Epidemiology of Fracture in Adults with Kidney Disease

Fractures are a global health concern, leading to morbidity and mortality. Individuals with reduced kidney function experience bone mineral metabolism changes which can increase fracture risk. Yet, there is little consensus on the fundamentals: prediction, incidence, risk factors, and screening of fractures in kidney disease patients. This thesis addressed these critical areas helping decrease the health burden of fracture in this unique population. This research used data from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) to examine individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (n=320). CaMos is a national longitudinal study designed to collect information on fractures. To examine kidney transplant recipients data from Ontario administrative healthcare databases was used (n=4821). The predictive ability of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in individuals with CKD was evaluated using area under the receiver operator characteristic curves and survival analyses. The incidence and risk factors for fracture in kidney transplant recipients were assessed using incidence rates and Cox hazard regression analysis. The first manuscript systematically summarized the incidence and risk factors for fracture in kidney transplant recipients; fracture incidence and risk factors were variable across studies. The second manuscript examined the predictive value of FRAX in individuals with CKD compared to individuals with normal kidney function. The discriminative ability of FRAX for fracture prediction was comparable in both groups. The third manuscript examined the incidence of fracture in kidney transplant recipients. The cumulative incidence of fracture was low with approximately 2% sustaining a hip fracture over 10-years. The fourth manuscript examined risk factors for fracture in kidney transplant recipients. Transplant-specific risk factors (i.e., diabetes or cystic kidney disease as the cause of end-stage renal disease and donor age) and general risk factors (i.e., older recipient age and female sex) were significantly associated with fractures. The fifth manuscript examined the frequency and variability in bone mineral density (BMD) testing across Ontario transplant centres. Over half of kidney transplant recipients received at least one BMD and the ordering of BMD tests varied widely by centre – from 15% to 92%. Results can be used to improve prognostication, advance clinical guidelines, clarify fracture incidence, and guide informed consent

Pre-transplant maintenance dialysis duration and outcomes after kidney transplantation: A multicenter population-based cohort study

The association between pre-transplant dialysis duration and post-transplant outcomes may vary by the population and endpoints studied. We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada including kidney transplant recipients (n = 4461) from 2004 to 2014. Our primary outcome was total graft failure (i.e., death, return to dialysis, or pre-emptive re-transplant). Secondary outcomes included death-censored graft failure, death with graft function, mortality, hospitalization for cardiovascular events, hospitalization for infection, and hospital readmission. We presented results by pre-transplant dialysis duration (pre-emptive transplant, and.01–1.43, 1.44–2.64, 2.65–4.25, 4.26–6.45, and 6.46–36.5 years, for quintiles 1–5). After adjusting for clinical characteristics, pre-emptive transplantation was associated with a lower rate of total graft failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR].68, 95% CI:.46,.99), while quintile 4 was associated with a higher rate (aHR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.71), when compared to quintile 1. There was no significant relationship between dialysis duration and death-censored graft failure, cardiovascular events, or hospital readmission. For death with graft function and mortality, quintiles 3–5 had a significantly higher aHR compared to quintile 1, while for infection, quintiles 2–5 had a higher aHR. Longer time on dialysis was associated with an increased rate of several adverse post-transplant outcomes.</p

Using Administrative Health Care Databases to Identify Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease With No Recorded Contraindication to Receiving a Kidney Transplant

