responded to the survey, generating a 6% response rate. Respondents varied across provinces, with the majority being staff nephrologists (80%). While over 94% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that focus on psychosocial care improves patient outcomes, only 43% felt that staff nephrologists were suited to provide this care to patients; 97% of respondents believed social workers to be the most suited to provide this. Lack of additional supporting health care members, the need for additional training, too many administrative duties, and empathy fatigue were some of the predominant barriers respondents felt prevented them from addressing the psychosocial care of their patients.

Limitations:

A low response rate for the survey was obtained, roughly 6%, limiting our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Survey answers by respondents may be different from those by nonrespondents. Answers may be subject to social desirability and/or selection bias.

Conclusion:

Nephrologists believe that the current psychosocial care of patients in hemodialysis units is inadequate. However, further research is necessary to elucidate the barriers nephrologists face in providing psychosocial care and the changes required to most effectively implement optimal psychosocial care for patients with kidney failure in hemodialysis units.

POCUS for Nephrologists: Basic Principles and a General Approach

Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has evolved as a valuable adjunct to physical examination in the recent past and various medical specialties have embraced it. However, POCUS training and scope of practice remain relatively undefined in nephrology. The utility of diagnostic POCUS beyond kidney and vascular access is under-recognized. Assessment of fluid status is a frequent dilemma faced by nephrologists in day-to-day practice where multiorgan POCUS can enhance the sensitivity of conventional physical examination. POCUS also reduces fragmentation of care, facilitates timely diagnosis, and expedites management. Although the need for further imaging studies is obviated in selected patients, POCUS is not meant to serve as an alternative to consultative imaging. In addition, the utility of POCUS depends on the skills and experience of the operator, which in turn depend on the quality of training. In this review, we discuss the rationale behind nephrologists performing POCUS, discuss patient examples to illustrate the basic principles of focused ultrasonography, and share our experience-based opinion about developing a POCUS training program at the institutional level.

Nephrologist Follow-Up versus Usual Care after an Acute Kidney Injury Hospitalization (FUSION): A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Survivors of AKI are at higher risk of CKD and death, but few patients see a nephrologist after hospital discharge. Our objectives during this 2-year vanguard phase trial were to determine the feasibility of randomizing survivors of AKI to early follow-up with a nephrologist or usual care, and to collect data on care processes and outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We performed a randomized controlled trial in patients hospitalized with Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 2-3 AKI at four hospitals in Toronto, Canada. We randomized patients to early nephrologist follow-up (standardized basket of care that emphasized BP control, cardiovascular risk reduction, and medication safety) or usual care from July 2015 to June 2017. Feasibility outcomes included the proportion of eligible patients enrolled, seen by a nephrologist, and followed to 1 year. The primary clinical outcome was a major adverse kidney event at 1 year, defined as death, maintenance dialysis, or incident/progressive CKD.

RESULTS

We screened 3687 participants from July 2015 to June 2017, of whom 269 were eligible. We randomized 71 (26%) patients (34 to nephrology follow-up and 37 to usual care). The primary reason stated for declining enrollment included hospitalization-related fatigue (n=65), reluctance to add more doctors to the health care team (n=59), and long travel times (n=40). Nephrologist visits occurred in 24 of 34 (71%) intervention participants, compared with three of 37 (8%) participants randomized to usual care. The primary clinical outcome occurred in 15 of 34 (44%) patients in the nephrologist follow-up arm, and 16 of 37 (43%) patients in the usual care arm (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Major adverse kidney events are common in AKI survivors, but we found the in-person model of follow-up posed a variety of barriers that was not acceptable to many patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

Nephrologist Follow-up versus Usual Care after an Acute Kidney Injury Hospitalization (FUSION), NCT02483039 CJASN 16: 1005-1014, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.17331120.

Evaluation and Treatment of Acute Rejection in Kidney Allografts

Advances in immunosuppressive therapy have drastically improved acute rejection rates in kidney transplant recipients over the past five decades. Nevertheless, it should remain high on any differential diagnosis of unexplained graft dysfunction because of the potential negative effect on graft longevity. Understanding the pre- and post-transplant risk factors for acute rejection can help estimate the probability of immunologic graft damage, and accurate identification of the type and severity of acute rejection will guide appropriate treatment. Tissue biopsy remains the gold standard for evaluating immunologic graft damage, and the histologic definition of acute rejection has evolved in recent years. Intravenous steroids and T cell depletion remain the standard therapy for T cell-mediated rejection and are effective in reversing most cases. Plasma exchange and intravenous Ig, with or without rituximab, are most commonly used for the treatment of antibody-mediated rejection and several newer agents have recently been investigated for severe cases. This review aims to provide the general nephrologist caring for transplant recipients with an approach to immunologic risk assessment and a summary of recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of acute graft rejection.

