Validity of estimated prevalence of decreased kidney function and renal replacement therapy from primary care electronic health records compared with national survey and registry data in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Anonymous primary care records are an important resource for observational studies. However, their external validity is unknown in identifying the prevalence of decreased kidney function and renal replacement therapy (RRT). We thus compared the prevalence of decreased kidney function and RRT in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) with a nationally representative survey and national registry. METHODS: Among all people ≥25 years of age registered in the CPRD for ≥1 year on 31 March 2014, we identified patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, according to their most recent serum creatinine in the past 5 years using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation and patients with recorded diagnoses of RRT. Denominators were the entire population in each age-sex band irrespective of creatinine measurement. The prevalence of eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was compared with that in the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2009/2010 and the prevalence of RRT was compared with that in the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) 2014. RESULTS: We analysed 2 761 755 people in CPRD [mean age 53 (SD 17) years, men 49%], of whom 189 581 (6.86%) had an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 3293 (0.12%) were on RRT. The prevalence of eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in CPRD was similar to that in the HSE and the prevalence of RRT was close to that in the UKRR across all age groups in men and women, although the small number of younger patients with an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the HSE might have hampered precise comparison. CONCLUSIONS: UK primary care data have good external validity for the prevalence of decreased kidney function and RRT

Inequity in access to transplantation in the UK

Background and objectives Despite the presence of a universal health care system, it is unclear if there is intercenter variation in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom. This study aims to assess whether equity exists in access to kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom after adjustment for patient-specific factors and center practice patterns. Design, setting, participants, & measurements In this prospective, observational cohort study including all 71 United Kingdom kidney centers, incident RRT patients recruited between November 2011 and March 2013 as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures study were analyzed to assess preemptive listing (n=2676) and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (n=1970) by center. Results Seven hundred and six participants (26%) were listed preemptively, whereas 585 (30%) were listed within 2 years of commencing dialysis. The interquartile range across centers was 6%–33% for preemptive listing and 25%–40% for listing after starting dialysis. Patient factors, including increasing age, most comorbidities, body mass index >35 kg/m2, and lower socioeconomic status, were associated with a lower likelihood of being listed and accounted for 89% and 97% of measured intercenter variation for preemptive listing and listing within 2 years of starting dialysis, respectively. Asian (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.33 to 0.72) and Black (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.71) participants were both associated with reduced access to preemptive listing; however Asian participants were associated with a higher likelihood of being listed after starting dialysis (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.79). As for center factors, being registered at a transplanting center (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.36 to 4.07) and a universal approach to discussing transplantation (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.78) were associated with higher preemptive listing, whereas using a written protocol was associated negatively with listing within 2 years of starting dialysis (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.9). Conclusions Patient case mix accounts for most of the intercenter variation seen in access to transplantation in the United Kingdom, with practice patterns also contributing some variation. Socioeconomic inequity exists despite having a universal health care system

Prediction of liver disease in patients whose liver function tests have been checked in primary care : model development and validation using population-based observational cohorts

This work was supported by the UK National Health Service Research & Development Programme Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 03/38/02) and also by the Backett Weir Russell Career Development Fellowship, University of Aberdeen.OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a clinical prediction model to estimate the risk of liver disease diagnosis following liver function tests (LFTs) and to convert the model to a simplified scoring tool for use in primary care. DESIGN: Population-based observational cohort study of patients in Tayside Scotland identified as having their LFTs performed in primary care and followed for 2 years. Biochemistry data were linked to secondary care, prescriptions and mortality data to ascertain baseline characteristics of the derivation cohort. A separate validation cohort was obtained from 19 general practices across the rest of Scotland to externally validate the final model. SETTING: Primary care, Tayside, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Derivation cohort: LFT results from 310 511 patients. After exclusions (including: patients under 16 years, patients having initial LFTs measured in secondary care, bilirubin >35 μmol/L, liver complications within 6 weeks and history of a liver condition), the derivation cohort contained 95 977 patients with no clinically apparent liver condition. Validation cohort: after exclusions, this cohort contained 11 653 patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnosis of a liver condition within 2 years. RESULTS: From the derivation cohort (n=95 977), 481 (0.5%) were diagnosed with a liver disease. The model showed good discrimination (C-statistic=0.78). Given the low prevalence of liver disease, the negative predictive values were high. Positive predictive values were low but rose to 20-30% for high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully developed and validated a clinical prediction model and subsequent scoring tool, the Algorithm for Liver Function Investigations (ALFI), which can predict liver disease risk in patients with no clinically obvious liver disease who had their initial LFTs taken in primary care. ALFI can help general practitioners focus referral on a small subset of patients with higher predicted risk while continuing to address modifiable liver disease risk factors in those at lower risk.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Exploration of chronic kidney disease prevalence estimates using new measures of kidney function in the health survey for England

