RICORS2040 : The need for collaborative research in chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a silent and poorly known killer. The current concept of CKD is relatively young and uptake by the public, physicians and health authorities is not widespread. Physicians still confuse CKD with chronic kidney insufficiency or failure. For the wider public and health authorities, CKD evokes kidney replacement therapy (KRT). In Spain, the prevalence of KRT is 0.13%. Thus health authorities may consider CKD a non-issue: very few persons eventually need KRT and, for those in whom kidneys fail, the problem is 'solved' by dialysis or kidney transplantation. However, KRT is the tip of the iceberg in the burden of CKD. The main burden of CKD is accelerated ageing and premature death. The cut-off points for kidney function and kidney damage indexes that define CKD also mark an increased risk for all-cause premature death. CKD is the most prevalent risk factor for lethal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the factor that most increases the risk of death in COVID-19, after old age. Men and women undergoing KRT still have an annual mortality that is 10- to 100-fold higher than similar-age peers, and life expectancy is shortened by ~40 years for young persons on dialysis and by 15 years for young persons with a functioning kidney graft. CKD is expected to become the fifth greatest global cause of death by 2040 and the second greatest cause of death in Spain before the end of the century, a time when one in four Spaniards will have CKD. However, by 2022, CKD will become the only top-15 global predicted cause of death that is not supported by a dedicated well-funded Centres for Biomedical Research (CIBER) network structure in Spain. Realizing the underestimation of the CKD burden of disease by health authorities, the Decade of the Kidney initiative for 2020-2030 was launched by the American Association of Kidney Patients and the European Kidney Health Alliance. Leading Spanish kidney researchers grouped in the kidney collaborative research network Red de Investigación Renal have now applied for the Redes de Investigación Cooperativa Orientadas a Resultados en Salud (RICORS) call for collaborative research in Spain with the support of the Spanish Society of Nephrology, Federación Nacional de Asociaciones para la Lucha Contra las Enfermedades del Riñón and ONT: RICORS2040 aims to prevent the dire predictions for the global 2040 burden of CKD from becoming true

Can environment or allergy explain international variation in prevalence of wheeze in childhood?

Asthma prevalence in children varies substantially around the world, but the contribution of known risk factors to this international variation is uncertain. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase Two studied 8–12 year old children in 30 centres worldwide with parent-completed symptom and risk factor questionnaires and aeroallergen skin prick testing. We used multilevel logistic regression modelling to investigate the effect of adjustment for individual and ecological risk factors on the between-centre variation in prevalence of recent wheeze. Adjustment for single individual-level risk factors changed the centre-level variation from a reduction of up to 8.4% (and 8.5% for atopy) to an increase of up to 6.8%. Modelling the 11 most influential environmental factors among all children simultaneously, the centre-level variation changed little overall (2.4% increase). Modelling only factors that decreased the variance, the 6 most influential factors (synthetic and feather quilt, mother’s smoking, heating stoves, dampness and foam pillows) in combination resulted in a 21% reduction in variance. Ecological (centre-level) risk factors generally explained higher proportions of the variation than did individual risk factors. Single environmental factors and aeroallergen sensitisation measured at the individual (child) level did not explain much of the between-centre variation in wheeze prevalence

Mucociliary clearance techniques for treating non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: Is there evidence?

Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (nCFb) is an acquired condition of variable etiology. An impaired mucociliary clearance seems to be one of the mechanisms behind nCFb, and treatment involves antibiotics, mucoactive agents, and airway clearance techniques (ACTs). Traditional ACTs have four components: postural drainage, percussion, vibration of the chest wall, and coughing. Reviewing the international medical literature on the use of ACTs for patients with nCFb from 1989 to the present day, we retrieved 93 articles, of which 35 met our selection criteria for this analysis. We reviewed active cycle of breathing techniques (ACBT), forced expiration techniques (FET), autogenic drainage, postural drainage, oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPep), high frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO), and exercise or pulmonary rehabilitation. Overall, ACTs appear to be safe for individuals (adults and children) with stable bronchiectasis; where there may be improvements in sputum expectoration, selected measures of lung function, and health-related quality of life. Unfortunately, there is a lack of RCTs in nCFb patients, especially in children. Moreover, none of the studies describes long-term effects of ACTs. It should be noted that a single intervention might not reflect the longer-term outcome and there is no evidence to recommend or contest any type of ACTs in nCFb management. Multicenter RCTs are necessary to evaluate the different techniques of ACTs especially in children with nCFb

Mucociliary clearance techniques for treating non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis: Is there evidence?

Non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (nCFb) is an acquired condition of variable etiology. An impaired mucociliary clearance seems to be one of the mechanisms behind nCFb, and treatment involves antibiotics, mucoactive agents, and airway clearance techniques (ACTs). Traditional ACTs have four components: postural drainage, percussion, vibration of the chest wall, and coughing. Reviewing the international medical literature on the use of ACTs for patients with nCFb from 1989 to the present day, we retrieved 93 articles, of which 35 met our selection criteria for this analysis. We reviewed active cycle of breathing techniques (ACBT), forced expiration techniques (FET), autogenic drainage, postural drainage, oscillating positive expiratory pressure (OPep), high frequency chest wall oscillation (HFCWO), and exercise or pulmonary rehabilitation. Overall, ACTs appear to be safe for individuals (adults and children) with stable bronchiectasis; where there may be improvements in sputum expectoration, selected measures of lung function, and health-related quality of life. Unfortunately, there is a lack of RCTs in nCFb patients, especially in children. Moreover, none of the studies describes long-term effects of ACTs. It should be noted that a single intervention might not reflect the longer-term outcome and there is no evidence to recommend or contest any type of ACTs in nCFb management. Multicenter RCTs are necessary to evaluate the different techniques of ACTs especially in children with nCFb

The use of spirometers and peak flow meters in the diagnosis and management of asthma among Spanish pediatricians. Results from the TRAP study

The objective of this study was to determine the level of adherence of pediatricians in Spain to the Spanish National Guidelines for Asthma Treatment with regard to the use of a peak flow meter (PEFR) or a spirometer in the diagnosis and management of asthma in childhood and to analyze sources of variations in these practices. A prospective survey (consisting of demographic and asthma knowledge sections) was conducted over a 2-wk time interval of 3000 pediatricians throughout the country. At least one part of the questionnaire was completed and returned by 2773 individuals (92.4%), with 2347 (78.2%) answering both sections; results are for this population. Around 62% of the pediatricians reported having a peak flow meter or a spirometer in their office; however, only 33% and 48% of them used the devices for the diagnosis and treatment of asthma, respectively. There was a significant association between being older (36-55 yr old) and using PEFR or spirometry for the diagnosis (OR: 1.35