Nephrology

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – A panel of urinary biomarkers may do better than measuring proteinuria in predicting which patients with lupus nephritis are going to respond to treatment, according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Physician-scientist Andrea Fava, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented data from a study using urine proteomics to identify biomarkers present in the urine of patients with lupus nephritis at 3 months after starting treatment that were linked to better outcomes from that treatment at 1 year.

While proteinuria is the standard measure used to guide decisions about whether to do a kidney biopsy and how to treat lupus nephritis, it doesn’t always correlate with what’s actually going on inside the kidney in terms of histology and inflammation, Dr. Fava said.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

He pointed to an earlier study in which researchers did kidney biopsies 6 months after patients with lupus nephritis started treatment with mycophenolate. This suggested that around half of patients who showed a clinical response to treatment – defined as proteinuria below 500 mg/day – still had significant histologic disease activity. Another study suggested that this elevated histologic disease activity is associated with a risk of flare, which can result in significant nephron loss. On the flip side, nearly two-thirds of patients in complete histologic remission still had elevated proteinuria.

Unfortunately, it’s not possible or practical to biopsy patients on a regular basis, Dr. Fava said. “So we need better biomarkers, and to do so, we need better knowledge of the pathophysiology because if we have biomarkers that reflect tissue biology in real-time, that may surely guide personalized treatments,” he said at the congress.

Dr. Fava and colleagues enrolled 225 patients with SLE who were undergoing kidney biopsy and 10 healthy controls and used proteomics to quantify the urinary levels of around 1,200 proteins at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after initiating treatment.

The team then analyzed these data to look for protein signatures that correlated with histologic phenotypes – particularly the amount of inflammation in the kidney – and clinical features such as response to treatment.

They found several protein biomarkers that appeared to be linked to histologic activity in the kidney, including interleukin (IL)-16, CD163, and neutrophil granule proteins.

Initially, the team looked at baseline levels of these proteins to see if they predicted who responded to treatment, but found no difference between responders and nonresponders.

However, when they looked at levels at 3 months after treatment, a pattern emerged. “We found that in patients who were not responding, there were no changes after 3 months of treatment in the urine proteome,” Dr. Fava said. Among those who did respond to treatment, the levels of these proteins – IL-16, CD163, galectin-1, and CD206 – decreased significantly.

“So the proteins that are linked to renal activity decrease only in responders, suggesting that effective immunosuppression is effective in reducing intrarenal inflammation, which eventually results in low proteinuria at 1 year.”

The decline in these biomarkers persisted at 1 year, and the study suggested it was a better predictor of which patients would respond to treatment at 1 year than proteinuria.

Dr. Fava said in an interview that better biomarkers could revolutionize the treatment and management of lupus nephritis.

“First of all, it can shift the management strategy from treatment to prevention, because at the very beginning we can nip it in the bud maybe with very gentle treatment,” he said. Different panels of urine biomarkers could identify patients at risk of treatment failure, and also help patients to taper off their immunosuppressive therapy without an increased risk of flare. “If we have a way to tell us there’s still inflammation that needs treatment, that could change the way we do it,” he said.

He acknowledged there are significant challenges to developing these biomarkers for clinical use; one is the decision of how to define disease activity without relying on proteinuria as a measure. “Why do I want a biomarker that can predict another biomarker?” he said.

Another presentation during the same session, by Huihua Ding, MD, of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, China, reported on the use of urinary L-selectin to assess renal disease activity and response to treatment in a multiethnic cohort.

This study, involving 474 patients with SLE with or without renal involvement in the United States and China, found levels of urinary L-selectin were elevated only in patients with active lupus nephritis and showed patterns that correlated with renal histologic characteristics.

Clinical rheumatologist Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne said one challenge with using urinary biomarkers was that it was not yet clear what these biomarkers reveal about the kidney. “It will be important to see whether this proteomic data actually link to renal outcomes,” Dr. Morand said in an interview. “I think predicting the response to treatment should be based around GFR [glomerular filtration rate] preservation, and I don’t think I’ve seen data yet that the urine biomarkers are going to tell us how to do that better.”

Dr. Morand is optimistic that urine biomarkers will one day be able to achieve that, but he stressed the importance of having urine biomarker tests available in the field at low cost. “You’re going to be doing the tests repeatedly, so therefore, you’re probably going to need to come down to a smaller list of proteins that you measure.”

Dr. Fava reported receiving support from Sanofi and Annexion Bio.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Fast Track designation for Cabaletta Bio’s cell therapy CABA-201 for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis (LN), the company announced May 1.
 

The FDA cleared Cabaletta to begin a phase 1/2 clinical trial of CABA-201, the statement says, which will be the first trial accessing Cabaletta’s Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells for Autoimmunity (CARTA) approach. CABA-201, a 4-1BB–containing fully human CD19-CAR T-cell investigational therapy, is designed to target and deplete CD19-positive B cells, “enabling an ‘immune system reset’ with durable remission in patients with SLE,” according to the press release. This news organization previously reported on a small study in Germany, published in Nature Medicine, that also used anti-CD19 CAR T cells to treat five patients with SLE.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

This upcoming open-label study will enroll two cohorts containing six patients each. One cohort will be patients with SLE and active LN, and the other will be patients with SLE without renal involvement. The therapy is designed as a one-time infusion and will be administered at a dose of 1.0 x 106 cells/kg.

“We believe the FDA’s decision to grant Fast Track Designation for CABA-201 underscores the unmet need for a treatment that has the potential to provide deep and durable responses for people living with lupus and potentially other autoimmune diseases where B cells contribute to disease,” David J. Chang, MD, chief medical officer of Cabaletta, said in the press release.

FDA Fast Track is a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs and other therapeutics that treat serious conditions and address unmet medical needs. Companies that receive Fast Track designation for a drug have the opportunity for more frequent meetings and written communication with the FDA about the drug’s development plan and design of clinical trials. The fast-tracked drug can also be eligible for accelerated approval and priority review if relevant criteria are met.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – Approximately 70% of children with febrile urinary tract infections receive guideline-adherent follow-up imaging from primary care, based on data from 118 individuals.

“Timely imaging is recommended after febrile UTI (fUTI) in young children to identify treatable urologic conditions,” wrote Jonathan Hatoun, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues in a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) currently recommends renal-bladder ultrasound (RBUS) after fUTI with voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) after abnormal RBUS or second fUTI, but data on clinician adherence to these recommendations are limited, the researchers said.

To characterize practice patterns regarding fUTI, the researchers reviewed data from children younger than 24 months of age with fUTI who were treated at a primary care network in Massachusetts in 2019. The definition of fUTI was temperature of 38° C or higher, positive urinalysis, and more than 50,000 CFU on urine culture. The median age of the patients was 9 months; 84% were female.

In a multivariate analysis, post-UTI imaging followed the AAP guidelines in 82 cases (69.5%). The main reasons for nonadherence were lack of RBUS in 21 patients, VCUG despite normal RBUS in 9 patients, no VCUG after abnormal RBUS in 4 patients, and no VCUG after a second fUTI in 2 patients.

Overall, nonadherence was a result of not ordering a recommended study in 23% of cases (errors of omission) and ordering an unnecessary study in 8% of cases (errors of commission).

Commercial insurance, larger number of providers in practice, and younger provider age were significant independent predictors of adherence (odds ratios 2.82, 1.38, and 0.96, respectively).

The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; however, the results suggest that targeted training may improve guideline adherence, the researchers wrote. Additional research and quality improvement studies are needed to understand and address the impact of insurance on guideline adherence for imaging after febrile UTIs, they noted.
 

Provider education is essential to continued quality of care

When it comes to febrile UTIs, “it is important to stay focused on the quality of care being provided, as opposed to the usual benchmark of quantity of care,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, said in an interview.

“This is a very simple but interesting study on provider compliance with practice guidelines,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in the study. “I was surprised that the providers did so well in ordering the correct imaging in 70% of the cases,” he said.

 Of particular interest, Dr. Joos noted, was that “the authors also showed that older providers and those working in smaller practices are less likely to comply with this particular imaging guideline. This can be summed up as the ‘I didn’t know the guideline’ effect.”

To improve quality of care, “more research and effort should be directed at updating providers when strong new evidence changes previous practices and guidelines,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON – Approximately 70% of children with febrile urinary tract infections receive guideline-adherent follow-up imaging from primary care, based on data from 118 individuals.

