Abstract
Background
The “awareness gap” and the under-recognition of chronic kidney disease (CKD) by general practitioners (GPs) is well documented. We set a framework to evaluate the impact in primary care of targeted training and networking with nephrologists with regard to CKD awareness in terms of potential increase of the proportion of patients classified according to KDIGO in the general population and in patients with diabetes, hypertension and heart failure.
Methods
Data were extracted from the Millewin Digital Platform in use by the GPs (N = 17) at baseline (T0, N = 17,854) and after 6 months (T6, N = 18,662) of networking (education, instant messaging and selected joint visits) with nephrologists (N = 2). The following variables were extracted: age, sex, eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate), ACR (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio), presence of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and heart failure. The proportion of patients detected having an eGFR below 60 mL/min/1.73m2 was also reported as deemed clinically relevant.
Results
We observed an increase in the use of ACR and eGFR tests in the entire cohort (+ 121% and + 73%, respectively) and in patients with comorbidities. The proportion of patients with eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2 significantly increased from 2.2% to 3.8% in the entire cohort, from 6.3% to 12.7% in patients with diabetes, and from 5.6% to 9.9% in those with hypertension and finally from 10.8% to 23.7% in patients with heart failure.
Conclusions
Training and network support to GPs by nephrologists can improve CKD awareness and increase its identification in the general population and, even more, in categories at risk.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The global burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is growing, impacting between 3 and 18% of the population worldwide [1]. CKD occurs when structural or functional kidney damage persists for longer than three months and it is characterised by a progressive reduction in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) along with alterations of other biomarkers, such as the Albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR). The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) initiatives provided a risk classification for general outcomes based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and ACR and specific recommendations on early identification and treatment of CKD [2].
As for other non-communicable and infectious diseases, early intervention is critical for lowering CKD-related morbidity and death [3]. The fact that the early stages of CKD are generally asymptomatic, however, challenges clinical guideline recommendations for early detection of CKD. Indeed, a high percentage of patients are undiagnosed and/or undertreated in primary care as in other clinical settings [4,5,6]. As a result, high-risk individuals, such as those with hypertension (HT), diabetes (T2DM, obesity, cardiovascular disease and a family history of renal disease, require targeted and accessible screening.
More than 850 million people worldwide suffer from CKD and, in 2030, CKD is expected to become the fifth leading cause of death in the world [7]. CKD has a prevalence of about 7% in Italy, with 8.1% in male and 7.8% women, and differences amongst northern-cental-southern Italian macro areas [8,9,10].
In a study promoted by the Italian Society of Nephrology (SIN) and the Italian Society of General Practitioners (SIMG) [11], 300 general practitioners (GPs) recruited a cohort of about 500,000 patients in the general population, showing that creatinine dosage had been requested for only 17% of patients. Of this subgroup, 16% of individuals were affected by CKD (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2), but among them, only 1 out of 8 patients had actually been identified by the GP as nephropathic, stressing the potential harm to the patients due to a possible missed diagnosis. Furthermore, such study highlighted that in Italy a nephrological consultation is usually requested in only 5% of patients with overt nephropathy in the conservative phase (eGFR 30–60 mL/min/1.73m2), whereas nephrological referral did not exceed 50% in cases of pre-dialysis disease (eGFR 30–15 mL/min/1.73m2). Similarly, low awareness of CKD has been reported for hypertensive patients attending Italian primary care offices; in a representative sample of adult hypertensive patients regularly followed up by a GP (n = 39,525), creatinine testing was reported for 59% of the patients, and a diagnosis of CKD was correctly reported in only 14% of them [12].
Furthermore, in 2018, the IRIDE (Italian obseRvatIonal study on management of CKD patiEnts and related costs) described the first Italian prospective, multicenter, observational study on the course of kidney disease and the clinical management of subjects over a 3-year period [13]. The management of CKD in clinical practice is essential for reducing disease progression and for providing improved control of secondary diseases. Findings from the IRIDE study indicate that greater attention is required for the control of renal function and proteinuria.