Prevention of Bloodstream Infections in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

Bloodstream infections are an important cause of hospitalizations, morbidity, and mortality in patients receiving hemodialysis. Eliminating bloodstream infections in the hemodialysis setting has been the focus of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Making Dialysis Safer for Patients Coalition and, more recently, the CDC's partnership with the American Society of Nephrology's Nephrologists Transforming Dialysis Safety Initiative. The majority of vascular access-associated bloodstream infections occur in patients dialyzing with central vein catheters. The CDC's core interventions for bloodstream infection prevention are the gold standard for catheter care in the hemodialysis setting and have been proven to be effective in reducing catheter-associated bloodstream infection. However, in the United States hemodialysis catheter-associated bloodstream infections continue to occur at unacceptable rates, possibly because of lapses in adherence to strict aseptic technique, or additional factors not addressed by the CDC's core interventions. There is a clear need for novel prophylactic therapies. This review highlights the recent advances and includes a discussion about the potential limitations and adverse effects associated with each option.

Twenty-Four Hour Urine Testing and Prescriptions for Urinary Stone Disease-Related Medications in Veterans

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend 24-hour urine testing in the evaluation and treatment of persons with high-risk urinary stone disease. However, how much clinicians use information from 24-hour urine testing to guide secondary prevention strategies is unknown. We sought to determine the degree to which clinicians initiate or continue stone disease-related medications in response to 24-hour urine testing.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We examined a national cohort of 130,489 patients with incident urinary stone disease in the Veterans Health Administration between 2007 and 2013 to determine whether prescription patterns for thiazide diuretics, alkali therapy, and allopurinol changed in response to 24-hour urine testing.

RESULTS

Stone formers who completed 24-hour urine testing (n=17,303; 13%) were significantly more likely to be prescribed thiazide diuretics, alkali therapy, and allopurinol compared with those who did not complete a 24-hour urine test (n=113,186; 87%). Prescription of thiazide diuretics increased in patients with hypercalciuria (9% absolute increase if urine calcium 201-400 mg/d; 21% absolute increase if urine calcium >400 mg/d, P<0.001). Prescription of alkali therapy increased in patients with hypocitraturia (24% absolute increase if urine citrate 201-400 mg/d; 34% absolute increase if urine citrate ≤200 mg/d, P<0.001). Prescription of allopurinol increased in patients with hyperuricosuria (18% absolute increase if urine uric acid >800 mg/d, P<0.001). Patients who had visited both a urologist and a nephrologist within 6 months of 24-hour urine testing were more likely to have been prescribed stone-related medications than patients who visited one, the other, or neither.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians adjust their treatment regimens in response to 24-hour urine testing by increasing the prescription of medications thought to reduce risk for urinary stone disease. Most patients who might benefit from targeted medications remain untreated.

End-of-life care decisions for haemodialysis patients - 'We only tend to have that discussion with them when they start deteriorating'

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis patients receive very little involvement in their end-of-life care decisions. Issues relating to death and dying are commonly avoided until late in their illness. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of doctors and nurses in nephrology for involving haemodialysis patients in end-of-life care decisions.

METHODS

A semi-structured qualitative interview study with 15 doctors and five nurses and thematic analysis of their accounts was conducted. The setting was a large teaching hospital in Wales, UK.

RESULTS

Prognosis is not routinely discussed with patients, in part due to a difficulty in estimation and the belief that patients do not want or need this information. Advance care planning is rarely carried out, and end-of-life care discussions are seldom initiated prior to patient deterioration. There is variability in end-of-life practices amongst nephrologists; some patients are felt to be withdrawn from dialysis too late. Furthermore, the possibility and implications of withdrawal are not commonly discussed with well patients. Critical barriers hindering better end-of-life care involvement for these patients are outlined.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides insights into the complexity of end-of-life conversations and the barriers to achieving better end-of-life communication practices. The results identify opportunities for improving the lives and deaths of haemodialysis patients.

Hemodialysis Adequacy Monitoring Information System: Minimum Data Set and Capabilities Required

Introduction:

In dialysis centers both nephrologists and nurses are faced with the challenge of ensuring reliable and efficient care accordance with the clinical guideline. Hemodialysis adequacy monitoring information system therefore enable the automation of tasks, which ultimately allows doctors and nursing staff more time to dedicate to the individual treatment of patients. Development of the information systems in healthcare has made the use of the Minimum data set inevitable. The purpose of this study was determined MDS and capabilities required in hemodialysis adequacy monitoring information system.