“Timely imaging is recommended after febrile UTI (fUTI) in young children to identify treatable urologic conditions,” wrote Jonathan Hatoun, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues in a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) currently recommends renal-bladder ultrasound (RBUS) after fUTI with voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) after abnormal RBUS or second fUTI, but data on clinician adherence to these recommendations are limited, the researchers said.

To characterize practice patterns regarding fUTI, the researchers reviewed data from children younger than 24 months of age with fUTI who were treated at a primary care network in Massachusetts in 2019. The definition of fUTI was temperature of 38° C or higher, positive urinalysis, and more than 50,000 CFU on urine culture. The median age of the patients was 9 months; 84% were female.

In a multivariate analysis, post-UTI imaging followed the AAP guidelines in 82 cases (69.5%). The main reasons for nonadherence were lack of RBUS in 21 patients, VCUG despite normal RBUS in 9 patients, no VCUG after abnormal RBUS in 4 patients, and no VCUG after a second fUTI in 2 patients.

Overall, nonadherence was a result of not ordering a recommended study in 23% of cases (errors of omission) and ordering an unnecessary study in 8% of cases (errors of commission).

Commercial insurance, larger number of providers in practice, and younger provider age were significant independent predictors of adherence (odds ratios 2.82, 1.38, and 0.96, respectively).

The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; however, the results suggest that targeted training may improve guideline adherence, the researchers wrote. Additional research and quality improvement studies are needed to understand and address the impact of insurance on guideline adherence for imaging after febrile UTIs, they noted.
 

Provider education is essential to continued quality of care

When it comes to febrile UTIs, “it is important to stay focused on the quality of care being provided, as opposed to the usual benchmark of quantity of care,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, said in an interview.

“This is a very simple but interesting study on provider compliance with practice guidelines,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in the study. “I was surprised that the providers did so well in ordering the correct imaging in 70% of the cases,” he said.

 Of particular interest, Dr. Joos noted, was that “the authors also showed that older providers and those working in smaller practices are less likely to comply with this particular imaging guideline. This can be summed up as the ‘I didn’t know the guideline’ effect.”

To improve quality of care, “more research and effort should be directed at updating providers when strong new evidence changes previous practices and guidelines,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON – Approximately 70% of children with febrile urinary tract infections receive guideline-adherent follow-up imaging from primary care, based on data from 118 individuals.

“Timely imaging is recommended after febrile UTI (fUTI) in young children to identify treatable urologic conditions,” wrote Jonathan Hatoun, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, and colleagues in a poster presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) currently recommends renal-bladder ultrasound (RBUS) after fUTI with voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) after abnormal RBUS or second fUTI, but data on clinician adherence to these recommendations are limited, the researchers said.

To characterize practice patterns regarding fUTI, the researchers reviewed data from children younger than 24 months of age with fUTI who were treated at a primary care network in Massachusetts in 2019. The definition of fUTI was temperature of 38° C or higher, positive urinalysis, and more than 50,000 CFU on urine culture. The median age of the patients was 9 months; 84% were female.

In a multivariate analysis, post-UTI imaging followed the AAP guidelines in 82 cases (69.5%). The main reasons for nonadherence were lack of RBUS in 21 patients, VCUG despite normal RBUS in 9 patients, no VCUG after abnormal RBUS in 4 patients, and no VCUG after a second fUTI in 2 patients.

Overall, nonadherence was a result of not ordering a recommended study in 23% of cases (errors of omission) and ordering an unnecessary study in 8% of cases (errors of commission).

Commercial insurance, larger number of providers in practice, and younger provider age were significant independent predictors of adherence (odds ratios 2.82, 1.38, and 0.96, respectively).

The findings were limited by the use of data from a single center; however, the results suggest that targeted training may improve guideline adherence, the researchers wrote. Additional research and quality improvement studies are needed to understand and address the impact of insurance on guideline adherence for imaging after febrile UTIs, they noted.
 

Provider education is essential to continued quality of care

When it comes to febrile UTIs, “it is important to stay focused on the quality of care being provided, as opposed to the usual benchmark of quantity of care,” Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, said in an interview.

“This is a very simple but interesting study on provider compliance with practice guidelines,” said Dr. Joos, who was not involved in the study. “I was surprised that the providers did so well in ordering the correct imaging in 70% of the cases,” he said.

 Of particular interest, Dr. Joos noted, was that “the authors also showed that older providers and those working in smaller practices are less likely to comply with this particular imaging guideline. This can be summed up as the ‘I didn’t know the guideline’ effect.”

To improve quality of care, “more research and effort should be directed at updating providers when strong new evidence changes previous practices and guidelines,” Dr. Joos told this news organization.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A new report details a comprehensive strategy to prevent preeclampsia, which affects about 250,000 pregnant women a year in the United States and 10 million worldwide.

Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal mortality and premature births. The report, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, developed by a working group of clinicians, researchers, patients, advocates, and payers, recommends daily low-dose aspirin, surveillance, behavioral strategies, patient and provider education, long-term follow-up, and addressing social determinants of health.

Titled “Care plan for individuals at risk for preeclampsia: Shared approach to education, strategies for prevention, surveillance and follow up,” the report includes recommendations for providers and for patients at moderate to high risk of preeclampsia.

Top recommendations for providers include performing a risk assessment, including social determinants of health, medication recommendations (including daily aspirin and antihypertensive therapy), and behavioral recommendations (including specific information about diet, exercise, and sleep.)

The recommendations for patients include asking providers about aspirin use, checking blood pressure at home, and reporting any readings greater than 140/90. For those with BPs measuring 140/90 mm Hg or higher, the plan recommends antihypertensive therapy. The recommendations include making changes to diet, exercise, and sleep in consultation with providers.
 

Home blood pressure checks controversial

James Roberts, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine researcher at the Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author on the paper, told this publication the home blood pressure checks may be the most controversial item in the report as not all insurers cover the at-home equipment.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

In this report, the authors write that the working group “strongly advocates that payers of health care services cover the modest expense of home blood pressure determination including equipment and training.”

Dr. Roberts is the founding principal investigator of the Global Pregnancy Collaboration (CoLab), a consortium of 40 centers and one of the groups leading the creation of this report.

He said that while most of the recommendations are already recommended in guidelines, the report puts the preeclampsia plan into easy-to-read steps and downloadable checklists and compiles the evidence all in one place.

Dr. Roberts said the working group hopes this report will be adapted into guidelines developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and made part of electronic health records.

So far, the authors say, a comprehensive, integrated preeclampsia care plan has not been widely adopted.
 

Fewer than half of patients at risk receive aspirin

The coauthors note that “today, most pregnant individuals at increased risk do not receive even one of the interventions to prevent preeclampsia. For example, less than half of high-risk patients receive low-dose aspirin.”

A big part of this plan, Dr. Roberts said, calls for further educating both providers and patients.

Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, a preeclampsia specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not part of the working group, said, “This is the first comprehensive plan that provides a safe, cost-effective approach to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in individuals at moderate to high risk for this condition who qualify to receive aspirin for prevention.”

Dr. Garovic said the plan is novel in several ways, including the multispecialty input that also includes patients and advocates. Also, she says, it can be easily included in electronic health records and routine care of patients.

“The recommendations that were made, other than self-monitoring of blood pressure, are already standard of care. It will be important to understand as to which extent this comprehensive program, compared to the standard approach, would reduce further the risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Garovic said. “A prospective, adequately powered comparative study would not only address this question, but will investigate compliance of providers and pregnant women with this shared approach, as well as patient satisfaction.”

The authors note the approach presented is for care in developed countries and that low- and middle-income countries would need to tailor the plan. The Care Plan is also meant only for prevention and is not meant to guide care for women who have developed preeclampsia.

Funding was provided to The Precia Group and the Global Pregnancy Collaboration to assemble this care plan by Mirvie, which is developing a biochemical predictor for preeclampsia. Precia and CoLab used a portion of these funds to support the time of some of the authors. Mirvie had no part in selecting authors or in the content of the manuscript.

Several authors received an honorarium for participation in the Working Group that developed the Care Plan. Two coauthors are site principal investigators overseeing sample collection on a Mirvie project. The remaining authors and Dr. Garovic report no conflicts of interest.