Background: chronic kidney disease (CKD) diagnosis relies on glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) estimation, traditionally using the creatinine-based Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKDEPI) equation performs better in estimating eGFR and predicting mortality and CKD progression risk. Cystatin C is an alternative glomerular filtration marker less influenced by muscle mass. CKD risk stratification is improved by combining creatinine eGFR with cystatin C and urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (uACR). We aimed to identify the impact of introducing CKDEPI and cystatin C on the estimated prevalence and risk stratification of CKD in England and to describe prevalence and associations of cystatin C.Methods and findings: cross sectional study of 5799 people in the nationally representative 2009 and 2010 Health Surveys for England. Primary outcome measures: prevalence of MDRD, CKDEPI and cystatin C-defined eGFR&lt;60ml/min/1.73m2; prevalence of CKD biomarker combinations (creatinine, cystatin C, uACR). Using CKDEPI instead of MDRD reduced the prevalence of eGFR&lt;60ml/min/1.73m2 from 6.0% (95% CI 5.4–6.6%) to 5.2% (4.7–5.8%) equivalent to around 340,000 fewer individuals in England. Those reclassified as not having CKD evidenced a lower risk profile. Prevalence of cystatin C eGFR&lt;60ml/min/1.73m2 was 7.7% and independently associated with age, lack of qualifications, being an ex-smoker, BMI, hypertension, and albuminuria. Measuring cystatin C in the 3.9% people with CKDEPI-defined eGFR&lt;60ml/min/1.73m2 without albuminuria (CKD Category G3a A1) reclassified about a third into a lower risk group with one of three biomarkers and two thirds into a group with two of three. Measuring cystatin C in the 6.7% people with CKDEPI eGFR &gt;60ml/min/1.73m2 with albuminuria (CKD Category G1-2) reclassified almost a tenth into a higher risk group.Limitations: cross sectional study, single eGFR measure, no measured (‘true’) GFR.Conclusions: introducing the CKDEPI equation and targeted cystatin C measurement reduces estimated CKD prevalence and improves risk stratification<br/

Development of a decision support tool to facilitate primary care management of patients with abnormal liver function tests without clinically apparent liver disease [HTA03/38/02]. Abnormal Liver Function Investigations Evaluation (ALFIE)

Liver function tests (LFTs) are routinely performed in primary care, and are often the gateway to further invasive and/or expensive investigations. Little is known of the consequences in people with an initial abnormal liver function (ALF) test in primary care and with no obvious liver disease. Further investigations may be dangerous for the patient and expensive for Health Services. The aims of this study are to determine the natural history of abnormalities in LFTs before overt liver disease presents in the population and identify those who require minimal further investigations with the potential for reduction in NHS costs

Defined Contribution Pension Plans in the Public Sector: A Benchmark Analysis

This chapter assesses best practice benchmarks for the design of defined contribution plans in the public sector, where such plans are the primary, or core, employment-based retirement benefit. These benchmarks rely on the notion that providing an adequate and secure retirement income for participants is the primary plan objective

Community first responders and responder schemes in the United Kingdom: systematic scoping review

Background: Community First Responder (CFR) schemes support lay people to respond to medical emergencies, working closely with ambulance services. They operate widely in the UK. There has been no previous review of UK literature on these schemes. This is the first systematic scoping review of UK literature on CFR schemes, which identifies the reasons for becoming a CFR, requirements for training and feedback and confusion between the CFR role and that of ambulance service staff. This study also reveals gaps in the evidence base for CFR schemes. Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review of the published literature, in the English language from 2000 onwards using specific search terms in six databases. Narrative synthesis was used to analyse article content. Results: Nine articles remained from the initial search of 15,969 articles after removing duplicates, title and abstract and then full text review. People were motivated to become CFRs through an altruistic desire to help others. They generally felt rewarded by their work but recognised that the help they provided was limited by their training compared with ambulance staff. There were concerns about the possible emotional impact on CFRs responding to incidents. CFRs felt that better feedback would enhance their learning. Ongoing training and support were viewed as essential to enable CFRs to progress. They perceived that public recognition of the CFR role was low, patients sometimes confusing them with ambulance staff. Relationships with the ambulance service were sometimes ambivalent due to confusion over roles. There was support for local autonomy of CFR schemes but with greater sharing of best practice. Discussion: Most studies dated from 2005 and were descriptive rather than analytical. In the UK and Australia CFRs are usually lay volunteers equipped with basic skills for responding to medical emergencies, whereas in the US they include other emergency staff as well as lay people. Conclusion: Opportunities for future research include exploring experiences and perceptions of patients who have been treated by CFRs and other stakeholders, while also evaluating the effectiveness and costs of CFR schemes

Barriers to living donor kidney transplantation in the United Kingdom: a national observational study.

BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) provides more timely access to transplantation and better clinical outcomes than deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT). This study investigated disparities in the utilization of LDKT in the UK. METHODS: A total of 2055 adults undergoing kidney transplantation between November 2011 and March 2013 were prospectively recruited from all 23 UK transplant centres as part of the Access to Transplantation and Transplant Outcome Measures (ATTOM) study. Recipient variables independently associated with receipt of LDKT versus DDKT were identified. RESULTS: Of the 2055 patients, 807 (39.3%) received LDKT and 1248 (60.7%) received DDKT. Multivariable modelling demonstrated a significant reduction in the likelihood of LDKT for older age {odds ratio [OR] 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.17], P < 0.0001 for 65-75 years versus 18-34 years}; Asian ethnicity [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.39-0.77), P = 0.0006 versus White]; Black ethnicity [OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.42-0.99), P = 0.047 versus White]; divorced, separated or widowed [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.46-0.88), P = 0.030 versus married]; no qualifications [OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.42-0.74), P < 0.0001 versus higher education qualifications]; no car ownership [OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.37-0.72), P = 0.0001] and no home ownership [OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.85-0.79), P = 0.002]. The odds of LDKT varied significantly between countries in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing kidney transplantation in the UK, there are significant age, ethnic, socio-economic and geographic disparities in the utilization of LDKT. Further work is needed to explore the potential for targeted interventions to improve equity in living donor transplantation