CKD in Italy is characterised by a lower prevalence compared to other western countries, but by a higher cardiovascular risk, attributable at least in part to the more advanced age, compared to subjects without kidney disease. A very interesting datum also concerns the greater prevalence of the earlier stages of CKD (1 and 2) [14]. Hence, there is high need for an earlier diagnosis in this subgroup of patients towards a more precise diagnosis of kidney disease and timely treatment. Renal replacement treatment for end stage renal disease (ESRD), which represents the natural evolution of CKD if left untreated, currently represents a substantial burden for the health care system [15]. From the health care system perspective, progression from CKD stages 1–2 to CKD stages 3a–3b was associated with a 1.1- to 1.7-fold increase in per patient mean annual health care cost [16].
Therefore, despite the relatively low prevalence, 1.8% of the total budget for health care is spent for ESRD patients, representing only 0.083% of the general population and amounting to a total of 2.5 billion euro [17]. Szczech A et al. [18] conducted a multicentre observational study assessing CKD prevalence in the adult population. They enrolled 9,339 patients through 466 investigator sites. The authors found that recommended urine CKD testing is underused in primary care, and that CKD is significantly underdiagnosed. CKD can be identified using two easy and inexpensive tests (eGFR from blood and ACR from urine), and patients at risk should be enrolled in cost-effective CKD early detection programs. People with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and a family history of CKD are at elevated risk of developing the condition, and depending on the region, comorbidities, environmental exposure, and genetic risk factors may also be relevant to consider [19]. Despite this, only 3% of health expenditure is invested in prevention, of which only 20% for early diagnosis.
Given the global shortage of CKD specialists, educating GPs and building successful multidisciplinary teams to play a larger role in early diagnosis and management would help to alleviate the CKD burden in hospitals and health care systems. Thus, the primary aim of this project was to evaluate the impact of targeted training for GPs by specialised nephrologists with regard to CKD awareness in terms of potentially increasing the proportion of patients tested for specific CKD biomarkers: ACR and eGFR. A single-arm, non randomized, paired proof of concept (POC) study was undertaken between 01/05/2021 and 31/10/2021 in Apulia region, Italy, within a framework called “The Disease Awareness Innovation Network (DANTE)”.
Methods
Study design
The primary endpoint of this single-arm, non randomized, paired proof of concept study was to evaluate the impact in primary care of targeted training and networking with nephrologists with regard to CKD awareness in terms of potential increase in the proportion of patients classified according to KDIGO in the general population and after stratifying patients by the following comorbidities: diabetes, hypertension and heart failure.
A schematic representation of the study design along the statistical analyses undertaken is provided in Fig. 1.
General practitioner training and networking
A first meeting was set up with GPs in which two trained nephrologists illustrated the KDIGO CKD guidelines to the GPs. In order to facilitate the exchange of information between the specialists and the GPs, an instant messaging chat was created after the beginning of the study allowing for mobile communication and discussion of specific cases. Joint visits (nephrologist and GP) were planned during the 6-month networking period. A final meeting was also planned in order to evaluate the effect of CKD awareness/specialist training after 6 months (T6) in terms of proportion of new CKD diagnostic tests (ACR, eGFR) undertaken, hence providing the GPs with a preliminary result of the impact of CKD awareness on their daily practice/patients.
Study data
Data considered for the study were collected from the whole cohort of patients stored within the Millewin Digital Platform in use by the GPs included in the study (n = 17, all located in Apulia region, Italy). Data were analysed for the presence of specific comorbidities (type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension and heart failure) and for the proportion of ACR and eGFR (CKD-EPI formula) tests undertaken at baseline (T0) and after 6 months (T6).
In particular, we extracted the following variables: age, sex, eGFR, ACR, comorbidities. The proportion of patients whose eGFR was below 60 mL/min/1.73m2 was also reported as this information was deemed clinically relevant for the study.