A new report details a comprehensive strategy to prevent preeclampsia, which affects about 250,000 pregnant women a year in the United States and 10 million worldwide.

Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal mortality and premature births. The report, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, developed by a working group of clinicians, researchers, patients, advocates, and payers, recommends daily low-dose aspirin, surveillance, behavioral strategies, patient and provider education, long-term follow-up, and addressing social determinants of health.

Titled “Care plan for individuals at risk for preeclampsia: Shared approach to education, strategies for prevention, surveillance and follow up,” the report includes recommendations for providers and for patients at moderate to high risk of preeclampsia.

Top recommendations for providers include performing a risk assessment, including social determinants of health, medication recommendations (including daily aspirin and antihypertensive therapy), and behavioral recommendations (including specific information about diet, exercise, and sleep.)

The recommendations for patients include asking providers about aspirin use, checking blood pressure at home, and reporting any readings greater than 140/90. For those with BPs measuring 140/90 mm Hg or higher, the plan recommends antihypertensive therapy. The recommendations include making changes to diet, exercise, and sleep in consultation with providers.
 

Home blood pressure checks controversial

James Roberts, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine researcher at the Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author on the paper, told this publication the home blood pressure checks may be the most controversial item in the report as not all insurers cover the at-home equipment.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

In this report, the authors write that the working group “strongly advocates that payers of health care services cover the modest expense of home blood pressure determination including equipment and training.”

Dr. Roberts is the founding principal investigator of the Global Pregnancy Collaboration (CoLab), a consortium of 40 centers and one of the groups leading the creation of this report.

He said that while most of the recommendations are already recommended in guidelines, the report puts the preeclampsia plan into easy-to-read steps and downloadable checklists and compiles the evidence all in one place.

Dr. Roberts said the working group hopes this report will be adapted into guidelines developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and made part of electronic health records.

So far, the authors say, a comprehensive, integrated preeclampsia care plan has not been widely adopted.
 

Fewer than half of patients at risk receive aspirin

The coauthors note that “today, most pregnant individuals at increased risk do not receive even one of the interventions to prevent preeclampsia. For example, less than half of high-risk patients receive low-dose aspirin.”

A big part of this plan, Dr. Roberts said, calls for further educating both providers and patients.

Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, a preeclampsia specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not part of the working group, said, “This is the first comprehensive plan that provides a safe, cost-effective approach to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in individuals at moderate to high risk for this condition who qualify to receive aspirin for prevention.”

Dr. Garovic said the plan is novel in several ways, including the multispecialty input that also includes patients and advocates. Also, she says, it can be easily included in electronic health records and routine care of patients.

“The recommendations that were made, other than self-monitoring of blood pressure, are already standard of care. It will be important to understand as to which extent this comprehensive program, compared to the standard approach, would reduce further the risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Garovic said. “A prospective, adequately powered comparative study would not only address this question, but will investigate compliance of providers and pregnant women with this shared approach, as well as patient satisfaction.”

The authors note the approach presented is for care in developed countries and that low- and middle-income countries would need to tailor the plan. The Care Plan is also meant only for prevention and is not meant to guide care for women who have developed preeclampsia.

Funding was provided to The Precia Group and the Global Pregnancy Collaboration to assemble this care plan by Mirvie, which is developing a biochemical predictor for preeclampsia. Precia and CoLab used a portion of these funds to support the time of some of the authors. Mirvie had no part in selecting authors or in the content of the manuscript.

Several authors received an honorarium for participation in the Working Group that developed the Care Plan. Two coauthors are site principal investigators overseeing sample collection on a Mirvie project. The remaining authors and Dr. Garovic report no conflicts of interest.

A new report details a comprehensive strategy to prevent preeclampsia, which affects about 250,000 pregnant women a year in the United States and 10 million worldwide.

Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal mortality and premature births. The report, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, developed by a working group of clinicians, researchers, patients, advocates, and payers, recommends daily low-dose aspirin, surveillance, behavioral strategies, patient and provider education, long-term follow-up, and addressing social determinants of health.

Titled “Care plan for individuals at risk for preeclampsia: Shared approach to education, strategies for prevention, surveillance and follow up,” the report includes recommendations for providers and for patients at moderate to high risk of preeclampsia.

Top recommendations for providers include performing a risk assessment, including social determinants of health, medication recommendations (including daily aspirin and antihypertensive therapy), and behavioral recommendations (including specific information about diet, exercise, and sleep.)

The recommendations for patients include asking providers about aspirin use, checking blood pressure at home, and reporting any readings greater than 140/90. For those with BPs measuring 140/90 mm Hg or higher, the plan recommends antihypertensive therapy. The recommendations include making changes to diet, exercise, and sleep in consultation with providers.
 

Home blood pressure checks controversial

James Roberts, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine researcher at the Magee-Women’s Research Institute at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author on the paper, told this publication the home blood pressure checks may be the most controversial item in the report as not all insurers cover the at-home equipment.

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center

In this report, the authors write that the working group “strongly advocates that payers of health care services cover the modest expense of home blood pressure determination including equipment and training.”

Dr. Roberts is the founding principal investigator of the Global Pregnancy Collaboration (CoLab), a consortium of 40 centers and one of the groups leading the creation of this report.

He said that while most of the recommendations are already recommended in guidelines, the report puts the preeclampsia plan into easy-to-read steps and downloadable checklists and compiles the evidence all in one place.

Dr. Roberts said the working group hopes this report will be adapted into guidelines developed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and made part of electronic health records.

So far, the authors say, a comprehensive, integrated preeclampsia care plan has not been widely adopted.
 

Fewer than half of patients at risk receive aspirin

The coauthors note that “today, most pregnant individuals at increased risk do not receive even one of the interventions to prevent preeclampsia. For example, less than half of high-risk patients receive low-dose aspirin.”

A big part of this plan, Dr. Roberts said, calls for further educating both providers and patients.

Vesna Garovic, MD, PhD, a preeclampsia specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not part of the working group, said, “This is the first comprehensive plan that provides a safe, cost-effective approach to reduce the risk of preeclampsia in individuals at moderate to high risk for this condition who qualify to receive aspirin for prevention.”

Dr. Garovic said the plan is novel in several ways, including the multispecialty input that also includes patients and advocates. Also, she says, it can be easily included in electronic health records and routine care of patients.

“The recommendations that were made, other than self-monitoring of blood pressure, are already standard of care. It will be important to understand as to which extent this comprehensive program, compared to the standard approach, would reduce further the risk of preeclampsia,” Dr. Garovic said. “A prospective, adequately powered comparative study would not only address this question, but will investigate compliance of providers and pregnant women with this shared approach, as well as patient satisfaction.”

The authors note the approach presented is for care in developed countries and that low- and middle-income countries would need to tailor the plan. The Care Plan is also meant only for prevention and is not meant to guide care for women who have developed preeclampsia.

Funding was provided to The Precia Group and the Global Pregnancy Collaboration to assemble this care plan by Mirvie, which is developing a biochemical predictor for preeclampsia. Precia and CoLab used a portion of these funds to support the time of some of the authors. Mirvie had no part in selecting authors or in the content of the manuscript.

Several authors received an honorarium for participation in the Working Group that developed the Care Plan. Two coauthors are site principal investigators overseeing sample collection on a Mirvie project. The remaining authors and Dr. Garovic report no conflicts of interest.

Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S lugdunensis) is a species of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) and a constituent of human skin flora. Unlike other strains of CoNS, however, S lugdunensis has gained notoriety for virulence that resembles Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus). S lugdunensis is now recognized as an important nosocomial pathogen and cause of prosthetic device infections, including vascular catheter infections. We present a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia occurring in a patient on hemodialysis (HD) without any implanted prosthetic materials.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old man with a history of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and end-stage renal disease on home HD via arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presented to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of subacute progressive low back pain. His symptoms began abruptly 2 weeks prior to presentation without any identifiable trigger or trauma. His pain localized to the lower thoracic spine, radiating anteriorly into his abdomen. He reported tactile fever for several days before presentation but no chills, night sweats, paresthesia, weakness, or bowel/bladder incontinence. He had no recent surgeries, implanted hardware, or invasive procedures involving the spine. HD was performed 5 times a week at home with a family member cannulating his AVF via buttonhole technique. He initially sought evaluation in a community hospital several days prior, where he underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic spine. He was discharged from the community ED with oral opioids prior to the MRI results. He presented to West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WLAVAMC) ED when MRI results came back indicating abnormalities and he reported recalcitrant pain.

