Search

Background: Kidney failure at any age has a significant impact on quality of life (QoL) but the overall symptom burden for children and young people (CYP) is poorly described. Kidney failure has no cure and whilst transplantation is the preferred management option, it is not always possible, with patients requiring supportive care at the end of their lives. Aim: To use the literature to understand the symptom burden for CYP with kidney failure who are approaching end-of-life. Methods: Using three databases, a systematic literature review was performed to identify eligible studies to extract data on symptoms experienced in CYP aged < 21 years with kidney failure. Data extraction was completed by two authors using a pre-designed proforma. Study quality assessment was undertaken using the BMJ AXIS tool. Results: A total of 20,003 titles were screened to yielding 35 eligible studies including 2,862 CYP with chronic kidney disease (CKD), of whom 1,624 (57%) had CKD stage 5. The studies included a median of 30 (range 7–241) patients. Symptoms were subcategorised into eight groups: sleep, mental health, gastrointestinal, dermatology, ear, nose and throat (ENT), neurology, multiple symptoms, and ophthalmology. The prevalences of the most commonly reported symptoms were: restless leg syndrome 16.7–45%, sleep disordered breathing 20–46%, hypersomnia 14.3–60%, depression 12.5–67%, anxiety 5.3–34%, overall gastrointestinal symptoms 43–82.6%, nausea and vomiting 15.8–68.4%, abdominal pain 10.5–67.4%, altered appetite or anorexia 19–90%, xerosis 53.5–100%, pruritis 18.6–69%, headache 24–76.2% and ophthalmological symptoms 26%. Within each subgroup, the symptom definitions used were heterogeneous, the methods of assessment were varied and some symptoms, such as pain and constipation, were poorly represented. Conclusions: There is a marked lack of evidence relating to the symptom burden for CYP with CKD. This study highlights the high symptom prevalence, particularly in relation to sleep, mental health, headache, dermatological and gastrointestinal symptoms. There is a need for consensus recommendations on the evaluation and management of symptoms for CYP with CKD approaching end-of-life. PROSPERO ID: CRD42022346120. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The cost of spine-related pain in the United States is estimated at $134.5 billion. Spinal pain patients have multiple options when choosing healthcare providers, resulting in variable costs. Escalation of costs occurs when downstream costs are added to episode costs of care. The purpose of this review was to compare costs of chiropractic and medical management of patients with spine-related pain. Methods A Medline search was conducted from inception through October 31, 2022, for cost data on U.S. adults treated for spine-related pain. The search included economic studies, randomized controlled trials and observational studies. All studies were independently evaluated for quality and risk of bias by 3 investigators and data extraction was performed by 3 investigators. Results The literature search found 2256 citations, of which 93 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Forty-four studies were included in the review, including 26 cohort studies, 17 cost studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. All included studies were rated as high or acceptable quality. Spinal pain patients who consulted chiropractors as first providers needed fewer opioid prescriptions, surgeries, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, specialist referrals and injection procedures. Conclusion Patients with spine-related musculoskeletal pain who consulted a chiropractor as their initial provider incurred substantially decreased downstream healthcare services and associated costs, resulting in lower overall healthcare costs compared with medical management. The included studies were limited to mostly retrospective cohorts of large databases. Given the consistency of outcomes reported, further investigation with higher-level designs is warranted.

Background: The cost of spine-related pain in the United States is estimated at $134.5 billion. Spinal pain patients have multiple options when choosing healthcare providers, resulting in variable costs. Escalation of costs occurs when downstream costs are added to episode costs of care. The purpose of this review was to compare costs of chiropractic and medical management of patients with spine-related pain. Methods: A Medline search was conducted from inception through October 31, 2022, for cost data on U.S. adults treated for spine-related pain. The search included economic studies, randomized controlled trials and observational studies. All studies were independently evaluated for quality and risk of bias by 3 investigators and data extraction was performed by 3 investigators. Results: The literature search found 2256 citations, of which 93 full-text articles were screened for eligibility. Forty-four studies were included in the review, including 26 cohort studies, 17 cost studies and 1 randomized controlled trial. All included studies were rated as high or acceptable quality. Spinal pain patients who consulted chiropractors as first providers needed fewer opioid prescriptions, surgeries, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, specialist referrals and injection procedures. Conclusion: Patients with spine-related musculoskeletal pain who consulted a chiropractor as their initial provider incurred substantially decreased downstream healthcare services and associated costs, resulting in lower overall healthcare costs compared with medical management. The included studies were limited to mostly retrospective cohorts of large databases. Given the consistency of outcomes reported, further investigation with higher-level designs is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons’ patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of –1.81 points, 95% confidence interval –2.66 to –0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of –£29.99, 95% confidence interval –£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval –0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men’s lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Urinary problems among men become more common with age. Nearly one-third of all men aged > 65 years experience some urinary symptoms, which can have a substantial effect on their daily lives. Symptoms include needing to pass urine more often, urgently or during the night, and difficulties in passing urine. Men are usually diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner, and should be offered advice on controlling their symptoms themselves (e.g. lifestyle changes and exercises) before trying tablets or surgery. However, it is not known how helpful such advice is, and how general practices can effectively provide it. Thirty general practices in the West of England and Wessex took part in the study. Practices were split into two groups, with each practice providing either the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package or the practice’s usual care to all of its patients in the trial. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package included a booklet of advice to help control urinary symptoms, with a nurse or healthcare assistant directing men to relevant sections according to their symptoms, and providing follow-up contacts. We mainly assessed the benefits of the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package, compared with usual care, by using a questionnaire on urinary symptoms completed by participants. A total of 1077 men with urinary symptoms that bothered them joined the study. The main result was that men reported greater improvement in urinary symptoms with the TRIUMPH care package than with usual care, 12 months after joining the study. We also found that men receiving the TRIUMPH care package had a slight improvement in quality of life and outlook on their urinary symptoms. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients referred to hospital for treatment, the type, number and severity of side effects or cost to the NHS. Overall, the TRIUMPH care package was more effective in treating men with urinary symptoms than usual care by their general practice. Scientific summary Background Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) can relate to urinary storage or voiding. Among men, the prevalence and severity of symptoms increase with age, with a substantial impact on quality of life. The majority of men presenting with urinary symptoms are assessed and managed by their general practitioner (GP) in the first instance, with conservative therapies recommended as initial treatment. However, there is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of conservative therapies, and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Provision in primary care is variable and can be time and resource limited, and GPs require practical resources to enhance patient engagement with such interventions. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions (TRIUMPH) trial aimed to address this need in primary care. Objectives The key aim of this research was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention achieves superior symptomatic outcome, compared with usual care, for male LUTS, with a primary outcome of overall International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after consent, in a primary care setting. Secondary objectives were to compare the two trial arms with regard to: disease-specific quality of life symptomatic outcomes cost effectiveness relative harms use of NHS resources overall quality of life and general health acceptability of assessment and provision of care patients’ perception of their LUTS. Design This was a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial randomising general practice sites 1 : 1 between a care pathway based on a standardised and manualised care intervention (intervention arm) and one based on usual care (comparator arm) for men with LUTS. The trial design included an internal pilot recruitment phase of 4 months’ duration, primarily to verify feasibility of recruitment before progression to the main phase of the trial. Setting Thirty general practice sites were recruited within nine Clinical Commissioning Groups across the West of England and Wessex Clinical Research Network (CRN) regions in the UK. Participants were identified and recruited from these sites. Participants General Practice Recruitment The CRNs invited general practices to express an interest in taking part in the study. To achieve a balanced range of practices, the following factors were considered in practice selection: number of potentially eligible patients, on conduct of a preliminary database search patient list size deprivation score (calculated using a general practice’s postcode) preference for method of intervention delivery (by practice staff or trial research nurses) treatment room space available for intervention delivery. Participating sites underwent site initiation training. An internal pilot phase was conducted with eight initial sites over a period of 4 months before the main phase of the trial. Participant recruitment This was a pragmatic trial in adult men who considered themselves to have bothersome LUTS and who had presented to primary care within the preceding 5 years with at least one symptom of LUTS. Only men already known to have LUTS (prevalent cases) were screened for inclusion in the trial. Screening was undertaken once by each site pre randomisation, so men newly presenting with LUTS (incident cases) after site randomisation were not included. Interventions Practices were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TRIUMPH intervention or a usual-care pathway. The TRIUMPH intervention comprises a LUTS advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons’ patient information sheets, with patient and expert input, providing the standardised element. Practices in the intervention arm could choose whether the intervention was delivered by central study research nurses or general practice nurses/healthcare assistants (HCAs), who received a 1-hour training session. Patients were directed to relevant sections by the nurses/HCA following symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional (HCP) provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to encourage adherence. Usual care (the comparator arm for the TRIUMPH trial) in this study requested that sites continue to follow their standard local practice for trial patients in terms of delivery and follow-up. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the patient-reported IPSS at 12 months after consent. Key secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient-reported urinary symptoms, adverse events, referrals to secondary care, patient perception of their LUTS, cost effectiveness, number of GP consultations and a qualitative evaluation of patients’ experiences of the intervention. Patient-reported outcomes were collected by questionnaire at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Other clinical outcomes and NHS resource use were extracted from primary care electronic medical records a minimum of 1 month after the final participant at each site had completed the 12-month follow-up. Qualitative interviews were conducted throughout the trial. Results The trial was successful in meeting general practice site recruitment targets, and participant recruitment exceeded that anticipated. In total, 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A total of 887 patients (82%) were included in the primary analysis at 12 months post consent. The treatment groups were broadly balanced on baseline characteristics, but the primary outcome measure (IPSS) was slightly lower in the intervention arm than in the usual-care arm (intervention: 13.62 points; usual care: 14.59 points). The intervention was successfully delivered: 98% of men received their intervention booklet and 90% had all three contacts forming the intervention. The primary outcome analysis found that, although there was a reduction in IPSS between baseline and 12 months in both arms, suggesting improved symptoms, symptom improvement was greater in the intervention arm [–1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.66 to –0.95]. The difference was smaller than the difference we sought to detect in the sample size calculation of 2 points in overall IPSS, and the minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. The improvement in IPSS, however, was mirrored by improvements in the secondary outcomes of incontinence (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence-Short Form), IPSS quality-of-life measures and patients’ perception of their LUTS (measured using the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire). The primary analysis estimates were robust to ways of accounting for clustering and multiple imputation of missing data. High levels of adherence to intervention delivery meant that per-protocol analyses largely reflected the primary analysis. Although there was no strong evidence that the treatment effect was modified by the nature of LUTS at baseline, by who delivered the intervention or by how contact was delivered in the intervention, a post hoc analysis suggests that the treatment effect may have been stronger in the pre-COVID period. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In terms of the health economic analysis, from an NHS perspective, costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar across both trial arms. Compared with the usual-care arm, the intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of –£29.99, 95% CI –£109.84 to £22.63) and a small gain in QALYs (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% CI –0.011 to 0.014). Two sensitivity analyses adjusting for missing data reversed this finding, reflecting the similar costs and outcomes between the two arms. Overall, the results of the economic evaluation indicate that the costs should not be seen as a limiting factor for the roll-out of the TRIUMPH intervention. Qualitative interviews indicated that many men in both intervention and usual-care arms lived with distressing LUTS for long periods without seeking help. Men tolerated symptoms they portrayed as mundane and inevitable parts of ageing, unworthy of clinical attention, unless severe enough to warrant often unpalatable medication or surgery. Mostly men were unaware that a range of self-management techniques existed and might offer support. In this context, men in the intervention arm strongly welcomed the guidance offered. Men appreciated the accessibility of the booklet, the targeted self-management techniques offered, the interest in their neglected LUTS, the HCP meeting and follow-up contact. Men in the intervention arm reported not only symptom improvement, but also better understanding and a renewed sense of self-efficacy in relation to their symptom management, and an accompanying erosion of the stigma that entangled notions of age, LUTS and inevitable irredeemable bodily decline. Men reported feeling both better able to take action to redress symptoms and more cheerful about their LUTS (and, more broadly, about ageing). Men in the usual-care arm continued to live with distressing symptoms with resigned tolerance. Interviews with both trial participants and GPs in participating practices indicated that self-management guidance for LUTS is currently insufficiently embedded within primary care consultations. Despite describing their contact with primary care positively, men rarely recalled being offered in-depth, structured self-help guidance; men in the usual-care arm remained unfamiliar with the guidance, despite enduring LUTS. Men tended to visit their GP when symptoms were alarming or severe, which may explain why GP encounters often focused on prostate cancer concerns, or moved quickly to medication, forgoing detailed self-management discussions. Most men, and also some GPs, associated pelvic floor exercises with women’s, but not men’s, LUTS. As a result, interviews provided strong grounds for making the intervention guidance routinely available within primary care, to better meet clinical recommendations promoting conservative care for men with LUTS and to better support men’s knowledge and understanding both of their symptoms and of self-management approaches, and to alleviate distressing and neglected symptoms. The strengths of the trial include recruitment