Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Elevated parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels have been reported as a potential risk factor for cognitive impairment. Compared to the general population, older adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are frequently affected by secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) are at increased risk of developing dementia. The main objective of our study was to evaluate if the risk of dementia in older (age ≥ 65) ESRD patients differed if they were treated for SHPT. METHODS:Using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and Medicare claims, we identified 189 433 older adults without a diagnosis of dementia, who initiated dialysis between 2006-2016. SHPT treatment was defined as use of vitamin D analogs, phosphate binders, calcimimetics, or parathyroidectomy. We quantified the association between treated SHPT and incident dementia during dialysis using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with inverse probability weighting, considering SHPT treatment as a time varying exposure. RESULTS:Of 189 433 older ESRD adults, 92% had a claims diagnosis of SHPT, and 123 388 (65%) were treated for SHPT. The rate of incident dementia was 6 cases per 100 person-years among SHPT treated patients compared to 11 cases per 100 person-years among untreated patients. Compared to untreated SHPT patients, the risk of dementia was 42% lower (aHR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.56-0.59) among SHPT treated patients. The magnitude of the beneficial effect of SHPT treatment differed by sex (pinteraction = 0.02) and race (pinteraction ≤ 0.01) with females (aHR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.54-0.58) and those of Asian (aHR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.46-0.57) or Black race (aHR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.48-0.53) having greatest reduction in dementia risk. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Receiving treatment for SHPT was associated with a lower risk of incident dementia among older patients with ESRD. This work provides additional support for treatment of SHPT in older ESRD patients.

BACKGROUND:Frailty predicts adverse post-kidney transplant (KT) outcomes, yet the impact of frailty assessment on center-level outcomes remains unclear. We sought to test whether transplant centers assessing frailty as part of clinical practice have better pre- and post-KT outcomes in all adult patients (≥18 years) and older patients (≥65 years). METHODS:In a survey of US transplant centers (11/2017-4/2018), 132 (response rate = 65.3%) centers reported their frailty assessment practices (frequency and specific tool) at KT evaluation and admission. Assessment frequency was categorized as never, sometime, and always; type of assessment tool was categorized as none, validated (for post-KT risk prediction), and any other tool. Center characteristics and clinical outcomes for adult patients during 2017-2019 were gleaned from the transplant national registry (Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients). Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of waitlist outcomes (waitlist mortality, transplantation) in candidates and IRRs of post-KT outcomes (all-cause mortality, death-censored graft loss) in recipients by frailty assessment frequency. We also estimated IRRs of waitlist outcomes by type of assessment tool at evaluation. All models were adjusted for case mix and center characteristics. RESULTS:Assessing frailty at evaluation was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (always IRR = 0.91,95%CI:0.84-0.99; sometimes = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96) and KT rate (always = 0.94,95%CI:0.91-0.97; sometimes = 0.88,95%CI:0.85-0.90); the associations with waitlist mortality rate (always = 0.86,95%CI:0.74-0.99; sometimes = 0.83,95%CI:0.73-0.94) and KT rate (always = 0.82,95%CI:0.77-0.88; sometimes = 0.92,95%CI:0.87-0.98) were stronger in older patients. Furthermore, using validated (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.88-0.92) or any other tool (IRR = 0.90,95%CI:0.87-0.93) at evaluation was associated lower KT rate, while only using a validated tool was associated with lower waitlist mortality rate (IRR = 0.89,95%CI:0.83-0.96), especially in older patients (IRR = 0.82,95%CI:0.72-0.93). At admission for KT, always assessing frailty was associated with a lower graft loss rate (IRR = 0.71,95%CI:0.54-0.92) but not with mortality (IRR = 0.93,95%CI:0.76-1.13). CONCLUSIONS:Assessing frailty at evaluation is associated with lower KT rate, while only using a validated frailty assessment tool is associated with better survival, particularly in older candidates. Centers always assessing frailty at admission are likely to have better graft survival rates. Transplant centers may utilize validated frailty assessment tools to secure KT access for appropriate candidates and to better allocate health care resources for patients identified as frail, particularly for older patients.

OBJECTIVE:Impairment in physical function and physical performance leads to decreased independence and health-related quality of life in people living with chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease. Physical activity and exercise in kidney care are not priorities in policy development. We aimed to identify global policy-related enablers, barriers, and strategies to increase exercise participation and physical activity behavior for people living with kidney disease. DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Guided by the Behavior Change Wheel theoretical framework, 50 global renal exercise experts developed policy barriers and enablers to exercise program implementation and physical activity promotion in kidney care. The consensus process consisted of developing themes from renal experts from North America, South America, Continental Europe, United Kingdom, Asia, and Oceania. Strategies to address enablers and barriers were identified by the group, and consensus was achieved. RESULTS:We found that policies addressing funding, service provision, legislation, regulations, guidelines, the environment, communication, and marketing are required to support people with kidney disease to be physically active, participate in exercise, and improve health-related quality of life. We provide a global perspective and highlight Japanese, Canadian, and other regional examples where policies have been developed to increase renal physical activity and rehabilitation. We present recommendations targeting multiple stakeholders including nephrologists, nurses, allied health clinicians, organizations providing renal care and education, and renal program funders. CONCLUSIONS:We strongly recommend the nephrology community and people living with kidney disease take action to change policy now, rather than idly waiting for indisputable clinical trial evidence that increasing physical activity, strength, fitness, and function improves the lives of people living with kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE:We compared methods used with current recommendations for synthesizing harms in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of gabapentin. STUDY DESIGN & SETTING/METHODS:We followed recommended systematic review practices. We selected reliable SRMAs of gabapentin (i.e., met a pre-defined list of methodological criteria) that assessed at least one harm. We extracted and compared methods in four areas: pre-specification, searching, analysis, and reporting. Whereas our focus in this paper is on the methods used, Part 2 examines the results for harms across reviews. RESULTS:We screened 4320 records and identified 157 SRMAs of gabapentin, 70 of which were reliable. Most reliable reviews (51/70; 73%) reported following a general guideline for SRMA conduct or reporting, but none reported following recommendations specifically for synthesizing harms. Across all domains assessed, review methods were designed to address questions of benefit and rarely included the additional methods that are recommended for evaluating harms. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Approaches to assessing harms in SRMAs we examined are tokenistic and unlikely to produce valid summaries of harms to guide decisions. A paradigm shift is needed. At a minimal, reviewers should describe any limitations to their assessment of harms and provide clearer descriptions of methods for synthesizing harms.

OBJECTIVE:In this methodologic study (Part 2 of 2), we examined the overlap in sources of evidence and the corresponding results for harms in systematic reviews for gabapentin. STUDY DESIGN & SETTING/METHODS:We extracted all citations referenced as sources of evidence for harms of gabapentin from 70 systematic reviews, as well as the harms assessed and numerical results. We assessed consistency of harms between pairs of reviews with a high degree of overlap in sources of evidence (>50%) as determined by corrected covered area (CCA). RESULTS:We found 514 reports cited across 70 included reviews. Most reports (244/514, 48%) were not cited in more than one review. Among 18 pairs of reviews, we found reviews had differences in which harms were assessed and their choice to meta-analyze estimates or present descriptive summaries. When a specific harm was meta-analyzed in a pair of reviews, we found similar effect estimates. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Differences in harms results across reviews can occur because the choice of harms is driven by reviewer preferences, rather than standardized approaches to selecting harms for assessment. A paradigm shift is needed in the current approach to synthesizing harms.