KDIGO 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD) Foreword

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2017 Clinical Practice Guideline Update for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) represents a selective update of the prior guideline published in 2009. This update, along with the 2009 publication, is intended to assist the practitioner caring for adults and children with CKD, those on chronic dialysis therapy, or individuals with a kidney transplant. Specifically, the topic areas for which updated recommendations are issued include diagnosis of bone abnormalities in CKD-MBD; treatment of CKD-MBD by targeting phosphate lowering and calcium maintenance, treatment of abnormalities in parathyroid hormone in CKD-MBD; treatment of bone abnormalities by antiresorptives and other osteoporosis therapies; and evaluation and treatment of kidney transplant bone disease. Development of this guideline update followed an explicit process of evidence review and appraisal. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant trials, and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, with areas of future research also presented

KDIGO Controversies Conference on onco-nephrology: understanding kidney impairment and solid-organ malignancies, and managing kidney cancer

The association between kidney disease and cancer is multifaceted and complex. Persons with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased incidence of cancer, and both cancer and cancer treatments can cause impaired kidney function. Renal issues in the setting of malignancy can worsen patient outcomes and diminish the adequacy of anticancer treatments. In addition, the oncology treatment landscape is changing rapidly, and data on tolerability of novel therapies in patients with CKD are often lacking. Caring for oncology patients has become more specialized and interdisciplinary, currently requiring collaboration among specialists in nephrology, medical oncology, critical care, clinical pharmacology/pharmacy, and palliative care, in addition to surgeons and urologists. To identify key management issues in nephrology relevant to patients with malignancy, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) assembled a global panel of multidisciplinary clinical and scientific expertise for a controversies conference on onco-nephrology in December 2018. This report covers issues related to kidney impairment and solid organ malignancies as well as management and treatment of kidney cancer. Knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and research priorities are described

Potassium homeostasis and management of dyskalemia in kidney diseases: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Potassium disorders are common in patients with kidney disease, particularly in patients with tubular disorders and low glomerular filtration rate. A multidisciplinary group of researchers and clinicians met in October 2018 to identify evidence and address controversies in potassium management. The issues discussed encompassed our latest understanding of the regulation of tubular potassium excretion in health and disease; the relationship of potassium intake to cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, with increasing evidence showing beneficial associations with plant-based diet and data to suggest a paradigm shift from the idea of dietary restriction toward fostering patterns of eating that are associated with better outcomes; the paucity of data on the effect of dietary modification in restoring abnormal serum potassium to the normal range; a novel diagnostic algorithm for hypokalemia that takes into account the ascendency of the clinical context in determining cause, aligning the educational strategy with a practical approach to diagnosis; and therapeutic approaches in managing hyperkalemia when chronic and in the emergency or hospital ward. In sum, we provide here our conference deliberations on potassium homeostasis in health and disease, guidance for evaluation and management of dyskalemias in the context of kidney diseases, and research priorities in each of the above areas

Propensity scores in the presence of effect modification: A case study using the comparison of mortality on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis

Purpose. To control for confounding bias from non-random treatment assignment in observational data, both traditional multivariable models and more recently propensity score approaches have been applied. Our aim was to compare a propensity score-stratified model with a traditional multivariable-adjusted model, specifically in estimating survival of hemodialysis (HD) versus peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Methods. Using the Dutch End-Stage Renal Disease Registry, we constructed a propensity score, predicting PD assignment from age, gender, primary renal disease, center of dialysis, and year of first renal replacement therapy. We developed two Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate survival on PD relative to HD, a propensity score-stratified model stratifying on the propensity score and a multivariable-adjusted model, and tested several interaction terms in both models. Results. The propensity score performed well: it showed a reasonable fit, had a good c-statistic, calibrated well and balanced the covariates. The main-effects multivariable-adjusted model and the propensity score-stratified univariable Cox model resulted in similar relative mortality risk estimates of PD compared with HD (0.99 and 0.97, respectively) with fewer significant covariates in the propensity model. After introducing the missing interaction variables for effect modification in both models, the mortality risk estimates for both main effects and interactions remained comparable, but the propensity score model had nearly as many covariates because of the additional interaction variables. Conclusion. Although the propensity score performed well, it did not alter the treatment effect in the outcome model and lost its advantage of parsimony in the presence of effect modification

Improving the prognosis of patients with severely decreased glomerular filtration rate (CKD G4+): conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference.

