Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesREVEAL-CKD aims to estimate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, undiagnosed stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).DesignMultinational, observational study.SettingData from six country-specific electronic medical records and/or insurance claims databases from five countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the USA [two databases]).ParticipantsEligible participants (≥18 years old) had ≥2 consecutive estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurements (calculated from serum creatinine values, sex and age) taken from 2015 onwards that were indicative of stage 3 CKD (≥30 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2). Undiagnosed cases lacked an International Classification of Diseases 9/10 diagnosis code for CKD (any stage) any time before, and up to 6 months after, the second qualifying eGFR measurement (study index).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was point prevalence of undiagnosed stage 3 CKD. Time to diagnosis was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier approach. Factors associated with lacking a CKD diagnosis and risk of diagnostic delay were assessed using logistic regression adjusted for baseline covariates.ResultsThe prevalence of undiagnosed stage 3 CKD was 95.5% (19 120/20 012 patients) in France, 84.3% (22 557/26 767) in Germany, 77.0% (50 547/65 676) in Italy, 92.1% (83 693/90 902) in Japan, 61.6% (13 845/22 470) in the US Explorys Linked Claims and Electronic Medical Records Data database and 64.3% (161 254/250 879) in the US TriNetX database. The prevalence of undiagnosed CKD increased with age. Factors associated with undiagnosed CKD were female sex (vs male, range of odds ratios across countries: 1.29–1.77), stage 3a CKD (vs 3b, 1.81–3.66), no medical history (vs a history) of diabetes (1.26–2.77) or hypertension (1.35–1.78).ConclusionsThere are substantial opportunities to improve stage 3 CKD diagnosis, particularly in female patients and older patients. The low diagnosis rates in patients with comorbidities that put them at risk of disease progression and complications require attention.Trial registrationNCT04847531.

Rationale and objectiveThe Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) predicts the risk of end-stage kidney disease in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the utility of KFRE in clinical practice.Study designSystematic review.Setting and study populationsAdult patients with CKD but not receiving renal replacement therapy enrolled in studies where KFRE was used in clinical care pathways.Selection criteria for studiesAll studies published from April 2011 to October 2021 identified from Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase and reference and citation searches of included studies.Data extractionRelevant data were extracted, and two reviewers independently assessed study quality using appropriate appraisal tools.Analytical approachFindings reported as a narrative synthesis due to heterogeneity of the included studies.ResultsOf 1635 studies identified, 440 duplicates were removed. The remaining 1195 titles and abstracts were screened. All five studies for full-text review were included in the analysis. Three uses of KFRE were assessed: (1) primary to specialty care interface; (2) general nephrology to multidisciplinary care transition; and (3) treatment planning. Evidence of impact on number of patient referrals into nephrology care was conflicting. However, wait times improved in one study. Although KFRE identified high-risk patients for increased multidisciplinary support, there was concern patients stepped down, no longer meeting eligibility criteria, may lack access to services.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review of studies that have assessed the actual impact of KFRE in clinical practice with five studies of varying quality reported to date. Trials are in progress assessing the impact on clinical outcomes of using KFRE in clinical practice, and KFRE is being incorporated into guidelines for CKD management. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of KFRE on clinical care.Trial registration numberProtocol registered on PROSPERO before initiation of the study (Ref: CRD42020219926).

ObjectiveTo analyse the incidence, risk factors and impact of acute kidney injury (AKI) on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CNKI and MedRxiv of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2020 to 15 May 2020.Study selectionStudies examining the following demographics and outcomes were included: patients’ age; sex; incidence of and risk factors for AKI and their impact on prognosis; COVID-19 disease type and incidence of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) administration during COVID-19 infection.ResultsA total of 79 research articles, including 49 692 patients with COVID-19, met the systemic evaluation criteria. The mortality rate and incidence of AKI in patients with COVID-19 in China were significantly lower than those in patients with COVID-19 outside China. A significantly higher proportion of patients with COVID-19 from North America were aged ≥65 years and also developed AKI. European patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher mortality and a higher CRRT rate than patients from other regions. Further analysis of the risk factors for COVID-19 combined with AKI showed that age ≥60 years and severe COVID-19 were independent risk factors for AKI, with an OR of 3.53, 95% CI (2.92–4.25) and an OR of 6.07, 95% CI (2.53–14.58), respectively. The CRRT rate in patients with severe COVID-19 was significantly higher than in patients with non-severe COVID-19, with an OR of 6.60, 95% CI (2.83–15.39). The risk of death in patients with COVID-19 and AKI was significantly increased, with an OR of 11.05, 95% CI (9.13–13.36).ConclusionAKI was a common and serious complication of COVID-19. Older age and having severe COVID-19 were independent risk factors for AKI. The risk of in-hospital death was significantly increased in patients with COVID-19 complicated by AKI.

IntroductionEnd-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD.Methods and analysisThis international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThe CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness.Trial registration numberNetherlands National Trial Register (NTR 7138).

ObjectiveTo examine quality of life (QoL) and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in kidney transplant recipients and those awaiting transplantation.DesignLongitudinal cohort questionnaire surveys and qualitative semi-structured interviews using thematic analysis with a pragmatic approach.SettingCompletion of generic and disease-specific PROMs at two time points, and telephone interviews with participants UK-wide.Participants101 incident deceased-donor (DD) and 94 incident living-donor (LD) kidney transplant recipients, together with 165 patients on the waiting list (WL) from 18 UK centres recruited to the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) programme completed PROMs at recruitment (November 2011 to March 2013) and 1 year follow-up. Forty-one of the 165 patients on the WL received a DD transplant and 26 received a LD transplant during the study period, completing PROMs initially as patients on the WL, and again 1 year post-transplant. A subsample of 10 LD and 10 DD recipients participated in qualitative semi-structured interviews.ResultsLD recipients were younger, had more educational qualifications and more often received a transplant before dialysis. Controlling for these and other factors, cross-sectional analyses at 12 months post-transplant suggested better QoL, renal-dependent QoL and treatment satisfaction for LD than DD recipients. Patients on the WL reported worse outcomes compared with both transplant groups. However, longitudinal analyses (controlling for pre-transplant differences) showed that LD and DD recipients reported similarly improved health status and renal-dependent QoL (p<0.01) pre-transplant to post-transplant. Patients on the WL had worsened health status but no change in QoL. Qualitative analyses revealed transplant recipients’ expectations influenced their recovery and satisfaction with transplant.ConclusionsWhile cross-sectional analyses suggested LD kidney transplantation leads to better QoL and treatment satisfaction, longitudinal assessment showed similar QoL improvements in PROMs for both transplant groups, with better outcomes than for those still wait-listed. Regardless of transplant type, clinicians need to be aware that managing expectations is important for facilitating patients’ adjustment post-transplant.

IntroductionChronic kidney disease (CKD) affects over 850 million people globally, with nearly 80% residing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite this high prevalence, there is limited understanding of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients with CKD in these resource-constrained settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to quantify HRQOL scores across CKD stages and treatment modalities in LMICs.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science, for observational studies published from January 2000 onwards in English or Russian. Eligible studies will include adult patients (≥18 years) with CKD stages 1–5, those on dialysis or kidney transplant recipients in LMICs. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data and assess methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses to pool HRQOL scores, stratified by CKD treatment groups. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I² statistics, with subgroup analyses and meta-regression conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. The primary outcome will be pooled estimates of HRQOL scores across different CKD stages and treatment modalities in LMICs. Secondary outcomes will include subgroup analyses by income classification, geographical region and CKD stage depending on the availability of the data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study. Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed, open-access journal and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD420251016382.

