Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury

INTRODUCTION

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI.

METHODS

Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results.

RESULTS

The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed.

CONCLUSION

We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

Recommendations on Acute Kidney Injury Biomarkers From the Acute Disease Quality Initiative Consensus Conference: A Consensus Statement

IMPORTANCE

In the last decade, new biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI) have been identified and studied in clinical trials. Guidance is needed regarding how best to incorporate them into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations on AKI biomarkers based on existing data and expert consensus for practicing clinicians and researchers.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

At the 23rd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting, a meeting of 23 international experts in critical care, nephrology, and related specialties, the panel focused on 4 broad areas, as follows: (1) AKI risk assessment; (2) AKI prediction and prevention; (3) AKI diagnosis, etiology, and management; and (4) AKI progression and kidney recovery. A literature search revealed more than 65 000 articles published between 1965 and May 2019. In a modified Delphi process, recommendations and consensus statements were developed based on existing data, with 90% agreement among panel members required for final adoption. Recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system.

FINDINGS

The panel developed 11 consensus statements for biomarker use and 14 research recommendations. The key suggestions were that a combination of damage and functional biomarkers, along with clinical information, be used to identify high-risk patient groups, improve the diagnostic accuracy of AKI, improve processes of care, and assist the management of AKI.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Current evidence from clinical studies supports the use of new biomarkers in prevention and management of AKI. Substantial gaps in knowledge remain, and more research is necessary.

Summary of Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline on the Evaluation and Care of Living Kidney Donors

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) engaged an evidence review team and convened a work group to produce a guideline to evaluate and manage candidates for living kidney donation. The evidence for most guideline recommendations is sparse and many "ungraded" expert consensus recommendations were made to guide the donor candidate evaluation and care before, during, and after donation. The guideline advocates for replacing decisions based on assessments of single risk factors in isolation with a comprehensive approach to risk assessment using the best available evidence. The approach to simultaneous consideration of each candidate's profile of demographic and health characteristics advances a new framework for assessing donor candidate risk and for defensible shared decision making.

Autosomal dominant tubulointerstitial kidney disease: diagnosis, classification, and management--A KDIGO consensus report

Rare autosomal dominant tubulointerstitial kidney disease is caused by mutations in the genes encoding uromodulin (UMOD), hepatocyte nuclear factor-1β (HNF1B), renin (REN), and mucin-1 (MUC1). Multiple names have been proposed for these disorders, including 'Medullary Cystic Kidney Disease (MCKD) type 2', 'Familial Juvenile Hyperuricemic Nephropathy (FJHN)', or 'Uromodulin-Associated Kidney Disease (UAKD)' for UMOD-related diseases and 'MCKD type 1' for the disease caused by MUC1 mutations. The multiplicity of these terms, and the fact that cysts are not pathognomonic, creates confusion. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) proposes adoption of a new terminology for this group of diseases using the term 'Autosomal Dominant Tubulointerstitial Kidney Disease' (ADTKD) appended by a gene-based subclassification, and suggests diagnostic criteria. Implementation of these recommendations is anticipated to facilitate recognition and characterization of these monogenic diseases. A better understanding of these rare disorders may be relevant for the tubulointerstitial fibrosis component in many forms of chronic kidney disease.

How to write a Cochrane systematic review

The Cochrane Collaboration is a global network whose aim is to improve health-care decision making through systematic reviews of the effects of health-care interventions. Cochrane systematic reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within The Cochrane Library ( http://www.thecochranelibrary.com), and regularly updated as new evidence arises. Cochrane Reviews are undertaken by teams of volunteer authors, who have access to free training resources, reference texts and software for preparing and maintaining their review. Here we aim to describe the steps involved to undertake a new or update an existing Cochrane Review.

Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)

Considerable variation in grading systems used to rate the strength of guideline recommendations and the quality of the supporting evidence in Nephrology highlights the need for a uniform, internationally accepted, rigorous system. In 2004, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) commissioned a methods expert group to recommend an approach for grading in future nephrology guidelines. This position statement by KDIGO recommends adopting the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for the grading of evidence and guidelines on interventions. The GRADE approach appraises systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of an intervention to determine its net health benefit. The system considers the design, quality, and quantity of studies as well as the consistency and directness of findings when grading the quality of evidence. The strength of the recommendation builds on the quality of the evidence and additional considerations including costs. Adaptations of the GRADE approach are presented to address some issues pertinent to the field of nephrology, including (1) the need to extrapolate from studies performed predominantly in patients without kidney disease, and (2) the need to use qualitative summaries of effects when it is not feasible to quantitatively summarize them. Further refinement of the system will be required for grading of evidence on questions other than those related to intervention effects, such as diagnostic accuracy and prognosis.

The need for end-of-life care training in nephrology: national survey results of nephrology fellows

Because of the high mortality rate of end-stage renal disease, nephrologists care for many dying patients. However, the education of nephrology fellows in palliative care has not been assessed. We surveyed second-year nephrology fellows to assess the quantity and quality of teaching they received in palliative medicine and also asked about their preparedness to manage patients at the end of life. A 63% survey response rate yielded 173 surveys for evaluation. Nearly all fellows (99%) agreed that physicians have a responsibility to help patients at the end of life; half thought it was very important to learn how to care for dying patients. On a 10-point scale in which 0 is no teaching and 10 is a lot of teaching, fellows reported significantly less teaching in end-of-life care (mean score, 3.8 +/- 2.6) than in managing a patient with distal renal tubular acidosis (mean score, 6.3 +/- 2.5) or on hemodialysis therapy (mean score, 8.9 +/- 1.5; all P < 0.0001). Specific palliative care content areas were taught infrequently; only 22% of fellows were taught how to tell a patient he or she is dying. Fellows who had contact with a palliative care specialist reported more education on end-of-life issues and believed they were better prepared to provide such care. Fellows' palliative care experiences during fellowship frequently occurred without attending nephrologist supervision; 32% of fellows had conducted 2 or fewer family meetings, and 26% of all family meetings occurred without an attending nephrologist. Fellows believed they were best prepared to manage a patient on hemodialysis therapy (mean score, 8.9 +/- 1) and least prepared to manage a patient at the end of life (mean score, 6.1 +/- 2; P < 0.0001). Our results show that most nephrology fellows believe they should learn how to care for dying patients, but most fellowship programs do not offer this training. Our study therefore suggests that training in palliative care be incorporated into fellowship program curricula.

Delayed nephrologist referral and inadequate vascular access in patients with advanced chronic kidney failure

We sought to determine whether late referral to a nephrologist in patients with chronic renal failure influences the adequacy of vascular access for hemodialysis. We analyzed data describing all health care encounters for all Medicare and Medicaid patients with end-stage renal failure in New Jersey between January 1991 and June 1996. Patients were required to have been diagnosed with renal disease at least 1 year prior to onset of hemodialysis. In the resulting cohort of 2,398 incident hemodialysis patients, 35% had their first nephrologist consultation < or =90 days prior to initiation of dialysis. After controlling for demographic characteristics, socio-economic status and underlying renal disease, we found that patients who were referred to a nephrologist >90 days prior to onset of hemodialysis were 38% more likely to have undergone predialysis vascular access surgery than those who were referred to a nephrologist < or =90 days before dialysis [OR: 1.38; 95% CI (1.15; 1.64)]. Similarly, patients referred late were 42% more likely to require central venous access for hemodialysis compared to those seen by a nephrologist early [OR: 1.42; 95% CI (1.17; 1.71)]. Inadequate development of vascular access for renal replacement therapy in patients with late nephrologist referral unnecessarily contributes to the burden of disease experienced by this vulnerable patient population.

Effectiveness and safety of dialysis vascular access procedures performed by interventional nephrologists

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report was to analyze the results obtained from a group of interventional nephrologists working in multiple centers performing basic procedures that are used routinely in the management of vascular access problems, with an effort toward establishing standards for evaluating success, complication rates, and acceptable times for procedure duration and fluoroscopy.

