Inequalities in the management of diabetic kidney disease in UK primary care: A cross-sectional analysis of a large primary care database.

AIMS: To determine differences in the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) relevant to patient sex, ethnicity and socio-economic group in UK primary care. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis as of January 1, 2019 was undertaken using the IQVIA Medical Research Data dataset, to determine the proportion of people with DKD managed in accordance with national guidelines, stratified by demographics. Robust Poisson regression models were used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and social deprivation. RESULTS: Of the 2.3 million participants, 161,278 had type 1 or 2 diabetes, of which 32,905 had DKD. Of people with DKD, 60% had albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) measured, 64% achieved blood pressure (BP, <140/90 mmHg) target, 58% achieved glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c, <58 mmol/mol) target, 68% prescribed renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor in the previous year. Compared to men, women were less likely to have creatinine: aRR 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-0.99), ACR: aRR 0.94 (0.92-0.96), BP: aRR 0.98 (0.97-0.99), HbA1c : aRR 0.99 (0.98-0.99) and serum cholesterol: aRR 0.97 (0.96-0.98) measured; achieve BP: aRR 0.95 (0.94-0.98) or total cholesterol (<5 mmol/L) targets: aRR 0.86 (0.84-0.87); or be prescribed RAAS inhibitors: aRR 0.92 (0.90-0.94) or statins: aRR 0.94 (0.92-0.95). Compared to the least deprived areas, people from the most deprived areas were less likely to have BP measurements: aRR 0.98 (0.96-0.99); achieve BP: aRR 0.91 (0.8-0.95) or HbA1c : aRR 0.88 (0.85-0.92) targets, or be prescribed RAAS inhibitors: aRR 0.91 (0.87-0.95). Compared to people of white ethnicity; those of black ethnicity were less likely to be prescribed statins aRR 0.91 (0.85-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: There are unmet needs and inequalities in the management of DKD in the UK. Addressing these could reduce the increasing human and societal cost of managing DKD.

Do outcomes for patients with hospital-acquired Acute Kidney Injury (H-AKI) vary across specialties in England?

BACKGROUND: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is a common and serious clinical syndrome. There is increasing recognition of heterogeneity in observed AKI across different clinical settings. In this analysis we have utilised a large national dataset to outline, for the first time, differences in burden of hospital acquired AKI (H-AKI) and mortality risk across different treatment specialities in the English National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using a large national dataset of patients who triggered a biochemical AKI alert in England during 2019. This dataset was enriched through linkage with NHS hospitals administrative and mortality data. Episodes of H-AKI were identified and attributed to the speciality of the supervising consultant during the hospitalisation episode in which the H-AKI alert was generated. Associations between speciality and death in hospital or within 30 days of discharge (30-day mortality) was modelled using logistic regression, adjusting for patient age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, AKI severity, season and method of admission. RESULTS: In total, 93,196 episodes of H-AKI were studied. The largest number of patients with H-AKI were observed under general medicine (21.9%), care of the elderly (18.9%) and general surgery (11.2%). Despite adjusting for differences in patient case-mix, 30-day mortality risk was consistently lower for patients in surgical specialities compared to general medicine, including general surgery (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.7) and trauma and orthopaedics (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.56). Mortality risk was highest in critical care (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.03) and oncology (OR 1.74, CI 1.54 to 1.96). CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were identified in the burden of H-AKI and associated mortality risk for patients across different specialities in the English NHS. This work can help inform future service delivery and quality improvement activity for patients with AKI across the NHS.

