Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Pediatric CKD management focuses on limiting kidney injury, including avoiding nephrotoxic medications. Nephrotoxic medication prescription practices for children with CKD are unknown. Our objective was to determine the prevalence and rates of primary care prescriptions for potentially nephrotoxic medications in children with CKD versus without CKD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:We conducted a retrospective, matched population-based cohort study of patients aged <18 years, registered at a general practice participating in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 1997 to 2017. Children with a clinical code indicating an incident diagnosis of CKD were matched 1:4 to patients without CKD on CKD diagnosis date, sex, age, CPRD practice, and number of general practitioner visits in the year before cohort entry. We calculated the prevalence and the rate of potentially nephrotoxic medication prescriptions throughout the follow-up period in patients with versus without CKD. Primary analyses included the following medication classes: aminoglycosides, antivirals, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, salicylates, proton pump inhibitors, and immunomodulators. Secondary analyses used an expanded nephrotoxicity definition that also included, among others, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Adjusted prescription rates were calculated using multivariable binomial regression. RESULTS:From 1,535,816 eligible patients, we identified 1018 incident CKD and 4072 non-CKD matches (mean age, 9.8 years [range, 1.1-17.9 years]; 52% male; mean follow-up time, 3.3 years). Overall, 26% of patients with and 15% of patients without CKD were prescribed one or more potentially nephrotoxic medication during follow-up. The overall rate of nephrotoxic medication prescriptions was 71 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 55 to 93) prescriptions per 100 person-years in patients with CKD and eight (95% CI, 7 to 9) prescriptions per 100 person-years in patients without CKD (adjusted rate ratio, 4.1; 95% CI, 2.7 to 6.1). CONCLUSIONS:Potentially nephrotoxic medications are prescribed at high rates to children with CKD.
Project description:Most non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are cared for by their primary care physicians (PCPs). Studies suggest many CKD patients receive suboptimal care. Recently, CKD clinical practice guidelines were updated with additional emphasis on albuminuria.We performed an internet-based, cross-sectional survey of active PCPs in the United States using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. We explored CKD guideline familiarity, self-reported practice behaviors, and attitudinal and external barriers to implementing guideline recommendations, including albuminuria testing.Of 12,034 PCPs targeted, 848 opened a study email, 165 (19.5%) responded. Most respondents (88%) spent ?50% of their time in clinical care. Respondents were generally in private practice (46%). Most PCPs (96%) felt that eGFR values were helpful. Approximately, 75% and 91% of PCPs reported testing for albuminuria in non-diabetic hypertensive patients with an eGFR?>?60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and?<?60 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Barriers to albuminuria testing included a lack of effect on management, limited time, and the perceived absence of guidelines recommending testing. While PCPs expressed high levels of agreement with the definition of CKD, 30% were concerned with overdiagnosis in older adults with an eGFR in the CKD stage 3a range. Most PCPs felt that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/ angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) improved outcomes in CKD, though agreement was lower with severe vs. moderate albuminuria (78% vs. 85%, respectively, p?=?0.03). Many PCPs (51%) reported being unfamiliar with CKD guidelines, but were receptive to systematic interventions to improve their CKD care.PCPs generally agree with CKD clinical practice guidelines regarding CKD definition and albuminuria testing. However, future interventions are necessary to improve PCPs' familiarity with CKD guidelines, overcome barriers to albuminuria testing and, assist PCPs in targeting ACEi/ARBs to the patients most likely to benefit.
Project description:Time of ingestion of hypertension medications can affect circadian patterns of BP, but whether this translates into an effect on clinical outcomes is unknown. Here, in an open-label trial, we randomly assigned 661 patients with CKD either to take all prescribed hypertension medications upon awakening or to take at least one of them at bedtime. We measured 48-hour ambulatory BP at baseline and 3 months after any adjustment in treatment or, at the least, annually. After a median follow-up of 5.4 years, patients who took at least one BP-lowering medication at bedtime had an adjusted risk for total cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, revascularization, heart failure, arterial occlusion of lower extremities, occlusion of the retinal artery, and stroke) that was approximately one-third that of patients who took all medications upon awakening (adjusted HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.46; P < 0.001). Bedtime dosing demonstrated a similar significant reduction in risk for a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (adjusted HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61; P < 0.001). Furthermore, patients on bedtime treatment had a significantly lower mean sleep-time BP and a greater proportion demonstrated control of their ambulatory BP (56% versus 45%, P = 0.003). Each 5-mmHg decrease in mean sleep-time systolic BP was associated with a 14% reduction in the risk for cardiovascular events during follow-up (P < 0.001). In conclusion, among patients with CKD and hypertension, taking at least one antihypertensive medication at bedtime improves control of BP and reduces the risk for cardiovascular events.
