Gesualdo L.,University of Bari |
Gesualdo L.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research |
Gesualdo L.,Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy |
Gesualdo L.,Guys And St Thomas Nhs Foundation Hospital |
And 104 more authors.
International Urology and Nephrology | Year: 2015
Purpose: Data from an ongoing European pharmacoepidemiological study (MONITOR-CKD5) were used to examine congruence between physician-reported risk-based individualisation of target haemoglobin (Hb) and the actual Hb targets set by these physicians for their patients, as well as actual Hb levels in their patients. Methods: Physician investigators participating in the study completed a questionnaire about their anaemia practice patterns and attitudes post-TREAT at the start of the study (T1) and in summer 2013 (T2). These data were compared with the Hb targets identified at baseline for actual patients (n = 1197) enrolled in the study. Risk groups included presence/absence of hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular complications, history of stroke, history of cancer, and age/activity level (elderly/inactive or young/active). Results: At each time point, more than three quarters of physicians responded that results from the TREAT study, in patients not on dialysis, have influenced their use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients on haemodialysis. At T1, there was a clear difference in physician-reported (theoretical) target Hb levels for patients across the different risk groups, but there was no difference in patients’ actual Hb levels across the risk groups. A similar disparity was noted at T2. Conclusions: Physicians’ theoretical attitudes to anaemia management in patients on haemodialysis appear to have been influenced by the results of the TREAT study, which involved patients not on dialysis. Physicians claim to use risk-based target Hb levels to guide renal anaemia care. However, there is discrepancy between these declared risk-based target Hb levels and actual target Hb levels for patients with variable risk factors. © 2015, The Author(s).
PubMed | Center Hospitalier Fh Manhes, CNR Institute of Neuroscience and French Institute of Health and Medical Research
Type: | Journal: Kidney international | Year: 2016
Left ventricular hypertrophy is a strong causal risk factor of cardiovascular morbidity and death in end stage kidney failure, and its prognostic value is taken for granted in this population. However, the issue has never been formally tested by state-of-art prognostic analyses. Therefore, we determined the prognostic power of the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) for all-cause and cardiovascular death beyond and above that provided by well validated clinical risk scores, the annualized rate of occurrence cohort risk scores (ARO, all cause death risk and cardiovascular risk). Two large cohorts that measured LVMI in 207 hemodialysis patients in the South Italian CREED cohort and 287 patients in the French Hospital Manhes cohort were analyzed. Over a two year follow-up, 123 patients died (cardiovascular death 65%). In Cox models both the LVMI and the ARO risk scores were significantly related to all-cause and cardiovascular death. In prognostic analyses, LVMI per se showed an inferior discriminatory power (Harrells C index) to that of the ARO risk scores (all-cause death: -10%; cardiovascular death: -5%). LVMI largely failed to improve model calibration based on the ARO risk scores, and added nonsignificant discriminatory power (Integrated Discrimination Index+2% and+3%) and quite limited reclassification ability (Net Reclassification Index+4.3%, and+8.8) to the ARO risk scores. Thus, while left ventricular hypertrophy remains a fundamental treatment target in end stage kidney failure, the measurement of LVMI solely for risk stratification is unwarranted in this condition.