Seasonal mortality trends for hospitalised patients with acute kidney injury across England.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) is known to peak in winter months. This is likely influenced by seasonality of commonly associated acute illnesses. We set out to assess seasonal mortality trends for patients who develop AKI across the English National Health Service (NHS) and to better understand associations with patient 'case-mix'. METHODS: The study cohort included all hospitalised adult patients in England who triggered a biochemical AKI alert in 2017. We modelled the impact of season on 30-day mortality using multivariable logistic regression; adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), primary diagnosis, comorbidity (RCCI), elective/emergency admission, peak AKI stage and community/hospital acquired AKI. Seasonal odds ratios for AKI mortality were then calculated and compared across individual NHS hospital trusts. RESULTS: The crude 30-day mortality for hospitalised AKI patients was 33% higher in winter compared to summer. Case-mix adjustment for a wide range of clinical and demographic factors did not fully explain excess winter mortality. The adjusted odds ratio of patients dying in winter vs. summer was 1.25 (1.22-1.29), this was higher than for Autumn and Spring vs. Summer, 1.09 (1.06-1.12) and 1.07 (1.04-1.11) respectively and varied across different NHS trusts (9 out of 90 centres outliers). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated an excess winter mortality risk for hospitalised patients with AKI across the English NHS, which could not be fully explained by seasonal variation in patient case-mix. Whilst the explanation for worse winter outcomes is not clear, unaccounted differences including 'winter-pressures' merit further investigation.

Survival for waitlisted kidney failure patients receiving transplantation versus remaining on waiting list: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis for waitlisted kidney failure patients with a priori stratification. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Online databases MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Collection, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched between database inception and 1 March 2021. INCLUSION CRITERIA: All comparative studies that assessed all cause mortality for transplantation versus dialysis in patients with kidney failure waitlisted for transplant surgery were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was done using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model, with heterogeneity investigated by subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression. RESULTS: The search identified 48 observational studies with no randomised controlled trials (n=1 245 850 patients). In total, 92% (n=44/48) of studies reported a long term (at least one year) survival benefit associated with transplantation compared with dialysis. However, 11 of those studies identified stratums in which transplantation offered no statistically significant benefit over remaining on dialysis. In 18 studies suitable for meta-analysis, kidney transplantation showed a survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.54; P<0.001), with significant heterogeneity even after subgroup/sensitivity analyses or meta-regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplantation remains the superior treatment modality for most patients with kidney failure to reduce all cause mortality, but some subgroups may lack a survival benefit. Given the continued scarcity of donor organs, further evidence is needed to better inform decision making for patients with kidney failure. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021247247.

Centre variation in mortality following post-hospitalization acute kidney injury: analysis of a large national cohort.

BACKGROUND: Routine monitoring of outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) is important to drive ongoing quality improvement in patient care. In this study we describe the development of a case mix-adjusted 30-day mortality indicator for patients with post-hospitalization AKI (PH-AKI) across England to facilitate identification of any unwarranted centre variation in outcomes. METHODS: We utilized a routinely collected national dataset of biochemically detected AKI cases linked with national hospitals administrative and mortality data. A total of 250 504 PH-AKI episodes were studied across 103 National Health Service hospital trusts between January 2017 and December 2018. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated for each trust using logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, primary diagnosis, comorbidity score, AKI severity, month of AKI and admission method. RESULTS: The mean 30-day mortality rate was high, at 28.6%. SMRs for 23/103 trusts were classed as outliers, 12 above and 11 below the 95% confidence limits. Patients with PH-AKI had mortality rates >5 times higher than the overall hospitalized population in 90/136 diagnosis groups and >10 times higher in 60/136 groups. Presentation at trusts with a co-located specialist nephrology service was associated with a lower mortality risk, as was South Asian or Black ethnicity. Deprivation, however, was associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicentre analysis of mortality for patients with biochemically ascertained PH-AKI to date, demonstrating once again the considerable risk associated with developing even mild elevations in serum creatinine. Mortality rates varied considerably across centres and those identified as outliers will now need to carefully interrogate local care pathways to understand and address the reasons for this, with national policy required to tackle the identified health disparities.

Association of British Clinical Diabetologists and Renal Association guidelines on the detection and management of diabetes post solid organ transplantation.

Post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is common after solid organ transplantation (SOT) and associated with increased morbidity and mortality for allograft recipients. Despite the significant burden of disease, there is a paucity of literature with regards to detection, prevention and management. Evidence from the general population with diabetes may not be translatable to the unique context of SOT. In light of emerging clinical evidence and novel anti-diabetic agents, there is an urgent need for updated guidance and recommendations in this high-risk cohort. The Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) and Renal Association (RA) Diabetic Kidney Disease Clinical Speciality Group has undertaken a systematic review and critical appraisal of the available evidence. Areas of focus are; (1) epidemiology, (2) pathogenesis, (3) detection, (4) management, (5) modification of immunosuppression, (6) prevention, and (7) PTDM in the non-renal setting. Evidence-graded recommendations are provided for the detection, management and prevention of PTDM, with suggested areas for future research and potential audit standards. The guidelines are endorsed by Diabetes UK, the British Transplantation Society and the Royal College of Physicians of London. The full guidelines are available freely online for the diabetes, renal and transplantation community using the link below. The aim of this review article is to introduce an abridged version of this new clinical guideline ( https://abcd.care/sites/abcd.care/files/site_uploads/Resources/Position-Papers/ABCD-RA%20PTDM%20v14.pdf).

Risk of post-transplantation diabetes mellitus is greater in South Asian versus Caucasian kidney allograft recipients.

South Asians have increased risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with Caucasians in the general population, but data for the development of post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is scarce. In this retrospective analysis, data was extracted from electronic patient records at a single centre (2004-2014). Caucasians were more likely to be male, with higher age and BMI than South Asians. Case-control matching was therefore undertaken to remove this bias, resulting in 102 recipient pairs. Median follow-up was 50 months (range 4-127 months). Matched groups had similar baseline characteristics, although South Asians compared with Caucasians received more deceased-donor kidneys (74% vs. 43%, respectively, P < 0.001) and were more likely to be CMV positive (77% vs. 43%, respectively, P < 0.001). PTDM incidence was significantly higher in South Asians versus Caucasians (35% vs. 10%, respectively, subhazard ratio 4.2 [95% CI: 2.1-8.5, P < 0.001]). Donor type had significant interaction with ethnicity, with the observed difference in PTDM rates between ethnicities most visible with receipt of deceased-donor kidneys. No significant difference was detected in allograft function, rejection episodes, adverse cardiovascular events or patient/graft survival. South Asians have increased risk of PTDM, especially recipients of deceased kidneys, and recognition of this allows appropriate patient counselling and development of targeted strategies.

Gender Disparity in Living-Donor Kidney Transplant Among Minority Ethnic Groups.

OBJECTIVES: We have limited data on gender disparities between living kidney transplant donors and recipients across ethnic groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all living-donor kidney transplants performed at a single center in an ethnically diverse region of England. Data were extracted from the United Kingdom National Transplant Database and University Hospitals Birmingham electronic medical records. RESULTS: We analyzed 713 living-donor kidney transplant procedures that were performed from 1987 to 2014. Gender disparities were observed, with women more likely to be living donors (54.7%) and less likely to be recipients (39.4%). Most male recipients received kidneys from female donors versus male donors (70.2% vs 29.8%), whereas the proportion of men receiving kidneys from women (50.9%) and from men (49.1%) were similar (P < .001). Black, Asian, and donors from other minority groups comprised 18.7% of the donor cohort. South Asian partner-to-partner transplants (n = 22) were predominantly men receiving transplants from women (90.9%) versus women receiving transplants from men (9.1%; P = .003). Male patients more commonly donated their kidney to children than to women (10.2% vs 6.4%; P = .046). South Asian donations to children were similar between males and females; however, boys exclusively received kidneys from male donors (8/8) versus from female donors (8/12). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparity exists in living-donor kidney transplant, with disparities more pronounced in some ethnic groups and among particular relationships. This finding requires targeted counseling and research to understand whether the cause is medical or sociocultural obstacles.