METHODS

Data on six basic procedures were analyzed-angioplasty of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF-PTA), angioplasty of synthetic grafts (graft-PTA), thrombectomy of arteriovenous fistulas (AVF declot), thrombectomy of synthetic grafts (graft declot), placement of tunneled dialysis catheters (TDC placement), and tunneled dialysis catheter exchange (TDC exchange). These data were examined both as a group and by individual physician operator. RESULTS. A total of 14,067 cases were performed under the six categories of procedure that were the subject of this report; 13,503 cases (96.18%) were successful. The overall complication rate for the combined group of procedures was 3.54%, with 3.26% falling within the minor category and 0.28% within the major. The number of cases performed in each individual category with success rates for each were as follows: TDC placement-1765 cases, 98.24% successful; TDC exchange-2262 cases, 98.36% successful, AVF-PTA-1561 cases, 96.58% successful; graft-PTA-3560 cases, 98.06% successful; AVF declot-228 cases, 78.10% successful; graft declot-4671 cases, 93.08% successful.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that appropriately trained interventional nephrologists can perform these basic procedures in both a safe and effective manner.

The renal histopathology in systemic vasculitis: an international survey study of inter- and intra-observer agreement

In order to relate histopathological findings of the kidney in systemic vasculitis to renal outcome, scoring of various morphological parameters is necessary. Therefore, we conducted a standardization study for evaluating renal biopsies from patients with systemic vasculitis. Four experienced renal pathologists from four European centres joined in the study. A scoring protocol was devised that required the observers to score an extensive number of histopathological lesions either quantitatively (as a percentage of the total number of glomeruli) or dichotomously (on a present/absent scale). Twenty renal biopsies were scored individually by all the observers, from which the inter-observer variability was analysed. Ten randomly chosen biopsies were scored again, in order to obtain the intra-observer variability. For inter-observer agreement, the evaluation of the quantitative variables was satisfactory for both rounds (0.55 < or = Kendall's W < or = 0.95 and 0.59 < or = W < or = 0.96, respectively, with all P < 0.05). However, the inter-observer agreement for the dichotomous data was poor (kappa < or = 0.30 in more than half of the parameters in both rounds). Also the data on intra-observer agreement showed more favourable results for the analysis of the quantitative data (Pearson's r > 0.45 in more than 85% of the variables in both rounds) than for the dichotomous scoring system (kappa < or = 0.30 in more than half of the variables). It is concluded that even between experienced renal pathologists discrepancies occur in scoring kidney biopsies. Inter- and intra-observer agreement is greater if a quantitative method for reviewing the biopsies is applied that requires the observers to score the tissue specimens systematically.

How to Begin a Quality Improvement Project

Quality improvement involves a combined effort among health care staff and stakeholders to diagnose and treat problems in the health care system. However, health care professionals often lack training in quality improvement methods, which makes it challenging to participate in improvement efforts. This article familiarizes health care professionals with how to begin a quality improvement project. The initial steps involve forming an improvement team that possesses expertise in the quality of care problem, leadership, and change management. Stakeholder mapping and analysis are useful tools at this stage, and these are reviewed to help identify individuals who might have a vested interest in the project. Physician engagement is a particularly important component of project success, and the knowledge that patients/caregivers can offer as members of a quality improvement team should not be overlooked. After a team is formed, an improvement framework helps to organize the scientific process of system change. Common quality improvement frameworks include Six Sigma, Lean, and the Model for Improvement. These models are contrasted, with a focus on the Model for Improvement, because it is widely used and applicable to a variety of quality of care problems without advanced training. It involves three steps: setting aims to focus improvement, choosing a balanced set of measures to determine if improvement occurs, and testing new ideas to change the current process. These new ideas are evaluated using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, where knowledge is gained by testing changes and reflecting on their effect. To show the real world utility of the quality improvement methods discussed, they are applied to a hypothetical quality improvement initiative that aims to promote home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). This provides an example that kidney health care professionals can use to begin their own quality improvement projects.

Normalisation of urinary biomarkers to creatinine for clinical practice and research--when and why

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are major health problems. Urinary biomarkers have both diagnostic and prognostic utility in AKI and CKD. However, how biomarker excretion rates should be reported, especially whether they should be normalised to urinary creatinine concentration (uCr), is controversial. Some studies suggest that normalisation to uCr may be inappropriate at times, as urinary creatinine excretion rate may vary greatly, depending on the situation. Notably, recent studies suggest that while normalisation of values to UCr may be valid for the evaluation of CKD and prediction of AKI sequelae and occurrences, it could be inappropriate for the diagnosis of AKI, or in the presence of certain acute kidney disease states.

Which targets in clinical practice guidelines are associated with improved survival in a large dialysis organization?

Professional organizations have developed practice guidelines in the hope of improving clinical outcomes. The National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) has set targets for dialysis dosage (single-pool Kt/V), hematocrit, serum albumin, calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and BP for hemodialysis (HD) patients. Several guidelines are largely based on results from observational studies. In contrast to other parameters, BP values within the KDOQI guidelines have been associated with increased mortality. Therefore, it was postulated that having multiple parameters that satisfy the current guidelines, except those for BP, is associated with improved survival among HD patients. A retrospective analysis was conducted of incident HD patients who were treated at facilities operated by Dialysis Clinic Inc., a not-for-profit dialysis provider, between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2004 (n = 13,792). Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between satisfying guidelines and mortality. Values within guidelines for single-pool Kt/V, hematocrit, serum albumin, calcium, phosphorus, and parathyroid hormone were associated with decreased mortality (P < or = 0.0001). The largest survival benefit was found for serum albumin (hazard ratio [HR] 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 0.31). Satisfying these six guidelines simultaneously was associated with an 89% reduction in mortality (HR 0.11; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.19]). Conversely, BP values satisfying the guideline were associated with increased mortality (HR 1.90; 95% CI 1.73 to 2.10). Because this target was largely extrapolated from the general population, a randomized, controlled trial is needed to identify the optimal BP for HD patients.

Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop on Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Hemodialysis Vascular Access

Vascular access outcomes in hemodialysis are critically important for patients and clinicians, but frequently are neither patient relevant nor measured consistently in randomized trials. A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop was convened to discuss the development of a core outcome measure for vascular access. 13 patients/caregivers and 46 professionals (clinicians, policy makers, industry representatives, and researchers) attended. Participants advocated for vascular access function to be a core outcome based on the broad applicability of function regardless of access type, involvement of a multidisciplinary team in achieving a functioning access, and the impact of access function on quality of life, survival, and other access-related outcomes. A core outcome measure for vascular access required demonstrable feasibility for implementation across different clinical and trial settings. Participants advocated for a practical and flexible outcome measure with a simple actionable definition. Integrating patients' values and preferences was warranted to enhance the relevance of the measure. Proposed outcome measures for function included "uninterrupted use of the access without the need for interventions" and "ability to receive prescribed dialysis," but not "access blood flow," which was deemed too expensive and unreliable. These recommendations will inform the definition and implementation of a core outcome measure for vascular access function in hemodialysis trials.

Asymmetrical dimethylarginine in renal disease: limits of variation or variation limits? A systematic review

Asymmetrical dimethylarginine (ADMA), an endogenous inhibitor of nitric oxide synthase, is increasingly recognized as a putative biomarker in cardiovascular and renal disease. Elevated plasma levels of ADMA are the consequence of increased synthesis, reduced renal clearance or reduced enzymatic degradation. Based upon the metabolic fate the highest plasma concentrations of ADMA have been reported in patients with renal failure in whom this molecule accumulates. However, the range of published ADMA levels in patients with chronic renal failure as well as in patients with end-stage renal failure undergoing maintenance hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or kidney transplant recipients is widely scattered and overlaps with the levels reported in healthy individuals. This wide distribution can in part be explained by different bioanalytical techniques and the lack of standardization of such assays. This review summarizes available literature on ADMA in patients with kidney disease and stresses the urgent need for a consensus regarding reference values for different analytical methods in order to appreciate the prognostic significance of elevated ADMA levels. At present, one cannot advocate this molecule for risk assessment or individual patient prognosis in the clinical work-up of patients with renal impairment.

