Developing an Edema Clinician-Reported Outcome Measure for Nephrotic Syndrome.

Introduction: Edema is a common manifestation of proteinuric kidney diseases, but there is no consensus approach for reliably evaluating edema. The objective of this study was to develop an edema clinician-reported outcome measure for use in patients with nephrotic syndrome. Methods: A literature review was conducted to assess existing clinician-rated measures of edema. Clinical experts were recruited from internal medicine, nephrology, and pediatric nephrology practices to participate in concept elicitation using semi-structured interviews and cognitive debriefing. Qualitative analysis methods were used to collate expert input and inform measurement development. In addition, training and assessment modules were developed using an iterative process that also utilized expert input and cognitive debriefing to ensure interrater reliability. Results: While several clinician-rated measures of edema have been proposed, our literature review did not identify any studies to support the reliability or validity of these measures. Fourteen clinician experts participated in the concept elicitation interviews, and twelve participated in cognitive debriefing. A clinician-reported outcome measure for edema was developed. The measure assesses edema severity in multiple individual body parts. An online training module and assessment tool were generated and refined using additional clinician input and investigative team expertise. Conclusion: The Edema ClinRO (V1) measure is developed specifically to measure edema in nephrotic syndrome. The tool assesses edema across multiple body parts, and it includes a training module to ensure standardized administration across raters. Future examination of this measure is ongoing to establish its reliability and validity.

Prospective analysis of Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO) vascular access graft vs. cuffed catheter access in hemodialysis.

The Hemodialysis Reliable Outflow (HeRO) graft was compared to the cuffed catheter in end-stage renal disease patients. All consented patients were evaluated for HeRO graft placement. Eligible patients that did not receive a graft were enrolled in the control group. Participants who had not exhausted peripheral venous access sites suitable for fistulas and grafts were excluded. Differences in quality of life and incidence of bacteremia, vascular interventions, hospitalizations, and death were evaluated over one year. In thirty-three patients included in the analysis--16 HeRO, 17 control--significantly fewer bacteremia events (93.8% vs. 64.7%) and a significantly increased number of vascular interventions (64.7% vs. 25%) were reported for the HeRO versus Control group. The increased interventions in the HeRO group may be due to the two-step placement process.

Economic evaluation of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus urgent-start hemodialysis in the United States.

Patients presenting late in the course of kidney disease who require urgent initiation of dialysis have traditionally received temporary vascular catheters followed by hemodialysis. Recent changes in Medicare payment policy for dialysis in the USA incentivized the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Consequently, the use of more expeditious PD for late-presenting patients (urgent-start PD) has received new attention. Urgent-start PD has been shown to be safe and effective, and offers a mechanism for increasing PD utilization. However, there has been no assessment of the dialysis-related costs over the first 90 days of care. The objective of this study was to characterize the costs associated with urgent-start PD, urgent-start hemodialysis (HD), or a dual approach (urgent-start HD followed by urgent-start PD) over the first 90 days of treatment from a provider perspective. A survey of practitioners from 5 clinics known to use urgent-start PD was conducted to provide inputs for a cost model representing typical patients. Model inputs were obtained from the survey, literature review, and available cost data. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. The estimated per patient cost over the first 90 days for urgent-start PD was $16,398. Dialysis access represented 15% of total costs, dialysis services 48%, and initial hospitalization 37%. For urgent-start HD, total per patient costs were $19,352, and dialysis access accounted for 27%, dialysis services 42%, and initial hospitalization 31%. The estimated cost for dual patients was $19,400. Urgent-start PD may offer a cost saving approach for the initiation of dialysis in eligible patients requiring an urgent-start to dialysis.