Health care costs associated with unrecognized progression to late-stage kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: Many individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are undiagnosed or unaware of the disease and at risk of not receiving services to manage their condition and of "crashing" into dialysis. Past studies report higher health care costs among patients with delayed nephrology care and suboptimal dialysis initiation, but they are limited because they focused on patients undergoing dialysis and did not evaluate costs associated with unrecognized disease for patients "upstream," or patients with late-stage CKD. We compared costs for patients with unrecognized progression to late-stage (stages G4 and G5) CKD and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with costs for individuals with prior CKD recognition. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service enrollees 40 years and older. METHODS: Using deidentified claims data, we identified 2 groups of patients with late-stage CKD or ESKD, one group with prior evidence of CKD diagnosis and the other without, and compared total and CKD-related costs in the first year following late-stage diagnosis between the 2 groups. We used generalized linear models to determine the association between prior recognition and costs and used recycled predictions to calculate predicted costs. RESULTS: Total and CKD-related costs were 26% and 19% higher, respectively, for patients without prior diagnosis compared with those with prior recognition. Total costs were higher both for unrecognized patients with ESKD and unrecognized patients with late-stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that costs associated with undiagnosed CKD extend to patients not yet requiring dialysis and highlight potential savings from earlier disease detection and management.

What Do Acute Kidney Injury Survivors Want to Know About Their Condition: A Qualitative Study.

Rationale & Objective: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in the hospital often occurs with other serious illnesses that take medical priority. Despite a persistent risk of adverse outcomes following hospital discharge, AKI survivors often receive inadequate education about how best to mitigate risks once home. We sought to identify AKI survivors' perceived barriers to shared and informed decision-making regarding their AKI diagnosis and self-management. Study Design: Semistructured phone interviews were used to assess patients' perceived barriers and facilitators to AKI self-management after a hospital-related AKI event. Setting & Participants: AKI survivors discharged from Duke University Hospital in Durham, NC, were recruited for interviews to discuss their AKI experiences. Those who received dialysis for AKI were excluded because their perceptions of AKI care were hypothesized to be much different from those of patients not requiring dialysis. Analytical Approach: Twenty-four interviews were conducted between May and August 2018. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by study team members to identify common themes and discrepancies and reach a final consensus. Results: Five consistent themes emerged after thematic saturation: (1) patients were unaware of their AKI diagnosis; (2) patients lacked information about AKI and how to manage it at home; (3) patients identified a lack of understanding about AKI; (4) patients were concerned about dialysis; and (5) patients wanted to know how to prevent AKI in the future. Limitations: Limitations include recruitment from a single center, all study participants receiving a nephrology consultation, and several patients being unable to participate because of persistent illness following hospitalization. Conclusions: AKI survivors are unaware of their diagnosis, receive suboptimal education while hospitalized, and are not equipped with tools to mitigate risks following discharge. Patient-centered interventions promoting AKI awareness and self-management may improve long-term outcomes for high-risk AKI survivors.

Peer mentorship to improve outcomes in patients on hemodialysis (PEER-HD): a randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis experience disproportionate morbidity and incur high healthcare-related costs. Much of this cost stems from potentially avoidable hospitalizations. Peer mentorship has been used effectively to improve outcomes for patients with complex chronic diseases. We propose testing the efficacy of peer mentorship on hospitalization rates among patients receiving hemodialysis. METHODS: This is a multicenter parallel group randomized controlled pragmatic trial of patients treated at hemodialysis facilities in Bronx, NY and Nashville, TN. The study has two phases. Phase 1 will enroll and train 16 hemodialysis patients (10 in Bronx, NY and 6 in Nashville TN) to be mentors using a program focused on enhancing self-efficacy, dialysis self-management and autonomy-supportive communication skills. Phase 2 will enroll 200 high risk adults receiving hemodialysis (140 in Bronx, NY and 60 in Nashville, TN), half of whom will be randomized to intervention and half to usual care. Intervention participants are assigned to weekly telephone calls with trained mentors (see Phase 1) for a 3-month period. The primary outcome of Phase 1 will be engagement of mentors with training and change in knowledge scores and autonomy skills from pre- to post-training. The primary outcome of Phase 2 will be the composite count of ED visits and hospitalizations at the end of study follow-up in patient participants assigned to intervention as compared to those assigned to usual care. Secondary outcomes for Phase 2 include the change over the trial period in validated survey scores measuring perception of social support and self-efficacy, and dialysis adherence metrics, among intervention participants as compared to usual care participants. DISCUSSION: The PEER-HD study will test the feasibility and efficacy of a pragmatic peer-mentorship program designed for patients receiving hemodialysis on ED visit and hospitalization rates. If effective, peer-mentorship holds promise as a scalable patient-centered intervention to decrease hospital resource utilization, and by extension morbidity and cost, for patients receiving maintenance in-center hemodialysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03595748 ; 7/23/2018. TRIAL SPONSOR: National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK) 5R18DK118471. FUNDING: Funding for this study was provided by the National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Disease: R18DK118471. STUDY STATUS: This is an ongoing study and not complete. We are still collecting data for observational follow-up on participants. RELATED ARTICLES: No related articles for this study have been submitted to any journal. The study sponsor and funders had no role in the design, analysis or interpretation of this data. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Kidney Transplant Recipient Attitudes Toward a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine.