On arrival at WLAVAMC, the patient was afebrile with a heart rate of 107 bpm and blood pressure of 152/97 mm Hg. The remainder of his vital signs were normal. The physical examination revealed midline tenderness on palpation of the distal thoracic and proximal lumbar spine. Muscle strength was 4 of 5 in the bilateral hip flexors, though this was limited by pain. The remainder of his neurologic examination was nonfocal. The cardiac examination was unremarkable with no murmurs auscultated. His left upper extremity AVF had an audible bruit and palpable thrill. The skin examination was notable for acanthosis nigricans but no areas of skin erythema or induration and no obvious stigmata of infective endocarditis.

The initial laboratory workup was remarkable for a white blood cell (WBC) count of 10.0 × 10³/µL with left shift, blood urea nitrogen level of 59 mg/dL, and creatinine level of 9.3 mg/dL. The patient’s erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 45 mm/h (reference range, ≤ 20 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level was > 8.0 mg/L (reference range, ≤ 0.74 mg/L). Two months prior the hemoglobin A_1c had been recorded at 9.9%.

Given his intractable low back pain and elevated inflammatory markers, the patient underwent an MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine with contrast while in the ED. This MRI revealed abnormal marrow edema in the T11-T12 vertebrae with abnormal fluid signal in the T11-T12 disc space. Subjacent paravertebral edema also was noted. There was no well-defined fluid collection or abnormal signal in the spinal cord. Taken together, these findings were concerning for T11-T12 discitis with osteomyelitis.

Discussion

CoNS are a major contributor to human skin flora, a common contaminant of blood cultures, and an important cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections.^1,2 These species have a predilection for forming biofilms, making CoNS a major cause of prosthetic device infections.³S lugdunensis is a CoNS species that was first described in 1988.⁴ In addition to foreign body–related infections, S lugdunensis has been implicated in bone/joint infections, native valve endocarditis, toxic shock syndrome, and brain abscesses.^5-8 Infections due to S lugdunensis are notorious for their aggressive and fulminant courses. With its increased virulence that is atypical of other CoNS, S lugdunensis has understandably been likened more to S aureus.

Prior cases have been reported of S lugdunensis bacteremia in patients using HD. However, the suspected source of bacteremia in these cases has generally been central venous catheters.^9-12

Conclusions

S lugdunensis is an increasingly recognized cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections. Given the commonalities in virulence that S lugdunensis shares with S aureus, treatment of bacteremia caused by either species should follow similar management principles: prompt initiation of IV antistaphylococcal therapy, a thorough evaluation for the source(s) of bacteremia as well as metastatic complications, and consultation with an infectious disease specialist. This case report also highlights the importance of considering a patient’s AVF as a potential source for infection even in the absence of localized signs of infection. The buttonhole method of AVF cannulation was thought to be a major contributor to the development and persistence of our patient’s bacteremia. This risk should be discussed with patients using a shared decision-making approach when developing a dialysis treatment plan.

Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S lugdunensis) is a species of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) and a constituent of human skin flora. Unlike other strains of CoNS, however, S lugdunensis has gained notoriety for virulence that resembles Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus). S lugdunensis is now recognized as an important nosocomial pathogen and cause of prosthetic device infections, including vascular catheter infections. We present a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia occurring in a patient on hemodialysis (HD) without any implanted prosthetic materials.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old man with a history of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and end-stage renal disease on home HD via arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presented to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of subacute progressive low back pain. His symptoms began abruptly 2 weeks prior to presentation without any identifiable trigger or trauma. His pain localized to the lower thoracic spine, radiating anteriorly into his abdomen. He reported tactile fever for several days before presentation but no chills, night sweats, paresthesia, weakness, or bowel/bladder incontinence. He had no recent surgeries, implanted hardware, or invasive procedures involving the spine. HD was performed 5 times a week at home with a family member cannulating his AVF via buttonhole technique. He initially sought evaluation in a community hospital several days prior, where he underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic spine. He was discharged from the community ED with oral opioids prior to the MRI results. He presented to West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WLAVAMC) ED when MRI results came back indicating abnormalities and he reported recalcitrant pain.

On arrival at WLAVAMC, the patient was afebrile with a heart rate of 107 bpm and blood pressure of 152/97 mm Hg. The remainder of his vital signs were normal. The physical examination revealed midline tenderness on palpation of the distal thoracic and proximal lumbar spine. Muscle strength was 4 of 5 in the bilateral hip flexors, though this was limited by pain. The remainder of his neurologic examination was nonfocal. The cardiac examination was unremarkable with no murmurs auscultated. His left upper extremity AVF had an audible bruit and palpable thrill. The skin examination was notable for acanthosis nigricans but no areas of skin erythema or induration and no obvious stigmata of infective endocarditis.

The initial laboratory workup was remarkable for a white blood cell (WBC) count of 10.0 × 10³/µL with left shift, blood urea nitrogen level of 59 mg/dL, and creatinine level of 9.3 mg/dL. The patient’s erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 45 mm/h (reference range, ≤ 20 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level was > 8.0 mg/L (reference range, ≤ 0.74 mg/L). Two months prior the hemoglobin A_1c had been recorded at 9.9%.

Given his intractable low back pain and elevated inflammatory markers, the patient underwent an MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine with contrast while in the ED. This MRI revealed abnormal marrow edema in the T11-T12 vertebrae with abnormal fluid signal in the T11-T12 disc space. Subjacent paravertebral edema also was noted. There was no well-defined fluid collection or abnormal signal in the spinal cord. Taken together, these findings were concerning for T11-T12 discitis with osteomyelitis.

Discussion

CoNS are a major contributor to human skin flora, a common contaminant of blood cultures, and an important cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections.^1,2 These species have a predilection for forming biofilms, making CoNS a major cause of prosthetic device infections.³S lugdunensis is a CoNS species that was first described in 1988.⁴ In addition to foreign body–related infections, S lugdunensis has been implicated in bone/joint infections, native valve endocarditis, toxic shock syndrome, and brain abscesses.^5-8 Infections due to S lugdunensis are notorious for their aggressive and fulminant courses. With its increased virulence that is atypical of other CoNS, S lugdunensis has understandably been likened more to S aureus.

Prior cases have been reported of S lugdunensis bacteremia in patients using HD. However, the suspected source of bacteremia in these cases has generally been central venous catheters.^9-12

Conclusions

S lugdunensis is an increasingly recognized cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections. Given the commonalities in virulence that S lugdunensis shares with S aureus, treatment of bacteremia caused by either species should follow similar management principles: prompt initiation of IV antistaphylococcal therapy, a thorough evaluation for the source(s) of bacteremia as well as metastatic complications, and consultation with an infectious disease specialist. This case report also highlights the importance of considering a patient’s AVF as a potential source for infection even in the absence of localized signs of infection. The buttonhole method of AVF cannulation was thought to be a major contributor to the development and persistence of our patient’s bacteremia. This risk should be discussed with patients using a shared decision-making approach when developing a dialysis treatment plan.

Staphylococcus lugdunensis (S lugdunensis) is a species of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) and a constituent of human skin flora. Unlike other strains of CoNS, however, S lugdunensis has gained notoriety for virulence that resembles Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus). S lugdunensis is now recognized as an important nosocomial pathogen and cause of prosthetic device infections, including vascular catheter infections. We present a case of persistent S lugdunensis bacteremia occurring in a patient on hemodialysis (HD) without any implanted prosthetic materials.

Case Presentation

A 60-year-old man with a history of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and end-stage renal disease on home HD via arteriovenous fistula (AVF) presented to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation of subacute progressive low back pain. His symptoms began abruptly 2 weeks prior to presentation without any identifiable trigger or trauma. His pain localized to the lower thoracic spine, radiating anteriorly into his abdomen. He reported tactile fever for several days before presentation but no chills, night sweats, paresthesia, weakness, or bowel/bladder incontinence. He had no recent surgeries, implanted hardware, or invasive procedures involving the spine. HD was performed 5 times a week at home with a family member cannulating his AVF via buttonhole technique. He initially sought evaluation in a community hospital several days prior, where he underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the thoracic spine. He was discharged from the community ED with oral opioids prior to the MRI results. He presented to West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center (WLAVAMC) ED when MRI results came back indicating abnormalities and he reported recalcitrant pain.

On arrival at WLAVAMC, the patient was afebrile with a heart rate of 107 bpm and blood pressure of 152/97 mm Hg. The remainder of his vital signs were normal. The physical examination revealed midline tenderness on palpation of the distal thoracic and proximal lumbar spine. Muscle strength was 4 of 5 in the bilateral hip flexors, though this was limited by pain. The remainder of his neurologic examination was nonfocal. The cardiac examination was unremarkable with no murmurs auscultated. His left upper extremity AVF had an audible bruit and palpable thrill. The skin examination was notable for acanthosis nigricans but no areas of skin erythema or induration and no obvious stigmata of infective endocarditis.

The initial laboratory workup was remarkable for a white blood cell (WBC) count of 10.0 × 10³/µL with left shift, blood urea nitrogen level of 59 mg/dL, and creatinine level of 9.3 mg/dL. The patient’s erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was 45 mm/h (reference range, ≤ 20 mm/h) and C-reactive protein level was > 8.0 mg/L (reference range, ≤ 0.74 mg/L). Two months prior the hemoglobin A_1c had been recorded at 9.9%.

Given his intractable low back pain and elevated inflammatory markers, the patient underwent an MRI of the thoracic and lumbar spine with contrast while in the ED. This MRI revealed abnormal marrow edema in the T11-T12 vertebrae with abnormal fluid signal in the T11-T12 disc space. Subjacent paravertebral edema also was noted. There was no well-defined fluid collection or abnormal signal in the spinal cord. Taken together, these findings were concerning for T11-T12 discitis with osteomyelitis.

Discussion

CoNS are a major contributor to human skin flora, a common contaminant of blood cultures, and an important cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections.^1,2 These species have a predilection for forming biofilms, making CoNS a major cause of prosthetic device infections.³S lugdunensis is a CoNS species that was first described in 1988.⁴ In addition to foreign body–related infections, S lugdunensis has been implicated in bone/joint infections, native valve endocarditis, toxic shock syndrome, and brain abscesses.^5-8 Infections due to S lugdunensis are notorious for their aggressive and fulminant courses. With its increased virulence that is atypical of other CoNS, S lugdunensis has understandably been likened more to S aureus.

Prior cases have been reported of S lugdunensis bacteremia in patients using HD. However, the suspected source of bacteremia in these cases has generally been central venous catheters.^9-12

Conclusions

S lugdunensis is an increasingly recognized cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections. Given the commonalities in virulence that S lugdunensis shares with S aureus, treatment of bacteremia caused by either species should follow similar management principles: prompt initiation of IV antistaphylococcal therapy, a thorough evaluation for the source(s) of bacteremia as well as metastatic complications, and consultation with an infectious disease specialist. This case report also highlights the importance of considering a patient’s AVF as a potential source for infection even in the absence of localized signs of infection. The buttonhole method of AVF cannulation was thought to be a major contributor to the development and persistence of our patient’s bacteremia. This risk should be discussed with patients using a shared decision-making approach when developing a dialysis treatment plan.

Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.^1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.^3,4

Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.^5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).

Step 1: Prerequisites

A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.

Goal Alignment

Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.

Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.⁹ Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.¹⁰ Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.

Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.

Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.^11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.^15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.

Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.^18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.²¹ The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.

Step 2: Feasibility

A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).

Clinical Considerations

Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.

Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.

Infrastructure

Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.²² The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.

Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.²³ Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.²⁴ Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.

Clinicians

Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.²⁵ Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.²³ Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.

Financial Considerations

The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.

Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.

Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.

Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.

Step 3: proposal

There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.²⁵ Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.

Approval Process

Postapproval Process

Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.

Conclusions

Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.

Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.^1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.^3,4

Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.^5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).

Step 1: Prerequisites

A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.

Goal Alignment

Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.

Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.⁹ Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.¹⁰ Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.

Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.

Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.^11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.^15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.

Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.^18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.²¹ The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.

Step 2: Feasibility

A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).

Clinical Considerations

Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.

Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.

Infrastructure

Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.²² The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.

Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.²³ Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.²⁴ Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.

Clinicians

Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.²⁵ Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.²³ Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.

Financial Considerations

The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.

Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.

Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.

Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.

Step 3: proposal

There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.²⁵ Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.

Approval Process

Postapproval Process

Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.

Conclusions

Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.

Compared with hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) offers comparable survival and superior patient-centered and health services outcomes.^1,2 This has prompted repeated calls over the past 2 decades for policies to increase the use of home dialysis and, more specifically, for PD in the United States.^3,4

Veterans comprise nearly 10% of the population with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) burden; > 50,000 US veterans are currently on dialysis.^5,6 A majority of these veterans receive their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through their affiliated US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs).

Step 1: Prerequisites

A functional nephrology service is a bedrock prerequisite for establishing a new PD program. A clinician champion capable of leading the effort is equally necessary. Occasionally, the prevalent ESKD economic and health care burden prompts local VAMC leadership to consider a new PD program to improve the quality or availability of services. More commonly, though, the nephrology section and the clinician champion are the first to recognize the need. In either scenario, the champion will require support and advocacy at multiple levels of local leadership, ie, the section or department chief, facility chief of staff, VAMC director, and the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) director. The foremost task for the champion is to assess local clinical and infrastructure needs.

Goal Alignment

Any new VA nephrology program needs to be evaluated for its overall congruence with the local and national VA missions to improve the accessibility, integration, quality, and innovation of care for veterans. The following considerations are likely to apply to many VA systems.

Accessibility. A VHA directive recommends that all veterans be provided with the opportunity to choose and use any form of dialysis, especially home dialysis.⁹ Transitioning a veteran seamlessly from advanced CKD to PD requires the execution of multiple sequential processes in the pre-ESKD period, beginning with early identification of advanced CKD, timely referral to nephrology, education for shared dialysis decision making, coordination of care, and PD training and therapy.¹⁰ Splitting this sequence between VA and community-based care creates obstacles, including multiple approvals through VA Community Care Services that may substantially increase wait time and effort. This onerous process may be a significant deterrent against pursuing PD and increases the odds of emergency or inpatient initiation. Furthermore, the lack of PD availability limits the knowledge and experience among staff designated to assist veterans, which may result in inappropriate advocacy for HD or delay the transition to PD. Together, these processes can increase morbidity and health care use, and significantly delay or eliminate PD. Finally, many veterans reside in rural or remote areas where the expertise and the availability of PD may be unreliable. Establishing PD services within the local VAMC can improve access to PD, reduce the lead time needed to coordinate the transition to ESKD, and assist individual veterans in making an informed choice about dialysis. The program champion will need to identify and highlight all accessibility barriers within their business plan.

Integration. Many veterans receiving dialysis care at community-based facilities continue to receive nonnephrology care in the VA. This creates a parallel health care system with concerns for duplication of efforts and processes, suboptimal quality of care, and increased risk of medical errors. Establishing VA PD services increases access and integration of nephrology with other VA care.

Excellence. Studies of many chronic diseases have shown superior patient satisfaction and equal or superior quality of care delivered by the VA compared with that of non-VA facilities.^11-14 Similarly, mortality rates for veterans receiving CKD and ESKD care in VA are lower compared with those at non-VA facilities.^15-17 While these outcomes have not been examined for PD, integration of PD with VA care may lead to an improved overall quality of care and greater loyalty to the VA.

Innovation. Due to its integrated health care infrastructure, the VA is uniquely positioned to implement patient-centered and evidence-based pre-ESKD interventions that may improve outcomes. Prior studies have shown that pre-ESKD kidney disease education (KDE) improves pre- and post-ESKD outcomes, reduces health care costs, and leads to higher selection and use of home dialysis therapies.^18-20 The VA recommends that all veterans with advanced CKD be provided access to pre-ESKD care and KDE. Unfortunately, KDE is uncommon among non-VA clinicians. A recent USRDS analysis reported that < 1% of patients with ESKD received pre-ESKD KDE.²¹ The ongoing Evaluate and Assess the effects of Comprehensive Pre-ESKD kidney disease Education on home dialysis in Veterans Trial (NCT04064086) should provide further evidence.

Step 2: Feasibility

A business plan requires the realistic projections of the costs and accounting for gains of the new clinical program. While there is limited guidance on personnel requirements when planning a PD program, we provide estimated resources needed to successfully establish and run a PD program (eAppendix 1, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356).

