Search

National strategies for addressing chronic kidney disease (CKD) are crucial to improving kidney health. We sought to describe country-level variations in non-communicable disease (NCD) strategies and CKD-specific policies across different regions and income levels worldwide. The International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) was a multinational cross-sectional survey conducted between July and October 2018. Responses from key opinion leaders in each country regarding national NCD strategies, the presence and scope of CKD-specific policies, and government recognition of CKD as a health priority were described overall and according to region and income level. 160 countries participated in the GKHA survey, comprising 97.8% of the worlds population. Seventy-four (47%) countries had an established national NCD strategy, and 53 (34%) countries reported the existence of CKD-specific policies, with substantial variation across regions and income levels. Where CKD-specific policies existed, non-dialysis CKD care was variably addressed. 79 (51%) countries identified government recognition of CKD as a health priority. Low- and low-middle income countries were less likely to have strategies and policies for addressing CKD and have governments which recognise it as a health priority. The existence of CKD-specific policies, and a national NCD strategy more broadly, varied substantially across different regions around the world but was overall suboptimal, with major discrepancies between the burden of CKD in many countries and governmental recognition of CKD as a health priority. Greater recognition of CKD within national health policy is critical to improving kidney healthcare globally.

BackgroundHealth information systems (HIS) are fundamental tools for the surveillance of health services, estimation of disease burden and prioritization of health resources. Several gaps in the availability of HIS for kidney disease were highlighted by the first iteration of the Global Kidney Health Atlas.MethodsAs part of its second iteration, the International Society of Nephrology conducted a cross-sectional global survey between July and October 2018 to explore the coverage and scope of HIS for kidney disease, with a focus on kidney replacement therapy (KRT).ResultsOut of a total of 182 invited countries, 154 countries responded to questions on HIS (85% response rate). KRT registries were available in almost all high-income countries, but few low-income countries, while registries for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) or acute kidney injury (AKI) were rare. Registries in high-income countries tended to be national, in contrast to registries in low-income countries, which often operated at local or regional levels. Although cause of end-stage kidney disease, modality of KRT and source of kidney transplant donors were frequently reported, few countries collected data on patient-reported outcome measures and only half of low-income countries recorded process-based measures. Almost no countries had programs to detect AKI and practices to identify CKD-targeted individuals with diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, rather than members of high-risk ethnic groups.ConclusionsThese findings confirm significant heterogeneity in the global availability of HIS for kidney disease and highlight important gaps in their coverage and scope, especially in low-income countries and across the domains of AKI, non-dialysis CKD, patient-reported outcomes, process-based measures and quality indicators for KRT service delivery.

ObjectivesThe Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) is a multinational, cross-sectional survey designed to assess the current capacity for kidney care across all world regions. The 2017 GKHA involved 125 countries and identified significant gaps in oversight, funding and infrastructure to support care for patients with kidney disease, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Here, we report results from the survey for the second iteration of the GKHA conducted in 2018, which included specific questions about health financing and oversight of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care worldwide.SettingA cross-sectional global survey.ParticipantsKey stakeholders from 182 countries were invited to participate. Of those, stakeholders from 160 countries participated and were included.Primary outcomesPrimary outcomes included cost of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), funding for dialysis and transplantation, funding for conservative kidney management, extent of universal health coverage, out-of-pocket costs for KRT, within-country variability in ESKD care delivery and oversight systems for ESKD care. Outcomes were determined from a combination of desk research and input from key stakeholders in participating countries.Results160 countries (covering 98% of the world's population) responded to the survey. Economic factors were identified as the top barrier to optimal ESKD care in 99 countries (64%). Full public funding for KRT was more common than for conservative kidney management (43% vs 28%). Among countries that provided at least some public coverage for KRT, 75% covered all citizens. Within-country variation in ESKD care delivery was reported in 40% of countries. Oversight of ESKD care was present in all high-income countries but was absent in 13% of low-income, 3% of lower-middle-income, and 10% of upper-middle-income countries.ConclusionSignificant gaps and variability exist in the public funding and oversight of ESKD care in many countries, particularly for those in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