Millewin computerized medical record
The data considered for the study were collected by extraction from the Millewin computerized medical record: a computerized and problem-oriented medical record (CMOP), equipped with a Clinical Decision Support System (DSS), and a software (Milleutilità) based on the Postgres-SQL language for the extraction of recorded data, used by the general practitioners included in the study (n = 17, residing in Apulia region, Italy) in their usual clinical practice. Millewin is a Class 1 (as per EU 2017/745 regulationFootnote 1) Medical Device (Medical devices are all instruments, appliances, equipment, software, implants, reagents, materials or other items that are used alone or in combination to intervene on a subject, i.e. human being, and called a patient for diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, prediction disease, prognosis, treatment) registered with the Italian Ministry of Health with ID 1847935. In order to guarantee homogeneity of data collection/management and results, only Apulian GPs with Millewin digital platform installed were selected for this study. Participating GPs were provided with a script SQL (Supplementary Material S1) to standardise the extraction of relevant data from the medical record using the software Milleutilità. Patients’ data were anonymized. All entries were used for the statistical analyses.
Statistical analyses
A significance level of α = 5% was specified before data analysis. All patients collected by the 17 participating GPs were pooled into two main groups (baseline time [T0] vs time at six months [T6]) for the purpose of the main analyses.
For the descriptive analysis part: the difference in the numerical continuous covariate (age) between the two pooled patient groups (T0 and T6) was evaluated using a Wilcoxon two-sided test after a Shapiro–Wilk Test, plus quantile–quantile plots were conducted for normality evaluation of such covariate. For categorical variables (i.e. sex plus our collected diseases: HF, HT and T2DM), a McNemar’s Chi Squared test was used to test whether there was a difference in proportions between the two groups i.e., T0 vs T6.
For the primary endpoint analysis part: The Delta (variation in terms of % of diagnostic tests undertaken by the 17 GPs participating in the study between T0 and T6 pooled patients) was calculated as \(\frac{{\text{\%}}_{T6}-{\text{\%}}_{T0}}{{\text{\%}}_{T0}}\times 100.\) The same Delta evaluation was also conducted after stratifying patients by their diseases (HF, HT and T2DM). The comparison was made using a two-sided McNemar’s test, with a Type I error rate (α) of 0.05. To detect a McNemar with an effect size (odds ratio) of 2.5 with a sample size of 200 observations, the power was estimated to be 0.92. The details of the previous steps can be found in Supplementary Materials 2 and 3.
As further validation, the latter analysis was also conducted by single GPs as statistical units instead of pooling patients collected by all 17 GPs by the two observation times (T0 and T6). The latter analysis is detailed in Supplementary Material 4. All analyses were conducted in R version 4.0.5 (2021-03-31) running under Windows 11 × 64 and schematically represented in Fig. 1 in the context of the study design.
Results
A total of 17,854 patients, whose characteristics are shown in Table 1, were analysed at T0 (baseline) by retrieving data from the databases of 17 Apulian GPs who fulfilled the entry criterion (having Millewin software installed on their patient management systems). Mean age was 52.68 (20.5) years with a proportion of 50.6% of females.
Diabetics, hypertensives and patients with a diagnosis of heart failure account for 10.8%, 32.9% and 1.4%, respectively, of the entire cohort. Although the number of individuals at the end of the 6-month observation period (T6) was higher (n = 18,862), likely due to the fact that these GPs received additional patients from retired colleagues, we did not find any statistical difference in the prevalence of these categories of disease. This allowed us to properly measure the efficacy of the intervention, to use eGFR and ACR as basic diagnostic tools of CKD 6 months after training the GPs.
As for the pooled analysis results in Table 2, at T6 (after training the GPs) we observed a percentile increase of 43% (from 16.2 to 23.1%) in the use of eGFR and of 121% (from 2.4 to 5.3%) for ACR in the overall cohort. The same positive trend was observed after stratifying the pooled cohort for all the disease categories taken into account. In particular, for diabetic patients, the use of eGFR increased from 27.2 to 45.6% (+ 68%) and ACR went from 10.8 to 25.3% (+ 134%). The percentage of hypertensive patients screened for eGFR and ACR increased from 24.4 to 38.1% (+ 77%) and from 5.8 to 12.7% (+ 119%), respectively. In patients with heart failure, the use of eGFR showed an increase of 87% (from 22.4 to 42%) and for ACR of 333% (from 4.8 to 20.8%).
