Design and implementation of the canadian kidney disease cohort study (CKDCS): A prospective observational study of incident hemodialysis patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many nephrology observational studies use renal registries, which have well known limitations. The Canadian Kidney Disease Cohort Study (CKDCS) is a large prospective observational study of patients commencing hemodialysis in five Canadian centers. This study focuses on delineating potentially reversible determinants of adverse outcomes that occur in patients receiving dialysis for end-stage renal disease (ESRD).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The CKDCS collects information on risk factors and outcomes, and stores specimens (blood, dialysate, hair and fingernails) at baseline and in long-term follow-up. Such specimens will permit measurements of biochemical markers, proteomic and genetic parameters (proteins and DNA) not measured in routine care. To avoid selection bias, all consenting incident hemodialysis patients at participating centers are enrolled, the large sample size (target of 1500 patients), large number of exposures, and high event rates will permit the exploration of multiple potential research questions.</p> <p>Preliminary Results</p> <p>Data on the baseline characteristics from the first 1074 subjects showed that the average age of patients was 62 (range; 50-73) years. The leading cause of ESRD was diabetic nephropathy (41.9%), and the majority of the patients were white (80.0%). Only 18.7% of the subjects received dialysis in a satellite unit, and over 80% lived within a 50 km radius of the nearest nephrologist's practice.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The prospective design, detailed clinical information, and stored biological specimens provide a wealth of information with potential to greatly enhance our understanding of risk factors for adverse outcomes in dialysis patients. The scientific value of the stored patient tissue will grow as new genetic and biochemical markers are discovered in the future.</p

Doctor can I buy a new kidney? I've heard it isn't forbidden: what is the role of the nephrologist when dealing with a patient who wants to buy a kidney?

Organ trafficking is officially banned in several countries and by the main Nephrology Societies. However, this practice is widespread and is allowed or tolerated in many countries, hence, in the absence of a universal law, the caregiver may be asked for advice, placing him/her in a difficult balance between legal aspects, moral principles and ethical judgments. In spite of the Istanbul declaration, which is a widely shared position statement against organ trafficking, the controversy on mercenary organ donation is still open and some experts argue against taking a negative stance. In the absence of clear evidence showing the clinical disadvantages of mercenary transplantation compared to chronic dialysis, self-determination of the patient (and, with several caveats, of the donor) may conflict with other ethical principles, first of all non-maleficence. The present paper was drawn up with the participation of the students, as part of the ethics course at our medical school. It discusses the situation in which the physician acts as a counselor for the patient in the way of a sort of “reverse” informed consent, in which the patient asks advice regarding a complex personal decision, and includes a peculiar application of the four principles (beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and autonomy) to the donor and recipient parties

Estimated number of prevalent cases of metastatic bone disease in the US adult population

Shuling Li1, Yi Peng1, Eric D Weinhandl1, Anne H Blaes2, Karynsa Cetin3, Victoria M Chia3, Scott Stryker3, Joseph J Pinzone4, John F Acquavella3, Thomas J Arneson11Chronic Disease Research Group, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 2Division of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA; 3Center for Observational Research, 4Global Development, Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USABackground: The prevalence of metastatic bone disease in the US population is not well understood. We sought to estimate the current number of US adults with metastatic bone disease using two large administrative data sets.Methods: Prevalence was estimated from a commercially insured cohort (ages 18&amp;ndash;64 years, MarketScan database) and from a fee-for-service Medicare cohort (ages &amp;ge;65 years, Medicare 5% database) with coverage on December 31, 2008, representing approximately two-thirds of the US population in each age group. We searched for claims-based evidence of metastatic bone disease from January 1, 2004, using a combination of relevant diagnosis and treatment codes. The number of cases in the US adult population was extrapolated from age- and sex-specific prevalence estimated in these cohorts. Results are presented for all cancers combined and separately for primary breast, prostate, and lung cancer.Results: In the commercially insured cohort (mean age = 42.3 years [SD = 13.1]), we identified 9505 patients (0.052%) with metastatic bone disease. Breast cancer was the most common primary tumor type (n = 4041). In the Medicare cohort (mean age = 75.6 years [SD = 7.8]), we identified 6427 (0.495%) patients with metastatic bone disease. Breast (n = 1798) and prostate (n = 1862) cancers were the most common primary tumor types. We estimate that 279,679 (95% confidence interval: 274,579&amp;ndash;284,780) US adults alive on December 31, 2008, had evidence of metastatic bone disease in the previous 5 years. Breast, prostate, and lung cancers accounted for 68% of these cases.Conclusion: Our findings suggest that approximately 280,000 US adults were living with metastatic bone disease on December 31, 2008. This likely underestimates the true frequency; not all cases of metastatic bone disease are diagnosed, and some diagnosed cases might lack documentation in claims data.Keywords: bone neoplasms, epidemiology, metastasis, prevalenc