Dataset Information

IChoose Kidney: A Clinical Decision Aid for Kidney Transplantation Versus Dialysis Treatment.

ABSTRACT: Despite a significant survival advantage of kidney transplantation compared with dialysis, nearly one third of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are not educated about kidney transplantation as a treatment option at the time of ESRD diagnosis. Access to individualized, evidence-based prognostic information is needed to facilitate and encourage shared decision making about the clinical implications of whether to pursue transplantation or long-term dialysis.We used a national cohort of incident ESRD patients in the US Renal Data System surveillance registry from 2005 to 2011 to develop and validate prediction models for risk of 1- and 3-year mortality among dialysis versus kidney transplantation. Using these data, we developed a mobile clinical decision aid that provides estimates of risks of death and survival on dialysis compared with kidney transplantation patients.Factors included in the mortality risk prediction models for dialysis and transplantation included age, race/ethnicity, dialysis vintage, and comorbidities, including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and low albumin. Among the validation cohorts, the discriminatory ability of the model for 3-year mortality was moderate (c statistic, 0.7047; 95% confidence interval, 0.7029-0.7065 for dialysis and 0.7015; 95% confidence interval, 0.6875-0.7155 for transplant). We used these risk prediction models to develop an electronic, user-friendly, mobile (iPad, iPhone, and website) clinical decision aid called iChoose Kidney.The use of a mobile clinical decision aid comparing individualized mortality risk estimates for dialysis versus transplantation could enhance communication between ESRD patients and their clinicians when making decisions about treatment options.

SUBMITTER: Patzer RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4658512 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

iChoose Kidney: A Clinical Decision Aid for Kidney Transplantation Versus Dialysis Treatment.

Patzer Rachel E RE Basu Mohua M Larsen Christian P CP Pastan Stephen O SO Mohan Sumit S Patzer Michael M Konomos Michael M McClellan William M WM Lea Janice J Howard David D Gander Jennifer J Arriola Kimberly Jacob KJ

Transplantation 20160301 3

<h4>Background</h4>Despite a significant survival advantage of kidney transplantation compared with dialysis, nearly one third of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are not educated about kidney transplantation as a treatment option at the time of ESRD diagnosis. Access to individualized, evidence-based prognostic information is needed to facilitate and encourage shared decision making about the clinical implications of whether to pursue transplantation or long-term dialysis.<h4>Methods</h4 ...[more]

PMID: 26714121

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient decision aids (PtDAs) support patients and clinicians in shared decision-making (SDM). Real-world outcome information may improve patients' risk perception, and help patients make decisions congruent with their expectations and values. Our aim was to develop an online PtDA to support kidney failure treatment modality decision-making, that: 1) provides patients with real-world outcome information, and 2) facilitates SDM in clinical practice.MethodsThe International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) development process model was complemented with a user-centred and convergent mixed-methods approach. Rapid prototyping was used to develop the PtDA with a multidisciplinary steering group in an iterative process of co-creation. The results of an exploratory evidence review and a needs-assessment among patients, caregivers, and clinicians were used to develop the PtDA. Seven Dutch teaching hospitals and two national Dutch outcome registries provided real-world data on selected outcomes for all kidney failure treatment modalities. Alpha and beta testing were performed to assess the prototype and finalise development. An implementation strategy was developed to guide implementation of the PtDA in clinical practice.ResultsThe 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' consists of three components designed to help patients and clinicians engage in SDM: 1) a paper hand-out sheet, 2) an interactive website, and 3) a personal summary sheet. A 'patients-like-me' infographic was developed to visualise survival probabilities for each treatment modality on the website. Other treatment outcomes were incorporated as event rates (e.g. hospitalisation rates) or explained in text (e.g. the flexibility of each treatment modality). No major revisions were needed after alpha and beta testing. During beta testing, some patients ignored the survival probabilities because they considered these too confronting. Nonetheless, patients agreed that every patient has the right to choose whether they want to view this information. Patients and clinicians believed that the PtDA would help patients make informed decisions, and that it would support values- and preferences-based decision-making. Implementation of the PtDA has started in October 2020.ConclusionsThe 'Kidney Failure Decision Aid' was designed to facilitate SDM in clinical practice and contains real-world outcome information on all kidney failure treatment modalities. It is currently being investigated for its effects on SDM in a clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundAcute trauma of the wrist is one of the most frequent reasons for visiting the Emergency Department. These patients are routinely referred for radiological examination. Most X-rays however, do not reveal any fractures. A clinical decision rule determining the need for X-rays in patients with acute wrist trauma may help to percolate and select patients with fractures.Methods/designThis study will be a multi-center observational diagnostic study in which the data will be collected cross-sectionally. The study population will consist of all consecutive adult patients (?18 years) presenting with acute wrist trauma at the Emergency Department in the participating hospitals. This research comprises two components: one study will be conducted to determine which clinical parameters are predictive for the presence of a distal radius fracture in adult patients presenting to the Emergency Department following acute wrist trauma. These clinical parameters are defined by trauma-mechanism, physical examination, and functional testing. This data will be collected in two of the three participating hospitals and will be assessed by using logistic regression modelling to estimate the regression coefficients after which a reduced model will be created by means of a log likelihood ratio test. The accuracy of the model will be estimated by a goodness of fit test and an ROC curve. The final model will be validated internally through bootstrapping and by shrinking it, an adjusted model will be generated. In the second component of this study, the developed prediction model will be validated in a new dataset consisting of a population of patients from the third hospital. If necessary, the model will be calibrated using the data from the validation study.DiscussionWrist trauma is frequently encountered at the Emergency Department. However, to this date, no decision rule regarding this type of trauma has been created. Ideally, radiographs are obtained of all patients entering one of the participating hospitals with trauma to the wrist. However, this is ethically and logistically not feasible and one could argue that patients, for whom no radiography is required according to their physician, are not suspected of having a distal radius fracture and thus are not part of the domain.Trial registrationThis study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 2544) and was granted permission by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam on 06-01-2011.