Diagnostic criteria in renal and hepatic cyst infection

Cyst infection is a severe complication of renal and hepatic cystic disease that frequently leads to hospitalization. In most cases the diagnosis of cyst infection is made empirically as a cyst aspirate is frequently unavailable. This study aims to evaluate diagnostic criteria, microbiological findings and imaging modalities needed to diagnose cyst infection. In order to do so, we evaluated reports that characterize cyst infection cases published in the English language between 1948 and January 2014. We identified 70 articles documenting a total of 215 cyst infection cases (renal n = 119; hepatic n = 96). Six studies, including 74 cases of renal and 61 cases of hepatic cyst infection, used diagnostic criteria. The criteria that led to a definite cyst infection diagnosis were consistent, whereas criteria for a 'probable diagnosis' varied considerably. Cyst infection cases commonly have abdominal pain, fever and elevated serum inflammatory markers. Urine and blood cultures frequently remained negative, even in definite cases. The diagnostic properties of (18)fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET/CT) are probably best to diagnose cyst infection. Cyst aspirate indicating infection is currently the gold standard in diagnosing cyst infection. If not available, a combination of clinical and biochemical parameters is necessary to make a well-considered diagnosis, preferably including (18)F-FDG PET/CT.

Delivery patterns of recommended chronic kidney disease care in clinical practice: administrative claims-based analysis and systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines for management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been developed within the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI). Adherence patterns may identify focus areas for quality improvement.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied contemporary CKD care patterns within a private health system in the United States, and systematically reviewed literature of reported practices internationally. Five hundred and nineteen patients with moderate CKD (estimated GFR 30-59 ml/min) using healthcare benefits in 2002-2005 were identified from administrative insurance records. Thirty-three relevant publications in 2000-2006 describing care in 77,588 CKD patients were reviewed. Baseline demographic traits and provider specialty were considered as correlates of delivered care. Testing consistent with K/DOQI guidelines and prevalence of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARB) medication prescriptions were ascertained from billing claims. Care descriptions in the literature sample were based on medical charts, electronic records and/or claims.

RESULTS

KDOQI-consistent measurements of parathyroid hormone (7.1 vs. 0.6%, P = 0.0002), phosphorus (38.2 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.0001) and quantified urinary protein (23.8 vs. 9.4%, P = 0.008) were more common among CKD patients with versus without nephrology referral in the administrative data. Nephrology referral correlated with increased likelihood of testing for parathyroid hormone and phosphorus after adjustment for baseline patient factors. Use of ACEi/ARB medications was more common among patients with nephrology contact (50.0 vs. 30.0%; P = 0.008) but appeared largely driven by higher comorbidity burden. The literature review demonstrated similar practice patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of CKD care may be monitored by administrative data. There is opportunity for improvement in CKD guideline adherence in practice.

Energy and protein requirements for children with CKD stages 2-5 and on dialysis-clinical practice recommendations from the Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce

Dietary management in pediatric chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an area fraught with uncertainties and wide variations in practice. Even in tertiary pediatric nephrology centers, expert dietetic input is often lacking. The Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce (PRNT), an international team of pediatric renal dietitians and pediatric nephrologists, was established to develop clinical practice recommendations (CPRs) to address these challenges and to serve as a resource for nutritional care. We present CPRs for energy and protein requirements for children with CKD stages 2-5 and those on dialysis (CKD2-5D). We address energy requirements in the context of poor growth, obesity, and different levels of physical activity, together with the additional protein needs to compensate for dialysate losses. We describe how to achieve the dietary prescription for energy and protein using breastmilk, formulas, food, and dietary supplements, which can be incorporated into everyday practice. Statements with a low grade of evidence, or based on opinion, must be considered and adapted for the individual patient by the treating physician and dietitian according to their clinical judgment. Research recommendations have been suggested. The CPRs will be regularly audited and updated by the PRNT.