Patients with severely decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (i.e., chronic kidney disease [CKD] G4+) are at increased risk for kidney failure, cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (including heart failure), and death. However, little is known about the variability of outcomes and optimal therapeutic strategies, including initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) organized a Controversies Conference with an international expert group in December 2016 to address this gap in knowledge. In collaboration with the CKD Prognosis Consortium (CKD-PC) a global meta-analysis of cohort studies (n = 264,515 individuals with CKD G4+) was conducted to better understand the timing of clinical outcomes in patients with CKD G4+ and risk factors for different outcomes. The results confirmed the prognostic value of traditional CVD risk factors in individuals with severely decreased GFR, although the risk estimates vary for kidney and CVD outcomes. A 2- and 4-year model of the probability and timing of kidney failure requiring KRT was also developed. The implications of these findings for patient management were discussed in the context of published evidence under 4 key themes: management of CKD G4+, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of heart failure, shared decision-making, and optimization of clinical trials in CKD G4+ patients. Participants concluded that variable prognosis of patients with advanced CKD mandates individualized, risk-based management, factoring in competing risks and patient preferences

Comparison of quality-of-care measures in U.S. patients with end-stage renal disease secondary to lupus nephritis vs. other causes

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to lupus nephritis (LN-ESRD) may be followed by multiple providers (nephrologists and rheumatologists) and have greater opportunities to receive recommended ESRD-related care. We aimed to examine whether LN-ESRD patients have better quality of ESRD care compared to other ESRD patients. METHODS: Among incident patients (7/05–9/11) with ESRD due to LN (n = 6,594) vs. other causes (n = 617,758), identified using a national surveillance cohort (United States Renal Data System), we determined the association between attributed cause of ESRD and quality-of-care measures (pre-ESRD nephrology care, placement on the deceased donor kidney transplant waitlist, and placement of permanent vascular access). Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: LN-ESRD patients were more likely than other ESRD patients to receive pre-ESRD care (71% vs. 66%; OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.57-1.78) and be placed on the transplant waitlist in the first year (206 vs. 86 per 1000 patient-years; HR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.34–1.52). However, only 24% had a permanent vascular access (fistula or graft) in place at dialysis start (vs. 36%; OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.59–0.67). CONCLUSIONS: LN-ESRD patients are more likely to receive pre-ESRD care and have better access to transplant, but are less likely to have a permanent vascular access for dialysis, than other ESRD patients. Further studies are warranted to examine barriers to permanent vascular access placement, as well as morbidity and mortality associated with temporary access, in patients with LN-ESRD

Establishing Core Outcome Domains in Hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop

Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes

Identifying critically important cardiovascular outcomes for trials in hemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in people on hemodialysis (HD). Cardiovascular outcomes are reported infrequently and inconsistently across trials in HD. This study aimed to identify the priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals (HPs) for CVD outcomes to be incorporated into a core outcome set reported in all HD trials. METHODS: In an international online survey, participants rated the absolute importance of 10 cardiovascular outcomes (derived from a systematic review) on a 9-point Likert scale, with 7-9 being critically important. The relative importance was determined using a best-worst scale. Likert means, medians and proportions and best-worst preference scores were calculated for each outcome. Comments were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Participants included 127 (19%) patients/caregivers and 549 (81%) HPs from 53 countries, of whom 530 (78%) completed the survey in English and 146 (22%) in Chinese. All but one cardiovascular outcome ('valve replacement') was rated as critically important (Likert 7-9) by all participants; 'sudden cardiac death', 'heart attack', 'stroke' and 'heart failure' were all rated at the top by patients/caregivers (median Likert score 9). Patients/caregivers ranked the same four outcomes as the most important outcomes with mean preference scores of 6.2 (95% confidence interval 4.8-7.5), 5.9 (4.6-7.2), 5.3 (4.0-6.6) and 4.9 (3.6-6.3), respectively. The same four outcomes were ranked most highly by HPs. We identified five themes underpinning the prioritization of outcomes: 'clinical equipoise and potential for intervention', 'specific or attributable to HD', 'severity or impact on the quality of life', 'strengthen knowledge and education', and 'inextricably linked burden and risk'. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and HPs believe that all cardiovascular outcomes are of critical importance but consistently identify sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure as the most important outcomes to be measured in all HD trials