A widely accepted severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine could protect vulnerable populations, but the willingness of solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) to accept a potential vaccine remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a national survey of 1308 SOTRs and 1617 non-SOTRs between November 11 and December 2, 2020 through the network of the National Kidney Foundation. RESULTS: Respondents were largely White (73.2%), female (61.1%), and college graduates (56.2%). Among SOTRs, half (49.5%) were unsure or would be unwilling to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine once available. Major concerns included potential side effects (85.2%), lack of rigor in the testing and development process (69.7%), and fear of incompatibility with organ transplants (75.4%). Even after the announcement of the high efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna Inc.) at the time of survey distribution, likeliness to receive a vaccine only slightly increased (53.5% before announcement versus 57.8% after the announcement). However, 86.8% of SOTRs would accept a vaccine if recommended by a transplant provider. CONCLUSIONS: SOTRs reported skepticism in receiving a potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, even after announcements of high vaccine efficacy. Reassuringly, transplant providers may be the defining influence in vaccine acceptance and will likely have a critical role to play in promoting vaccine adherence.

Patient Education for Kidney Failure Treatment: A Mixed-Methods Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Education programs are needed for people with advanced chronic kidney disease to understand kidney failure treatment options and participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about the content and accessibility of current education programs or whether they support SDM. STUDY DESIGN: Stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods design incorporating qualitative observations and interviews, and a quantitative content analysis of slide presentations. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Four sites located in Boston, Chicago, Portland (Maine), and San Diego. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis based on the Ottawa Framework (observations and interviews) and descriptive statistical analysis (slide presentations). RESULTS: Data were collected from observations of 9 education sessions, 5 semistructured interviews with educators, and 133 educational slide presentations. Sites offered group classes or one-on-one sessions. Development, quality, and accuracy of educational materials varied widely. Educators emphasized dialysis (often in-center hemodialysis), with little mention of conservative management. Educators reported patients were often referred too late to education sessions and that some patients become overwhelmed if they learn of the implications of kidney failure in a group setting. Commonly, sessions were general and did not provide opportunities for tailored information most supportive of SDM. Few nephrologists were involved in education sessions or aware of the educational content. Content gaps included prognosis, decision support, mental health and cognition, advance care planning, cost, and diet. Slide presentations used did not consistently reflect best practices related to health literacy. LIMITATIONS: Findings may not be broadly generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: Education sessions focused on kidney failure treatment options do not consistently follow best practices related to health literacy or for supporting SDM. To facilitate SDM, the establishment of expectations for kidney failure treatment options should be clearly defined and integrated into the clinical workflow. Addressing content gaps, health literacy, and communication with nephrologists is necessary to improve patient education in the setting of advanced chronic kidney disease.

Nomenclature for kidney function and disease: report of a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Consensus Conference.

