Dataset Information

The global impact of the Coronavirus 2019 pandemic on in-centre haemodialysis services: an International Society of Nephrology -Dialysis Outcomes Practice Patterns Study survey.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on haemodialysis centres, The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and International Society of Nephrology (ISN) collaborated on a web-survey of centres.

Methods

A combined approach of random sampling and open invitation was used between March 2020 and March 2021. Responses were obtained from 412 centres in 78 countries and all 10 ISN regions.

Results

In 8 regions, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were <20% in most centres, but in North East Asia and Newly Independent States and Russia rates were ≥20% and ≥30%, respectively. Mortality was ≥10% in most centres in 8 regions, though lower in North America and Caribbean and North East Asia. Diagnostic testing was not available in 33%, 37%, and 61% of centres in Latin America, Africa, and East and Central Europe, respectively. Surgical masks were widely available, but severe shortages of particulate-air filter masks were reported in Latin America (18%) and Africa (30%). Rates of infection in staff ranged from 0% in 90% of centres in North East Asia to ≥50% in 63% of centres in the Middle East and 68% of centres in Newly Independent States and Russia. In most centres <10% of staff died, but in Africa and South Asia 2% and 6% of centres reported ≥50% mortality, respectively.

Conclusion

There has been wide global variation in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates amongst haemodialysis patients and staff, PPE availability, and testing, and the ways in which services have been redesigned in response to the pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Aylward R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8684834 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Global Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on In-Center Hemodialysis Services: An ISN-Dialysis Outcomes Practice Patterns Study Survey.

Aylward Ryan R Bieber Brian B Guedes Murilo M Pisoni Ronald R Tannor Elliot Koranteng EK Dreyer Gavin G Liew Adrian A Luyckx Valerie V Shah Dibya Singh DS Phiri Chimota C Evans Rhys R Albakr Rehab R Perl Jeffrey J Jha Vivekanand V Pecoits-Filho Roberto R Robinson Bruce B Caskey Fergus J FJ

Kidney international reports 20211213 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on hemodialysis (HD) centers, The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and ISN collaborated on a web-survey of centers.<h4>Methods</h4>A combined approach of random sampling and open invitation was used between March 2020 and March 2021. Responses were obtained from 412 centers in 78 countries and all 10 ISN regions.<h4>Results</h4>In 8 regions, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were <20% in most centers, but in North ...[more]

PMID: 34957349

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionIt is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the care of vulnerable chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients across regions, particularly in low and lower-middle income countries (LLMICs). We aimed to identify global inequities in HD care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe ISN and the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) conducted a global online survey of HD units between March and November, 2020, to ascertain practice patterns and access to resources relevant to HD care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses were categorized according to World Bank income classification for comparisons.ResultsSurveys were returned from 412 facilities in 78 countries: 15 (4%) in low-income countries (LICs), 111 (27%) in lower-middle income countries (LMICs), 145 (35%) in upper-middle income countries (UMICs), and 141 (34%) in high-income countries (HICs). Respondents reported that diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 were unavailable or of limited availability in LICs (72%) and LMICs (68%) as compared with UMICs (33%) and HICs (20%). The number of patients who missed HD treatments was reported to have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in LICs (64%) and LMICs (67%) as compared with UMICs (31%) and HICs (6%). Limited access to HD, intensive care unit (ICU) care, and mechanical ventilation among hospitalized patients on chronic dialysis with COVID-19 were also reportedly higher in LICs and LMICs as compared with UMICs and HICs. Staff in LLMICs reported less routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 when asymptomatic as compared with UMICs and HICs-14% in LICs and 11% in LMICs, compared with 26% and 28% in UMICs and HICs, respectively. Severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) were reported by the respondents from LICs and LMICs compared with UMICs and HICs, especially with respect to the use of the N95 particulate-air respirator masks.ConclusionStriking global inequities were identified in the care of chronic HD patients during the pandemic. Urgent action is required to address these inequities which disproportionately affect LLMIC settings thereby exacerbating pre-existing vulnerabilities that may contribute to poorer outcomes.