Rationale & objectiveApproximately 11% of people with kidney failure worldwide are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study examined PD use and practice patterns across the globe.Study designA cross-sectional survey.Setting & participantsStakeholders including clinicians, policy makers, and patient representatives in 182 countries convened by the International Society of Nephrology between July and September 2018.OutcomesPD use, availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures.Analytical approachDescriptive statistics.ResultsResponses were received from 88% (n=160) of countries and there were 313 participants (257 nephrologists [82%], 22 non-nephrologist physicians [7%], 6 other health professionals [2%], 17 administrators/policy makers/civil servants [5%], and 11 others [4%]). 85% (n=156) of countries responded to questions about PD. Median PD use was 38.1 per million population. PD was not available in 30 of the 156 (19%) countries responding to PD-related questions, particularly in countries in Africa (20/41) and low-income countries (15/22). In 69% of countries, PD was the initial dialysis modality for≤10% of patients with newly diagnosed kidney failure. Patients receiving PD were expected to pay 1% to 25% of treatment costs, and higher (>75%) copayments (out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients) were more common in South Asia and low-income countries. Average exchange volumes were adequate (defined as 3-4 exchanges per day or the equivalent for automated PD) in 72% of countries. PD quality outcome monitoring and reporting were variable. Most countries did not measure patient-reported PD outcomes.LimitationsLow responses from policy makers; limited ability to provide more in-depth explanations underpinning outcomes from each country due to lack of granular data; lack of objective data.ConclusionsLarge inter- and intraregional disparities exist in PD availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures around the world, with the greatest gaps observed in Africa and South Asia.

Rationale & objectiveHemodialysis (HD) is the most common form of kidney replacement therapy. This study aimed to examine the use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care worldwide.Study designA cross-sectional survey.Setting & participantsStakeholders (clinicians, policy makers, and consumer representatives) in 182 countries were convened by the International Society of Nephrology from July to September 2018.OutcomesUse, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care.Analytical approachDescriptive statistics.ResultsOverall, representatives from 160 (88%) countries participated. Median country-specific use of maintenance HD was 298.4 (IQR, 80.5-599.4) per million population (pmp). Global median HD use among incident patients with kidney failure was 98.0 (IQR, 81.5-140.8) pmp and median number of HD centers was 4.5 (IQR, 1.2-9.9) pmp. Adequate HD services (3-4 hours 3 times weekly) were generally available in 27% of low-income countries. Home HD was generally available in 36% of high-income countries. 32% of countries performed monitoring of patient-reported outcomes; 61%, monitoring of small-solute clearance; 60%, monitoring of bone mineral markers; 51%, monitoring of technique survival; and 60%, monitoring of patient survival. At initiation of maintenance dialysis, only 5% of countries used an arteriovenous access in almost all patients. Vascular access education was suboptimal, funding for vascular access procedures was not uniform, and copayments were greater in countries with lower levels of income. Patients in 23% of the low-income countries had to pay >75% of HD costs compared with patients in only 4% of high-income countries.LimitationsA cross-sectional survey with possibility of response bias, social desirability bias, and limited data collection preventing in-depth analysis.ConclusionsIn summary, findings reveal substantial variations in global HD use, availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability worldwide, with the lowest use evident in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Substantial heterogeneity in practice patterns around the world has resulted in wide variations in the quality and type of dialysis care delivered. This is particularly so in countries without universal standards of care and governmental (or other organizational) oversight. Most high-income countries have developed such oversight based on documentation of adherence to standardized, evidence-based guidelines. Many low- and lower-middle-income countries have no or only limited organized oversight systems to ensure that care is safe and effective. The implementation and oversight of basic standards of care requires sufficient infrastructure and appropriate workforce and financial resources to support the basic levels of care and safety practices. It is important to understand how these standards then can be reasonably adapted and applied in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle-income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.

ObjectiveTo determine the global capacity (availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability) to deliver kidney replacement therapy (dialysis and transplantation) and conservative kidney management.DesignInternational cross sectional survey.SettingInternational Society of Nephrology (ISN) survey of 182 countries from July to September 2018.ParticipantsKey stakeholders identified by ISN's national and regional leaders.Main outcome measuresMarkers of national capacity to deliver core components of kidney replacement therapy and conservative kidney management.ResultsResponses were received from 160 (87.9%) of 182 countries, comprising 97.8% (7338.5 million of 7501.3 million) of the world's population. A wide variation was found in capacity and structures for kidney replacement therapy and conservative kidney management-namely, funding mechanisms, health workforce, service delivery, and available technologies. Information on the prevalence of treated end stage kidney disease was available in 91 (42%) of 218 countries worldwide. Estimates varied more than 800-fold from 4 to 3392 per million population. Rwanda was the only low income country to report data on the prevalence of treated disease; 5 (

The Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Prognosis Consortium is a collaborative author of the above-mentioned article. The CKD Prognosis Consortium investigators/collaborators are as follows: • African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK): Brad Astor, Lawrence J. Appel; Canadian Study of Prediction of Death, Dialysis and Interim Cardiovascular Events (CanPREDDICT): Adeera Levin, Mila Tang, Ognjenka Djurdjev; Cleveland Clinic CKD Registry Study (CCF): Sankar D. Navaneethan, Stacey E. Jolly, Jesse D. Schold, Joseph V. Nally Jr.; Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB): David C. Wheeler, Jonathan Emberson, John Townend, Martin Landray; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study (CRIC): Harold I. Feldman, Chi-yuan Hsu, James P. Lash, Lawrence J. Appel; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Standards Implementation Study (CRISIS): Philip A. Kalra, James P. Ritchie, Raman Maharajan, Rachel J. Middleton, Donal J. O'Donoghue; German Chronic Kidney Disease Study (GCKD): Kai-Uwe Eckardt, Markus P. Schneider, Anna Köttgen, Florian Kronenberg, Barbara Bärthlein; Geisinger Health System: Alex R. Chang, Jamie A. Green, H. Lester Kirchner, Kevin Ho; Grampian Laboratory Outcomes, Morbidity and Mortality Studies – 2 (GLOMMS2): Angharad Marks, Corri Black, Gordon J. Prescott, Nick Fluck; Gonryo Study: Masaaki Nakayama, Mariko Miyazaki, Tae Yamamoto, Gen Yamada; Hong Kong CKD Studies: Angela Yee-Moon Wang, Sharon Cheung, Sharon Wong, Jessie Chu, Henry Wu; Ontario Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Provincial Kidney, Dialysis and Transplantation program (ICES KDT): Amit X. Garg, Eric McArthur, Danielle M. Nash; Maccabi Health System: Varda Shalev, Gabriel Chodick; Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of a Nurse Practitioner (MASTERPLAN): Peter J. Blankestijn, Jack F.M. Wetzels, Arjan D. van Zuilen, Jan A. van den Brand; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD): Andrew S. Levey, Lesley A. Inker, Mark J. Sarnak, Hocine Tighiouart; Nanjing CKD Network Cohort Study (Nanjing CKD): Haitao Zhang; NephroTest Study (NephroTest): Benedicte Stengel, Marie Metzger, Martin Flamant, Pascal Houillier, Jean-Philippe Haymann; National Renal Healthcare Program – Uruguay (NRHP-URU): Pablo G. Rios, Nelson Mazzuchi, Liliana Gadola, Verónica Lamadrid, Laura Sola; New Zealand Diabetes Cohort Study (NZDCS): John F. Collins, C. Raina Elley, Timothy Kenealy; Parcours de Soins des Personnes Agées (PSPA): Olivier Moranne, Cecile Couchoud, Cecile Vigneau; Primary-Secondary Care Partnership to Prevent Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (PSP CKD): Nigel J. Brunskill, Rupert W. Major, David Shepherd, James F. Medcalf; Racial and Cardiovascular Risk Anomalies in CKD Cohort (RCAV): Csaba P. Kovesdy, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Miklos Z. Molnar, Keiichi Sumida, Praveen K. Potukuchi; Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL): Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Dick de Zeeuw, Barry Brenner; Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements Cohort (SCREAM): Juan Jesus Carrero, Alessandro Gasparini, Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Carl-Gustaf Elinder; Second Manifestations of ARTerial Disease Study (SMART): Frank L.J. Visseren, Yolanda van der Graaf; Swedish Renal Registry CKD Cohort (SRR CKD): Marie Evans, Maria Stendahl, Staffan Schön, Mårten Segelmark, Karl-Göran Prütz; Sunnybrook Cohort: David M. Naimark, Navdeep Tangri; West of Scotland CKD Study: Patrick B. Mark, Jamie P. Traynor, Colin C. Geddes, Peter C. Thomson.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Steering Committee: Alex R. Chang, Josef Coresh (Chair), Ron T. Gansevoort, Morgan E. Grams, Anna Köttgen, Andrew S. Levey, Kunihiro Matsushita, Mark Woodward, Luxia Zhang.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Data Coordinating Center: Shoshana H. Ballew (Assistant Project Director), Jingsha Chen (Programmer), Josef Coresh (Principal Investigator), Morgan E. Grams (Director of Nephrology Initiatives), Lucia Kwak (Programmer), Kunihiro Matsushita (Director), Yingying Sang (Lead Programmer), Aditya Surapaneni (Programmer), Mark Woodward (Senior Statistician).• Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on Prognosis and Optimal Management of Patients with Advanced CKD: Kai-Uwe Eckardt (Conference Co-Chair), Brenda R. Hemmelgarn (Conference Co-Chair), David C. Wheeler (KDIGO Co-Chair), Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer (KDIGO Co-Chair), John Davis (CEO), Danielle Green (Managing Director), Michael Cheung (Chief Scientific Officer), Tanya Green (Communications Director), Melissa McMahan (Programs Director).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2018.01.002.].