The worldwide burden of kidney disease is rising, but public awareness remains limited, underscoring the need for more effective communication by stakeholders in the kidney health community. Despite this need for clarity, the nomenclature for describing kidney function and disease lacks uniformity. In June 2019, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened a Consensus Conference with the goal of standardizing and refining the nomenclature used in the English language to describe kidney function and disease, and of developing a glossary that could be used in scientific publications. Guiding principles of the conference were that the revised nomenclature should be patient-centered, precise, and consistent with nomenclature used in the KDIGO guidelines. Conference attendees reached general consensus on the following recommendations: (i) to use "kidney" rather than "renal" or "nephro-" when referring to kidney disease and kidney function; (ii) to use "kidney failure" with appropriate descriptions of presence or absence of symptoms, signs, and treatment, rather than "end-stage kidney disease"; (iii) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of acute kidney diseases and disorders (AKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI), rather than alternative descriptions, to define and classify severity of AKD and AKI; (iv) to use the KDIGO definition and classification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) rather than alternative descriptions to define and classify severity of CKD; and (v) to use specific kidney measures, such as albuminuria or decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR), rather than "abnormal" or "reduced" kidney function to describe alterations in kidney structure and function. A proposed 5-part glossary contains specific items for which there was general agreement. Conference attendees acknowledged limitations of the recommendations and glossary, but they considered standardization of scientific nomenclature to be essential for improving communication.

A Patient Safety Educational Tool for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Development and Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a health condition that threatens patient safety; however, few interventions provide patient-centered education about kidney-specific safety hazards. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop and test the usability of a mobile tablet-based educational tool designed to promote patient awareness of relevant safety topics in CKD. METHODS: We used plain language principles to develop content for the educational tool, targeting four patient-actionable safety objectives that are relevant for individuals with CKD. These four objectives included avoidance of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); hypoglycemia awareness (among individuals with diabetes); temporary cessation of certain medications during acute volume depletion to prevent acute kidney injury (ie, "sick day protocol"); and contrast dye risk awareness. Our teaching strategies optimized human-computer interaction and content retention using audio, animation, and clinical vignettes to reinforce themes. For example, using a vignette of a patient with CKD with pain and pictures of common NSAIDs, participants were asked "Which of the following pain medicines are safe for Mr. Smith to take for his belly pain?" Assessment methods consisted of preknowledge and postknowledge surveys, with provision of correct responses and explanations. Usability testing of the tablet-based tool was performed among 12 patients with any stage of CKD, and program tasks were rated upon completion as no error, noncritical error (self-corrected), or critical error (needing assistance). RESULTS: The 12 participants in this usability study were predominantly 65 years of age or older (n=7, 58%) and female (n=7, 58%); all participants owned a mobile device and used it daily. Among the 725 total tasks that the participants completed, there were 31 noncritical errors (4.3%) and 15 critical errors (2.1%); 1 participant accounted for 30 of the total errors. Of the 12 participants, 10 (83%) easily completed 90% or more of their tasks. Most participants rated the use of the tablet as very easy (n=7, 58%), the activity length as "just right" (rather than too long or too short) (n=10, 83%), and the use of clinical vignettes as helpful (n=10, 83%); all participants stated that they would recommend this activity to others. The median rating of the activity was 8 on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 10 is best). We incorporated all participant recommendations into the final version of the educational tool. CONCLUSIONS: A tablet-based patient safety educational tool is acceptable and usable by individuals with CKD. Future studies leveraging iterations of this educational tool will explore its impact on health outcomes in this high-risk population.

Associations of perceived information adequacy and knowledge with pursuit of live donor kidney transplants and living donor inquiries among African American transplant candidates.

We studied associations between perceived adequacy of live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) information or knowledge with pursuit of LDKT or receipt of live donor inquiries among 300 African American kidney transplant candidates. Participants reported via questionnaire how informed or knowledgeable they felt regarding LDKT. Participants also reported their pursuit of LDKT, categorized as "low" (no discussion with family or friends about LDKT and no identified donor), "intermediate" (discussed LDKT with family but no identified donor) or "high" (discussed LDKT with family and identified a potential donor). We reviewed participants' electronic health records to identify potential donors' transplant center inquiries on participants' behalves. A minority of participants reported they felt "very" or "extremely" well informed about LDKT (39%) or had "a great deal" of LDKT knowledge (38%). Participants perceiving themselves as "very" or "extremely" (vs "not" or "slightly") well informed about LDKT had statistically significantly greater odds of intermediate or high (vs low) pursuit of LDKT (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.71 [1.02-7.17]). Perceived LDKT knowledge was not associated with pursuit of LDKT. Neither perceived information adequacy nor knowledge was associated with living donor inquiries. Efforts to better understand the role of education in the pursuit of LDKT among African American transplant candidates are needed.