to target and excellent follow-up rates, with a clustered trial design to reduce contamination, resulting in informative and robust conclusions. The primary outcome was also intentionally timed to allow the longer-term benefit of the TRIUMPH intervention to be captured, at 12 months post consent, following a 12-week intervention delivery. Sustained benefit was identified, which can be an issue in the longer-term effectiveness of lifestyle and conservative interventions. The limitations of the trial include the necessity of the trial participants being unmasked. In addition, the trial population had only a small number of non-white men, and included only those who had previously sought help from their GP for their LUTS, so may not apply to all men with LUTS. A potential limitation is that sites recruiting to the usual-care arm would potentially have developed renewed awareness of the condition and the current approaches to management as a result of participating in the study. Potentially, this would decrease the observed differences between randomised groups, given that there was some improvement in the usual-care arm in the primary outcome. Conclusions The TRIUMPH intervention showed a sustained benefit for men’s LUTS and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Although the effect sizes were small, qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. The findings show the potential for a short training process to enable nurses or HCA to assess patients and direct them towards appropriate conservative measures in a standardised information booklet. This delivers improved symptoms at low cost, with minimal adverse events. The potential for the same intervention to achieve symptom improvement in incident patients, or for GPs to screen for LUTS to offer the intervention, should be considered. The implications of outcomes in a more diverse population of men need to be evaluated. Trial registration The trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Purpose: To identify how pre-surgical conservative care is characterized and reported in randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion, including duration and type of treatment. Methods: The study design is a scoping review. Data sources include PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All randomized controlled trials published in English between January 1, 2005, and February 15, 2022, assessing lumbar fusion as the intervention were included in this review. Results: Of 166 studies, 62.0% reported a failure in conservative care prior to lumbar fusion, but only 15.1% detailed the type of specific conservative care received. None of the trials provided sufficient details to understand the nature of the pre-surgical conservative treatment, such as frequency, recency/timing, or dosage of conservative interventions. Conclusion: Although roughly two-thirds of trials reported that patients failed conservative care prior to receiving a lumbar fusion, few studies named the conservative intervention provided and no studies provided any details regarding dosing or recency of care. This lack of information creates ambiguity in the surgical decision-making process, setting the assumption that all patients received adequate conservative care prior to surgery. Details about pre-surgical conservative care should be disclosed to allow for appropriate clinical application, decision-making, and interpretation of treatment effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are managed with dialysis and less commonly kidney transplantation. However, not all are suitable for or desire either of these renal replacement therapies. Conservative management (CM) is an option. However, the selection of CM is often not easy for patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the key factors that influence the selection of CM for ESRD. Methods Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL Plus were systematically searched from inception to 10 September 2021. Titles/abstracts and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers. Reference lists of included articles were searched. An update search via PubMed was conducted on 10 August 2023. A narrative synthesis of review findings was conducted. Results At the end of the screening process, 15 qualitative and 8 survey articles were selected. Reference checking yielded no additional relevant studies. Main themes were: (i) Patient-specific factors; (ii) Clinician-specific factors; (iii) Organisational factors; and (iv) National and international factors. Patient-specific factors were awareness and perceptions of CM and dialysis, beliefs about survival, preferred treatment outcomes and influence of family/caregivers and clinicians. Clinician-specific factors included perceptions of CM as 'non-intervention', perceptions of clinician role in the decision-making process, and confidence and ability to initiate sensitive treatment discussions. Relationships with and involvement of other healthcare professionals, time constraints, and limited clinical guidance were also important factors. Conclusions An improvement in the provision of education regarding CM for patients, caregivers, and clinicians is essential. Robust studies are required to generate crucial evidence for the development of stronger recommendations and guidance for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction After decades of increasing dialysis incidence, we observed a decreasing trend in the Netherlands in the last decade. We compared this trend with trends in other European countries. Materials and Methods Aggregated data for calendar years 2001–2019 from the Dutch registries of kidney replacement therapy patients and the European Renal Association Registry were used. Dialysis incidence in the Netherlands was compared with that in 11 other European countries/regions using three age groups: 20–64, 65–74, and ≥75 years, taking into account pre-emptive kidney transplantation (PKT) incidence. Time trends were assessed as annual percentage change (APC) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using joinpoint regression analysis. Results Between 2001 and 2019 the Dutch dialysis incidence decreased slightly among patients aged 20–64 years (APC −0.9, 95% CI −1.4; −0.5). For patients 65–74 and ≥75 years old, a peak was seen in 2004 and 2009, respectively. Afterwards, the decrease was most marked in patients aged ≥75 years: APC −3.2 (−4.1; −2.3) versus APC −1.8 (−2.2; −1.3) for patients 65–74 years old. PKT incidence increased significantly during the study period but remained limited compared to the observed decrease in dialysis incidence, especially among older patients. Large differences in dialysis incidence were observed among European countries/regions. A decreasing dialysis incidence among older patients was also seen in Austria, Denmark, England/Wales, Finland, Scotland, and Sweden. Conclusions The Dutch dialysis incidence decreased most profoundly among older patients. This was also observed in several other European countries/regions. Although PKT incidence increased, it can only explain a minor part of the decrease in dialysis incidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Spinal disorders are amongst the conditions with the highest burden of disease. To limit the increase of healthcare-related costs in the ageing population, the selection of different types of care for patients with spinal disorders should be optimized. The first step is to investigate the characteristics of these patients and the relationship with treatment. Research Question: The primary aim of this study was to provide insights in the characteristics, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of patients referred to a specialized spinal health care centre. The secondary aim was to perform an in-depth analysis of resource utilization for a representative subgroup of patients. Methods: This study describes the characteristics of 4855 patients referred to a secondary spine centre. Moreover, an extensive analysis of a representative subgroup of patients (~20%) is performed. Results: The mean age was 58.1, 56% of patients were female, and the mean BMI was 28. In addition, 28% of patients used opioids. Mean self-reported health status was 53.3 (EuroQol 5D Visual Analogue Scale), and pain ranged from 5.8 to 6.7 (Visual Analogue Scale neck/back/arm/leg). Additional imaging was received by 67.7% of patients. Surgical treatment was indicated for 4.9% of patients. The majority (83%) of non-surgically treated patients received out-of-hospital treatment; 25% of patients received no additional imaging or in-hospital treatment. Conclusion: The vast majority of patients received non-surgical treatments. We observed that ~10% of patients did not receive in-hospital imaging or treatment and had acceptable or good questionnaire scores at the time of referral. These findings suggest that there is potential for improvement in efficacy of referral, diagnosis, and treatment. Future studies should aim to develop an evidence base for improved patient selection for clinical pathways. The efficacy of chosen treatments requires investigation of large cohorts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle-income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.