These results also allowed to increase the prevalence of individuals correctly diagnosed with CKD stages 3 to 5 (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m2), which in the overall cohort reached 3.8% at T6 compared to the initial 2.2% at T0, with a detection percentage increase of 73% after the intervention (training) on the awareness of GPs for CKD. Likewise, in the subset of diabetic patients we observed a 101% increase in CKD stages 3 to 5 diagnoses (from 6.3 to 12.7%). For hypertensive patients and those with heart failure this prevalence increased from 5.6 to 9.9% (+ 77%) and 10.8 to 23.7% (119%), respectively. All of these comparisons, in terms of delta of prevalence of such tests between T0 and T6 (pooled analysis), yielded a statistically significant p value (< 0.0001).
Finally, in Table 3 we show patients classified according to the KDIGO, hence using both eGFR and ACR as available at the end of the observation period in the entire cohort. This table highlights that most individuals followed up by GPs are classified as A1 (89.5%) and 9.1% are classified as A2, whereas, in terms of eGFR, the large majority are G1-G3a (90.9%).
Discussion
The “awareness gap” and the under-recognition of CKD by GPs is well documented [20], and the need to demonstrate that the identification and treatment of early CKD truly impacts care is more urgent now than ever.
However, according to van Dipten C et al. [21] GPs might have differing opinions on how to define CKD and interpret eGFR. Despite the essential role of the quantification of urinary albumin and protein in the assessment of CKD, the low implementation of this test by GPs is a common problem globally [20, 22, 23], suggesting that a formal strategy for knowledge translation should be developed and that it should be based on educational tools, measurement of the effectiveness of such tools, and clear and consistent messaging.
The DANTE project takes these steps exactly, and in particular frames the CKD interventions specifically, within the context of cardiovascular health and diabetes, as suggested in order to effectively improve the management of CKD in primary care [24].
Of note, the use of iconic cases for discussion during the planned meetings with the GPs at T0 as well as at T6 was particularly appreciated. Even more efficient was the setup of a shared group (all GPs and the trained nephrologists) on an instant messaging platform. In fact, this allowed the management of specific real-life cases suggested by the GPs that were particularly challenging in terms of multidisciplinarity. Moreover, thanks to this close interaction, we identified patients who then underwent a renal biopsy that revealed glomerulonephritis and were treated timely.
In the DANTE pilot study, the first of its kind ever planned in Italy, we quantitatively evaluated the impact of such specialized training with regard to the GPs’ CKD awareness in terms of potential variation (% Delta) of diagnostic tests (eGFR and ACR) prescribed by GPs to their patients before and after such training sessions.
In particular, in patients with diabetes we observed an increase in the use of ACR and eGFR testing, allowing to update the detected prevalence of CKD stages 3A to 5 in this cohort, which increased from 6.3 to 12.7% (+ 102%). Likewise, in patients with hypertension, this latter prevalence increased from 5.6 to 9.9% (+ 77%) and in those with heart failure it went from 10.8 to 23.7% (+ 119%). On one hand, these results, which focus on moderate to severe CKD, are highly relevant, as these patients would certainly benefit from the referral to a nephrologist. On the other hand, the encouraging data in the overall population regarding the use of ACR (+ 121%) and eGFR (+ 43%) allow the early identification of patients at risk.
In this regard, it is now consolidated that treatments for CKD initiated at early stages are more effective [25,26,27]. Testing for CKD is accepted by the population due to its low-cost and accuracy and, actually, individuals with CKD express a preference for early communication about a CKD diagnosis [28].