Project description:Rationale & Objective Despite α-blockers’ use for hypertension as add-on therapy in patients treated with hemodialysis, scant information is available on their association, particularly with safety, in these patients. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting & Participants patients treated with hemodialysis and receiving antihypertensive agents in the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study, phases 4-6, were analyzed. Exposure Primary exposure was the prescription of α-blocking antihypertensive agents at baseline. Outcomes Incident fractures, falls, and all-cause mortality. Analytical Approach Multivariable Cox and modified Poisson regression analysis. Results Of 5,149 patients treated with hemodialysis (mean age, 65 years; 68% men) receiving antihypertensive drugs, 717 (14%) received α-blocking agents. During a mean follow-up period of 2.0 years, 247 fractures, 525 falls, and 498 deaths occurred. Multivariable analysis showed no significant association of α-blocker use and increased risk of fractures (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.61-1.38]), falls (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.74-1.20]), or all-cause deaths (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.20]) compared with α-blocker nonuse. α-Blocker use was, however, significantly associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality in the subgroup analysis, for example, patients who were older (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.51-0.99]), were women (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.48-0.95]), or reported a history of cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48-0.95]) or a predialysis blood pressure of ≥140 mm Hg (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49-0.98]). Limitations Selection bias cannot be ruled out given the prevalent user analysis. Conclusions No significant association between α-blocker use and the risk of worse safety-related outcomes was seen, indicating that clinicians may safely prescribe α-blockers to patients receiving hemodialysis who require blood pressure lowering. Plain-Language Summary α-Blockers have been generally reserved for use as add-on therapy for resistant or refractory hypertension. However, little is known about the safety of α-blockers in patients treated by hemodialysis. We analyzed 5,149 patients receiving hemodialysis in Japan who were receiving antihypertensive drugs from the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. The results showed no significant increase in the risk of fractures, falls, or deaths for patients using α-blockers compared with those who did not, suggesting that α-blockers may be safely prescribed for patients receiving hemodialysis who need to lower their blood pressure.

Project description:BackgroundDespite clinical and lifestyle advantages of home hemodialysis (HHD) compared with in-center hemodialysis (ICHD), it remains underutilized in our province. The aim of the study was to explore the patients' perception and to identify the barriers to use of HHD in Saskatchewan, Canada.ObjectivesThe primary objective of the study was to evaluate and explore patient perceptions of HHD and to identify the obstacles for adoption of HHD in Saskatchewan. The secondary objective was to examine variations in the patients' perceptions and barriers to HHD by center (main dialysis units vs satellite dialysis units).DesignThis is a cross-sectional observational survey study.SettingTwo major centers (Regina and Saskatoon) and 5 associated satellite units attached to each center across the province of Saskatchewan.PatientsWe approached all prevalent ICHD patients across Saskatchewan, 398 agreed to participate in the study.MeasurementsSelf-reported barriers to HHD were assessed using a questionnaire.MethodsA questionnaire was designed to determine the patients' perceived barriers to HHD. Descriptive statistics was used to present the data. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the patients' responses between main and satellite units.ResultsSatisfaction with current dialysis care (91%), increase in utility bills (65%), fear of catastrophic events at home (59%), medicalization of one's home (54%), and knowledge deficits toward treatment modalities (54%) were the main barriers to HHD uptake. Compared with patients dialyzing in our main units, satellite patients chose not to pursue HHD more frequently because they had greater satisfaction with their current dialysis unit care (97% vs 87%, P < .001), felt more comfortable dialyzing under the supervision of medical staff (95% vs 86%, P < .007), could not afford additional utility costs (92% vs 45%, P < .001), were unaware of the risks and benefits of HHD (83% vs 33%, P < .001), had concerns over time commitments for training to HHD (69% vs 32%, P < .001), and had concern for family burnout (60.8% vs 40.6%, P < .001).LimitationsWe used questionnaires to quantify known barriers, and this prevents inclusion of additional barriers that individual patients may consider important. Cross-sectional data can only be used as a snapshot. Only 398 patients agreed to participate, and the results cannot be generalized to 740 prevalent HD patients. We did not capture data on demographics (age, income, and literacy level), comorbidities, and dialysis vintage, which would have been helpful in interpretation of the results.ConclusionsSatisfaction with in-center care, lack of awareness and education, specifically in the satellite population, concerns with family burnout, expenses associated with utilities, and training time will need to be addressed to increase the uptake of HHD.Trial registrationThe study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry as it did not involve any health care intervention on human participants.