Access to essential medications and health products is critical to effective management of kidney disease. Using data from the ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas multinational cross-sectional survey, global access of patients with kidney disease to essential medications and health products was examined. Overall, 125 countries participated, with 118 countries, composing 91.5% of the world's population, providing data on this domain. Most countries were unable to access eGFR and albuminuria in their primary care settings. Only one-third of low-income countries (LICs) were able to measure serum creatinine and none were able to access eGFR or quantify proteinuria. The ability to monitor diabetes mellitus through serum glucose and glycated hemoglobin measurements was suboptimal. Pathology services were rarely available in tertiary care in LICs (12%) and lower middle-income countries (45%). While acute and chronic hemodialysis services were available in almost all countries, acute and chronic peritoneal dialysis services were rarely available in LICs (18% and 29%, respectively). Kidney transplantation was available in 79% of countries overall and in 12% of LICs. While over one-half of all countries publicly funded RRT and kidney medications with or without copayment, this was less common in LICs and lower middle-income countries. In conclusion, this study demonstrated significant gaps in services for kidney care and funding that were most apparent in LICs and lower middle-income countries.

An international survey led by the International Society of Nephrology in 2016 assessed the current capacity of kidney care worldwide. To better understand how governance and leadership guide kidney care, items pertinent to government priority, advocacy, and guidelines, among others, were examined. Of the 116 responding countries, 36% (n = 42) reported CKD as a government health care priority, which was associated with having an advocacy group (χ2 = 11.57; P = 0.001). Nearly one-half (42%; 49 of 116) of countries reported an advocacy group for CKD, compared with only 19% (21 of 112) for AKI. Over one-half (59%; 68 of 116) of countries had a noncommunicable disease strategy. Similarly, 44% (48 of 109), 55% (57 of 104), and 47% (47 of 101) of countries had a strategy for nondialysis CKD, chronic dialysis, and kidney transplantation, respectively. Nearly one-half (49%; 57 of 116) reported a strategy for AKI. Most countries (79%; 92 of 116) had access to CKD guidelines and just over one-half (53%; 61 of 116) reported guidelines for AKI. Awareness and adoption of guidelines were low among nonnephrologist physicians. Identified barriers to kidney care were factors related to patients, such as knowledge and attitude (91%; 100 of 110), physicians (84%; 92 of 110), and geography (74%; 81 of 110). Specific to renal replacement therapy, patients and geography were similarly identified as a barrier in 78% (90 of 116) and 71% (82 of 116) of countries, respectively, with the addition of nephrologists (72%; 83 of 116) and the health care system (73%; 85 of 116). These findings inform how kidney care is currently governed globally. Ensuring that guidelines are feasible and distributed appropriately is important to enhancing their adoption, particularly in primary care. Furthermore, increasing advocacy and government priority, especially for AKI, may increase awareness and strategies to better guide kidney care.

Development and planning of health care services requires robust health information systems to define the burden of disease, inform policy development, and identify opportunities to improve service provision. The global coverage of kidney disease health information systems has not been well reported, despite their potential to enhance care. As part of the Global Kidney Health Atlas, a cross-sectional survey conducted by the International Society of Nephrology, data were collected from 117 United Nations member states on the coverage and scope of kidney disease health information systems and surveillance practices. Dialysis and transplant registries were more common in high-income countries. Few countries reported having nondialysis chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury registries. Although 62% of countries overall could estimate their prevalence of chronic kidney disease, less than 24% of low-income countries had access to the same data. Almost all countries offered chronic kidney disease testing to patients with diabetes and hypertension, but few to high-risk ethnic groups. Two-thirds of countries were unable to determine their burden of acute kidney injury. Given the substantial heterogeneity in the availability of health information systems, especially in low-income countries and across nondialysis chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury, a global framework for prioritizing development of these systems in areas of greatest need is warranted.