Screening and treatment in earlier stages could occur in primary care practices or community-based settings. In fact, there are clear guidelines for CKD treatment, and the natural history of the disease, including consequences of inadequate treatment, are well known [2]. As for Vanholder R et al. [29], high savings for the national health care system are achieved through prevention and by slowing down the progression of the disease by means of early detection and intervention, focusing on GP training and CKD awareness in primary care [30].
Therefore, it would be of great importance to increase our attention towardsthe early detection of CKD. The importance of raising awareness about the management of CKD among general practitioners and specialists alike cannot be underestimated, particularly as more therapeutic options are becoming available for these patients.
With regard to study limitations, in this POC study we have to highlight the fact that only a small cohort of Apulian GPs with a Millewin platform installed in their management systems were selected and that the ACR and eGFR tests were undertaken by different laboratories scattered across Apulia region, hence potentially inducing selection and sensibility/specificity biases respectively for patients and laboratory tests (increased variability of their results). For further studies, it would definitely be useful to collect more data with regard to the GPs participating in the study in order to check for potential confounders (e.g. GPs’ age, experience, location/deprivation index of the municipalities where they work and availability/distance from laboratories able to undertake standard assays), exploiting a randomized control study design.
Furthermore, given the small scale of this POC study and the data we collected, it still remains unclear whether this interventional strategy is sustainable over time and financially by health care systems. The last health technology assessment aspect will be thoroughly evaluated in a separate and large scale (national level) study by our research group.
Therefore, based on our findings, we can argue that teaching/training devoted to GPs with networking supported by specialised nephrology experts succeeds both in improving the GPs’ CKD awareness, providing vital support to prevention, and in increasing its early diagnosis and identification in at-risk categories, slowing down the progression of the disease, thus resulting in high savings as well, given the large cost gap between the early and late stages of CKD [31].
Availability of data and material
The anonymized dataset generated and analysed in this study is available from the corresponding author on request.
Code availability
The SQL script for data extraction from Millewin is available as a supplementary document (Supplementary material S1).
References
Glassock RJ, Warnock DG, Delanaye P (2017) The global burden of chronic kidney disease: estimates, variability and pitfalls. Nat Rev Nephrol 13(2):104–114. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneph.2016.163
Levin A et al (2013) Kidney Disease improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Working Group. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl 3(1):1–150
Shlipak MG, Tummalapalli SL, Boulware LE, Grams ME, Ix JH, Jha V, Kengne AP, Madero M, Mihaylova B, Tangri N, Cheung M, Jadoul M, Winkelmayer WC, Zoungas S, Conference Participants (2021) The case for early identification and intervention of chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a kidney disease: improving global outcomes (KDIGO) controversies conference. Kidney Int 99(1):34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2020.10.012
Zillich AJ, Saseen JJ, Dehart RM, Dumo P, Grabe DW, Gilmartin C, Hachey DM, Hudson JQ, Pruchnicki MC, Joy MS, Nephrology Practice and research networks of the American college of Clinical Pharmacy (2005) Caring for patients with chronic kidney disease: a joint opinion of the ambulatory care and the nephrology practice and research networks of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy. Pharmacotherapy 25(1):123–143. https://doi.org/10.1592/phco.25.1.123.55628
Neuen BL, Chadban SJ, Demaio AR, Johnson DW, Perkovic V (2017) Chronic kidney disease and the global NCDs agenda. BMJ Glob Health 2(2):e000380. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000380
Chu CD, Chen MH, McCulloch CE et al (2021) Patient awareness of CKD: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-oriented questions and study setting. Kidney Med 3(4):576-585.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2021.03.014