Project description:IntroductionIgA nephropathy (IgAN) displays ethnic differences in disease phenotype. We aimed to examine how this common disease is managed worldwide.MethodsAn online 2-step questionnaire-based survey was conducted among nephrologists globally focusing on various management strategies used in IgAN.ResultsA total of 422 nephrologists responded to the initial survey and 339 to the follow-up survey. Of the nephrologists, 13.7% do not get MEST-C scores in biopsy reports; 97.2% of nephrologists use renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) / angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) as initial treatment. Other supportive treatments commonly employed are fish oil (43.6%) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (48.6%) with regional differences. Immunosuppression is generally (92.4%) initiated when proteinuria >1 g/d persists for ≥3 months.Main considerations for initiating immunosuppression are level of proteinuria (87.9%), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline (78.7%), lack of response to RAAS blockade (57.6%) and MEST-C score (64.9%). Corticosteroids (89.1%) are universally used as first-line immunosuppression; mycophenolate mofetil is commonly used in resistant patients (49.3%). Only 30.4% nephrologist enroll patients with persistent proteinuria >1 g/d in clinical trials. Nephrologists in Europe (63.6%), North America (56.5%), and Australia (63.6%) are more likely to do so compared to South America (31.3%) and Asia (17.2%). Only 8.1% nephrologists in lower-middle income countries (LMICs) enroll patients in clinical trials, though 40% of them are aware of such trials in their nations.ConclusionAlthough most nephrologists agree on common parameters to assess clinical severity of IgAN, use of RAAS blockade, and blood pressure control, there is heterogeneity in use of other supportive therapies and initiation of immunosuppression. There is reluctance to enroll patients in clinical trials with novel treatments, principally in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited information about the clinical and prognostic significance of patient-reported recovery time.Study designProspective cohort study.Setting & participants6,040 patients in the DOPPS (Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study).PredictorAnswer to question "How long does it take you to recover from a dialysis session?" categorized as follows: fewer than 2, 2-6, 7-12, or longer than 12 hours.Outcomes & measurementsCross-sectional and longitudinal associations between recovery time and patient characteristics, hemodialysis treatment variables, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and hospitalization and mortality.Results32% reported recovery time shorter than 2 hours; 41%, 2-6 hours; 17%, 7-12 hours; and 10%, longer than 12 hours. Using proportional odds (ordinal) logistic regression, shorter recovery time was associated with male sex, full-time employment, and higher serum albumin level. Longer recovery time was associated with older age, dialysis vintage, body mass index, diabetes, and psychiatric disorder. Greater intradialytic weight loss, longer dialysis session length, and lower dialysate sodium concentration were associated with longer recovery time. In facilities that used uniform dialysate sodium concentrations for ≥90% of patients, the adjusted OR of longer recovery time, comparing dialysate sodium concentration<140 vs 140 mEq/L, was 1.72 (95% CI, 1.37-2.16). Recovery time was correlated positively with symptoms of kidney failure and kidney disease burden score and inversely with HRQoL mental and physical component summary scores. Using Cox regression, adjusting for potential confounders not influenced by recovery time, it was associated positively with first hospitalization and mortality (adjusted HRs for recovery time>12 vs 2-6 hours 1.22 [95% CI, 1.09-1.37] and 1.47 [95% CI, 1.19-1.83], respectively).LimitationsAnswers are subjective and not supported by physiologic measurements.ConclusionsRecovery time can be used to identify patients with poorer HRQoL and higher risks of hospitalization and mortality. Interventions to reduce recovery time and possibly improve clinical outcomes, such as increasing dialysate sodium concentration, need to be tested in randomized trials.