Project description:BackgroundMany medications are formulated with acid salts. Their effect on acid-base balance in CKD is unclear.MethodsWe calculated the acid load (meq/d) from medications prescribed to 74 United States veterans with diabetes and CKD to identify agents with high potential acid load. We also determined cross-sectional associations between the acid load from medications and acid-base parameters after adjusting for demographics, eGFR, protein intake, and other confounders.ResultsOf the 125 medications prescribed, 31 (25%) contained an acid salt. Metformin hydrochloride (15.4 meq/d at 2550 mg/d) and gabapentin hydrochloride (13.0 meq/d at 2700 mg/d) were identified as agents with a high potential acid load. Mean daily acid load from medications was 6.6 meq/d in the overall cohort, 14.2 meq/d in the high medication acid load group (≥7.7 meq/d, n=29), and 1.6 meq/d in the low medication acid load group (<7.7 meq/d, n=45). After adjusting for potential confounders, those in the high acid load group had 1.7 meq/L lower total carbon dioxide (CO2) and 2.2 meq/L higher anion gap than those in the low acid load group. Use of gabapentin alone was not associated with differences in total CO2 or anion gap. Use of metformin alone was associated with 0.7 meq/L lower total CO2 and 1.0 meq/L higher anion gap. Use of metformin with gabapentin was associated with 1.8 meq/L lower total CO2 and 2.4 meq/L higher anion gap. The higher anion gap was not explained by higher serum lactate levels. The acid load from medications was not associated with differences in urinary ammonium, titratable acid, or pH.ConclusionsMedications containing acid salts, particularly metformin hydrochloride and gabapentin hydrochloride, are sources of an exogenous acid load. These agents may influence serum total CO2 levels and serum anion gap in individuals with CKD.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberInvestigations of the Optimum Serum Bicarbonate Level in Renal Disease, NCT01574157.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the high and rising burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in South Asia, factors that influence access to CKD care at the community level have not been studied previously, especially in the rural areas. We conducted a mixed methods study and interviewed key stakeholders to explore the views and experiences of key stakeholders, and identify barriers and potential facilitators that influence access to CKD care at the primary care level in rural India. METHODS:A total of 21 stakeholders participated in the study. We conducted 15 in-depth interviews on a purposive sample of stakeholders (CKD patients, healthcare providers and health planners) and one focus group discussion with 6 community health workers. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We employed the Lévesque's framework for access to care to base interview guides and structure the initial codes. By inductive and deductive approaches, thematic analysis was undertaken using QSR NVivo version 11. RESULTS:The major patient-level barriers to CKD care as reported by the most patients and healthcare providers was poor knowledge and awareness of CKD. Health system-level barriers included shortages of skilled healthcare professionals and medicines, fragmented referrals pathways to the specialists at the hospitals with inadequate follow up care. Many patients and healthcare providers, when asked about areas for improving access to CKD care, reported educational initiatives to increase awareness of CKD among healthcare providers and patients, provision of CKD related supplies, and a systems-level approach to care coordination including task shifting by engaging community health workers in CKD care, as potential facilitators. CONCLUSIONS:We identified several barriers to access CKD care at the primary care level in rural India that need urgent attention. Targeted CKD screening programs and CKD specific educational initiatives may improve awareness of CKD. Additionally, primary care infrastructure needs to be strengthened for CKD care, ensuring trained staff, availability of essential diagnostics and medications, and creating efficient referral pathways for quality CKD care.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Medications endorsed by clinical practice guidelines, such as cardiovascular medications, could still have risks that outweigh potential benefits, and could thus warrant deprescribing. OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to develop a framework of facilitators and barriers specific to deprescribing cardiovascular medications in the setting of uncertain benefit. Given the frequent use of ?-blockers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and its uncertain benefits with potential for harm, we used this scenario as an example case for a cardiovascular medication that may be reasonable to deprescribe. METHODS:We conducted one-on-one, semi-structured interviews of older adults until we reached thematic saturation. Two coders independently reviewed each interview, and developed codes using deductive thematic analysis based on a prior conceptual framework for deprescribing. Subthemes and themes were finalized with a third coder. RESULTS:Ten participants were interviewed. We identified three key previously described patient-reported facilitators to deprescribing: (1) appropriateness of cessation; (2) process of cessation; and (3) dislike of medications; and identified three key previously described patient-reported barriers: (1) appropriateness of cessation; (2) process of cessation; and (3) fear. We found that these facilitators and barriers often co-occurred within the same individual. This observation, coupled with subthemes from our patient interviews, yielded two barriers to deprescribing specific to cardiovascular medications-uncertainty and conflicting attitudes. CONCLUSION:We adapted a new framework of patient-reported barriers and facilitators specific to deprescribing cardiovascular medications. In addition to addressing barriers previously described, future deprescribing interventions targeting cardiovascular medications must also address uncertainty and conflicting attitudes.