De Nicola L, Minutolo R, Chiodini P, Borrelli S, Zoccali C, Postorino M et al (2012) The effect of increasing age on the prognosis of non-dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease receiving stable nephrology care. Kidney Int 82(4):482–488
De Nicola L, Donfrancesco C, Giampaoli S et al (2014) Prevalence and cardiovascular risk profile of chronic kidney disease in Italy: results of the 2008–12 National Health Examination Survey. Nephrol Dial Transpl 30(5):806–814. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu383
Cirillo M et al (2013) Cohort profile: the Gubbio population study. Int J Epidemiol 43:713–720
Gambaro G, Yabarek T, Graziani MS, Gemelli A, Abaterusso C, Frigo AC, Marchionna N, Citron L, Bonfante L, Grigoletto F, Tata S, Ferraro PM, Legnaro A, Meneghel G, Conz P, Rizzotti P, D’Angelo A, Lupo A, INCIPE Study Group (2010) Prevalence of CKD in northeastern Italy: results of the INCIPE study and comparison with NHANES. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5(11):1946–1953. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02400310
Minutolo R, De Nicola L, Mazzaglia G, Postorino M, Cricelli C, Mantovani LG, Conte G, Cianciaruso B (2008) Detection and awareness of moderate to advanced CKD by primary care practitioners: a cross-sectional study from Italy. Am J Kidney Dis 52(3):444–453. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.03.002
Ravera M, Noberasco G, Weiss U, Re M, Gallina AM, Filippi A, Cannavò R, Ravera G, Cricelli C, Deferrari G (2011) CKD awareness and blood pressure control in the primary care hypertensive population. Am J Kidney Dis 57(1):71–77. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2010.08.022
Cozzolino M, Bolasco P, Ronco C, Conte G, Menè P, Mereu MC, Di Luca M, Roccatello D, Rosati A, Jommi C, Costanzo AM, Gualberti G, di Luzio Paparatti U, Remuzzi G (2018) Clinical management of chronic kidney disease patients in Italy: results from the IRIDE Study. Nephron 140(1):39–47. https://doi.org/10.1159/000490769
Brück K, Stel VS (2016) CKD prevalence varies across the european general population. J Am Soc Nephrol 27(7):2135–2147
Mennini FS, Russo S, Marcellusi A, Quintaliani G, Fouque D (2014) Economic effects of treatment of chronic kidney disease with low-protein diet. J Ren Nutr 24(5):313–321
Elshahat S, Cockwell P, Maxwell AP, Griffin M, O’Brien T, O’Neill C (2020) The impact of chronic kidney disease on developed countries from a health economics perspective: A systematic scoping review. PLoS ONE 15(3):e0230512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230512
Pontoriero G, Pozzoni P, Vecchio LD, Locatelli F (2007) International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing for renal replacement therapy in Italy: an evolving reality. Int J Health Care Financ Econ 7(2–3):201–215
Szczech LA, Stewart RC, Su HL, DeLoskey RJ, Astor BC, Fox CH, McCullough PA, Vassalotti JA (2014) Primary care detection of chronic kidney disease in adults with type-2 diabetes: the ADD-CKD Study (awareness, detection and drug therapy in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease). PLoS ONE 9(11):e110535. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110535
GBD Chronic Kidney Disease Collaboration (2020) Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 395(10225):709–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30045-3
Levin A (2012) Ongoing gaps in CKD and CVD care: re-evaluating strategies for knowledge dissemination. Nephrol Dial Transpl 27(4):1282–1284. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfr765
van Dipten C, van Berkel S, de Grauw WJC et al (2018) General practitioners’ perspectives on management of early-stage chronic kidney disease: a focus group study. BMC Fam Pract 19:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0736-3
Tatematsu S, Kobayashi K, Utsunomiya Y, Isozaki T, Hatta T, Kusumoto T, Miyazaki M, Hatori N, Otani H (2021) Nationwide questionnaire survey on the management of chronic kidney disease for general practitioners in Japan. Clin Exp Nephrol 25(10):1093–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10157-021-02084-x
Reaves AC, Weiner DE (2022) Value-based care in chronic kidney disease: missing albuminuria is a missed opportunity. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 17(1):14–16. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.15031121
Tsang JY, Blakeman T, Hegarty J, Humphreys J, Harvey G (2016) Understanding the implementation of interventions to improve the management of chronic kidney disease in primary care: a rapid realist review. Implement Sci 4(11):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0413-7.PMID:27044401;PMCID:PMC4820872
