Search

Rationale & Objective: Approximately 11% of people with kidney failure worldwide are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study examined PD use and practice patterns across the globe. Study Design: A cross-sectional survey. Setting & Participants: Stakeholders including clinicians, policy makers, and patient representatives in 182 countries convened by the International Society of Nephrology between July and September 2018. Outcome(s): PD use, availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures. Analytical Approach: Descriptive statistics. Result(s): Responses were received from 88% (n = 160) of countries and there were 313 participants (257 nephrologists [82%], 22 non-nephrologist physicians [7%], 6 other health professionals [2%], 17 administrators/policy makers/civil servants [5%], and 11 others [4%]). 85% (n = 156) of countries responded to questions about PD. Median PD use was 38.1 per million population. PD was not available in 30 of the 156 (19%) countries responding to PD-related questions, particularly in countries in Africa (20/41) and low-income countries (15/22). In 69% of countries, PD was the initial dialysis modality for <=10% of patients with newly diagnosed kidney failure. Patients receiving PD were expected to pay 1% to 25% of treatment costs, and higher (>75%) copayments (out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients) were more common in South Asia and low-income countries. Average exchange volumes were adequate (defined as 3-4 exchanges per day or the equivalent for automated PD) in 72% of countries. PD quality outcome monitoring and reporting were variable. Most countries did not measure patient-reported PD outcomes. Limitation(s): Low responses from policy makers; limited ability to provide more in-depth explanations underpinning outcomes from each country due to lack of granular data; lack of objective data. Conclusion(s): Large inter- and intraregional disparities exist in PD availability, acce

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

Rationale & Objective: Hemodialysis (HD) is the most common form of kidney replacement therapy. This study aimed to examine the use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care worldwide. Study Design: A cross-sectional survey. Setting & Participants: Stakeholders (clinicians, policy makers, and consumer representatives) in 182 countries were convened by the International Society of Nephrology from July to September 2018. Outcome(s): Use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care. Analytical Approach: Descriptive statistics. Result(s): Overall, representatives from 160 (88%) countries participated. Median country-specific use of maintenance HD was 298.4 (IQR, 80.5-599.4) per million population (pmp). Global median HD use among incident patients with kidney failure was 98.0 (IQR, 81.5-140.8) pmp and median number of HD centers was 4.5 (IQR, 1.2-9.9) pmp. Adequate HD services (3-4 hours 3 times weekly) were generally available in 27% of low-income countries. Home HD was generally available in 36% of high-income countries. 32% of countries performed monitoring of patient-reported outcomes; 61%, monitoring of small-solute clearance; 60%, monitoring of bone mineral markers; 51%, monitoring of technique survival; and 60%, monitoring of patient survival. At initiation of maintenance dialysis, only 5% of countries used an arteriovenous access in almost all patients. Vascular access education was suboptimal, funding for vascular access procedures was not uniform, and copayments were greater in countries with lower levels of income. Patients in 23% of the low-income countries had to pay >75% of HD costs compared with patients in only 4% of high-income countries. Limitation(s): A cross-sectional survey with possibility of response bias, social desirability bias, and limited data collection preventing in-depth analysis. Conclusion(s): In summary, findings reveal substantial variations in global HD use, availability, accessibility

BACKGROUND: Health information systems (HIS) are fundamental tools for the surveillance of health services, estimation of disease burden and prioritization of health resources. Several gaps in the availability of HIS for kidney disease were highlighted by the first iteration of the Global Kidney Health Atlas. METHOD(S): As part of its second iteration, the International Society of Nephrology conducted a cross-sectional global survey between July and October 2018 to explore the coverage and scope of HIS for kidney disease, with a focus on kidney replacement therapy (KRT). RESULT(S): Out of a total of 182 invited countries, 154 countries responded to questions on HIS (85% response rate). KRT registries were available in almost all high-income countries, but few low-income countries, while registries for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) or acute kidney injury (AKI) were rare. Registries in high-income countries tended to be national, in contrast to registries in low-income countries, which often operated at local or regional levels. Although cause of end-stage kidney disease, modality of KRT and source of kidney transplant donors were frequently reported, few countries collected data on patient-reported outcome measures and only half of low-income countries recorded process-based measures. Almost no countries had programs to detect AKI and practices to identify CKD-targeted individuals with diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, rather than members of high-risk ethnic groups. CONCLUSION(S): These findings confirm significant heterogeneity in the global availability of HIS for kidney disease and highlight important gaps in their coverage and scope, especially in low-income countries and across the domains of AKI, non-dialysis CKD, patient-reported outcomes, process-based measures and quality indicators for KRT service delivery.Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.

