Search

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) causes substantial global morbidity and increases cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Unlike other chronic diseases with established strategies for screening, there has been no consensus on whether health systems and governments should prioritize early identification and intervention for CKD. Guidelines on evaluating and managing early CKD are available but have not been universally adopted in the absence of incentives or quality measures for prioritizing CKD care. The burden of CKD falls disproportionately upon persons with lower socioeconomic status, who have a higher prevalence of CKD, limited access to treatment, and poorer outcomes. Therefore, identifying and treating CKD at the earliest stages is an equity imperative. In 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a controversies conference entitled "Early Identification and Intervention in CKD." Participants identified strategies for screening, risk stratification, and treatment for early CKD and the key health system and economic factors for implementing these processes. A consensus emerged that CKD screening coupled with risk stratification and treatment should be implemented immediately for high-risk persons and that this should ideally occur in primary or community care settings with tailoring to the local context.

Aim To explore reasons behind treatment inertia in current approaches to early cardiorenal risk management in type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods A global, web-based, quantitative panel survey of primary care physicians (PCPs) and primary care diabetes specialists treating people living with T2D. The questions covered current management of T2D, particularly the use of sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as second-/third-line therapies. Results Of 1677 respondents from 18 countries who completed the survey, 73.4% were responsible for second-/third-line therapy initiation. Two thirds had modified treatment decisions based on recent cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Respondents cited restricted access to therapies and limits on regular appointments as the greatest barriers to second-/third-line therapy prescription. Although 81.6% agreed that early intensification to second-/third-line therapies is associated with clinical benefits, 46.1% of respondents still reserve these for later lines of therapy, and 23.8% would not consider changing therapeutic approach in patients with well-controlled T2D but increasing cardiovascular risk. Conclusions Substantial barriers still prevent optimization of primary setting T2D patient care. Education programs which enable PCPs to translate CVOT evidence into clinical benefits for patients with T2D could address many of the remaining knowledge gaps identified.

Using data collected from 2 national atrial fibrillation (AF) primary care physician chart audits (Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation [FREEDOM AF] and Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [CONNECT AF]), we evaluated the frequency of, and factors associated with, the use of cardiovascular (CV) evidence-based therapies in Canadian AF outpatients with at least 1 CV risk factor or co-morbidity. Of the 11,264 patients enrolled, 9,495 (84.3%) were eligible for one or more CV evidence-based therapies. The proportions of patients with AF receiving all eligible guideline-recommended therapies were 40.8% of patients with coronary artery disease, 48.9% of patients with diabetes mellitus, 40.2% of patients with heart failure, 96.7% of patients with hypertension, and 55.1% of patients with peripheral arterial disease. Factors that were independently associated with nonreceipt of all indicated evidence-based therapies included sinus rhythm rather than AF at baseline and liver disease. In conclusion, although most Canadian outpatients with AF have CV risk factors or co-morbidities, a substantial portion of these patients did not receive all guideline-recommended therapies. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity to improve the quality of care for patients with AF in Canada.