Abstract Background Diagnostic testing and treatment recommendations can vary when medical care is sought by individuals for low back pain (LBP), leading to variation in quality and costs of care. We examine how the first provider seen by an individual at initial diagnosis of LBP influences downstream utilization and costs. Methods Using national private health insurance claims data, individuals age 18 or older were retrospectively assigned to cohorts based on the first provider seen at the index date of LBP diagnosis. Exclusion criteria included individuals with a diagnosis of LBP or any serious medical conditions or an opioid prescription recorded in the 6 months prior to the index date. Outcome measures included use of imaging, back surgery rates, hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, early- and long-term opioid use, and costs (out-of-pocket and total costs of care) twelve months post-index date. We used a two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) estimation approach comparing copay for the initial provider visit and differential distance as the instrumental variable to reduce selection bias in the choice of first provider, controlling for demographics. Results Among 3,799,593 individuals, cost and utilization varied considerably based on the first provider seen by the patient. Copay and differential distance provided similar results, with copay preserving a greater sample size. The frequency of early opioid prescription was significantly lower when care began with an acupuncturist or chiropractor, and highest for those who began with an emergency medicine physician or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN). Long-term opioid prescriptions were low across most providers except physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians and APRNs. The frequency and time to serious illness varied little across providers. Total cost of care was lowest when starting with a chiropractor ($5093) or primary care physician ($5660), and highest when starting with an orthopedist ($9434) or acupuncturist ($9205). Conclusion The first provider seen by individuals with LBP was associated with large differences in health care utilization, opioid prescriptions, and cost while there were no differences in delays in diagnosis of serious illness.

Abstract An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient’s values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient’s perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient’s relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

Background Conservative care is increasingly considered an alternative to kidney replacement therapy for kidney failure management, mostly among the elderly. We investigated its status and the barriers to its implementation from patients' and providers' perspectives. Methods We analysed data from 1204 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2] enrolled at 40 nationally representative nephrology clinics (2013–16) who completed a self-administered questionnaire about the information they received and their preferred treatment option, including conservative care, if their kidneys failed. Nephrologists (n  = 137) also reported data about their clinics' resources and practices regarding conservative care. Results All participating facilities reported they were routinely able to offer conservative care, but only 37% had written protocols and only 5% had a person or team primarily responsible for it. Overall, 6% of patients were estimated to use conservative care. Among nephrologists, 82% reported they were fairly or extremely comfortable discussing conservative care, but only 28% usually or always offered this option for older (>75 years) patients approaching kidney failure. They used various terminology for this care, with conservative management and non-dialysis care mentioned most often. Among patients, 5% of those >75 years reported receiving information about this option and 2% preferring it. Conclusions Although reported by nephrologists to be widely available and easily discussed, conservative care is only occasionally offered to older patients, most of whom report they were not informed of this option. The lack of a person or team responsible for conservative care and unclear information appear to be key barriers to its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrating the family of patients with kidney failure on comprehensive conservative care could benefit patients, families, and the health care system. However, there is a knowledge gap in this phenomenon since no systematic review has focused on the families' needs who care for individuals with kidney failure on comprehensive conservative care. Objectives: To understand the primary needs of families who care for people with kidney failure on comprehensive conservative care. Method: A systematic literature review of qualitative studies, followed by a content analysis was carried out. PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were used to search for articles published in English and Spanish between 2010 and 2021. The ENTREQ guideline was used for reporting. Results: Five relevant studies were included in this study. The analysis has allowed identifying key aspects of knowledge, psychological, social and spiritual needs of family members of patients with kidney failure on comprehensive conservative care. Conclusions: This systematic review has revealed that families experience a lack of information and continuity of care by health care professionals. Added to this is the psychological burden they bear due to the feeling of indefinite care in time and uncertainty about the death of their loved one. All this, without the necessary support from their immediate family environment and social institutions. In light of these data, a paradigm shift in society and the health care received by these families is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) treatment usually involves immediate consultation for surgical management. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 64-year-old woman exhibiting a 6-monthold progressive low back pain associated with motor weakness (right psoas and quadriceps), hyporeflexia (right patellar, left hamstring, and bilateral Achilles tendons) hypoesthesia on the L2-3 dermatome, and sexual and bowel dysfunction. The patient was referred for a neurosurgical consultation. Surgery was not considered at this time, and the patient was referred to the universitybased chiropractic clinic. OUTCOME AND FOLLOW-UP: After 22 treatments, the patient reported a self-perceived percentage percentage of improvement of 80%, a verbal numeric pain-rating scale at 2/10 and a 22% Oswestry score. Her bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, and perineal numbness were resolved. DISCUSSION: We aim to work in collaboration with surgical teams to conduct shared decisionmaking with patients and offer conservative care for CES if deemed safe and appropriate. Future research should contribute to the identification of CES cases that might benefit from conservative care when surgery is not considered an immediate option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This 3-year multicentre randomised controlled trial compared, in 6-7-year-old Colombian children, the effectiveness of the ICCMS (International Caries Classification and Management System) with a conventional caries-management system (CCMS) in terms of individual caries-risk, caries lesions, and secondarily, oral-health-related knowledge/attitudes/practices, and number of appointments. With ethical approval, 240 6–7-year olds from six Colombian clinics were recruited. Trained examiners conducted the following baseline/follow-up assessments: Caries risk (Cariogram-ICCMS); caries severity/activity staging (ICDAS-merged combined radiographic/visual); sealants/fillings/missing teeth, and oral-health-related knowledge, attitudes and practices. Children received their randomly allocated (ICCMS/CCMS) care from dental practitioners. Outcomes: caries-risk control (children); caries-progression control (tooth surfaces); oral-health-related knowledge/attitudes/practices improvement (parents/children), and appointments' number (children). Descriptive and non-parametric/parametric bivariate analyses were performed. Three-year-follow-up: n = 187 (77.9%; ICCMS: n = 92; CCMS: n = 95) disclosed a baseline-to-3-year overall high-caries-risk children decrease (ICCMS: 60.9–0%, p <.001; CCMS: 54.7–5.3%, p <.001) (p >.05). ICCMS versus CCMS showed: fewer tooth-surface caries progression (6.2% vs 7.1%, p =.010) and fewer active-caries lesions (49.8% vs. 59.1%, p <.05); higher proportion of children with ≥2/day fluoride-toothpaste tooth-brushing practice (p <.05); similar mean number of appointments (10.9 ± 5.9 vs. 10.0 ± 3.8, p =.15). Both caries-management systems showed similar effectiveness in caries-risk control, with ICCMS more effectively controlling tooth-surface caries progression and improving toothbrushing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a treatment option for patients with kidney failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at comparing survival outcomes between dialysis and CC in studies where patients made an explicit treatment choice. Methods Five databases were systematically searched from origin through 25 February 2021 for studies comparing survival outcomes among patients choosing dialysis versus CC. Adjusted and unadjusted survival rates were extracted and meta-analysis performed where applicable. Risk of bias analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. Results A total of 22 cohort studies were included covering 21 344 patients. Most studies were prone to selection bias and confounding. Patients opting for dialysis were generally younger and had fewer comorbid conditions, fewer functional impairments and less frailty than patients who chose CC. The unadjusted median survival from treatment decision or an estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 ranged from 20 and 67 months for dialysis and 6 and 31 months for CC. Meta-analysis of 12 studies that provided adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality showed a pooled adjusted HR of 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.39–0.57) for patients choosing dialysis compared with CC. In subgroups of patients with older age or severe comorbidities, the reduction of mortality risk remained statistically significant, although analyses were unadjusted. Conclusions Patients opting for dialysis have an overall lower mortality risk compared with patients opting for CC. However, a high risk of bias and heterogeneous reporting preclude definitive conclusions and results cannot be translated to an individual level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundDespite a growing body of literature suggesting that dialysis does not confer morbidity or mortality benefits for all patients with chronic kidney failure, the initiation and continuation of dialysis therapy in patients with poor prognosis is commonplace. Our goal was to elicit nephrologists' perspectives on factors that affect decision making regarding end-stage renal disease.Study designSemistructured, individual, qualitative interviews.MethodologyParticipants were purposively sampled based on age, race, sex, geographic location, and practice type. Each was asked about his or her perspectives and experiences related to foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy.Analytical approachInterviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using narrative and thematic analysis.ResultsWe conducted 59 semistructured interviews with nephrologists from the United States (n=41) and England (n=18). Most participants were 45 years or younger, men, and white. Average time since completing nephrology training was 14.2±11.6 (SD) years. Identified system-level facilitators and barriers for foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy stemmed from national and institutional policies and structural factors, how providers practice medicine (the culture of medicine), and beliefs and behaviors of the public (societal culture). In both countries, the predominant barriers described included lack of training in end-of-life conversations and expectations for aggressive care among non-nephrologists and the general public. Primary differences included financial incentives to dialyze in the United States and widespread outpatient conservative management programs in England.LimitationsParticipants' views may not fully capture those of all American or English nephrologists.ConclusionsNephrologists in the United States and England identified several system-level factors that both facilitated and interfered with decision making around foregoing and withdrawing dialysis therapy. Efforts to expand facilitators while reducing barriers could lead to care practices more in keeping with patient prognosis.