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

Objective To determine the global capacity (availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability) to deliver kidney replacement therapy (dialysis and transplantation) and conservative kidney management. Design International cross sectional survey. Setting International Society of Nephrology (ISN) survey of 182 countries from July to September 2018. Participants Key stakeholders identified by ISN's national and regional leaders. Main outcome measures Markers of national capacity to deliver core components of kidney replacement therapy and conservative kidney management. Results Responses were received from 160 (87.9%) of 182 countries, comprising 97.8% (7338.5 million of 7501.3 million) of the world's population. A wide variation was found in capacity and structures for kidney replacement therapy and conservative kidney management-namely, funding mechanisms, health workforce, service delivery, and available technologies. Information on the prevalence of treated end stage kidney disease was available in 91 (42%) of 218 countries worldwide. Estimates varied more than 800-fold from 4 to 3392 per million population. Rwanda was the only low income country to report data on the prevalence of treated disease; 5 (<10%) of 53 African countries reported these data. Of 159 countries, 102 (64%) provided public funding for kidney replacement therapy. Sixty eight (43%) of 159 countries charged no fees at the point of care delivery and 34 (21%) made some charge. Haemodialysis was reported as available in 156 (100%) of 156 countries, peritoneal dialysis in 119 (76%) of 156 countries, and kidney transplantation in 114 (74%) of 155 countries. Dialysis and kidney transplantation were available to more than 50% of patients in only 108 (70%) and 45 (29%) of 154 countries that offered these services, respectively. Conservative kidney management was available in 124 (81%) of 154 countries. Worldwide, the median number of nephrologists was 9.96 per million population, which varied with i

Aim: To describe the direct and indirect costs incurred by Australian living kidney donors. Method(s): A total of 55 living kidney donors from three centres in Perth, Australia and one centre in Melbourne, Australia (2010-2014) was studied. Forty-nine donors provided information on expenses incurred during the donor evaluation period and up to 3 months after donation. A micro-costing approach was used to measure and value the units of resources consumed. Expenses were grouped as direct costs (ground and air travel, accommodation, and prescription medications) and indirect costs (lost wages and lost productivity). Costs were standardized to the year 2016 in Australian dollars. Result(s): The most common direct costs were for ground travel (100%), parking (76%), and post-donation pain medications or antibiotics (73%). The highest direct costs were for air travel (median $1986 [three donors]) and ground travel (median $459 [49 donors]). Donors also reported lost wages (median $9891 [37 donors]). The inability to perform household activities or care for dependants were reported by 32 (65%) and 23 (47%) donors. Total direct costs averaged $1682 per donor (median $806 among 49 donors). Total indirect costs averaged $7249 per donor (median $7273 among 49 donors). Total direct and indirect costs averaged $8932 per donor (median $7963 among 49 donors). Conclusion(s): Many Australian living kidney donors incur substantial costs during the donation process. Our findings inform the continued development of policies and programmes designed to minimize costs incurred by living kidney donors.Copyright © 2017 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology

BACKGROUND: Patients with CKD are at increased risk of potentially preventable hospital acquired complications (HACs). Understanding the economic consequences of preventable HACs, may define the scope and investment of initiatives aimed at prevention. METHODS: Adult patients hospitalized from April, 2003 to March, 2008 in Alberta, Canada comprised the study cohort. Healthcare costs were determined and categorized into 'index hospitalization' including hospital cost and in-hospital physician claims, and 'post discharge' including ambulatory care cost, physician claims, and readmission costs from discharge to 90 days. Multivariable regression was used to estimate the incremental healthcare costs associated with potentially preventable HACs. RESULTS: In fully adjusted models, the median incremental index hospitalization cost was CAN-$6169 (95% CI; 6003-6336) in CKD patients with ≥1 potentially preventable HACs, compared with those without. Post-discharge incremental costs were 1471(95% CI; 844-2099) in those patients with CKD who developed potentially preventable HACs within 90 days after discharge compared with patients without potentially preventable HACs. Additionally, the incremental costs associated with ≥1 potentially preventable HACs within 90 days from admission in patients with CKD were $7522 (95% CI; 7219-7824). A graded relation of the incremental costs was noted with the increasing number of complications. In patients without CKD but with ≥1 preventable HACs incremental costs within 90 days from hospital admission was $6688 (95% CI: 6612-6723). CONCLUSIONS: Potentially preventable HACs are associated with substantial increases in healthcare costs in people with CKD. Investment in implementing targeted strategies to reduce HACs may have a significant benefit for patient and health system outcomes.