Project description:BackgroundThere is currently insufficient data describing how new medications are provided to older adult ambulatory patients with dementia in the United States (US).ObjectivesTo describe characteristics of ambulatory care visits for adults ≥65 years old and investigate differences in prescribing of new medications between patients with and without dementia.MethodsWe conducted a population-based cross-sectional study using the 2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) in the US. Non-perioperative ambulatory care visits of patients ≥65 years old with sampling weights were used to provide national estimates of visits. Baseline characteristics were compared between visits for patients with and without dementia using Pearson's chi square or Student's t-tests. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the odds of receiving a new medication.Results218,182,131 non-perioperative ambulatory care visits of patients ≥65 years old were included, 2.1% of which were for patients with dementia; these patients were older on average and had more comorbidities and higher ambulatory care utilization than those without dementia. New medications were provided at 26.3% of visits for patients with dementia. After adjusting for confounders, there was no statistically significant difference in odds of a new medication being provided between visits for patients with and without dementia (odds ratio [OR], 0.555; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.183-1.678). Differences were seen in the provision of cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotics, and central nervous system agents at visits for patients with dementia (p = 0.0011, <0.0001, and 0.0011 respectively).ConclusionWhile fewer visits for patients with dementia provided new medications compared to patients without dementia, after adjusting for confounders no significant difference were identified. Significant differences were seen in the classes of new medications provided. Further investigation is needed to evaluate new medication usage and the utility of pharmacists in the care of patients with dementia at an outpatient setting.
Project description:IntroductionThe burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is rising globally including in Singapore. Primary care is the first point of contact for most patients with early stages of CKD. However, several barriers to optimal CKD management exist. Knowing healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives is important to understand how best to strengthen CKD services in the primary care setting. Integrating a theory-based framework, we explored HCPs' perspectives on the facilitators of and barriers to CKD management in primary care clinics in Singapore.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted on a purposive sample of 20 HCPs including 13 physicians, 2 nurses and 1 pharmacist from three public primary care polyclinics, and 4 nephrologists from one referral hospital. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) version 2.ResultsNumerous facilitators of and barriers to CKD management identified. HCPs perceived insufficient attention is given to CKD in primary care and highlighted several barriers including knowledge and practice gaps, ineffective CKD diagnosis disclosure, limitations in decision-making for nephrology referrals, consultation time, suboptimal care coordination, and lack of CKD awareness and self-management skills among patients. Nevertheless, intensive CKD training of primary care physicians, structured CKD-care pathways, multidisciplinary team-based care, and prioritizing nephrology referrals with risk-based assessment were key facilitators. Participants underscored the importance of improving awareness and self-management skills among patients. Primary care providers expressed willingness to manage early-stage CKD as a collaborative care model with nephrologists. Our findings provide valuable insights to design targeted interventions to enhance CKD management in primary care in Singapore that may be relevant to other countries.ConclusionsThe are several roadblocks to improving CKD management in primary care settings warranting urgent attention. Foremost, CKD deserves greater priority from HCPs and health planners. Multipronged approaches should urgently address gaps in care coordination, patient-physician communication, and knowledge. Strategies could focus on intensive CKD-oriented training for primary care physicians and building novel team-based care models integrating structured CKD management, risk-based nephrology referrals coupled with education and motivational counseling for patients. Such concerted efforts are likely to improve outcomes of patients with CKD and reduce the ESKD burden.
Project description:Medication adherence is vital to ensuring optimal patient outcomes, particularly amongst multimorbid older people prescribed multiple medications. Interventions targeting adherence often lack a theoretical underpinning and this may impact on effectiveness. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) of behaviour can aid intervention development by systematically identifying key determinants of medication adherence.This study aimed to (i) identify determinants (barriers, facilitators) of adherence to multiple medications from older people's perspectives; (ii) identify key domains to target for behaviour change; and (iii) map key domains to intervention components [behaviour change techniques (BCTs)] that could be delivered in an intervention by community pharmacists.Focus groups were conducted with older people (>65 years) receiving ?4 medications. Questions explored the 12 domains of the TDF (eg "Knowledge," "Emotion"). Data were analysed using the framework method and content analysis. Identification of key domains and mapping to intervention components (BCTs) followed established methods.Seven focus groups were convened (50 participants). A wide range of determinants were identified as barriers (eg forgetfulness, prioritization of medications) and facilitators (eg social support, personalized routines) of adherence to multiple medications. Eight domains were identified as key targets for behaviour change (eg "Social influences," "Memory, attention and decision processes," "Motivation and goals") and mapped to 11 intervention components (BCTs) to include in an intervention [eg "Social support or encouragement (general)," "Self-monitoring of the behaviour," "Goal-setting (behaviour)"].This study used a theoretical underpinning to identify potential intervention components (BCTs). Future work will incorporate the selected BCTs into an intervention that will undergo feasibility testing in community pharmacies.