Clinical Considerations

Secondary or tertiary care VAMCs with multiple medical and surgical specialties routinely provide complex inpatient care. For these facilities, the lack of inpatient PD poses an obstacle to the provision of specialized nonnephrology care to veterans with ESKD, who are frequent users of such complex care. These considerations argue for the need for at least inpatient PD services at VAMCs that provide complex medical care for many veterans receiving PD in the community.

Deliberations for outpatient PD programs should be based on the clinical demands of ESKD care, the number of veterans likely to use PD, and growth projections. While there is no established minimum number that guarantees cost-effectiveness, most existing VA outpatient PD programs provide services for about 5 to 25 veterans. A local census can provide estimations of future PD needs. Travel considerations (ie, distance, terrain, traffic) may affect eligibility for purchased care and the decision where to receive PD. Many veterans may prefer PD from the local VAMC if it is convenient and allows them to maintain centralized VA care. Potential patients can be surveyed to gauge interest in receiving VA-based PD. Facilities providing structured pre-ESKD KDE may hold greater potential for PD growth, and it is important to highlight KDE infrastructure in the business plan.

Infrastructure

Spatial needs including clinic space and storage space for consumables, supplies, and equipment should be part of infrastructure requirements. The program champion may need to examine the available space for suitability and adequacy of the PD program early in the process. Ventilation renovations in the PD rooms should be incorporated into budget calculations. Water access for handwashing and PD effluent drainage should be confirmed, and if the program intends to establish home HD, additional considerations for the storage and water supply may be required. The VHA Handbook outlines the infrastructure requirements for a dialysis program.²² The VA has established national vendor contracts for dialysis equipment and consumables. However, a new PD program may need further guidance regarding the local agencies that provide administrative support and assist patients.

Telehealth technology has enabled many VAMCs to overcome geographical barriers for rural veterans.²³ Ongoing expansion of community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs) to include more rural locations is improving access to specialty care, while the launch of VA Video Connect (VVC) has further improved outreach. Investigators from Minneapolis have demonstrated the feasibility of multidisciplinary home-based telehealth management of veterans with CKD.²⁴ Several existing nephrology sections across the VHA use a combination of VVC and CBOC-facilitated clinic visits to provide some pre-ESKD and ESKD care, including KDE, PD home visits and training, and comprehensive ESKD care visits. Recent changes in the clinical care pattern during the COVID-19 pandemic have further eased ESKD telehealth protocols. Integrating the projected use of telehealth in collaboration with existing resources available through the VHA NKDP can allow the local champion to improve the financial feasibility and long-term success of a new PD program.

Clinicians

Experience and expertise in managing PD vary among nephrologists. A recent survey found that only 11% of second-year nephrology trainees felt fully prepared to manage PD patients and 27% felt that they were minimally prepared.²⁵ Thus, it is important to ensure that adequately trained nephrologists are available locally before initiating a new program, and if needed, coverage across VHS or VISN can be explored. One potential method to enhance practitioner comfort in PD is the use of existing peer-to-peer education through the VA Kidney Specialty Care Access Network-Extension for Community Health care Outcomes program that links health care professionals in rural areas with specialists at a tertiary care center.²³ Nurses are a primary pillar for the success of home dialysis programs and the lack of a trained nursing workforce can be a significant limitation. Similarly, while the placement and management of complications related to PD catheters are not technically challenging, the availability of interventionists (either a surgeon or trained interventional radiologist) should be part of the business plan.

Financial Considerations

The financial considerations involving a new PD program within the VHA are complex (eAppendix 2, available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). ESKD is one of the most complex and costly comorbidities. It is a major determinant of the expenditure and revenue generation for facilities. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system classifies ESKD on repeated dialysis as price category 10, indicating high complexity and cost. The VAMC workload and facility budget allocation is assessed annually and increases as the population of price group 10 veterans increases. VHA also provides additional Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation funds to VAMCs, which can improve the bottom line for VA-based dialysis units. Providing PD facilitates outpatient and inpatient management of comorbidities, allowing for substantial cost savings while improving the quality of nonrenal care. Outsourcing dialysis care can reduce the administrative burden, although, it deprives the VAMC of all dialysis-associated revenues while bearing the cost of all nonrenal and some renal care. The net effect is reduced facility productivity. In aggregate, establishing a local dialysis program requires greater financial resources for the capital and personnel costs; however, if captured appropriately these funds can be a major source of revenue and savings for the local VAMC.

Indirect costs are important for financial projections. Most community dialysis units operate as outpatient units, whereas all but a handful of the VA dialysis units operate within or near a VAMC. As a result, the VA units providing maintenance dialysis are regularly classified as inpatient centers while providing largely outpatient services, which negatively impacts overhead cost calculations. The predominant use of in-center HD as the default modality further sets an erroneously high baseline for the indirect cost of the VA-based PD services, especially considering that the principal savings of the home dialysis are through the reduction in the labor and capital costs. A rudimentary make-buy model for the in-center HD is available through the NKDP, and establishing a similar model for PD programs may be useful.

Cost considerations also may vary based on the model of ESKD care used locally. Of the 71 hospital-based and free-standing VA HD facilities, only 33 provide PD services, with 5 units providing only inpatient PD. The financial burden of establishing a fully operational outpatient PD program will be based on whether it is targeting a new unit or is expanding. The costs for equipment rental, disposables, and supplies vary based on the VA contract negotiations but are standardized across the nation with approved cost-of-living geographic adjustments. Caution needs to be exercised in employing a phased-hiring approach, as newer programs may require proportionally larger nursing resources due to greater needs for KDE, transitioning services, and training for PD. A target census-based hiring schedule should be negotiated with leadership before launch. If existing labor mapping does not allow for cross-coverage, part-time positions for physicians may be considered. Travel nurses, especially for PD training, can be considered to meet labor needs when long-term projections prohibit permanent full-time hires.

Finally, the balance sheet of a new program needs to account for different scenarios. In addition to nephrology costs, outsourcing veterans for PD services incurs multiple costs (eg, administrative, social work). Facilities with inpatient PD services alone are likely already bearing a component of the medications (including antibiotics) and/or surgical costs for their outsourced patients. These hidden costs are infrequently counted in projections. Facilities without inpatient PD cannot provide complex nonrenal care to ESKD patients on PD, even when the center is well equipped to provide it. These facilities also bear the cost of outsourcing even for complications related to PD. While a full estimation of these services varies, the hidden cost savings of many procedures or inpatient admissions, such as cardiovascular or musculoskeletal surgeries, can exceed those of dialysis in this complex population.

Step 3: proposal

There are no standardized formats for presenting a VHA business proposal; however, this outline provides a template. The business proposal should be designed to effectively communicate the collective data that describe the needs and requirements of a PD program to the local, regional, and national leadership. Not every rationale presented here will apply to an individual proposal and the local champion will need to tailor their rationale for their locale. A sample business plan is shown in eAppendix 3 (available online at doi:10.12788/fp.0356). VHA Handbook of dialysis requires that a PD nurse has a minimum of 12 months of nursing experience with at least 3 months of PD experience.²⁵ Nursing training, education, and support should be discussed with nursing leadership and included in the business plan. Similarly, arrangements for laboratory, pharmacy, and prosthetics services and/or logistics to facilitate procurement of the needed devices, disposables, and supplies are essential and should be highlighted in the business plan.

Approval Process

Postapproval Process

Once approved, the champion will need to work closely with various services and managers to oversee infrastructural renovations and execute the hiring plans, establish standard operating procedures (SOPs), standardize staff proficiencies and functional statements, and finalize quality assessment parameters. Home dialysis standards have been addressed by NKDP and The Joint Commission. While PD requires home visits to assess the appropriateness of the environment, the PD program is accredited under hospital-based therapy. Standards and performance metrics should be incorporated into all the VA PD programs for standardization and assessment. Based on guidance from the VHA Handbook, quality metrics, such as dialysis adequacy, and rates of infection should be monitored and reviewed. The dialysis director may need to consider more frequent program evaluations in the first year to ensure appropriate troubleshooting. The VA infrastructure has developed the resources for a central repository for the PD SOPs and quality metrics, which can be obtained and adapted for the local program. Similarly, veteran satisfaction can be assessed through existing resources. Finally, the dialysis director can join the National VHA Dialysis Director listserv for regular updates on the existing and new VHA policies and NKDP updates.