Due to the worldwide rising prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), there is a need to develop strategies through well-designed clinical studies to guide decision making and improve delivery of care to CKD patients. A cross-sectional survey was conducted based on the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas data. For this study, the survey assessed the capacity of various countries and world regions in participating in and conducting kidney research. Availability of national funding for clinical trials was low (27%, n = 31), with the lowest figures obtained from Africa (7%, n = 2) and South Asia (0%), whereas high-income countries in North America and Europe had the highest participation in clinical trials. Overall, formal training to conduct clinical trials was inadequate for physicians (46%, n = 53) and even lower for nonphysicians, research assistants, and associates in clinical trials (34%, n = 39). There was also diminished availability of workforce and funding to conduct observational cohort studies in nephrology, and participation in highly specialized transplant trials was low in many regions. Overall, the availability of infrastructure (bio-banking and facilities for storage of clinical trial medications) was low, and it was lowest in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Ethics approval for study conduct was mandatory in 91% (n = 106) of countries and regions, and 62% (n = 66) were reported to have institutional committees. Challenges with obtaining timely approval for a study were reported in 53% (n = 61) of regions but the challenges were similar across these regions. A potential limitation is the possibility of over-reporting or under-reporting due to social desirability bias. This study highlights some of the major challenges for participating in and conducting kidney research and offers suggestions for improving global kidney research.

Reliable governance and health financing are critical to the abilities of health systems in different countries to sustainably meet the health needs of their peoples, including those with kidney disease. A comprehensive understanding of existing systems and infrastructure is therefore necessary to globally identify gaps in kidney care and prioritize areas for improvement. This multinational, cross-sectional survey, conducted by the ISN as part of the Global Kidney Health Atlas, examined the oversight, financing, and perceived quality of infrastructure for kidney care across the world. Overall, 125 countries, comprising 93% of the world's population, responded to the entire survey, with 122 countries responding to questions pertaining to this domain. National oversight of kidney care was most common in high-income countries while individual hospital oversight was most common in low-income countries. Parts of Africa and the Middle East appeared to have no organized oversight system. The proportion of countries in which health care system coverage for people with kidney disease was publicly funded and free varied for AKI (56%), nondialysis chronic kidney disease (40%), dialysis (63%), and kidney transplantation (57%), but was much less common in lower income countries, particularly Africa and Southeast Asia, which relied more heavily on private funding with out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Early detection and management of kidney disease were least likely to be covered by funding models. The perceived quality of health infrastructure supporting AKI and chronic kidney disease care was rated poor to extremely poor in none of the high-income countries but was rated poor to extremely poor in over 40% of low-income countries, particularly Africa. This study demonstrated significant gaps in oversight, funding, and infrastructure supporting health services caring for patients with kidney disease, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

The health workforce is the cornerstone of any health care system. An adequately trained and sufficiently staffed workforce is essential to reach universal health coverage. In particular, a nephrology workforce is critical to meet the growing worldwide burden of kidney disease. Despite some attempts, the global nephrology workforce and training capacity remains widely unknown. This multinational cross-sectional survey was part of the Global Kidney Health Atlas project, a new initiative administered by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN). The objective of this study was to address the existing global nephrology workforce and training capacity. The questionnaire was administered online, and all data were analyzed and presented by ISN regions and World Bank country classification. Overall, 125 United Nations member states responded to the entire survey, with 121 countries responding to survey questions pertaining to the nephrology workforce. The global nephrologist density was 8.83 per million population (PMP); high-income countries reported a nephrologist density of 28.52 PMP compared with 0.31 PMP in low-income countries. Similarly, the global nephrologist trainee density was 1.87 PMP; high-income countries reported a 30 times greater nephrology trainee density than low-income countries (6.03 PMP vs. 0.18 PMP). Countries reported a shortage in all care providers in nephrology. A nephrology training program existed in 79% of countries, ranging from 97% in high-income countries to 41% in low-income countries. In countries with a training program, the majority (86%) of programs were 2 to 4 years, and the most common training structure (56%) was following general internal medicine. We found significant variation in the global density of nephrologists and nephrology trainees and shortages in all care providers in nephrology; the gap was more prominent in low-income countries, particularly in African and South Asian ISN regions. These findings point to significant gaps in the current nephrology workforce and opportunities for countries and regions to develop and maintain a sustainable workforce.