Association of functional and structural social support with chronic kidney disease among African Americans: the Jackson Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the relationship between social support and renal outcomes in African Americans. We sought to determine the association of social support with prevalent chronic kidney disease (CKD) and kidney function decline in an African American cohort. We also examined whether age modifies the association between social support and kidney function decline. METHODS: We identified Jackson Heart Study (JHS) participants with baseline (Exam in 2000-2004) functional and structural social support data via the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL) and social network size questions, respectively. With ISEL as our primary exposure variable, we performed multivariable regression models to evaluate the association between social support and prevalent CKD [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) ≥30 mg/g], eGFR decline, and rapid renal function decline (RRFD) (> 30% decrease in eGFR over approximately 10 years). All models were adjusted for baseline sociodemographics, diabetes, hypertension, smoking status, and body mass index; models for eGFR decline and RRFD were additionally adjusted for eGFR and ACR. In models for eGFR decline, we assessed for interaction between age and social support. For secondary analyses, we replaced ISEL with its individual domains (appraisal, belonging, self-esteem, and tangible) and social network size in separate models as exposure variables. RESULTS: Of 5301 JHS participants, 4015 (76%) completed the ISEL at baseline. 843 (21%) had low functional social support (ISEL score < 32). Participants with low (vs. higher) functional social support were more likely to have lower income (47% vs. 28%), be current or former tobacco users (39% vs. 30%), have diabetes (25% vs. 21%) or CKD (14% vs. 12%). After multivariable adjustment, neither ISEL or social network size were independently associated with prevalent CKD, eGFR decline, or RRFD. Of the ISEL domains, only higher self-esteem was associated with lower odds of prevalent CKD [OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.99)]. The associations between social support measures and eGFR decline were not modified by age. CONCLUSIONS: In this African-American cohort, social support was not associated with prevalent CKD or kidney function decline. Further inquiry of self-esteem's role in CKD self-management and renal outcomes is warranted.

Patient-to-patient peer mentor support in dialysis: Improving the patient experience.

Greater focus on patient-reported outcome measures for dialysis patients and an increased patient engagement focus has highlighted a lack of formal patient-generated strategies. Patient-to-patient peer mentoring is one approach that may improve the outcomes for people receiving dialysis. This review aims to synthesize quantitative and qualitative studies investigating dialysis-associated patient-to-patient peer mentor support among adults with chronic kidney disease and end stage kidney disease. Research studies describe the benefits of peer mentor programs in dialysis to include: improved goal setting, decision-making and increased self-management. While a variety of program formats exist, a combination of face-to-face and telephone peer support models are recommended and formal training of mentors is required. In addition, the formal support of dialysis clinicians, nephrologists and administrators is vital for the success of a dialysis patient-to-patient peer mentor program.

End-stage renal disease treatment options education: What matters most to patients and families.

Treatment modality education can offer many important benefits to patients and their families. Evidence suggests such education can increase use of home dialysis, reduce catheter use, decrease 90-day mortality, and increase transplantation. While these benefits are encouraging, not all patients are offered options education and when they are, it may not be presented in a way that is immediately applicable to them and their lives. Furthermore, little is known regarding specific characteristics (e.g. format such as group or individual or in-person or online, duration, teaching methods, location, content) of educational programs that are most successful. No single approach has emerged as a best practice. In the absence of such evidence, adult learning principles, such as involving patients and families in the development programs and materials, can serve as a guide for educational development. Adult learning principles can enhance options education, evolving them from information delivery to a person-centered, values-based endeavor that helps match treatment to values and lifestyle.

A Peer-to-Peer Mentoring Program for In-Center Hemodialysis: A Patient-Centered Quality Improvement Program.

A patient-centered quality improvement program implemented in one Virginia hemodialysis facility sought to determine if peer-to-peer (P2P) programs can assist patients on in-center hemodialysis with self-management and improve outcomes. Using a single-arm, repeatedmeasurement, quasi-experimental design, 46 patients participated in a four-month P2P intervention. Outcomes include knowledge, self-management behaviors, and psychosocial health indicators: self-efficacy, perceived social support, hemodialysis social support, and healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL). Physiological health indicators included missed and shortened treatments, arteriovenous fistula placement, interdialytic weight gain, serum phosphorus, and hospitalizations. Mentees demonstrated increased knowledge, self-efficacy, perceived social support, hemodialysis social support, and HRQoL. Missed treatments decreased. Mentors experienced increases in knowledge, self-management, and social support. A P2P mentoring program for in-center hemodialysis can benefit both mentees and mentors.