Abstract Background Comprehensive caries care has shown effectiveness in controlling caries progression and improving health outcomes by controlling caries risk, preventing initial-caries lesions progression, and patient satisfaction. To date, the caries-progression control effectiveness of the patient-centred risk-based CariesCare International (CCI) system, derived from ICCMS™ for the practice (2019), remains unproven. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic a previously planned multi-centre RCT shifted to this “Caries OUT” study, aiming to assess in a single-intervention group in children, the caries-control effectiveness of CCI adapted for the pandemic with non-aerosols generating procedures (non-AGP) and reducing in-office time. Methods In this 1-year multi-centre single-group interventional trial the adapted-CCI effectiveness will be assessed in one single group in terms of tooth-surface level caries progression control, and secondarily, individual-level caries progression control, children’s oral-health behaviour change, parents’ and dentists’ process acceptability, and costs exploration. A sample size of 258 3–5 and 6–8 years old patients was calculated after removing half from the previous RCT, allowing for a 25% dropout, including generally health children (27 per centre). The single-group intervention will be the adapted-CCI 4D-cycle caries care, with non-AGP and reduced in-office appointments’ time. A trained examiner per centre will conduct examinations at baseline, at 5–5.5 months (3 months after basic management), 8.5 and 12 months, assessing the child’s CCI caries risk and oral-health behaviour, visually staging and assessing caries-lesions severity and activity without air-drying (ICDAS-merged Epi); fillings/sealants; missing/dental-sepsis teeth, and tooth symptoms, synthetizing together with parent and external-trained dental practitioner (DP) the patient- and tooth-surface level diagnoses and personalised care plan. DP will deliver the adapted-CCI caries care. Parents’ and dentists’ process acceptability will be assessed via Treatment-Evaluation-Inventory questionnaires, and costs in terms of number of appointments and activities. Twenty-one centres in 13 countries will participate. Discussion The results of Caries OUT adapted for the pandemic will provide clinical data that could help support shifting the caries care in children towards individualised oral-health behaviour improvement and tooth-preserving care, improving health outcomes, and explore if the caries progression can be controlled during the pandemic by conducting non-AGP and reducing in-office time. Trial registration: Retrospectively-registered-ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04666597-07/12/2020: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AGM4&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00019IE&ts=2&cx=uwje3h . Protocol-version 2: 27/01/2021.

Sickle cell anemia is an autosomal recessive disorder resulting from insertion of the valine codon at position sixth of beta-hemoglobin gene instead of glutamate leading to the production of insoluble beta-hemoglobin chain. Although sickle anemia is mostly associated with bone pain and anemia, other manifestations also occur. Acute head syndrome is an uncommon complication resulting from skull bone infarction, cortical osteopenia, and rupture of tortuous periosteal blood vessels leading to extravasation of blood into the subgaleal space. This report therefore intends to create awareness that nontraumatic scalp swelling is an uncommon complication in sickle cell disease and no traditional practice or surgical excision should be employed in managing it.

Background: Diagnostic testing and treatment recommendations can vary when medical care is sought by individuals for low back pain (LBP), leading to variation in quality and costs of care. We examine how the first provider seen by an individual at initial diagnosis of LBP influences downstream utilization and costs.Methods: Using national private health insurance claims data, individuals age 18 or older were retrospectively assigned to cohorts based on the first provider seen at the index date of LBP diagnosis. Exclusion criteria included individuals with a diagnosis of LBP or any serious medical conditions or an opioid prescription recorded in the 6 months prior to the index date. Outcome measures included use of imaging, back surgery rates, hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, early- and long-term opioid use, and costs (out-of-pocket and total costs of care) twelve months post-index date. We used a two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) estimation approach comparing copay for the initial provider visit and differential distance as the instrumental variable to reduce selection bias in the choice of first provider, controlling for demographics.Results: Among 3,799,593 individuals, cost and utilization varied considerably based on the first provider seen by the patient. Copay and differential distance provided similar results, with copay preserving a greater sample size. The frequency of early opioid prescription was significantly lower when care began with an acupuncturist or chiropractor, and highest for those who began with an emergency medicine physician or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN). Long-term opioid prescriptions were low across most providers except physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians and APRNs. The frequency and time to serious illness varied little across providers. Total cost of care was lowest when starting with a chiropractor ($5093) or primary care physician ($5660), and highest when starting with an orthopedist ($9434) or acupuncturist ($9205).Conclusion: The first provider seen by individuals with LBP was associated with large differences in health care utilization, opioid prescriptions, and cost while there were no differences in delays in diagnosis of serious illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient's values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient's perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient's relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background To measure health-related and care-related quality of life among informal caregivers of older people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and to determine the association between caregiver quality of life and care recipient’s treatment type. Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Three renal units in the UK and Australia were included. Informal caregivers of people aged ≥75 years with ESKD managed with dialysis or comprehensive conservative non-dialytic care (estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) ≤10 mL/min/1.73m2) participated. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using Short-Form six dimensions (SF-6D, 0–1 scale) and care-related quality of life was assessed using the Carer Experience Scale (CES, 0–100 scale). Linear regression assessed associations between care-recipient treatment type, caregiver characteristics and the SF-6D utility index and CES scores. Results Of 63 caregivers, 49 (78%) were from Australia, 26 (41%) cared for an older person managed with dialysis, and 37 (59%) cared for an older person managed with comprehensive conservative care. Overall, 73% were females, and the median age of the entire cohort was 76 years [IQR 68–81]. When adjusted for caregiver sociodemographic characteristics, caregivers reported significantly worse carer experience (CES score 15.73, 95% CI 5.78 to 25.68) for those managing an older person on dialysis compared with conservative care. However, no significant difference observed for carer HRQoL (SF-6D utility index − 0.08, 95% CI − 0.18 to 0.01) for those managing an older person on dialysis compared with conservative care. Conclusions Our data suggest informal caregivers of older people on dialysis have significantly worse care-related quality of life (and therefore greater need for support) than those managed with comprehensive conservative care. It is important to consider the impact on caregivers’ quality of life when considering treatment choices for their care recipients.

