IntroductionAbnormalities in lipid metabolism may contribute to the development and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Fenofibrate induces early and reversible reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), but it may have protective effects on microvascular complications of diabetes. We hypothesized that randomization to fenofibrate versus placebo would be associated with beneficial long-term effects on kidney outcomes in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial participants.MethodsWe conducted a post hoc analysis in the ACCORD Lipid Trial to examine the association of randomization to fenofibrate versus placebo with change in eGFR and with time-to-development of microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria, CKD, and kidney failure.ResultsWe analyzed 2636 participants in the fenofibrate arm and 2632 in the placebo arm. During a median follow-up of 4 years, treatment with fenofibrate was associated with lower rate of eGFR decline (−0.28 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year in the fenofibrate group vs. −1.25 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year in the placebo group, P < 0.01) and with lower incidence of microalbuminuria (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.72, P < 0.001) and macroalbuminuria (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57–0.91, P < 0.001). There was no difference in incidence of CKD (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74–1.15, P = 0.46) and/or kidney failure (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68–1.33, P = 0.76).ConclusionCompared with placebo, randomization to fenofibrate was associated with lower rates of incident albuminuria and a slower eGFR decline, but no difference in incidence of CKD or kidney failure in ACCORD participants.
Black participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial had lower rates of incident CKD compared with white participants. Rates of eGFR decline, microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria, and kidney failure did not vary by race.
Background
Patient-reported outcomes—symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life—are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients’ symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system.
Objective
The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes.
Methods
Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized.
Results
The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective.
Conclusions
This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems.
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)
DERR1-10.2196/38461
IntroductionGiven the burdens of treatment and poor prognosis, older adults with kidney failure would benefit from improved decision making and palliative care to clarify goals, address symptoms, and reduce unwanted procedures. Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) is a communication tool that uses scenario planning to support patients’ decision making. This article describes the protocol for a multisite, cluster randomised trial to test the effect of training nephrologists to use the BC/WC communication tool on patient receipt of palliative care, and quality of life and communication.Methods and analysisWe are enrolling attending nephrologists, at 10 study sites in the USA, who see outpatients with advanced chronic kidney disease considering dialysis. We aim to enrol 320 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≤24 mL/min/1.73 m2who are age 60 and older and have a predicted survival of 18 months or less. Nephrologists will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive training to use the communication tool (intervention) at study initiation or after study completion (wait-list control). Patients in the intervention group will receive care from a nephrologist trained to use the BC/WC communication tool. Patients in the control group will receive usual care. Using chart review and surveys of patients and caregivers, we will test the efficacy of the BC/WC intervention with receipt of palliative care as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include intensity of treatment at the end of life, the effect of the intervention on quality of communication (QOC) between nephrologists and patients (using the QOC scale), the change in quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale) and receipt of dialysis.Ethics and disseminationApprovals have been granted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin (ID: 2022-0193), with each study site ceding review to the primary IRB. All nephrologists will be consented and given a copy of the consent form. No patients or caregivers will be recruited or consented until their nephrology provider has chosen to participate in the study. Results will be disseminated via submission for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and at national meetings.Trial registration numberNCT04466865.
Background
Deoxycholic acid (DCA) is a secondary bile acid that may promote vascular calcification in experimental settings. Higher DCA levels were associated with prevalent coronary artery calcification (CAC) in a small group of individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease. Whether DCA levels are associated with CAC prevalence, incidence, and progression in a large and diverse population of individuals with chronic kidney disease stages 2 to 4 is unknown.
Methods and Results
In the CRIC (Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort) study, we evaluated cross‐sectional (n=1057) and longitudinal (n=672) associations between fasting serum DCA levels and computed tomographic CAC using multivariable‐adjusted regression models. The mean age was 57±12 years, 47% were women, and 41% were Black. At baseline, 64% had CAC (CAC score >0 Agatston units). In cross‐sectional analyses, models adjusted for demographics and clinical factors showed no association between DCA levels and CAC >0 compared with no CAC (prevalence ratio per 1‐SD higher log DCA, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.91–1.26). DCA was not associated with incident CAC (incidence per 1‐SD greater log DCA, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85–1.39]) or CAC progression (risk for increase in ≥100 and ≥200 Agatston units per year per 1‐SD greater log DCA, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.84–1.31] and 1.26 [95% CI, 0.77–2.06], respectively).
Conclusions
Among CRIC study participants, DCA was not associated with prevalent, incident, or progression of CAC.
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.