Chan MR, Dall AT, Fletcher KE, Lu N, Trivedi H (2007) Outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease referred late to nephrologists: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 120(12):1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.04.024
Schievink B, Kröpelin T, Mulder S, Parving HH, Remuzzi G, Dwyer J, Vemer P, de Zeeuw D, Lambers Heerspink HJ (2016) Early renin-angiotensin system intervention is more beneficial than late intervention in delaying end-stage renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 18(1):64–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12583
Curtis S, Komenda P (2020) Screening for chronic kidney disease: moving toward more sustainable health care. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 29(3):333–338. https://doi.org/10.1097/MNH.0000000000000597
Wright Nunes J, Roney M, Kerr E, Ojo A, Fagerlin A (2016) A diagnosis of chronic kidney disease: despite fears patients want to know early. Clin Nephrol 86(2):78–86. https://doi.org/10.5414/CN108831
Vanholder R, Annemans L, Brown E, Gansevoort R, Gout-Zwart JJ, Lameire N, Morton RL, Oberbauer R, Postma MJ, Tonelli M, Biesen WV, Zoccali C, European Kidney Health Alliance (2017) Reducing the costs of chronic kidney disease while delivering quality health care: a call to action. Nat Rev Nephrol 13(7):393–409. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneph.2017.63
Turchetti G, Bellelli S, Amato M, Bianchi S, Conti P, Cupisti A, Panichi V, Rosati A, Pizzarelli F, On Behalf of the Tuscany CKD Study Group (2017) The social cost of chronic kidney disease in Italy. Eur J Health Econ 18(7):847–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0830-1
Jommi C, Armeni P, Battista M, di Procolo P, Conte G, Ronco C, Cozzolino M, Costanzo AM, di Luzio PU, Concas G, Remuzzi G, IRIDE Study Group (2018) The cost of patients with chronic kidney failure before dialysis: results from the IRIDE observational study. Pharmacoecon Open 2(4):459–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0062-z
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: LG, DP, FP; Methodology: FP, DP; Formal analysis and investigation: GP, FP; Writing–original draft preparation: FP; Writing–review and editing: LDN, MC, AG, GP; Supervision: LG.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
FP received fees from AstraZeneca for lectures. DP, GP have no disclosure. LDN received fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novo Nordisk and Vifor for lectures and scientific consultations MC received research funding from Abbvie, Baxter, Keryx, and Shire; reports receiving honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Astrazeneca, Baxter, Shire, and Vifor-Pharma; reports serving as a scientific advisor or member of and reports speakers bureau for Abbvie, Amgen, Keryx, Shire, and Vifor Pharma GA received fees from AstraZeneca for lectures LG received research fundings from Abionyx, Sanofi, and received fees from Fresenius, Estor, Werfen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Travere, Sandoz, Baxter, Mundipharma, Pharmadoc, Retrophin, GSK, Novartis, Chinook.
Ethical statement
Patient consent was not required given the non-interventional/observational nature of the study and the fact that data were provided by the GPs to the investigators as fully anonymised (hence not allowing the study investigators to reconstruct the identity of study participants). Notice was not given to the local Ethics' Committee /Institutional Review Board.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
40620_2022_1353_MOESM1_ESM.txt
Supplementary file1 Supplementary Material 1: SQL Query executed in Millewin Environment to collect patients data from each GP database at T0 and T6. (TXT 8 KB)
40620_2022_1353_MOESM2_ESM.docx
Supplementary file2 Supplementary Material 2: Normality checks for age covariate. Pooled analysis (overall and stratified by diseases) results. (DOCX 27 KB)
40620_2022_1353_MOESM4_ESM.docx
Supplementary file4 Supplementary Material 4: Unpooled analysis (by single GP as statistical unit) results. (DOCX 24 KB)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pesce, F., Pasculli, D., Pasculli, G. et al. “The Disease Awareness Innovation Network” for chronic kidney disease identification in general practice. J Nephrol 35, 2057–2065 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-022-01353-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-022-01353-6