The purpose of the systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of remote patient monitoring (RPM) follow-up compared with standard care, for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who perform dialysis at home. We conducted a systematic review in accordance with international guidelines. We performed systematic searches for publications from 2015 to 2021 in five databases (eg, Medline, Cinahl, Embase) and a search for grey literature in reference lists. Included effect measures were quality of life, hospitalisation, technical failure as the cause for transfer to a different dialysis modality, infections and time patients use for travel. Screening of literature, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and certainty of evidence assessment (using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach) were done by two researchers. We conducted meta-analyses when possible. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, of which two were randomised controlled trials and five were retrospective cohort studies with control groups. The studies included 9975 participants from 5 countries, who were a good representation of dialysis patients in high-income and upper-middle-income countries. The patients were on peritoneal dialysis (six studies) or home haemodialysis (one study). There was very low certainty of evidence for the outcomes, except for hospitalisations: there was low certainty evidence from three cohort studies for fewer hospitalisation days in the RPM group. No studies included data for time patients used for travel. We found low to very low certainty evidence that indicate there may be positive effects of RPM follow-up, in comparison to standard care only, for adult patients with CKD who perform dialysis at home. Offering RPM follow-up for home dialysis patients as an alternative or supplement to standard care appears to be safe and provide health benefits such as fewer hospitalisation days. Future implementation should be coupled with robust, high-quality evaluations. CRD42021281779.

ObjectiveTo conduct an overview of meta-analyses evaluating the impact of exercise interventions on improving health outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).DesignAn umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analyses of intervention trials was performed.Data sourcesPubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to 9 March 2021 for relevant articles.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible meta-analyses compared the effects of usual care with and without exercise in patients with CKD. Health outcomes included those related to cardiovascular risk factors, physical fitness, dialysis-related symptoms, dialysis adequacy and health-related quality of life. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that included fewer than 3 RCTs or fewer than 100 participants were excluded from the analysis.ResultsA total of 31 eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included that assessed 120 outcomes. For physical fitness, there was a moderate effect size for cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength and body composition and small effect size for muscle endurance. The effect sizes for cardiovascular risk factors, dialysis-related symptoms and health-related quality of life outcomes were small. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, most outcomes were low or very low quality.ConclusionExercise appears to be a safe way to affect concomitant cardiovascular risk factors, such as blood pressure, improve physical fitness and health-related quality of life and reduce dialysis-related symptoms in patients with CKD.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020223591.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the patterns of abnormal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin–creatinine ratio (UACR) follow-up testing for the detection of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Australian general practices.DesignRetrospective, population-based observational study.Setting and participants2 717 966 adults who visited a MedicineInsight participating general practice between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020, had ≥1 serum creatinine measurement (with or without a UACR measurement) and did not have CKD at baseline.Main outcome measure‘Guideline-concordant follow-up’ was defined as having a record of a repeat eGFR or UACR testing (assessed separately) within 6 months following the abnormal (eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2; UACR≥2.5 mg/mmol in males, ≥3.5 mg/mmol in females) incident result. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient factors associated with receiving appropriate follow-up testing.ResultsA total of 220 841 and 114 889 patients with an abnormal incident eGFR and UACR result, respectively, were identified. Nearly half (45.0%) of the patients with an abnormal eGFR result and over two-thirds (69.7%) of the patients with an abnormal UACR result did not have a follow-up test within 6 months. Patient factors associated with a higher likelihood of follow-up eGFR testing included indicators of poorer baseline health and greater CKD risk, such as comorbid diabetes (adjusted OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.40) or more severe incident eGFR (adjusted ORs for eGFR categories 30–44, 15–29 and <15 mL/min/1.73 m², respectively, vs eGFR 45–59 mL/min/1.73 m²: 1.51 (1.47 to 1.55), 1.85 (1.76 to 1.95) and 1.62 (1.47 to 1.78)). Higher incident UACR level was associated with greater follow-up UACR testing (adjusted OR for severely increased albuminuria vs moderately increased albuminuria (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.48).ConclusionsIn this large, population-based study, we observed substantial gaps in the follow-up of abnormal eGFR and UACR for the detection of CKD in primary care settings. Effective strategies to optimise follow-up testing for CKD detection are needed.