Epidemiological studies of acute kidney injury (AKI) and acute-on-chronic renal failure (ACRF) are surprisingly sparse and confounded by differences in definition. Reported incidences vary, with few studies being population-based. Given this and our aging population, the incidence of AKI may be much higher than currently thought. We tested the hypothesis that the incidence is higher by including all patients with AKI (in a geographical population base of 523,390) regardless of whether they required renal replacement therapy irrespective of the hospital setting in which they were treated. We also tested the hypothesis that the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-Stage Kidney (RIFLE) classification predicts outcomes. We identified all patients with serum creatinine concentrations >150 mol/L (male) or >130mol/L (female) over a 6-mo period in 2003. Clinical outcomes were obtained from each patient's case records. The incidences of AKI and ACRF were 1811 and 336 per million population, respectively. Median age was 76 yr for AKI and 80.5 yr for ACRF. Sepsis was a precipitating factor in 47% of patients. The RIFLE classification was useful for predicting full recovery of renal function (P < 0.001), renal replacement therapy requirement (P < 0.001), length of hospital stay [excluding those who died during admission (P < 0.001)], and in-hospital mortality (P ‫؍‬ 0.035). RIFLE did not predict mortality at 90 d or 6 mo. Thus the incidence of AKI is much higher than previously thought, with implications for service planning and providing information to colleagues about methods to prevent deterioration of renal function. The RIFLE classification is useful for identifying patients at greatest risk of adverse short-term outcomes.

This Clinical Practice Guideline document is based upon the best information available as of February 2011. It is designed to provide information and assist decision-making. It is not intended to define a standard of care, and should not be construed as one, nor should it be interpreted as prescribing an exclusive course of management. Variations in practice will inevitably and appropriately occur when clinicians take into account the needs of individual patients, available resources, and limitations unique to an institution or type of practice. Every health-care professional making use of these recommendations is responsible for evaluating the appropriateness of applying them in the setting of any particular clinical situation. The recommendations for research contained within this document are general and do not imply a specific protocol. SECTION II: DISCLOSUREKidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) makes every effort to avoid any actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the Work Group. All members of the Work Group are required to complete, sign, and submit a disclosure and attestation form showing all such relationships that might be perceived or actual conflicts of interest. This document is updated annually and information is adjusted accordingly. All reported information

Limited data are available on the independent associations of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria with mortality and end stage renal disease (ESRD) among individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a collaborative meta-analysis of 21,688 participants selected for CKD from 13 cohorts. After adjustment for potential confounders and albuminuria, a 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 lower eGFR below 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 was significantly associated with mortality (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 1.47 [95% CI: 1.22–1.79]), and ESRD (pooled HR 6.24 [95% CI: 4.84–8.05]). There was significant heterogeneity between studies for both HR estimates. After adjustment for risk factors and eGFR, an eight-fold higher albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) or protein:creatinine ratio (PCR) was significantly associated with mortality (pooled HR 1.40 [95% CI: 1.27–1.55]), without evidence of significant heterogeneity. An eight-fold higher ACR or PCR was also strongly associated with ESRD (pooled HR 3.04 [95% CI: 2.27–4.08]), with significant heterogeneity between HR estimates. Lower eGFR and more severe albuminuria independently predict mortality and ESRD among individuals selected for CKD. The associations are stronger for ESRD than for mortality. The observed associations are consistent with CKD classification based on eGFR stages, and suggest that albuminuria provides additional prognostic information among individuals with CKD.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem. There is an increasing incidence and prevalence of patients with kidney failure requiring replacement therapy, with poor outcomes and high cost. There is an even higher prevalence of patients in earlier stages of CKD, with adverse outcomes such as kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. Patients at earlier stages of CKD can be detected through laboratory testing and their treatment is effective in slowing the progression to kidney failure and reducing cardiovascular events. The science and evidence-based care of these patients are universal and independent of their geographic location. There is a clear need to develop a uniform and global public health approach to the worldwide epidemic of CKD. It is to this end that a new initiative "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" has been established. Its stated mission is "Improve the care and outcomes of kidney disease patients worldwide through promoting coordination, collaboration and integration of initiatives to develop and implement clinical practice guidelines."

SummaryBackgroundStudies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care.MethodsThis study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366.Findings1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, −3·5 mm Hg [95% CI −5·8 to −1·2]; telemonitoring, −4·7 mm Hg [–7·0 to −2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference −1·2 mm Hg [95% CI −3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups.InterpretationSelf-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care.FundingNational Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

As confounding obscures the 'real' effect of an exposure on outcome, investigators performing etiological studies do their utmost best to prevent or control confounding. Unfortunately, in this process, errors are frequently made. This paper explains that to be a potential confounder, a variable needs to satisfy all three of the following criteria: (1) it must have an association with the disease, that is, it should be a risk factor for the disease; (2) it must be associated with the exposure, that is, it must be unequally distributed between exposure groups; and (3) it must not be an effect of the exposure; this also means that it may not be part of the causal pathway. In addition, a number of different techniques are described that may be applied to prevent or control for confounding: randomization, restriction, matching, and stratification. Finally, a number of examples outline commonly made errors, most of which result from 'overadjustment' for variables that do not satisfy the criteria for potential confounders. Such an example of an error frequently occurring in the literature is the incorrect adjustment for blood pressure while studying the relationship between body mass index and the development of end-stage renal disease. Such errors will introduce new bias instead of preventing it.

No abstract

How to obtain copies of this and other HTA programme reports An electronic version of this title, in Adobe Acrobat format, is available for downloading free of charge for personal use from the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk). A fully searchable DVD is also available (see below).Printed copies of HTA journal series issues cost £20 each (post and packing free in the UK) to both public and private sector purchasers from our despatch agents.Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per issue and for the rest of the world £3 per issue. How to order:-fax (with credit card details) -post (with credit card details or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you to either print out your order or download a blank order form. Contact details are as follows:Synergie UK (HTA Department) Digital House, The Loddon Centre Wade Road Basingstoke Hants RG24 8QW Email: orders@hta.ac.uk Tel: 0845 812 4000 -ask for 'HTA Payment Services' (out-of-hours answer-phone service) Fax: 0845 812 4001 -put 'HTA Order' on the fax header Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to University of Southampton and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardYou can order using your credit card by phone, fax or post. SubscriptionsNHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 40-50 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £400 per volume (addresses within the UK) and £600 per volume (addresses outside the UK). Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can be purchased only for the current or forthcoming volume. How do I get a copy of HTA on DVD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd/index.shtml). HTA on DVD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA NIHR Health Technology Assessment programmeT he Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service'. The HTA programme is needs led in that it fills gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. There are three routes to the start of projects...