Abstract Background The Personalised Knee Improvement Programme (P-KIP) was developed based on previously published work, with the hypothesis that surgeons would refer patients to a well-structured conservative management intervention instead of for arthroscopy (de-implementation of arthroscopy by substitution with P-KIP). This meets NICE guidelines and international recommendations but such programmes are not widely used in the UK. Our aim was to determine whether P-KIP would reduce the number of arthroscopies performed for knee osteoarthritis. Methods P-KIP is a conservative care pathway including a group education session followed by individually tailored one-to-one dietician and physiotherapy sessions. Virtual clinic follow-up is conducted three to 6 months after completion of the programme. The service began in July 2015. The number of arthroscopies saved, measured from hospital level coding data, is the primary outcome measure. Interrupted time series analysis of coding data was conducted. As a quality assurance process, patient reported outcome measures (Oxford Knee Score; Euroqol 5D) were collected at baseline and at follow up. Results Time series analysis demonstrates that the programme saved 15.4 arthroscopies a month (95% confidence interval 9–21; p

BackgroundA shared decision-making tool could help elderly patients with advanced chronic kidney disease decide about initiating dialysis therapy. Because mortality may be high in the first few months after initiating dialysis therapy, incorporating early mortality predictors in such a tool would be important for an informed decision. Our objective is to derive and validate a predictive risk score for early mortality after initiating dialysis therapy.Study designRetrospective observational cohort, with development and validation cohorts.Setting & participantsUS Renal Data System and claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for 69,441 (aged ≥67 years) patients with end-stage renal disease with a previous 2-year Medicare history who initiated dialysis therapy from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010.Candidate predictorsDemographics, predialysis care, laboratory data, functional limitations, and medical history.OutcomesAll-cause mortality in the first 3 and 6 months.Analytical approachPredicted mortality by logistic regression.ResultsThe simple risk score (total score, 0-9) included age (0-3 points), low albumin level, assistance with daily living, nursing home residence, cancer, heart failure, and hospitalization (1 point each), and showed area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)=0.69 in the validation sample. A comprehensive risk score with additional predictors was also developed (with AUROC=0.72, high concordance between predicted vs observed risk). Mortality probabilities were estimated from these models, with the median score of 3 indicating 12% risk in 3 months and 20% in 6 months, and the highest scores (≥8) indicating 39% risk in 3 months and 55% in 6 months.LimitationsPatients who did not choose dialysis therapy and did not have a 2-year Medicare history were excluded.ConclusionsRoutinely available information can be used by patients with chronic kidney disease, families, and their nephrologists to estimate the risk of early mortality after dialysis therapy initiation, which may facilitate informed decision making regarding treatment options.

Background Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a viable alternative to maintenance dialysis for selected older patients to treat end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). This systematic review compares both treatment pathways on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms, which are major outcomes for patients and clinicians when deciding on preferred treatment. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus and PsycINFO from inception to 1 October 2019 for studies comparing patient-reported HRQoL outcomes or symptoms between patients who chose either CC or dialysis for ESKD. Results Eleven observational cohort studies were identified comprising 1718 patients overall. There were no randomized controlled trials. Studies were susceptible to selection bias and confounding. In most studies, patients who chose CC were older and had more comorbidities and worse functional status than patients who chose dialysis. Results were broadly consistent across studies, despite considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Patient-reported physical health outcomes and symptoms appeared to be worse in patients who chose CC compared with patients who chose dialysis but had not yet started, but similar compared with patients on dialysis. Mental health outcomes were similar between patients who chose CC or dialysis, including before and after dialysis start. In patients who chose dialysis, the burden of kidney disease and impact on daily life increased after dialysis start. Conclusions The available data, while heterogeneous, suggest that in selected older patients, CC has the potential to achieve similar HRQoL and symptoms compared with a dialysis pathway. High-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these provisional findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comprehensive caries care has shown effectiveness in controlling caries progression and improving health outcomes by controlling caries risk, preventing initial-caries lesions progression, and patient satisfaction. To date, the caries-progression control effectiveness of the patient-centred risk-based CariesCare International (CCI) system, derived from ICCMS™ for the practice (2019), remains unproven. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic a previously planned multi-centre RCT shifted to this "Caries OUT" study, aiming to assess in a single-intervention group in children, the caries-control effectiveness of CCI adapted for the pandemic with non-aerosols generating procedures (non-AGP) and reducing in-office time. Methods: In this 1-year multi-centre single-group interventional trial the adapted-CCI effectiveness will be assessed in one single group in terms of tooth-surface level caries progression control, and secondarily, individual-level caries progression control, children's oral-health behaviour change, parents' and dentists' process acceptability, and costs exploration. A sample size of 258 3–5 and 6–8 years old patients was calculated after removing half from the previous RCT, allowing for a 25% dropout, including generally health children (27 per centre). The single-group intervention will be the adapted-CCI 4D-cycle caries care, with non-AGP and reduced in-office appointments' time. A trained examiner per centre will conduct examinations at baseline, at 5–5.5 months (3 months after basic management), 8.5 and 12 months, assessing the child's CCI caries risk and oral-health behaviour, visually staging and assessing caries-lesions severity and activity without air-drying (ICDAS-merged Epi); fillings/sealants; missing/dental-sepsis teeth, and tooth symptoms, synthetizing together with parent and external-trained dental practitioner (DP) the patient- and tooth-surface level diagnoses and personalised care plan. DP will deliver the adapted-CCI caries care. Parents' and dentists' process acceptability will be assessed via Treatment-Evaluation-Inventory questionnaires, and costs in terms of number of appointments and activities. Twenty-one centres in 13 countries will participate. Discussion: The results of Caries OUT adapted for the pandemic will provide clinical data that could help support shifting the caries care in children towards individualised oral-health behaviour improvement and tooth-preserving care, improving health outcomes, and explore if the caries progression can be controlled during the pandemic by conducting non-AGP and reducing in-office time. Trial registration: Retrospectively-registered-ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT04666597-07/12/2020: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AGM4&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00019IE&ts=2&cx=uwje3h. Protocol-version 2: 27/01/2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared decision making in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires unbiased information on survival and person-centred outcomes known to matter to patients: quality of life, symptom burden and support from family and healthcare professionals. To date, when deciding between dialysis and conservative care, patients have had to rely on evidence from small observational studies. Clinicians recognize that like is not being compared with like in these studies, and interpret the results differently. Furthermore, support differs considerably between renal units. What patients choose therefore depends on which renal unit they attend. To address this, a programme of work has been underway in the UK. After reports on survival and symptoms from a small number of renal units, a national, mixed-methods study—the Conservative Kidney Management Assessment of Practice Patterns Study—mapped out conservative care practices and attitudes in the UK. This led to the Prepare for Kidney Care study, a randomized controlled trial comparing preparation for dialysis versus preparation for conservative care. Although powered to detect a positivist 0.345 difference in quality-adjusted life years between the two treatments, this trial also takes a realist approach with a range of person-centred secondary outcomes and embedded qualitative research. To understand generalizability, it is nested in an observational cohort study, which is nested in a CKD registry. Challenges to recruitment and retention have been rapidly identified and addressed using an established embedded mixed methods approach—the QuinteT recruitment intervention. This review considers the background to and progress with recruitment to the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Kinesiology taping is a common intervention used to treat individuals with shoulder pain. While there have been several studies published to date evaluating the effectiveness of this intervention, a systematic review with meta-analysis synthesizing the collective effectiveness of kinesiology taping is not available. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and treatment fidelity of kinesiology taping (KT) in combination with conservative interventions for shoulder pain. Methods Databases (PubMed, EMBASE, SportDiscus, CINAHL) of studies published in English meeting criteria were searched to October 2019. Methodologic quality was assessed utilizing the Modified Downs and Black checklist. Treatment fidelity was evaluated using a modified fidelity tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed when an outcome (disability, pain, range of motion (ROM)) was reported by two or more studies. Overall effect size (pooled random effects) was estimated for studies with acceptable clinical homogeneity. Results When KT was used with conservative treatments, meta-analysis revealed large effect sizes for improvements in disability (standard mean difference (SMD) = -1.35; 95% CI, -2.09 to -0.60) and ROM (SMD = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.60-1.33) with no significant effects for pain. The average Modified Downs & Black score for bias was 11.5 ± 3.9. Of 10 retained studies, only two had good treatment fidelity. Conclusions Adding KT to interventions performed in clinical settings appears to demonstrate efficacy regarding disability and ROM when compared to conservative interventions alone. However, despite reasonably good methodologic quality, fidelity was lacking in a majority of studies. Because of its impact on the implementation of evidence-based practice, lower fidelity should be considered when interpreting results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a rise in burden of end-stage renal disease globally and in India. The symptom burden, prognosis, and mortality in chronic kidney disease closely mimics that of cancer. However, the palliative and end of life care needs of these patients are seldom addressed. A consensus opinion statement was developed outlining the provision of end of life care in end-stage kidney disease. Recognition of medical futility, consensus on medical futility, and cessation of potentially inappropriate therapies and medications are the initial steps in providing end of life care. Conducting a family meeting, communicating prognosis, discussing various treatment modalities, negotiating goals of care, shared decision-making, and discussion and documentation of life sustaining treatment are essential aspects of end of life care provision. The provision of end of life care entails assessment and the management of end-stage kidney disease symptoms and the care extends beyond the death of the patient to their families in the bereavement period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sickle cell anemia is an autosomal recessive disorder resulting from insertion of the valine codon at position sixth of beta-hemoglobin gene instead of glutamate leading to the production of insoluble beta-hemoglobin chain. Although sickle anemia is mostly associated with bone pain and anemia, other manifestations also occur. Acute head syndrome is an uncommon complication resulting from skull bone infarction, cortical osteopenia, and rupture of tortuous periosteal blood vessels leading to extravasation of blood into the subgaleal space. This report therefore intends to create awareness that nontraumatic scalp swelling is an uncommon complication in sickle cell disease and no traditional practice or surgical excision should be employed in managing it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing global problem affecting around 10% of many countries’ populations. Providing appropriate palliative care services (PCS) to those with advanced kidney disease is becoming paramount. Palliative/supportive care alongside usual CKD clinical treatment is gaining acceptance in nephrology services although the collaboration with and use of PCS is not consistent. Methods The goal of this study was to track and quantify the health service utilisation of people with CKD stages 3-5 over the last 12 months of life. Patients were recruited from a kidney health service (Queensland, Australia) for this prospective, longitudinal study. Data were collected for 12 months (or until death, whichever was sooner) during 2015-17 from administrative health sources. Emergency department presentations (EDP) and inpatient admissions (IPA) (collectively referred to as critical events) were reviewed by two Nephrologists to gauge if the events were avoidable. Results Participants (n = 19) with a median age of 78 years (range 42-90), were mostly male (63%), 79% had CKD stage 5, and were heavy users of health services during the study period. Fifteen patients (79%) collectively recorded 44 EDP; 61% occurred after-hours, 91% were triaged as imminently and potentially life-threatening and 73% were admitted. Seventy-four IPA were collectively recorded across 16 patients (84%); 14% occurred on weekends or public holidays. Median length of stay was 3 days (range 1-29). The median number of EDP and IPA per patient was 1 and 2 (range 0-12 and 0-20) respectively. The most common trigger to both EDP (30%) and IPA (15%) was respiratory distress. By study end 37% of patients died, 63% were known to PCS and 11% rejected a referral to a PCS. All critical events were deemed unavoidable. Conclusions Few patients avoided using acute health care services in a 12 month period, highlighting the high service needs of this cohort throughout the long, slow decline of CKD. Proactive end-of-life care earlier in the disease trajectory through integrating renal and palliative care teams may avoid acute presentations to hospital through better symptom management and planned care pathways.

