Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Cognition is a research priority for people living with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but identification of critical research questions is lacking. This study aimed to determine which cognition-related research questions are most important to CKD stakeholders. METHODS:A modified Delphi technique with 3 survey rounds was used. The study sample included 3 panels (People with lived CKD experience, Researchers, and Clinicians) recruited through international patient and kidney research networks, kidney societies, and snowball sampling with email invitations. Survey rounds were distributed electronically through REDCap. In Round 1 (October 2021-May 2022), respondents contributed three important research questions regarding cognition in CKD (free text). After deduplication and qualitative synthesis, respondents ranked the importance of these questions on a nine-point Likert scale in Round 2 (Feb-April 2023). Questions with mean and median ratings of >7 by at least two respondent panels or rated critically important by the 'lived experience' panel were re-ranked in Round 3 ( Aug-Sept 2023) and assessed for consensus to identify the final list of priority research questions. RESULTS:Respondents (n=152) identified 125 and 44 discrete questions after Rounds 1 and 2, respectively. The final shortlist included 27 questions in 8 categories. The most critical research question identified was "What factors prevent cognitive impairment in people receiving dialysis?" Overall, respondents prioritized questions focusing on prevention and treatment of cognitive impairment. Scores between the panels were significantly different for 16 questions. Those with lived CKD experience prioritized quality of life, researchers emphasized developing interventions to mitigate cognitive impairment, and clinicians prioritized the effect of CKD treatment on cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS:Through an established consensus methodology involving key stakeholder groups, we identified 27 critical research questions about cognition in CKD. These questions should guide future study design and outcome selection.

BACKGROUND:Given the cardiovascular, renal, and survival benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists for diabetes, these agents could be effective among kidney transplant recipients. However, kidney transplant recipients are distinct from GLP-1 receptor agonist trial participants, with longer diabetes duration and severity, greater end-organ damage, increased cardiovascular risk, and multimorbidity. We examined GLP-1 receptor agonist real-world effectiveness and safety in kidney transplant recipients with diabetes. METHODS:This USA-based retrospective cohort study included kidney transplant recipients with type 2 diabetes at transplantation and Medicare as their primary insurance from a national registry linked with Medicare claims. Post-transplantation GLP-1 receptor agonist use was identified through Medicare claims. Death-censored graft loss was estimated using the Fine-Gray sub-distribution hazard model and extended Cox models were used for mortality and safety endpoints. Models incorporated inverse probability of treatment weights. To further test whether bias could affect the main results, a cohort was created in which each GLP-1 receptor agonist user was matched with a kidney transplant recipient who had not started a GLP-1 receptor agonist, was alive with a functioning graft, and had accrued the same amount of post-transplant survival time. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between Jan 1, 2013 and Dec 31, 2020, we identified 44 536 first time kidney transplant recipients with Medicare as primary payer in the 6 months before and at transplantation. 24 192 patients were excluded as they did not have type 2 diabetes. 2328 patients were ineligible (1916 had missing values and 412 used GLP-1 receptor agonists before transplantation). The primary cohort thus consisted of 18 016 kidney transplant recipients with diabetes. Of these patients, 1969 (10·9%) had at least one GLP-1 receptor agonist prescription filled post-transplant. Compared with patients who had not received a GLP-1 receptor agonist, GLP-1 receptor agonist users were younger (median age at transplant 57 years [IQR 49-64] vs 60 years [51-66], p<0·0001) and more likely to be female (786 [39·9%] vs 5645 [35·2%], p<0·0001). Among GLP-1 receptor agonist users, 552 [28·0%] were non-Hispanic White, 703 [35·7%] were non-Hispanic Black, and 568 [28·8%] were Hispanic. The 5-year unadjusted cumulative incidence of death-censored graft loss from a cohort matched on survival time before GLP-1 receptor agonist initiation was 6·0% for GLP-1 receptor agonist users and 10·7% for non-users (Gray's test p=0·004). The 5-year unadjusted cumulative incidence for mortality from a cohort matched on survival time before GLP-1 receptor agonist initiation was 17·0% for GLP-1 receptor agonist users and 25·8% for non-users (log-rank p=0·0006). The 5-year unadjusted cumulative incidence for mortality was 13·5% for GLP-1 receptor agonist users and 19·9% for non-users (log-rank p<0·0001). GLP-1 receptor agonist use was associated with a 49% lower incidence of death-censored graft loss (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·36-0·71; p=0·0001) and 31% lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·86; p=0·001). Inferences were robust when matched on survival time (death-censored graft loss aSHR 0·53, 95% CI 0·37-0·75; p=0·0005; mortality aHR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·88; p=0·003). Safety endpoints were rare and not associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists, with the exception of diabetic retinopathy (aHR 1·49, 1·11-2·00; p=0·008). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:GLP-1 receptor agonists were associated with better graft and patient survival. Clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND:To encourage high-quality, reduced-cost care for total joint arthroplasty (TJA), the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services mandated a pay-for-performance model, the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The CJR incentivizes cost containment, and it was anticipated that its implementation would reduce access to TJA for high-cost populations. Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) undergoing kidney replacement therapy (dialysis and kidney transplant) are costly compared with healthier patients, but it was unknown whether this population lost access to hip and knee replacement because of CJR implementation. This population allows study of whether TJA is accessible for medically complex patients whose risk of surgical complications has been mitigated, as kidney transplantation improves outcomes compared with dialysis, allowing evaluation as to whether access improved when patients crossed over from dialysis to transplantation. Because all patients with ESKD are included in a mandated national registry, we can quantify whether access changed for patients who underwent dialysis and transplantation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:(1) How did the rate of TJA change amid the shift to bundled payments for patients with ESKD receiving dialysis? (2) How did the rate of TJA change amid the shift to bundled payments for patients with ESKD after kidney transplant? METHODS:This was an observational cohort study from 2008 to 2018 using the United States Renal Data System, a mandatory national registry that allows for the opportunity to study all individuals with ESKD. During the study period, we identified 1,324,614 adults undergoing routine dialysis and 187,212 adult kidney transplant recipients; after exclusion for non-Medicare primary insurance (n = 785,224 for dialysis and 78,011 for transplant), patients who were 100 years or older (n = 79 and 0, respectively), those who resided outside of 50 US states and Puerto Rico (n = 781 and 87, respectively), missing dialysis status for the dialysis cohort (n = 8658), and multiorgan transplant recipients for the transplant cohort (n = 2442), our study population was 40% (529,872) of patients who underwent routine dialysis and 57% (106,672) of adult kidney transplant recipients, respectively. TJA was ascertained using Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups and ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. We divided the study period by PPACA (January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2016) and CJR (April 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018) implementation and compared the incidence of TJA by era using mixed-effects Poisson regression adjusting for calendar time and clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS:After adjustment for linear temporal trend and patient case mix, there was no evidence of association between policy implementation and the incidence of TJA. In the dialysis cohort, the adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for TJA was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 to 1.14; p = 0.2) comparing PPACA with the previous period and 1.02 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; p = 0.6) comparing CJR with the previous periods. Similarly, in the transplant cohort, the adjusted IRR for TJA was 0.82 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p = 0.07) comparing PPACA with the previous period and 1.10 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.28; p = 0.9) comparing CJR with the previous periods. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There was no loss in access to TJA for medically complex patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. The increase in TJA incidence for patients after kidney transplant and decrease for patients receiving dialysis suggest that surgeons continued to provide care for higher risk patients whose risk of morbidity or mortality with total joint replacement has been maximally improved after transplantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, prognostic study.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:Early steroid withdrawal (ESW) is often preferred over conventional steroid maintenance (CSM) therapy for kidney transplant recipients with low immunological risks because it may minimize immunosuppression-related adverse events while achieving similar transplant outcomes. However, the risk-benefit balance of ESW could be less favorable in retransplant recipients given their unique immunological risk profile. We hypothesized that the association of ESW with transplant outcomes would differ between first-transplant and retransplant recipients. METHODS:To assess whether the impact of ESW differs between first and retransplant recipients, we studied 210 086 adult deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Recipients who discontinued maintenance steroids before discharge from transplant admission were classified with ESW; all others were classified with CSM. We quantified the association of ESW (vs. CSM) with acute rejection, death-censored graft failure, and death, addressing retransplant as an effect modifier, using logistic/Cox regression with inverse probability weights to control for confounders. RESULTS:In our cohort, 26 248 (12%) were retransplant recipients. ESW was used in 30% of first-transplant and 20% of retransplant recipients. Among first-transplant recipients, ESW was associated with no significant difference in acute rejection (aOR = 1.04 [95% CI = 1.00-1.09]), slightly higher hazard of graft failure (HR = 1.09 [95% CI = 1.05-1.12]), and slightly lower mortality (HR = 0.93 [95% CI = 0.91-0.95]) compared to CSM. Nonetheless, among retransplant recipients, ESW was associated with notably higher risk of acute rejection (OR = 1.42 [95% CI = 1.29-1.57]; interaction p < 0.001) and graft failure (HR = 1.24 [95% CI = 1.14-1.34]; interaction p = 0.003), and similar mortality (HR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.94-1.08]; interaction p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:In retransplant recipients, the negative impacts of ESW on transplant outcomes appear to be non-negligible. A more conservatively tailored approach to ESW might be necessary for retransplant recipients.