Method and materials:

This is a cross-sectional survey conducted with participation of 320 nephrology specialists in 2015. Data were collected using an electronic questionnaire which was estimated as both reliable and valid. The data were analyzed by SPSS software descriptive statistics and analytical statistics.

Results:

Overall 42 data elements were determined as final set in 4 major categories (patient demographics, medical history, treatment plan and hemodialysis adequacy). The most capabilities required of hemodialysis information system were related to calculate of dialysis adequacy Index (4.80), advice optimal dose of dialysis for each patient (4.63), Easy access to information system without restrictions of time and place (4.61), providing alerts when dialysis adequacy index below the standard (4.55) and Interchange to other information systems in hospitals (4.46) respectively.

Conclusion:

In design and implementation of information systems focus on MDS and identification IS capabilities based on the users’ needs, due to the wide participation users and also the success of the information system. Therefore it is necessary that MDS evaluated carefully with regard to the intended uses of the data. Also information systems based on capabilities the ability to meet the needs of their users.

Modified Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion: Comparison with a Conventional Method

PURPOSE

The conventional trocar and cannula method in peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion has its limitation in clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare a modified method for percutaneous PD catheter insertion with the conventional method, and demonstrate advantages of the modified method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients at a single center who had percutaneous PD catheters inserted by nephrologists from January 2006 until September 2012, using either a modified method (group M) or the conventional trocar and cannula method (group C), were retrospectively analyzed, in terms of baseline characteristics, complications experienced up to 3 months after the procedure, and the suitability of the procedure for patients.

RESULTS

Group M included 82 subjects, while group C included 66 cases. The overall early complication rate in group M (1.2%) was significantly lower than that in group C (19.7%) (p<0.001). The catheter revision rate during timeframe for early complications was significantly lower in group M (0%) than in group C (6.1%) (p=0.024). When comparing Procedure time (1 h 3 min±16 min vs. 1 h 36 min±19 min, p<0.01), immediate post-procedural pain (2.43±1.80 vs. 3.14±2.07, p<0.05), and post-procedure days until ambulation (3.95±1.13 days vs. 6.17±1.34 days, p<0.01), group M was significantly lower than group C. There was no significant difference in total hospitalization period (14.71±7.05 days vs. 13.86±3.7 days).

CONCLUSION

Our modified PD catheter insertion method shows its advantages in early complication rate, early complications revision rate, and the patients' conveniences.

Expert opinion of nephrologists about the effectiveness of low-protein diet in different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD)

No clinical trials have specifically explored the benefits of low-protein diet in patients with different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) 3B. In the absence of RCTs, expert opinion may be a valid surrogate to estimate treatment effectiveness. A questionnaire-based survey of a large sample of nephrologists from Southern Italy was conducted to explore benefits of low-protein diet (LPD) in delaying dialysis entry in different CKD stages. For the case vignettes describing eight different patient profiles with various CKD stages, nephrologists reported expected benefits as time delay of dialysis entry. Information was collected through questionnaires filled by 88 nephrologists from different Southern Italian hospitals. On average, nephrologists estimated the highest delay in starting dialysis due to LPD in stages 3B (15 months) and 3A (14 months), and the lowest for 5 stage (3 months). According to opinion of a large sample of Southern Italian nephrologists, low-protein diet may be more efficacious if started in CKD stage 3B than 4 and 5.

Policy perspectives: international survey of nephrologists' perceptions of and attitudes towards rewards and compensation for kidney donation

The challenge to resolve the gap between supply and demand for organs is a global phenomenon. The possible solutions can invariably involve a range of ethical and moral dilemmas. This is certainly the case when considering rewards and compensation for kidney donation. In their thought provoking study, Ghahramami et al. provide the perspectives of medical professionals on these issues. The views of nephrologists concerning rewards and compensation chime with views of the public, which have been highlighted in many previous studies. Rewards and compensation for organ donation are perceived, by some, as barriers to successful organ donation transplant programmes; whereas others view them as potential facilitators to increasing organ donation rates. It is interesting to note that two-thirds of survey respondents believe that introducing some kind of reward or offering compensation would lead to an increase in organ donation. This finding is not unique to this study and is evident in many public surveys where respondents have expressed a belief that offering some form of incentive would have a positive impact on organ donation rates. Disappointingly, the debates concerning the type of reward or compensation and its potential impact on donation rates continue to take place in a relatively 'evidence base-free' vacuum. What is abundantly clear is that many lives continue to be lost in many countries due to a lack of suitable organs for transplant. What is less clear is which forms of reward and compensation actually have an impact on donation rates and whether they positively impact the life experiences of donors, recipients and their families. This level of evidence- base is urgently required.