Conclusions

Establishing a new PD program within a local federal infrastructure can appear daunting, both in terms of planning as well as approvals. However, the provision of home-based dialysis therapies may be beneficial to those in rural settings with limited access to in-center dialysis modalities as well as to those who seek autonomy and lifestyle independence in their medical care. Collaborations with the VHA NKDP or PD workgroup can help overcome many of the procedural hurdles, provide guidance about infrastructure and resource allocation and utilization, and provide easy access to established SOPs and quality parameters.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the late Dr. Catherine Do for her significant contribution to this manuscript. We also extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Holly Mattix-Kramer (Edward Hines Jr. Veterans Affairs Hospital and Loyola University Medical Center) for her prompt and valuable feedback on this manuscript.

A new study provides the first comprehensive safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in U.S. patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes receiving routine care and suggests that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.

The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.

“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”

In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.

And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.

“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
 

‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’

“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”

The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”

The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Slow uptake, safety concerns

SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.

However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.

This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.

However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.

To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.

Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.

The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.

Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.

Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,

Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.

Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.

Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.

Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides the first comprehensive safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in U.S. patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes receiving routine care and suggests that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.

The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.

“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”

In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.

And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.

“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
 

‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’

“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”

The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”

The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Slow uptake, safety concerns

SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.

However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.

This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.

However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.

To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.

Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.

The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.

Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.

Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,

Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.

Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.

Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.

Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study provides the first comprehensive safety profile of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in U.S. patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes receiving routine care and suggests that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Starting therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with more lower limb amputations, nonvertebral fractures, and genital infections, but these risks need to be balanced against cardiovascular and renoprotective benefits, according to the researchers.

The analysis showed that there would be 2.1 more lower limb amputations, 2.5 more nonvertebral fractures, and 41 more genital infections per 1,000 patients per year among those receiving SGLT2 inhibitors versus an equal number of patients receiving GLP-1 agonists, lead author Edouard Fu, PhD, explained to this news organization in an email.

“On the other hand, we know from the evidence from randomized controlled trials that taking an SGLT2 inhibitor compared with placebo lowers the risk of developing kidney failure,” said Dr. Fu, who is a research fellow in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“For instance,” he continued, “in the DAPA-CKD clinical trial, dapagliflozin versus placebo led to 29 fewer events per 1,000 patients per year of the composite outcome (50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], kidney failure, cardiovascular or kidney death).”

In the CREDENCE trial, canagliflozin versus placebo led to 18 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure, and cardiovascular or kidney death.

And in the EMPA-KIDNEY study, empagliflozin versus placebo led to 21 fewer events per 1,000 person-years for the composite outcome of progression of kidney disease or cardiovascular death.

“Thus, benefits would still outweigh the risks,” Dr. Fu emphasized.
 

‘Quantifies absolute rate of events among routine care patients’

“The importance of our paper,” he summarized, “is that it quantifies the absolute rate of events among routine care patients and may be used to inform shared decision-making.”

The analysis also found that the risks of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe urinary tract infection (UTI) were similar with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists, but the risk of developing acute kidney injury (AKI) was lower with an SGLT2 inhibitor.

“Our study can help inform patient-physician decision-making regarding risks and benefits before prescribing SGLT2 inhibitors in this population” of patients with CKD and diabetes treated in clinical practice, the researchers conclude, “but needs to be interpreted in light of its limitations, including residual confounding, short follow-up time, and the use of diagnosis codes to identify patients with CKD.”

The study was recently published in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.
 

Slow uptake, safety concerns

SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD who have an eGFR equal to or greater than 20 mL/min per 1.73 m², and thus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and kidney disease progression, Dr. Fu and colleagues write.

However, studies report that as few as 6% of patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes are currently prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors in the United States.

This slow uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors among patients with CKD may be partly due to concerns about DKA, fractures, amputations, and urogenital infections observed in clinical trials.

However, such trials are generally underpowered to assess rare adverse events, use monitoring protocols to lower the risk of adverse events, and include a highly selected patient population, and so safety in routine clinical practice is often unclear.

To examine this, the researchers identified health insurance claims data from 96,128 individuals (from Optum, IBM MarketScan, and Medicare databases) who were 18 years or older (65 years or older for Medicare) and had type 2 diabetes and at least one inpatient or two outpatient diagnostic codes for stage 3 or 4 CKD.

Of these patients, 32,192 had a newly filled prescription for an SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, or ertugliflozin) and 63,936 had a newly filled prescription for a GLP-1 agonist (liraglutide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, exenatide, albiglutide, or lixisenatide) between April 2013, when the first SGLT2 inhibitor was available in the United States, and 2021.

The researchers matched 28,847 individuals who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor with an equal number who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, based on propensity scores, adjusting for more than 120 baseline characteristics.

Safety outcomes were based on previously identified potential safety signals.

Patients who were initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor had 1.30-fold, 2.13-fold, and 3.08-fold higher risks of having a nonvertebral fracture, a lower limb amputation, and a genital infection, respectively, compared with patients who were initiated on a GLP-1 agonist, after a mean on-treatment time of 7.5 months,

Risks of DKA, hypovolemia, hypoglycemia, and severe UTI were similar in both groups.

Patients initiated on an SGLT2 inhibitor versus a GLP-1 agonist had a lower risk of AKI (hazard ratio, 0.93) equivalent to 6.75 fewer cases of AKI per 1,000 patients per year.

Patients had higher risks for lower limb amputation, genital infections, and nonvertebral fractures with SGLT2 inhibitors versus GLP-1 agonists across most of the prespecified subgroups by age, sex, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and use of metformin, insulin, or sulfonylurea, but with wider confidence intervals.

Dr. Fu was supported by a Rubicon grant from the Dutch Research Council and has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

We’ve had an organ shortage for many decades now. We can do more transplants than we have organs made available. We try very hard to get organ donation from those who die. That’s a commendable thing to do. I think doctors should always be discussing the opportunity to donate organs upon death, even in primary care settings.

It’s good to find out what people’s attitudes are. Let them learn about organ donation as something they can think about. Let them talk about it with family and friends and partners so that they know their wishes.

However, despite these efforts to encourage organ donation, we still have far fewer organs than we could use to transplant people, many people die on waiting lists because there are no organs to give them, and we’re in a situation where demand for organ transplant is actually increasing.

There is more capacity to do transplants both in the United States and elsewhere, and more people are living longer, so organ failure starts to become more common before, let’s say, terminal illness is really there. Now, we have more people who might benefit from organ transplant in an aging population.

One place to turn to help reduce the shortage of organs is to living donation. At least insofar as kidneys go, kidney donation from living persons has become a prominent source of organs for those who need kidneys – most of whom are surviving on dialysis, by the way, at a very high cost and often with a quality of life that they don’t find particularly easy to accept.

Transplant is far preferred, even though they have to take immunosuppression to keep those organ transplants going, and that has its own risks and side effects. They still get more mobility. They still are able to have a broader diet. They enjoy life far more than they do having to show up for dialysis three times a week for a couple of hours, every week, for every week that they live.

There is an interest in living kidney donation. One battle has been that, well, maybe we could get more kidneys if we just paid people to sell us their kidneys. That has been resisted, and I’ve been resistant to that idea, too, because I worry that it leads to exploitation.

The people who sell their kidneys are poor. They’re often in debt. They feel coerced by their circumstances, so they make a kidney sale. This happens in countries like India, where there are markets underground, and you see that it’s the poorest of the poor who do this, and they don’t really work their way out of debt. They just wind up without a kidney, help relieve their debt a little bit, and pretty soon, because they don’t have a job or an income except that sale of a kidney, they’re not much better off than they were before they started.

Also, people who sell kidneys for money are more likely not to admit to their own health problems, raising risks about the quality of organs. Then, of course, it puts doctors in a position to take out an organ for pay, even though it doesn’t benefit you, so that you can sell it. This raises some questions about whether that’s consistent with medical ethics.

A different idea has emerged. New York State Governor Kathy Hochul just signed legislation that allows living donors to be compensated for legitimate costs. That’s a little different matter. You’re not buying the organ, but you’re saying that if you experience health care problems due to complications from a donation, if you need money for transportation, if you lost money because you did this altruistically and you had to take time off from work and had expenses for a babysitter, restaurants, or other things, the state is going to try to create funds that will compensate you.

