Availability and prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccines among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and kidney failure during the height of the pandemic: a global survey by the International Society of Nephrology.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) or kidney failure receiving replacement therapy (KFRT) are highly vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, morbidity and mortality. Vaccination is effective, but access differs around the world. We aimed to ascertain the availability, readiness and prioritisation of COVID-19 vaccines for this group of patients globally. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Collaborators from the International Society of Nephrology (ISN), Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and ISN-Global Kidney Health Atlas developed an online survey that was administered electronically to key nephrology leaders in 174 countries between 2 July and 4 August 2021. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 99 of 174 countries from all 10 ISN regions, among which 88/174 (50%) were complete. At least one vaccine was available in 96/99 (97%) countries. In 71% of the countries surveyed, patients on dialysis were prioritised for vaccination, followed by patients living with a kidney transplant (KT) (62%) and stage 4/5 CKD (51%). Healthcare workers were the most common high priority group for vaccination. At least 50% of patients receiving in-centre haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or KT were estimated to have completed vaccination at the time of the survey in 55%, 64% and 51% of countries, respectively. At least 50% of patients in all three patient groups had been vaccinated in >70% of high-income countries and in 100% of respondent countries in Western Europe.The most common barriers to vaccination of patients were vaccine hesitancy (74%), vaccine shortages (61%) and mass vaccine distribution challenges (48%). These were reported more in low-income and lower middle-income countries compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced CKD or KFRT were prioritised in COVID-19 vaccination in most countries. Multiple barriers led to substantial variability in the successful achievement of COVID-19 vaccination across the world, with high-income countries achieving the most access and success.

An ISN-DOPPS Survey of the Global Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Peritoneal Dialysis Services.

Introduction: Home dialysis may minimize SARS-CoV2 exposure risks compared to center-based dialysis. We explored how the pandemic may have introduced challenges related to peritoneal dialysis (PD) supply availability, routine patient care, and how facility practices changed during this time. Methods: The PD/Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS/DOPPS) and International Society of Nephrology (ISN) administered a web-based survey from November 2020 to March 2021. Medical director responses were compared across 10 ISN regions. Results: One hundered sixy-five PD facilities in 51 countries returned surveys. During the initial COVID-19 wave, the reported frequency of in-person patient visits decreased in 9 of 10 ISN regions. Before the pandemic, most facilities required a mask during PD exchanges which continued over the course of the pandemic. Although most facilities in different regions did not report PD supply disruptions, sites in Africa and South Asia reported major disruptions. Reductions in laparoscopic surgical procedures for PD catheters were reported by facilities in 9 of 10 regions whereas nonsurgical percutaneous procedures increased in facilities in 6 regions. Training of new PD patients declined in facilities in each region. Increased use of remote technology by patients to communicate with clinics was observed in all regions compared to prepandemic levels. Conclusion: Marked within-region and across-region variability was noted in PD facility burden, clinical practice, and adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study highlights opportunities to improve routine PD care, adapt to the ongoing pandemic, and increase preparedness for potential future interruptions in PD care.

The COVID-19 Pandemic Identifies Significant Global Inequities in Hemodialysis Care in Low and Lower-Middle Income Countries-An ISN/DOPPS Survey.

Introduction: It is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the care of vulnerable chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients across regions, particularly in low and lower-middle income countries (LLMICs). We aimed to identify global inequities in HD care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The ISN and the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) conducted a global online survey of HD units between March and November, 2020, to ascertain practice patterns and access to resources relevant to HD care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses were categorized according to World Bank income classification for comparisons. Results: Surveys were returned from 412 facilities in 78 countries: 15 (4%) in low-income countries (LICs), 111 (27%) in lower-middle income countries (LMICs), 145 (35%) in upper-middle income countries (UMICs), and 141 (34%) in high-income countries (HICs). Respondents reported that diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 were unavailable or of limited availability in LICs (72%) and LMICs (68%) as compared with UMICs (33%) and HICs (20%). The number of patients who missed HD treatments was reported to have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in LICs (64%) and LMICs (67%) as compared with UMICs (31%) and HICs (6%). Limited access to HD, intensive care unit (ICU) care, and mechanical ventilation among hospitalized patients on chronic dialysis with COVID-19 were also reportedly higher in LICs and LMICs as compared with UMICs and HICs. Staff in LLMICs reported less routine testing for SARS-CoV-2 when asymptomatic as compared with UMICs and HICs-14% in LICs and 11% in LMICs, compared with 26% and 28% in UMICs and HICs, respectively. Severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) were reported by the respondents from LICs and LMICs compared with UMICs and HICs, especially with respect to the use of the N95 particulate-air respirator masks. Conclusion: Striking global inequities were identified in the care of chronic HD patients during the pandemic. Urgent action is required to address these inequities which disproportionately affect LLMIC settings thereby exacerbating pre-existing vulnerabilities that may contribute to poorer outcomes.

