ObjectivesThe Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) is a multinational, cross-sectional survey designed to assess the current capacity for kidney care across all world regions. The 2017 GKHA involved 125 countries and identified significant gaps in oversight, funding and infrastructure to support care for patients with kidney disease, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Here, we report results from the survey for the second iteration of the GKHA conducted in 2018, which included specific questions about health financing and oversight of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care worldwide.SettingA cross-sectional global survey.ParticipantsKey stakeholders from 182 countries were invited to participate. Of those, stakeholders from 160 countries participated and were included.Primary outcomesPrimary outcomes included cost of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), funding for dialysis and transplantation, funding for conservative kidney management, extent of universal health coverage, out-of-pocket costs for KRT, within-country variability in ESKD care delivery and oversight systems for ESKD care. Outcomes were determined from a combination of desk research and input from key stakeholders in participating countries.Results160 countries (covering 98% of the world’s population) responded to the survey. Economic factors were identified as the top barrier to optimal ESKD care in 99 countries (64%). Full public funding for KRT was more common than for conservative kidney management (43% vs 28%). Among countries that provided at least some public coverage for KRT, 75% covered all citizens. Within-country variation in ESKD care delivery was reported in 40% of countries. Oversight of ESKD care was present in all high-income countries but was absent in 13% of low-income, 3% of lower-middle-income, and 10% of upper-middle-income countries.ConclusionSignificant gaps and variability exist in the public funding and oversight of ESKD care in many countries, particularly for those in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.
Type B lactic acidosis complicating malignancies is rare. Increased lactate production from abnormal metabolism of tumor tissue and extensive liver metastases impairing clearance are usual causes. Fluorouracil, commonly used as adjuvant cancer chemotherapy, is not well recognized among drugs that can lead to lactic acidosis. We report a hemodialysis patient, tumor free after surgery for colon carcinoma, developing acute severe lactic acidosis and encephalopathy. Pharmacogenetic studies failed to show common variants predisposing to the more typical patterns of fluorouracil toxicity. Routine monitoring of hemodialysis patients after fluorouracil is the only practical way to detect this potentially lethal complication.
Aim Previous studies report an association between longer haemodialysis treatment sessions and improved survival. Worldwide, there is a trend to increasing age among prevalent patients receiving haemodialysis. This analysis aimed to determine whether the mortality benefit of longer haemodialysis treatment sessions diminishes with increasing age. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of people who first commenced thrice‐weekly haemodialysis aged ≥65 years, reported to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry from 2005 to 2015, included from 90 days after dialysis start. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. Cox regression analysis was performed with haemodialysis session duration the exposure of interest. Results Of 8224 people who commenced haemodialysis as their first treatment for kidney failure aged ≥65 years during this period, 4727 patients died. Longer dialysis hours per session was associated with a decreased risk of death in unadjusted analyses [hazard ratio, HR, for ≥5 h versus 4 to <4.5 h: 0.81 (0.75–0.88, p < .001)]. Patients having longer dialysis sessions were younger but had greater co‐morbidity. In an adjusted model including age and other variables, the survival benefit of longer hours was only partially attenuated [HR for previous comparison: 0.75 (0.69–0.82, p < .001)], and no interaction between age and hours was demonstrated (p = .89). Conclusion The apparent survival benefit associated with longer haemodialysis session length appears to be preserved in patients 65 years or older. In practice, the benefit of longer dialysis hours should be carefully weighed against other factors in this patient group.
Background Home haemodialysis (HHD) is utilised significantly less often than facility haemodialysis globally with few exceptions despite being associated with improved survival, and better quality of life. Previously, HHD was exclusively offered to younger patients with few comorbidities. However, with the increasing burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) alongside an ageing population, increasing numbers of older patients are being treated with HHD. This study aims to re-evaluate survival and related outcomes in the context of this epidemiological shift. Methods A matched cohort design was used to compare all-cause mortality, transplantation, average biochemical values and graft survival 6 months post-transplant between HHD and facility haemodialysis patients. 181 HHD patients from a major hospital network were included, with 413 facility haemodialysis patients from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) matched by age, gender, and cause of ESKD. Survival analysis and competing risks analysis (for transplantation) were performed. Results After adjusting for BMI, smoking status, racial group, and comorbidities, HHD was associated with significantly reduced risk of death compared to facility HD patients (HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.74). Transplantation rates were comparable, with high rates of graft survival at 6 months in both groups. Haemoglobin, calcium, and parathyroid hormone levels did not vary significantly. However, home HD patients had significantly lower phosphate levels. Conclusions In this study, improved survival outcomes were observed in patients on home compared to facility dialysis, with comparable rates of transplantation, graft survival and biochemical control.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.