Background Conservative care (CC) may be a valid alternative to dialysis for certain older patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). A model that predicts patient prognosis on both treatment pathways could be of value in shared decision-making. Therefore, the aim is to develop a prediction tool that predicts the mortality risk for the same patient for both dialysis and CC from the time of treatment decision. Methods CKD Stage 4/5 patients aged ≥70 years, treated at a single centre in the Netherlands, were included between 2004 and 2016. Predictors were collected at treatment decision and selected based on literature and an expert panel. Outcome was 2-year mortality. Basic and extended logistic regression models were developed for both the dialysis and CC groups. These models were internally validated with bootstrapping. Model performance was assessed with discrimination and calibration. Results In total, 366 patients were included, of which 126 chose CC. Pre-selected predictors for the basic model were age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, malignancy and cardiovascular disease. Discrimination was moderate, with optimism-corrected C-statistics ranging from 0.675 to 0.750. Calibration plots showed good calibration. Conclusions A prediction tool that predicts 2-year mortality was developed to provide older advanced CKD patients with individualized prognosis estimates for both dialysis and CC. Future studies are needed to test whether our findings hold in other CKD populations. Following external validation, this prediction tool could be used to compare a patient's prognosis on both dialysis and CC, and help to inform treatment decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple studies document there are patients for whom hemodialysis can be predicted not to offer a survival advantage. The medical evidence also includes reports of strong, active medical management without dialysis programs in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, yet the nephrology community in the United States has yet to provide to patients with end stage kidney disease an active medical management without dialysis option available throughout the country. This article reviews barriers and facilitators to starting such a program and offers recommendations for the components that have enabled international programs to be successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Lumbar spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) is a rare cause of low back and lower extremity pain. • Magnetic resonance imaging is considered as the reference standard for the diagnosis. • The therapeutic approach of patients with SEL can be either surgical or conservative depending on the etiology and the severity of the condition. Lumbar spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) is a rare condition defined by an excessive deposition of adipose tissue in the lumbar spinal canal. The objective of this case report is to document a clinical case of SEL presenting within a multidisciplinary spine clinic and to compare our clinical findings and management with the available literature. A 51-year-old female presented at a spine clinic with low back pain, bilateral leg pain and difficulty walking. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine showed evidence of severe central canal stenosis due to extensive epidural lipomatosis. She was initially advised to lose weight and undergo a 3-month course of physiotherapy. However, because of lack of improvement, she was scheduled for and underwent L4-S1 posterior spinal decompression and L4-L5 posterior spinal instrumented fusion. At 12-month follow-up, the patient reported no pain and retained the ability to walk regular distances without experiencing discomfort. This case report describes the conservative and surgical management of a case of lumbar spinal stenosis due to SEL. The therapeutic approach of patients with this condition is not standardized. As such, a discussion of the literature with respect to the diagnosis, clinical presentation, epidemiology, imaging appearance, risk factors, etiology, and management of SEL is also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. population is aging, supported in part by continued development of life-prolonging medical therapies and technologies. These innovations, including kidney replacement therapies, have been effective in providing additional options to patients facing serious illness, but they have also introduced a new level of complexity in the provider assessment of treatment for these patients. Health care providers are being tasked to decide if medical care is appropriate for an aging and medically complex population, a decision complicated by a variety of factors. Patient-focused conversations surrounding goals of care, prognosis, medical futility, and quality of life need to become part of the routine practice pattern for nephrology care in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To measure health-related and care-related quality of life among informal caregivers of older people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and to determine the association between caregiver quality of life and care recipient's treatment type.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Three renal units in the UK and Australia were included. Informal caregivers of people aged ≥75 years with ESKD managed with dialysis or comprehensive conservative non-dialytic care (estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) ≤10 mL/min/1.73m2) participated. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using Short-Form six dimensions (SF-6D, 0-1 scale) and care-related quality of life was assessed using the Carer Experience Scale (CES, 0-100 scale). Linear regression assessed associations between care-recipient treatment type, caregiver characteristics and the SF-6D utility index and CES scores.Results: Of 63 caregivers, 49 (78%) were from Australia, 26 (41%) cared for an older person managed with dialysis, and 37 (59%) cared for an older person managed with comprehensive conservative care. Overall, 73% were females, and the median age of the entire cohort was 76 years [IQR 68-81]. When adjusted for caregiver sociodemographic characteristics, caregivers reported significantly worse carer experience (CES score 15.73, 95% CI 5.78 to 25.68) for those managing an older person on dialysis compared with conservative care. However, no significant difference observed for carer HRQoL (SF-6D utility index - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.18 to 0.01) for those managing an older person on dialysis compared with conservative care.Conclusions: Our data suggest informal caregivers of older people on dialysis have significantly worse care-related quality of life (and therefore greater need for support) than those managed with comprehensive conservative care. It is important to consider the impact on caregivers' quality of life when considering treatment choices for their care recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Personalised Knee Improvement Programme (P-KIP) was developed based on previously published work, with the hypothesis that surgeons would refer patients to a well-structured conservative management intervention instead of for arthroscopy (de-implementation of arthroscopy by substitution with P-KIP). This meets NICE guidelines and international recommendations but such programmes are not widely used in the UK. Our aim was to determine whether P-KIP would reduce the number of arthroscopies performed for knee osteoarthritis.Methods: P-KIP is a conservative care pathway including a group education session followed by individually tailored one-to-one dietician and physiotherapy sessions. Virtual clinic follow-up is conducted three to 6 months after completion of the programme. The service began in July 2015. The number of arthroscopies saved, measured from hospital level coding data, is the primary outcome measure. Interrupted time series analysis of coding data was conducted. As a quality assurance process, patient reported outcome measures (Oxford Knee Score; Euroqol 5D) were collected at baseline and at follow up.Results: Time series analysis demonstrates that the programme saved 15.4 arthroscopies a month (95% confidence interval 9-21; p < 0.001), equating to 184 arthroscopies a year in a single hospital. The PROMs data demonstrated improvements in patient reported outcome scores consistent with previous published reports of conservative interventions in similar patient populations.Conclusions: Results suggest that P-KIP reduces the number of arthroscopies performed, and patients who took part in P-KIP had an improvement in their knee and general health outcomes. P-KIP has the potential to deliver efficiency savings and relive pressure on operative lists, however replication in other sites is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Dialysis initiation rates among older adults, aged 75 years or greater, are increasing at a faster rate than for younger age groups. Older adults with advanced CKD (eGFR 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 and many initiate dialysis in hospital, often in association with an episode of acute renal failure. In the US older adults start dialysis at a mean e GFR of 12.6 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 20.6% die within six months of dialysis initiation. In both the acute in hospital and outpatient settings, many older adults appear to be initiating dialysis for non-specific, non-life threatening symptoms and clinical contexts. Observational data suggests that dialysis does not provide a survival benefit for older adults with poor mobility and high levels of comorbidity. To optimize the care of this population, early and repeat shared decision making conversations by health care providers, patients, and their families should consider the risks, burdens, and benefits of dialysis versus conservative management, as well as the patient specific symptoms and clinical situations that could justify dialysis initiation. The potential advantages and disadvantages of dialysis therapy should be considered in conjunction with each patient’s unique goals and priorities. In conclusion, when considering the morbidity and quality of life impact associated with dialysis, many older adults may prefer to delay dialysis until there is a definitive indication or may opt for conservative management without dialysis. This approach can incorporate all CKD treatments other than dialysis, provide psychosocial and spiritual support and active symptom management and may also incorporate a palliative care approach with less medical monitoring of lab parameters and more focus on the use of drug therapies directed to relief of a patient’s symptoms.