Dataset Information

Assessment of Global Kidney Health Care Status.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Kidney disease is a substantial worldwide clinical and public health problem, but information about available care is limited.

Objective

To collect information on the current state of readiness, capacity, and competence for the delivery of kidney care across countries and regions of the world.

Design, setting, and participants

Questionnaire survey administered from May to September 2016 by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) to 130 ISN-affiliated countries with sampling of key stakeholders (national nephrology society leadership, policy makers, and patient organization representatives) identified by the country and regional nephrology leadership through the ISN.

Main outcomes and measures

Core areas of country capacity and response for kidney care.

Results

Responses were received from 125 of 130 countries (96%), including 289 of 337 individuals (85.8%, with a median of 2 respondents [interquartile range, 1-3]), representing an estimated 93% (6.8 billion) of the world's population of 7.3 billion. There was wide variation in country readiness, capacity, and response in terms of service delivery, financing, workforce, information systems, and leadership and governance. Overall, 119 (95%), 95 (76%), and 94 (75%) countries had facilities for hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. In contrast, 33 (94%), 16 (45%), and 12 (34%) countries in Africa had facilities for hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. For chronic kidney disease (CKD) monitoring in primary care, serum creatinine with estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria measurements were reported as always available in only 21 (18%) and 9 (8%) countries, respectively. Hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and transplantation services were funded publicly and free at the point of care delivery in 50 (42%), 48 (51%), and 46 (49%) countries, respectively. The number of nephrologists was variable and was low (<10 per million population) in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, and Oceania and South East Asia (OSEA) regions. Health information system (renal registry) availability was limited, particularly for acute kidney injury (8 countries [7%]) and nondialysis CKD (9 countries [8%]). International acute kidney injury and CKD guidelines were reportedly accessible in 52 (45%) and 62 (52%) countries, respectively. There was relatively low capacity for clinical studies in developing nations.

Conclusions and relevance

This survey demonstrated significant interregional and intraregional variability in the current capacity for kidney care across the world, including important gaps in services and workforce. Assuming the responses accurately reflect the status of kidney care in the respondent countries, the findings may be useful to inform efforts to improve the quality of kidney care worldwide.

SUBMITTER: Bello AK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5470418 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) is a multinational, cross-sectional survey designed to assess the current capacity for kidney care across all world regions. The 2017 GKHA involved 125 countries and identified significant gaps in oversight, funding and infrastructure to support care for patients with kidney disease, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Here, we report results from the survey for the second iteration of the GKHA conducted in 2018, which included specific questions about health financing and oversight of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care worldwide.SettingA cross-sectional global survey.ParticipantsKey stakeholders from 182 countries were invited to participate. Of those, stakeholders from 160 countries participated and were included.Primary outcomesPrimary outcomes included cost of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), funding for dialysis and transplantation, funding for conservative kidney management, extent of universal health coverage, out-of-pocket costs for KRT, within-country variability in ESKD care delivery and oversight systems for ESKD care. Outcomes were determined from a combination of desk research and input from key stakeholders in participating countries.Results160 countries (covering 98% of the world's population) responded to the survey. Economic factors were identified as the top barrier to optimal ESKD care in 99 countries (64%). Full public funding for KRT was more common than for conservative kidney management (43% vs 28%). Among countries that provided at least some public coverage for KRT, 75% covered all citizens. Within-country variation in ESKD care delivery was reported in 40% of countries. Oversight of ESKD care was present in all high-income countries but was absent in 13% of low-income, 3% of lower-middle-income, and 10% of upper-middle-income countries.ConclusionSignificant gaps and variability exist in the public funding and oversight of ESKD care in many countries, particularly for those in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundEarly rehospitalization (<30 days) after discharge from kidney transplantation (KT) is associated with poor outcomes. We explored summary metrics of pre-transplant health status that may improve the identification of KT recipients at risk for early rehospitalization and mortality after transplant.Materials and methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of 8,870 adult (≥ 18 years) patients on hemodialysis who received KT between 2000 and 2010 at United States transplant centers. We linked Medicare data to United Network for Organ Sharing data and data from a national dialysis provider to examine pre-KT (1) Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, (2) physical function (PF) measured by the Short Form 36 Health Survey, and (3) the number of hospitalizations during the 12 months before KT as potential predictors of early rehospitalization after KT. We also explored whether these metrics are confounders of the known association between early rehospitalization and post-transplant mortality.ResultsThe median age was 52 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41, 60) and 63% were male. 29% were rehospitalized in <30 days, and 20% died during a median follow-up time of five years (IQR 3.6-6.5). In a multivariable logistic model, kidney recipients with more pre-KT Elixhauser comorbidities (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.09 per comorbidity, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.07-1.11), the poorest pre-KT PF (aOR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.43), or >1 pre-KT hospitalizations (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17-1.49) were more likely to be rehospitalized. All three health status metrics and early rehospitalization were independently associated with post-KT mortality in a multivariable Cox model (adjusted hazard ratio for rehospitalization: 1.41, 95% CI 1.28-1.56).ConclusionsPre-transplant metrics of health status, measured by dialysis providers or administrative data, are independently associated with early rehospitalization and mortality risk after KT. Transplant providers may consider utilizing metrics of pre-KT global health status as early signals of vulnerability when transitioning care after KT.

Project description:Rational & objectiveElectronic health records can be leveraged to assess quality-of-care measures in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Neighborhood socioeconomic status could be a potential barrier to receiving appropriate evidence-based therapy and follow-up. We examined whether neighborhood socioeconomic status is independently associated with quality of care received by patients with CKD.Study designObservational study using electronic health record data.Setting & participantsRetrospective study of patients seen at a health care system in the 7-county Minneapolis/St Paul area.ExposuresCensus tract socioeconomic status measures (wealth, income, and education).OutcomesIndicators of CKD quality of care: (1) prescription for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with stage ≥ 3 CKD or stage 1 or 2 CKD with urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) > 300 mg/d, (2) UACR measurement among patients with laboratory-based CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.72 m2), and (3) CKD identified on the problem list or coded for at an encounter among patients with laboratory-based CKD.Analytic approachMultilevel Poisson regression with robust error variance with a random intercept at the census tract level.ResultsOf the 16,776 patients who should be receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, 65% were prescribed these medications. Among patients with laboratory-based CKD (n = 25,097), UACR was measured in 27% and CKD was identified in the electronic health record in 55%. We found no independent association between any neighborhood socioeconomic status measures and CKD quality-of-care indicators.Limitations1 health care system and selection bias.ConclusionsWe found no association of neighborhood socioeconomic status with quality of CKD care in our cohort. However, adherence to CKD guidelines is low, indicating an opportunity to improve care for all patients regardless of neighborhood socioeconomic status.

Project description:BackgroundIn the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status.MethodsWe assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy.ResultsHealth status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4).ConclusionsParticipants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).