Project description:ImportanceFor-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population.ObjectiveTo determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study that included 1 478 564 patients treated at 6511 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report).ExposuresThe primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities.Main outcomes and measuresAccess to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome.ResultsAmong 1 478 564 patients, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 55-76 years), with 55.3% male, and 28.1% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 121 680 patients (8.2%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to -2.3%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: -4.3% [95% CI, -4.4% to -4.2%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.54]); and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.45]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong US patients with end-stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelihood of accessing kidney transplantation. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.

Project description:BackgroundCompared with other kidney replacement therapies, preemptive kidney transplantation (KT) provides better clinical outcomes, reduces mortality, and improves the quality of life of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, evidence related to the cost-effectiveness of preemptive living-related KT (LRKT) is limited, especially in low- and middle-income countries, such as Thailand. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of LRKT with those of non-preemptive KT strategies.MethodsCost and clinical data were obtained from adult patients who underwent KT at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand. A decision tree and Markov model were used to evaluate and compare the lifetime costs and health-related outcomes of LRKT with those of 2 KT strategies: non-preemptive LRKT and non-preemptive deceased donor KT (DDKT). The model's input parameters were sourced from the hospital's database and a systematic review. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Costs are reported in 2020 United States dollars (USD). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsOf 140 enrolled KT patients, 40 were preemptive LRKT recipients, 50 were non-preemptive LRKT recipients, and the rest were DDKT recipients. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic data, complications, or rejection rates of the three groups of patients. The average costs per life year gained were $10,647 (preemptive LRKT), $11,708 (non-preemptive LRKT), and $11,486 (DDKT). The QALY gained of the preemptive option was 0.47 compared with the non-preemptive strategies. Preemptive LRKT was the best-buy strategy. The sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust. Within all varied ranges of parameters, preemptive LRKT remained cost-saving. The probability of preemptive LRKT being cost-saving was 79.4%. Compared with non-preemptive DDKT, non-preemptive LRKT was not cost-effective at the current Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of $5113/QALY gained.ConclusionsPreemptive LRKT is a cost-saving strategy compared with non-preemptive KT strategies. Our findings should be considered during evidence-based policy development to promote preemptive LRKT among adults with ESKD in Thailand.

Project description:Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end stage renal disease (ESRD). Patients often lack an understanding of the potential risks and benefits of ESAs, despite government mandated education on this topic. Decision aids are tools commonly used to discuss important information in health care settings. To address this knowledge gap, we designed this study to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel ESA decision aid at promoting informed shared decision making (ISDM) between patients and providers related to ESA use for CKD- and ESRD-related anemia.Using the principles of informed shared decision making theory, we designed and piloted an ESA decision aid intended to increase CKD and ESRD patient understanding of the potential risks and benefits of ESAs. Informed by the findings during development, the ESA decision aid was modified and finalized for testing. We will perform a randomized clinical trial to assess if administration of the ESA decision aid improves patient understanding of the risks and benefits of ESA use compared to control patients receiving standard care. Participants with either CKD or ESRD and who are receiving ESAs will be eligible for participation. The primary outcome is patients' score on the Patient Anemia Knowledge in Kidney Disease (PAKKD) survey assessed at enrollment and 3 months after. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict related to ESAs, and patient satisfaction with provider communication.The Anemia Risk Communication for patients with Kidney Disease (ARC-KD) study will assess the effectiveness of a novel ESA decision aid to improve patient understanding of ESA use to manage CKD- and ESRD-related anemia. This decision aid is the first resource targeted to improve patient understanding of anemia management in the kidney health context. With the increasing options available for anemia management, this will serve as an important foundation to evolve in the future to optimize anemia-related shared decision making.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992926 . Registered 11/14/2013.

Project description:Background and objectivesHistorically, length of pretransplant dialysis was associated with premature graft loss and mortality after kidney transplantation, but with recent advancements in RRT it is unclear whether this negative association still exists.Design, setting, participants, &measurementsThis is a retrospective cohort study evaluating 6979 first kidney allograft recipients from the Austrian Registry transplanted between 1990 and 2013. Duration of pretransplant dialysis treatment was used as categoric predictor classified by tertiles of the distribution of time on dialysis. A separate category for pre-emptive transplantation was added and defined as kidney transplantation without any dialysis preceding the transplant. Outcomes were death-censored graft loss, all-cause mortality, and the composite of both.ResultsMedian duration of follow-up was 8.2 years, and 1866 graft losses and 2407 deaths occurred during the study period. Pre-emptive transplantation was associated with a lower risk of graft loss (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.98), but not in subgroup analyses excluding living transplants and transplants performed since 2000. The association between dialysis duration and graft loss did not depend on the year of transplantation (P=0.40) or donor source (P=0.92). Longer waiting time on dialysis was not associated with a higher rate of graft loss, but the rate of death was higher in patients on pretransplant dialysis for >1.5 years (hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.43 to 1.83) compared with pretransplant dialysis for <1.5 years.ConclusionsOur findings support the evidence that pre-emptive transplantation is associated with superior graft survival compared with pretransplant dialysis, although this association was weaker in transplants performed since 2000. However, our analysis shows that length of dialysis was no longer associated with a higher rate of graft loss, although longer waiting times on dialysis were still associated with a higher rate of death.

Dataset Information

IChoose Kidney: A Clinical Decision Aid for Kidney Transplantation Versus Dialysis Treatment.

Publications

iChoose Kidney: A Clinical Decision Aid for Kidney Transplantation Versus Dialysis Treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure