High rates of albuminuria but not of low eGFR in Urban Indigenous Australians: the DRUID Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Indigenous Australians have an incidence of end stage kidney disease 8-10 times higher than non-Indigenous Australians. The majority of research studies concerning Indigenous Australians have been performed in rural or remote regions, whilst the majority of Indigenous Australians actually live in urban settings. We studied prevalence and factors associated with markers of kidney disease in an urban Indigenous Australian cohort, and compared results with those for the general Australian population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>860 Indigenous adult participants of the Darwin Region Urban Indigenous Diabetes (DRUID) Study were assessed for albuminuria (urine albumin-creatinine ratio≥2.5 mg/mmol males, ≥3.5 mg/mmol females) and low eGFR (estimated glomular filtration rate < 60 mls/min/1.73 m²). Associations between risk factors and kidney disease markers were explored. Comparison was made with the AusDiab cohort (n = 8,936 aged 25-64 years), representative of the general Australian adult population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A high prevalence of albuminuria (14.8%) was found in DRUID, whilst prevalence of low eGFR was 2.4%. Older age, higher HbA1c, hypertension, higher C-reactive protein and current smoking were independently associated with albuminuria on multiple regression. Low eGFR was independently associated with older age, hypertension, albuminuria and higher triglycerides. Compared to AusDiab participants, DRUID participants had a 3-fold higher adjusted risk of albuminuria but not of low eGFR.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Given the significant excess of ESKD observed in Indigenous versus non-Indigenous Australians, these findings could suggest either: albuminuria may be a better prognostic marker of kidney disease than low eGFR; that eGFR equations may be inaccurate in the Indigenous population; a less marked differential between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians for ESKD rates in urban compared to remote regions; or that differences in the pathophysiology of chronic kidney disease exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.</p

Laparoscopy in management of appendicitis in high-, middle-, and low-income countries: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency worldwide. Differences between high- and low-income settings in the availability of laparoscopic appendectomy, alternative management choices, and outcomes are poorly described. The aim was to identify variation in surgical management and outcomes of appendicitis within low-, middle-, and high-Human Development Index (HDI) countries worldwide. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international prospective cohort study. Consecutive sampling of patients undergoing emergency appendectomy over 6 months was conducted. Follow-up lasted 30 days. RESULTS: 4546 patients from 52 countries underwent appendectomy (2499 high-, 1540 middle-, and 507 low-HDI groups). Surgical site infection (SSI) rates were higher in low-HDI (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.33-4.99, p = 0.005) but not middle-HDI countries (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.76-2.52, p = 0.291), compared with high-HDI countries after adjustment. A laparoscopic approach was common in high-HDI countries (1693/2499, 67.7%), but infrequent in low-HDI (41/507, 8.1%) and middle-HDI (132/1540, 8.6%) groups. After accounting for case-mix, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.71, p < 0.001) and SSIs (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33, p < 0.001). In propensity-score matched groups within low-/middle-HDI countries, laparoscopy was still associated with fewer overall complications (OR 0.23 95% CI 0.11-0.44) and SSI (OR 0.21 95% CI 0.09-0.45). CONCLUSION: A laparoscopic approach is associated with better outcomes and availability appears to differ by country HDI. Despite the profound clinical, operational, and financial barriers to its widespread introduction, laparoscopy could significantly improve outcomes for patients in low-resource environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02179112

Pooled analysis of who surgical safety checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods: In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results: Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89⋅6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60⋅6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0⋅17, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅14 to 0⋅21, P &lt; 0⋅001) or low (363 of 860, 42⋅2 percent; OR 0⋅08, 0⋅07 to 0⋅10, P &lt; 0⋅001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference −9⋅4 (95 per cent c.i. −11⋅9 to −6⋅9) per cent; P &lt; 0⋅001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+12⋅1 (+7⋅0 to +17⋅3) per cent; P &lt; 0⋅001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0⋅60, 0⋅50 to 0⋅73; P &lt; 0⋅001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low-and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion: Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries

Global variation in anastomosis and end colostomy formation following left-sided colorectal resection

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high-income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left-sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg-1 and -2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left-sided colorectal resection within discrete 2-week windows. Countries were grouped into high-, middle- and low-income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left-sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low-HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle-HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high-HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low- compared with middle- and high-HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low-HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left-sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone

Feasibility of once weekly exenatide-LAR and enhanced diabetes care in Indigenous Australians with type 2 diabetes (Long-acting-Once-Weekly-Exenatide laR-SUGAR, 'Lower SUGAR' study)

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is 3-4 times more prevalent in Indigenous Australians with blood glucose levels often above target range. Once weekly formulations of exenatide(exenatide-LAR) have demonstrated significantly greater improvements in glycaemic management with no increased risk of hypoglycaemia and with reductions in bodyweight but have not been studied in Indigenous Australians. AIMS: To assess the feasibility and metabolic effects of once weekly supervised injection of exenatide-LAR in addition to standard care in Indigenous Australians with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Two communities in Central Australia with longstanding specialist clinical outreach services were allocated by random coin toss to receive once-weekly exenatide-LAR injection with weekly nurse review and adjustment of medication for 20 weeks (community with exenatide-LAR) or to weekly nurse review in addition to standard care over 20 weeks (community without exenatide-LAR). The primary outcome was the feasibility of an intensive diabetes management model of care with and without weekly supervised exenatide-LAR. Secondary outcomes included change in HbA1c. RESULTS: Thirteen participants from the community with exenatide-LAR and nine participants from the community without exenatide-LAR were analysed. Eighty-five percent of individuals in the community with exenatide-LAR and 67% in the community without exenatide-LAR attended more than half of clinic visits. Median difference in the change in HbA1c from baseline to final visit, adjusted for baseline HbA1c, between the community with exenatide-LAR and the community without exenatide-LAR was -3.1%, 95% CI (-5.80%, -0.38%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Weekly exenatide-LAR combined with weekly nurse review demonstrated greater improvements in HbA1c, highlighting its potential for use in remote communities