The associations between race and geographic area and quality-of-care indicators in patients approaching ESRD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pre-ESRD care is an important predictor of outcomes in patients undergoing long-term dialysis. This study examined the extent of variation in receiving pre-ESRD care and black-white disparities across urban and rural counties.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Participants were 404,622 non-Hispanic white and black patients aged >18 years who began dialysis between 2005 and 2010 and resided in 3076 counties from the U.S. Renal Data System. The counties were grouped into large metropolitan, medium/small metropolitan, suburban, and rural counties. Pre-ESRD care indicators included receipt of nephrologist care at least 6 or 12 months before ESRD, dietitian care, use of arteriovenous fistula at first outpatient dialysis session, and use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with hemoglobin level < 10 g/dl.

RESULTS

Large metropolitan and rural counties had lower percentages of patients who received pre-ESRD nephrologist care (25.7% and 26.9% for nephrologist care > 12 months), compared with the higher percentage in medium/small metropolitan counties (31.6%; both P<0.001). For both races, nonmetropolitan patients had poorer access to dietitian care and lower ESA use than metropolitan patients. Consistently in all four geographic areas, black patients received less care than their white counterparts. The unadjusted odds ratios of black versus white patients in receiving nephrologist care for >12 months before ESRD were 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.72) in large metropolitan counties and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.90) in rural counties. The patterns remained, albeit attenuated, after adjustment for patient factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The receipt of pre-ESRD care, with blacks receiving less care, varies among geographic areas defined by urban/rural characteristics.

Common Elements in Rare Kidney Diseases: Conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Rare kidney diseases encompass at least 150 different conditions, most of which are inherited. Although individual rare kidney diseases raise specific issues, as a group these rare diseases can have overlapping challenges in diagnosis and treatment. These challenges include small numbers of affected patients, unidentified causes of disease, lack of biomarkers for monitoring disease progression, and need for complex care. To address common clinical and patient issues among rare kidney diseases, the KDIGO Controversies Conference entitled, Common Elements in Rare Kidney Diseases, brought together a panel of multidisciplinary clinical providers and patient advocates to address five central issues for rare kidney diseases. These issues encompassed diagnostic challenges, management of kidney functional decline and progression of chronic kidney disease, challenges in clinical study design, translation of advances in research to clinical care, and provision of practical and integrated patient support. Thus, by a process of consensus, guidance for addressing these challenges was developed and is presented here.

Predialysis nephrologist care and access to kidney transplantation in the United States

Predialysis nephrologist care is associated with morbidity and mortality in incident dialysis patients, but the relationship with access to kidney transplantation (KT) is unclear. From a national study of incident US dialysis patients, we identified 2253 patients with detailed information about predialysis care, sociodemographic characteristics and comorbidities. We used multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to study associations between predialysis nephrology care and two outcomes: time from first dialysis to the first day on the KT wait-list, and time to first KT. Two-thirds of patients first encountered a nephrologist >3 months prior to dialysis and one-third <or=3 months prior to dialysis (early vs. late nephrologist care; ENC vs. LNC). Overall, 515 patients were added to the KT wait-list and 406 underwent KT during follow-up (2.3 years). In multivariate analyses, ENC was associated with a 41% (95%CI: 15-72%) greater rate of being wait-listed compared to LNC and a 54% (95%CI: 22-96%) greater rate of KT. Similar associations existed with number of predialysis nephrology visits. Earlier and more frequent predialysis nephrologist care were associated with greater access to the KT wait-list as well as a higher rate of KT, indicating that LNC may augment existing inequalities that impair access to KT.