Converting from face-to-face to postal follow-up and its effects on participant retention, response rates and errors: lessons from the EQUAL study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Prospective cohort studies are challenging to deliver, with one of the main difficulties lying in retention of participants. The need to socially distance during the COVID-19 pandemic has added to this challenge. The pre-COVID-19 adaptation of the European Quality (EQUAL) study in the UK to a remote form of follow-up for efficiency provides lessons for those who are considering changing their study design. METHODS: The EQUAL study is an international prospective cohort study of patients ≥65 years of age with advanced chronic kidney disease. Initially, patients were invited to complete a questionnaire (SF-36, Dialysis Symptom Index and Renal Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire) at research clinics every 3-6 months, known as "traditional follow-up" (TFU). In 2018, all living patients were invited to switch to "efficient follow-up" (EFU), which used an abbreviated questionnaire consisting of SF-12 and Dialysis Symptom Index. These were administered centrally by post. Response rates were calculated using returned questionnaires as a proportion of surviving invitees, and error rates presented as the average percentage of unanswered questions or unclear answers, of total questions in returned questionnaires. Response and error rates were calculated 6-monthly in TFU to allow comparisons with EFU. RESULTS: Of the 504 patients initially recruited, 236 were still alive at the time of conversion to EFU; 111 of these (47%) consented to the change in follow-up. In those who consented, median TFU was 34 months, ranging from 0 to 42 months. Their response rates fell steadily from 88% (98/111) at month 0 of TFU, to 20% (3/15) at month 42. The response rate for the first EFU questionnaire was 60% (59/99) of those alive from TFU. With this improvement in response rates, the first EFU also lowered errors to baseline levels seen in early follow-up, after having almost trebled throughout traditional follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study demonstrates that administration of shorter follow-up questionnaires by post rather than in person does not negatively impact patient response or error rates. These results may be reassuring for researchers who are trying to limit face-to-face contact with patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Global Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on In-Center Hemodialysis Services: An ISN-Dialysis Outcomes Practice Patterns Study Survey.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on hemodialysis (HD) centers, The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study and ISN collaborated on a web-survey of centers. METHODS: A combined approach of random sampling and open invitation was used between March 2020 and March 2021. Responses were obtained from 412 centers in 78 countries and all 10 ISN regions. RESULTS: In 8 regions, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection were <20% in most centers, but in North East Asia (NE Asia) and Newly Independent States and Russia (NIS & Russia), rates were ≥20% and ≥30%, respectively. Mortality was ≥10% in most centers in 8 regions, although lower in North America and Caribbean (N America & Caribbean) and NE Asia. Diagnostic testing was not available in 33%, 37%, and 61% of centers in Latin America, Africa, and East and Central Europe, respectively. Surgical masks were widely available, but severe shortages of particulate-air filter masks were reported in Latin America (18%) and Africa (30%). Rates of infection in staff ranged from 0% in 90% of centers in NE Asia to ≥50% in 63% of centers in the Middle East and 68% of centers in NIS & Russia. In most centers, <10% of staff died, but in Africa and South Asia (S Asia), 2% and 6% of centers reported ≥50% mortality, respectively. CONCLUSION: There has been wide global variation in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates among HD patients and staff, personal protective equipment (PPE) availability, and testing, and the ways in which services have been redesigned in response to the pandemic.

Ethical Duties of Nephrologists: When Patients Are Nonadherent to Treatment.

When providing care, nephrologists are subject to various ethical duties. Beyond the Hippocratic notion of doing no harm, nephrologists also have duties to respect their patients' autonomy and dignity, to meet their patients' care goals in the least invasive way, to act impartially, and, ultimately, to do what is (clinically) beneficial for their patients. Juggling these often-conflicting duties can be challenging at the best of times, but can prove especially difficult when patients are not fully adherent to treatment. When a patient's nonadherence begins to cause harm to themselves and/or others, it may be questioned whether discontinuation of care is appropriate. We discuss how nephrologists can meet their ethical duties when faced with nonadherence in patients undergoing hemodialysis, including episodic extreme agitation, poor renal diet, missed hemodialysis sessions, and emergency presentations brought on by nonadherence. Furthermore, we consider the impact of cognitive impairment and provider-family conflict when making care decisions in a nonadherence context, as well as how the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic might affect responses to nonadherence. Suggestions are provided for ethically informed responses, prioritizing a patient-narrative approach that is attentive to patients' values and preferences, multidisciplinarity, and the use of behavioral contracts and/or technology where appropriate.

Ethics of kidney care in the era of COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic presents significant challenges for health systems globally, including substantive ethical dilemmas that may pose specific concerns in the context of care for people with kidney disease. Ethical concerns may arise as changes in policy and practice affect the ability of all health professionals to fulfill their ethical duties toward their patients in providing best practice care. In this article, we briefly describe such concerns and elaborate on issues of particular ethical complexity in kidney care: equitable access to dialysis during pandemic surges; balancing the risks and benefits of different kidney failure treatments, specifically with regard to suspending kidney transplantation programs and prioritizing home dialysis, and barriers to shared decision-making; and ensuring ethical practice when using unproven interventions. We present preliminary advice on how to approach these issues and recommend urgent efforts to develop resources that will support health professionals and patients in managing them.