BACKGROUND:As the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patient population is aging, the prevalence of polypharmacy is rising. However, data exploring the prevalence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes associated with polypharmacy among older adults with IBD are limited. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To determine (i) prevalence of polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) utilization in older adults with IBD, (ii) changes in medications over time (iii) predictors of polypharmacy, and (iv) the impact of polypharmacy/PIMs on one-year hospitalization rates. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective single-center study of older adults with IBD from September 1st 2011 to December 31st 2022. Wilcoxon-signed rank and McNemar's tests were used to assess changes in polypharmacy between visits, with ordinal logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models used to determine risk factors for polypharmacy and time to hospitalization, respectively. RESULTS:Among 512 older adults with IBD, 74.0% experienced polypharmacy at initial visit, with 42.6% receiving at least one PIM. Additionally, severe polypharmacy (≥10 medications) was present among 28.6% individuals at index visit and increased to 38.6% by last visit (p<0.01). Multivariable analysis revealed that age ≥70 years, BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2, prior IBD-related surgery, and the presence of comorbidities were associated with polypharmacy. Moreover, severe polypharmacy (adjHR 1.95, 95%CI 1.29-2.92), as well as PIM use (adjHR 2.16, 95%CI 1.37-3.43) among those with polypharmacy, were significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization within a year of index visit. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Severe polypharmacy was initially present in more than 25% of older adults with IBD and increased to 34% within 4 years of index visit. Severe polypharmacy, as well as PIM utilization among those with polypharmacy, were also associated with an increased risk of hospitalization at one-year, highlighting the need for deprescribing efforts in this population.

Developing real-world evidence from electronic health records (EHR) is vital to advance kidney transplantation (KT). We assessed the feasibility of studying KT using the Epic Cosmos aggregated EHR dataset, which includes 274 million unique individuals cared for in 238 U.S. health systems, by comparing it with the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). We identified 69,418 KT recipients transplanted between January 2014 and December 2022 in Cosmos (39.4% of all US KT transplants during this period). Demographics and clinical characteristics of recipients captured in Cosmos were consistent with the overall SRTR cohort. Survival estimates were generally comparable, although there were some differences in long-term survival. At 7 years post-transplant, patient survival was 80.4% in Cosmos and 77.8% in SRTR. Multivariable Cox regression showed consistent associations between clinical factors and mortality in both cohorts, with minor discrepancies in the associations between death and both age and race. In summary, Cosmos provides a reliable platform for KT research, allowing EHR-level clinical granularity not available with either the transplant registry or healthcare claims. Consequently, Cosmos will enable novel analyses to improve our understanding of KT management on a national scale.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Despite emerging studies on neighborhood-level risk factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD), our understanding of the causal links between neighborhood characteristics and CKD is limited. In particular, there is a gap in identifying modifiable neighborhood factors, such as the built environment, in preventing CKD, that could be targets for feasible place-based interventions. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Most published studies on neighborhood factors and CKD have focused on a single social attribute, such as neighborhood disadvantage, while research on the role of the built environment is more nascent. Early studies on this topic have yielded inconsistent results, particularly regarding whether food deserts are an environmental risk factor for CKD onset. International studies have shown that walkable neighborhoods - characterized by features such as urban design, park access, and green spaces - can be protective against both the onset and progression of CKD. However, these findings are inconclusive and understudied in the context of United States, where neighborhood environments differ from those in other countries. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Future research on modifiable neighborhood factors and CKD using advanced study designs and population-representative datasets can yield stronger evidence on potential causal associations and suggest feasible place-based interventions as strategies for preventing CKD. As an example, we demonstrated the potential of electronic health record-based studies to advance research in this area.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Despite substantial growth in the population of older adults with kidney disease, there remains a lack of evidence to guide clinical care for this group. The Kidney Disease and Aging Research Collaborative (KDARC) conducted a Delphi study to build consensus on research priorities for clinical geriatric nephrology. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Asynchronous modified Delphi study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Clinicians and researchers in the US and Canada with clinical experience and/or research expertise in geriatric nephrology. OUTCOME/RESULTS:Research priorities in geriatric nephrology. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/METHODS:In the first Delphi round, participants submitted free-text descriptions of research priorities considered important for improving the clinical care of older adults with kidney disease. Delphi moderators used inductive content analysis to group concepts into categories. In the second and third rounds, participants iteratively reviewed topics, selected their top 5 priorities, and offered comments used to revise categories. RESULTS:Among 121 who were invited, 57 participants (47%) completed the first Delphi round and 48 (84% of enrolled participants) completed all rounds. After 3 rounds, the 5 priorities with the highest proportion of agreement were: 1) Communication and Decision-Making about Treatment Options for Older Adults with Kidney Failure (69% agreement), 2) Quality of Life, Symptom Management, and Palliative Care (67%), 3) Frailty and Physical Function (54%), 4) Tailoring Therapies for Kidney Disease to Specific Needs of Older Adults (42%), and 5) Caregiver and Social Support (35%). Health equity and person-centricity were identified as cross-cutting features that informed all topics. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Relatively low response rate and limited participation by private practitioners and older clinicians and researchers. CONCLUSIONS:Experts in geriatric nephrology identified clinical research priorities with the greatest potential to improve care for older adults with kidney disease. These findings provide a roadmap for the geriatric nephrology community to harmonize and maximize the impact of research efforts.