Search

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased risk of baseline mortality and severe COVID-19, but analyses across CKD stages, and comorbidities are lacking. In prevalent and incident CKD, we investigated comorbidities, baseline risk, COVID-19 incidence, and predicted versus observed one-year excess death. In a national dataset (NHS Digital Trusted Research Environment [NHSD TRE]) for England encompassing 56 million individuals), we conducted a retrospective cohort study (March 2020 to March 2021) for prevalence of comorbidities by incident and prevalent CKD, SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Baseline mortality risk, incidence and outcome of infection by comorbidities, controlling for age, sex and vaccination were assessed. Observed versus predicted one-year mortality at varying population infection rates and pandemic-related relative risks using our published model in pre-pandemic CKD cohorts (NHSD TRE and Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD]) were compared. Among individuals with CKD (prevalent:1,934,585, incident:144,969), comorbidities were common (73.5% and 71.2% with one or more condition[s] in respective data sets, and 13.2% and 11.2% with three or more conditions, in prevalent and incident CKD), and associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly dialysis/transplantation (odds ratio 2.08, 95% confidence interval 2.04-2.13) and heart failure (1.73, 1.71-1.76), but not cancer (1.01, 1.01-1.04). One-year all-cause mortality varied by age, sex, multi-morbidity and CKD stage. Compared with 34,265 observed excess deaths, in the NHSD-TRE and CPRD databases respectively, we predicted 28,746 and 24,546 deaths (infection rates 10% and relative risks 3.0), and 23,754 and 20,283 deaths (observed infection rates 6.7% and relative risks 3.7). Thus, in this largest, national-level study, individuals with CKD have a high burden of comorbidities and multi-morbidity, and high risk of pre-pandemic and pandemic mortality. Hence, treatment of comorbidities

Background: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are well placed to provide holistic care to survivors of childhood cancer and may relieve growing pressures on specialist-led follow-up. We evaluated PCPs' role and confidence in providing follow-up care to survivors of childhood cancer. Subjects, Materials, and Methods: In Stage 1, survivors and parents (of young survivors) from 11 Australian and New Zealand hospitals completed interviews about their PCPs' role in their follow-up. Participants nominated their PCP for an interview for Stage 2. In Stage 2, PCPs completed interviews about their confidence and preparedness in delivering childhood cancer survivorship care. Results: Stage 1: One hundred twenty survivors (36% male, mean age: 25.6 years) and parents of young survivors (58% male survivors, survivors' mean age: 12.7 years) completed interviews. Few survivors (23%) and parents (10%) visited their PCP for cancer-related care and reported similar reasons for not seeking PCP-led follow-up including low confidence in PCPs (48%), low perceived PCP cancer knowledge (38%), and difficulty finding good/regular PCPs (31%). Participants indicated feeling "disconnected" from their PCP during their cancer treatment phase. Stage 2: Fifty-one PCPs (57% male, mean years practicing: 28.3) completed interviews. Fifty percent of PCPs reported feeling confident providing care to childhood cancer survivors. PCPs had high unmet information needs relating to survivors' late effects risks (94%) and preferred a highly prescriptive approach to improve their confidence delivering survivorship care. Conclusion: Improved communication and greater PCP involvement during treatment/early survivorship may help overcome survivors' and parents' low confidence in PCPs. PCPs are willing but require clear guidance from tertiary providers. Implications for Practice: Childhood cancer survivors and their parents have low confidence in primary care physicians' ability to manage their survivorship care. Encou

Objective: Surgery for paediatric cancer presents many stresses on patients and families. The authors aimed to understand the long-term impact of childhood cancer surgery on survivors and parents. Methods: The study recruited participants from 11 Australia/New Zealand hospitals for telephone interviews. The authors used descriptive statistics to analyse participants’ quantitative distress ratings and conducted thematic analysis of shared surgical experiences and needs. Results: Of 32 participants (n = 17 survivors, n = 15 parents), survivors’ mean age at surgery was 6.9 (SD = 5.17) and parents’ children were 2.1 years old (SD = 1.41) at time of surgery. Survivors had surgery on average 15.2 years ago (SD = 6.72) and parents’ children 11.5 years ago (SD = 3.94). Parents and survivors rated surgery as highly distressing. Pre-operatively, survivors recalled experiencing fear and pain mainly associated with pre-operative procedures. Post-operatively, survivors reported immobility and some lasting behavioural disturbances. Parents described pre- and intra-operative anxiety and stress and some lasting post-operative psychological disturbances. Experiences appeared to improve with clear/consistent communication from hospital staff, proximity to hospital, and with support for parents and children post-operatively. Conclusions: Surgical treatment for childhood cancer can have a lasting impact for survivors and parents. Better information provision may improve families’ surgical experience whilst reducing anxiety, distress and physical discomfort.

This guideline is written primarily for doctors and nurses working in dialysis units and related areas of medicine in the UK, and is an update of a previous version written in 2009. It aims to provide guidance on how to look after patients and how to run dialysis units, and provides standards which units should in general aim to achieve. We would not advise patients to interpret the guideline as a rulebook, but perhaps to answer the question: “what does good quality haemodialysis look like?” The guideline is split into sections: each begins with a few statements which are graded by strength (1 is a firm recommendation, 2 is more like a sensible suggestion), and the type of research available to back up the statement, ranging from A (good quality trials so we are pretty sure this is right) to D (more like the opinion of experts than known for sure). After the statements there is a short summary explaining why we think this, often including a discussion of some of the most helpful research. There is then a list of the most important medical articles so that you can read further if you want to – most of this is freely available online, at least in summary form. A few notes on the individual sections: 1. This section is about how much dialysis a patient should have. The effectiveness of dialysis varies between patients because of differences in body size and age etc., so different people need different amounts, and this section gives guidance on what defines “enough” dialysis and how to make sure each person is getting that. Quite a bit of this section is very technical, for example, the term “eKt/V” is often used: this is a calculation based on blood tests before and after dialysis, which measures the effectiveness of a single dialysis session in a particular patient. 2. This section deals with “non-standard” dialysis, which basically means anything other than 3 times per week. For example, a few people need 4 or more sessions per week to keep healthy, and some people