Background: Administrative health care databases can be efficiently analyzed to describe the degree to which patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have access to kidney transplantation. Measures of access to transplantation are better represented when restricting to only those patients eligible to receive a kidney transplant. The way administrative data can be used to assess kidney transplant eligibility in the absence of clinical data has not been well described. Objective: To demonstrate a method that uses administrative health care databases to identify patients with ESKD who have no recorded contraindication to receiving a kidney transplant. Design and setting: Population-based cohort study using linked administrative health care databases in Ontario, Canada. Patients: Adult patients with ESKD approaching the need for dialysis (predialysis) or receiving maintenance dialysis between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2015 in Ontario, Canada. Measurements: Recipient of a kidney-only or kidney-pancreas transplant. Methods: We assessed more than 80 baseline characteristics, including demographic information, comorbidities, kidney-specific characteristics, and referral and listing criteria for kidney transplantation. We compared these characteristics between patients who did and did not receive a kidney transplant. Results: We included 23 642 patients with ESKD (11 195 who were predialysis and 12 447 receiving maintenance dialysis). Over a median follow-up of 3.2 years (25th, 75th percentile: 1.3, 5.6), 3215 (13.6%) received a kidney-only or kidney-pancreas transplant. Of the studied characteristics available in administrative databases, >97% of patients with one or more of these characteristics did not receive a kidney transplant during follow-up: ESKD-modified Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥7 (a higher score represents greater comorbidity), home oxygen use, age above 75 years, dementia, living in a long-term care facility, receiving at least one physician house call in the past year, and a combination of select malignancies (ie, lung, lymphoma, cervical, colorectal, liver, active multiple myeloma, and bladder cancer). Using these combined criteria reduced the total number of patients from 23 642 to 12 539 with no recorded contraindications to transplant (a 47% reduction), while the proportion who received a kidney transplant changed from 13.6% (denominator of 23 642) to 24.9% (denominator of 12 539). Limitations: Administrative databases are unable to capture all the complexities of determining transplant eligibility. Conclusion: We identified several criteria available within administrative health care databases that can be used to identify patients with ESKD who have no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant. These criteria could be applied when reporting measures of access to kidney transplantation that require knowledge of transplant eligibility

Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes

Background: Use of administrative data for outcomes assessment in living kidney donors is increasing given the rarity of complications and challenges with loss to follow-up. Objective: To assess the validity of living donor nephrectomy in health care administrative databases compared with the reference standard of manual chart review. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: 5 major transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. Patients: Living kidney donors between 2003 and 2010. Measurements: Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Methods: Using administrative databases, we conducted a retrospective study to determine the validity of diagnostic and procedural codes for living donor nephrectomies. The reference standard was living donor nephrectomies identified through the province’s tissue and organ procurement agency, with verification by manual chart review. Operating characteristics (sensitivity and PPV) of various algorithms using diagnostic, procedural, and physician billing codes were calculated. Results: During the study period, there were a total of 1199 living donor nephrectomies. Overall, the best algorithm for identifying living kidney donors was the presence of 1 diagnostic code for kidney donor (ICD-10 Z52.4) and 1 procedural code for kidney procurement/excision (1PC58, 1PC89, 1PC91). Compared with the reference standard, this algorithm had a sensitivity of 97% and a PPV of 90%. The diagnostic and procedural codes performed better than the physician billing codes (sensitivity 60%, PPV 78%). Limitations: The donor chart review and validation study was performed in Ontario and may not be generalizable to other regions. Conclusions: An algorithm consisting of 1 diagnostic and 1 procedural code can be reliably used to conduct health services research that requires the accurate determination of living kidney donors at the population level

Comparison of Acute Health Care Utilization Between Patients Receiving In-Center Hemodialysis and the General Population: A Population-Based Matched Cohort Study From Ontario, Canada

Background: Patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis have multiple comorbidities and are at high risk of presenting to the hospital. However, the incidence and cost of acute health care utilization in the in-center hemodialysis population and how this compares with other populations is poorly understood. Objective: To determine the rate, pattern, and cost of emergency department visits and hospitalizations in patients receiving in-center hemodialysis compared with a matched general population. Design: Population-based matched cohort study. Setting: We used linked administrative health care databases from Ontario, Canada. Patients: We included 25 379 patients (incident and prevalent) receiving in-center hemodialysis between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018. Patients were matched on birth date (±2 years), sex, and cohort entry date using a 1:4 ratio to 101 516 individuals from the general population. Measurements: Our primary outcomes were emergency department visits (allowing for multiple visits per individual) and hospital admissions from the emergency department. We also assessed all-cause hospitalizations, all-cause readmissions within 30 days of discharge from the original hospitalization, length of stay for hospital admissions (including multiple visits per individual), and the financial cost of these admissions. Methods: We presented the rate, percentage, median (25th, 75th percentiles), and incidence rate per 1000 person-years for emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Individual-level health care costs for emergency department visits and all-cause hospitalization were estimated using resource intensity weights multiplied by the cost per weighted case. Results: Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis had substantially more comorbidities (eg, diabetes) than the matched general population. Eighty percent (n = 20 309) of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis had at least 1 emergency department visit compared with 56% (n = 56 452) of individuals in the matched general population, over a median follow-up of 1.8 years (25th, 75th percentiles: 0.7, 3.6) and 5.2 (2.5, 8.4) years, respectively. The incidence rate of emergency department visits, allowing for multiple visits per individual, was 2274 per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2263, 2286) for patients receiving in-center hemodialysis, which was almost 5 times as high as the matched general population (471 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI: 469, 473). The rate of hospital admissions from the emergency department and the rate of all-cause hospital admissions in the in-center hemodialysis population was more than 7 times as high as the matched general population (hospital admissions from the emergency department: 786 vs 101 per 1000 person-years; all-cause hospital admissions: 1056 vs 139 per 1000 person-years). The median number of all-cause hospitalization days per patient year was 4.0 (0, 16.5) in the in-center hemodialysis population compared with 0 (0, 0.5) in the matched general population. The cost per patient-year for emergency department visits in the in-center hemodialysis population was approximately 5.5 times as high as the matched general population while the cost of hospitalizations in the in-center hemodialysis population was approximately 11 times as high as the matched general population (emergency department visits: CAN$1153 vs CAN$ 209; hospitalizations: CAN$21 151 vs CAN$ 1873 [all costs in 2023 CAN$]). Limitations: External generalizability and we could not determine whether emergency department visits and hospitalizations were preventable. Conclusions: Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis have high acute health care utilization. These results improve our understanding of the burden of disease and the associated costs in the in-center hemodialysis population, highlight the need to improve acute outcomes, and can aid health care capacity planning. Additional research is needed to address the risk of hospitalization after controlling for patient comorbidities. Trial registration: This is not applicable as this is a population-based matched cohort study and not a clinical trial

Predicting 3-Year Survival in Patients Receiving Maintenance Dialysis: An External Validation of iChoose Kidney in Ontario, Canada

Background: Many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) do not appreciate how their survival may differ if treated with a kidney transplant compared with dialysis. A risk calculator (iChoose Kidney) developed and validated in the United States provides individualized mortality estimates for different treatment options (dialysis vs living or deceased donor kidney transplantation). The calculator can be used with patients and families to help patients make more educated treatment decisions. Objective: To validate the iChoose Kidney risk calculator in Ontario, Canada. Design: External validation study. Setting: We used several linked administrative health care databases from Ontario, Canada. Patients: We included 22 520 maintenance dialysis patients and 4505 kidney transplant recipients. Patients entered the cohort between 2004 and 2014. Measurements: Three-year all-cause mortality. Methods: We assessed model discrimination using the C-statistic. We assessed model calibration by comparing the observed versus predicted mortality risk and by using smoothed calibration plots. We used multivariable logistic regression modeling to recalibrate model intercepts using a correction factor, when appropriate. Results: In our final version of the iChoose Kidney model, we included the following variables: age (18-80 years), sex (male, female), race (white, black, other), time on dialysis (12 months), and patient comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease). Over the 3-year follow-up period, 33.3% of dialysis patients and 6.2% of kidney transplant recipients died. The discriminatory ability was moderate (C-statistic for dialysis: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.70, and C-statistic for transplant: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.69-0.75). The 3-year observed and predicted mortality estimates were comparable and even more so after we recalibrated the intercepts in 2 of our models (dialysis and deceased donor kidney transplantation). As done in the United States, we developed a Canadian Web site and an iOS application called Dialysis vs. Kidney Transplant- Estimated Survival in Ontario. Limitations: Missing data in our databases precluded the inclusion of all variables that were in the original iChoose Kidney (ie, patient ethnicity and low albumin). We were unable to perform all preplanned analyses due to the limited sample size. Conclusions: The original iChoose Kidney risk calculator was able to adequately predict mortality in this Canadian (Ontario) cohort of ESKD patients. After minor modifications, the predictive accuracy improved. The Dialysis vs. Kidney Transplant- Estimated Survival in Ontario risk calculator may be a valuable resource to help ESKD patients make an informed decision on pursuing kidney transplantation

Frequency of bone mineral density testing in adult kidney transplant recipients from Ontario, Canada: a population-based cohort study

Abstract Background We lack consensus on the clinical value, frequency, and timing of bone mineral density (BMD) testing in kidney transplant recipients. This study sought to determine practice patterns in BMD testing across kidney transplant centres in Ontario, Canada, and to compare the frequency of testing in kidney transplant recipients to non-transplant reference groups. Methods Using healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada we conducted a population-based cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients who received a transplant from 1994-2009. We used logistic regression to determine if there was a statistically significant difference across transplant centres in the decision to perform at least one BMD test after transplantation, adjusting for covariates that may influence a physician’s decision to order a BMD test. We used the McNemar’s test to compare the number of recipients who had at least one BMD test to non-transplant reference groups (matching on age, sex, and date of cohort entry). Results In the first 3 years after transplant, 4821 kidney transplant recipients underwent 4802 BMD tests (median 1 test per recipient, range 0 to 6 tests), costing $600,000 (2014 CAD equivalent dollars). Across the six centres, the proportion of recipients receiving at least one BMD test varied widely (ranging from 15.6 to 92.1 %; P < 0.001). Over half (58 %) of the recipients received at least one BMD test post-transplant, a value higher than two non-transplant reference groups (general population with a previous non-vertebral fracture [hip, forearm, proximal humerus], 13.8 %; general population with no previous non-vertebral fracture, 8.5 %; P value <0.001 for each of the comparisons). Conclusions There is substantial practice variability in BMD testing after transplant. New high-quality information is needed to inform the utility, optimal timing, and frequency of BMD testing in kidney transplant recipients

Frequency of Bone Mineral Density Testing in Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients from Ontario, Canada: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background: We lack consensus on the clinical value, frequency, and timing of bone mineral density (BMD) testing in kidney transplant recipients. This study sought to determine practice patterns in BMD testing across kidney transplant centres in Ontario, Canada, and to compare the frequency of testing in kidney transplant recipients to non-transplant reference groups. Methods: Using healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada we conducted a population-based cohort study of adult kidney transplant recipients who received a transplant from 1994-2009. We used logistic regression to determine if there was a statistically significant difference across transplant centres in the decision to perform at least one BMD test after transplantation, adjusting for covariates that may influence a physician's decision to order a BMD test. We used the McNemar's test to compare the number of recipients who had at least one BMD test to non-transplant reference groups (matching on age, sex, and date of cohort entry). Results: In the first 3 years after transplant, 4821 kidney transplant recipients underwent 4802 BMD tests (median 1 test per recipient, range 0 to 6 tests), costing $600,000 (2014 CAD equivalent dollars). Across the six centres, the proportion of recipients receiving at least one BMD test varied widely (ranging from 15.6 to 92.1 %; P < 0.001). Over half (58 %) of the recipients received at least one BMD test post-transplant, a value higher than two non-transplant reference groups (general population with a previous non-vertebral fracture [hip, forearm, proximal humerus], 13.8 %; general population with no previous non-vertebral fracture, 8.5 %; P value <0.001 for each of the comparisons). Conclusions: There is substantial practice variability in BMD testing after transplant. New high-quality information is needed to inform the utility, optimal timing, and frequency of BMD testing in kidney transplant recipients