That, I think we should agree, is not a bad idea. You’re in a situation there where you don’t want to make people who are heroic, altruistic, and trying to help others by donating a kidney end up financially worse off.

I think there’s a difference between making someone financially whole after the decision to make a kidney available and creating a market where the poorest of the poor come forward to just sell because they see no other choice in terms of how to get rid of debts. I see these situations as not ethically equivalent, so I support efforts to try to compensate people who are our heroes. I don’t think we should ask them to financially suffer.

We’ll watch to see what happens as the New York state law comes into effect. By the way, New York is one of the states that really lags in the supply of organs for transplant, so this measure is particularly important for that state. Many other states should be considering this legislation as well.

It’s one thing to reward, if you will, donors by making sure they don’t suffer financial loss. It’s a very different thing to say, let’s have a free market and we’ll pay whoever it is that’s willing to sell us a kidney to do so. The former seems to me to be humane and just, whereas the latter risks exploitation.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

We’ve had an organ shortage for many decades now. We can do more transplants than we have organs made available. We try very hard to get organ donation from those who die. That’s a commendable thing to do. I think doctors should always be discussing the opportunity to donate organs upon death, even in primary care settings.

It’s good to find out what people’s attitudes are. Let them learn about organ donation as something they can think about. Let them talk about it with family and friends and partners so that they know their wishes.

However, despite these efforts to encourage organ donation, we still have far fewer organs than we could use to transplant people, many people die on waiting lists because there are no organs to give them, and we’re in a situation where demand for organ transplant is actually increasing.

There is more capacity to do transplants both in the United States and elsewhere, and more people are living longer, so organ failure starts to become more common before, let’s say, terminal illness is really there. Now, we have more people who might benefit from organ transplant in an aging population.

One place to turn to help reduce the shortage of organs is to living donation. At least insofar as kidneys go, kidney donation from living persons has become a prominent source of organs for those who need kidneys – most of whom are surviving on dialysis, by the way, at a very high cost and often with a quality of life that they don’t find particularly easy to accept.

Transplant is far preferred, even though they have to take immunosuppression to keep those organ transplants going, and that has its own risks and side effects. They still get more mobility. They still are able to have a broader diet. They enjoy life far more than they do having to show up for dialysis three times a week for a couple of hours, every week, for every week that they live.

There is an interest in living kidney donation. One battle has been that, well, maybe we could get more kidneys if we just paid people to sell us their kidneys. That has been resisted, and I’ve been resistant to that idea, too, because I worry that it leads to exploitation.

The people who sell their kidneys are poor. They’re often in debt. They feel coerced by their circumstances, so they make a kidney sale. This happens in countries like India, where there are markets underground, and you see that it’s the poorest of the poor who do this, and they don’t really work their way out of debt. They just wind up without a kidney, help relieve their debt a little bit, and pretty soon, because they don’t have a job or an income except that sale of a kidney, they’re not much better off than they were before they started.

Also, people who sell kidneys for money are more likely not to admit to their own health problems, raising risks about the quality of organs. Then, of course, it puts doctors in a position to take out an organ for pay, even though it doesn’t benefit you, so that you can sell it. This raises some questions about whether that’s consistent with medical ethics.

A different idea has emerged. New York State Governor Kathy Hochul just signed legislation that allows living donors to be compensated for legitimate costs. That’s a little different matter. You’re not buying the organ, but you’re saying that if you experience health care problems due to complications from a donation, if you need money for transportation, if you lost money because you did this altruistically and you had to take time off from work and had expenses for a babysitter, restaurants, or other things, the state is going to try to create funds that will compensate you.

That, I think we should agree, is not a bad idea. You’re in a situation there where you don’t want to make people who are heroic, altruistic, and trying to help others by donating a kidney end up financially worse off.

I think there’s a difference between making someone financially whole after the decision to make a kidney available and creating a market where the poorest of the poor come forward to just sell because they see no other choice in terms of how to get rid of debts. I see these situations as not ethically equivalent, so I support efforts to try to compensate people who are our heroes. I don’t think we should ask them to financially suffer.

We’ll watch to see what happens as the New York state law comes into effect. By the way, New York is one of the states that really lags in the supply of organs for transplant, so this measure is particularly important for that state. Many other states should be considering this legislation as well.

It’s one thing to reward, if you will, donors by making sure they don’t suffer financial loss. It’s a very different thing to say, let’s have a free market and we’ll pay whoever it is that’s willing to sell us a kidney to do so. The former seems to me to be humane and just, whereas the latter risks exploitation.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

We’ve had an organ shortage for many decades now. We can do more transplants than we have organs made available. We try very hard to get organ donation from those who die. That’s a commendable thing to do. I think doctors should always be discussing the opportunity to donate organs upon death, even in primary care settings.

It’s good to find out what people’s attitudes are. Let them learn about organ donation as something they can think about. Let them talk about it with family and friends and partners so that they know their wishes.

However, despite these efforts to encourage organ donation, we still have far fewer organs than we could use to transplant people, many people die on waiting lists because there are no organs to give them, and we’re in a situation where demand for organ transplant is actually increasing.

There is more capacity to do transplants both in the United States and elsewhere, and more people are living longer, so organ failure starts to become more common before, let’s say, terminal illness is really there. Now, we have more people who might benefit from organ transplant in an aging population.

One place to turn to help reduce the shortage of organs is to living donation. At least insofar as kidneys go, kidney donation from living persons has become a prominent source of organs for those who need kidneys – most of whom are surviving on dialysis, by the way, at a very high cost and often with a quality of life that they don’t find particularly easy to accept.

Transplant is far preferred, even though they have to take immunosuppression to keep those organ transplants going, and that has its own risks and side effects. They still get more mobility. They still are able to have a broader diet. They enjoy life far more than they do having to show up for dialysis three times a week for a couple of hours, every week, for every week that they live.

There is an interest in living kidney donation. One battle has been that, well, maybe we could get more kidneys if we just paid people to sell us their kidneys. That has been resisted, and I’ve been resistant to that idea, too, because I worry that it leads to exploitation.

The people who sell their kidneys are poor. They’re often in debt. They feel coerced by their circumstances, so they make a kidney sale. This happens in countries like India, where there are markets underground, and you see that it’s the poorest of the poor who do this, and they don’t really work their way out of debt. They just wind up without a kidney, help relieve their debt a little bit, and pretty soon, because they don’t have a job or an income except that sale of a kidney, they’re not much better off than they were before they started.

Also, people who sell kidneys for money are more likely not to admit to their own health problems, raising risks about the quality of organs. Then, of course, it puts doctors in a position to take out an organ for pay, even though it doesn’t benefit you, so that you can sell it. This raises some questions about whether that’s consistent with medical ethics.

A different idea has emerged. New York State Governor Kathy Hochul just signed legislation that allows living donors to be compensated for legitimate costs. That’s a little different matter. You’re not buying the organ, but you’re saying that if you experience health care problems due to complications from a donation, if you need money for transportation, if you lost money because you did this altruistically and you had to take time off from work and had expenses for a babysitter, restaurants, or other things, the state is going to try to create funds that will compensate you.

That, I think we should agree, is not a bad idea. You’re in a situation there where you don’t want to make people who are heroic, altruistic, and trying to help others by donating a kidney end up financially worse off.

I think there’s a difference between making someone financially whole after the decision to make a kidney available and creating a market where the poorest of the poor come forward to just sell because they see no other choice in terms of how to get rid of debts. I see these situations as not ethically equivalent, so I support efforts to try to compensate people who are our heroes. I don’t think we should ask them to financially suffer.

We’ll watch to see what happens as the New York state law comes into effect. By the way, New York is one of the states that really lags in the supply of organs for transplant, so this measure is particularly important for that state. Many other states should be considering this legislation as well.

It’s one thing to reward, if you will, donors by making sure they don’t suffer financial loss. It’s a very different thing to say, let’s have a free market and we’ll pay whoever it is that’s willing to sell us a kidney to do so. The former seems to me to be humane and just, whereas the latter risks exploitation.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved avacopan (Tavneos) as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV) in October 2021, the oral complement C5a receptor inhibitor was hailed by its developer, ChemoCentryx, as a “new hope” for patients with the disease.

But avacopan’s novelty as a new drug for the rare diseases granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), coupled with its approval as an adjunctive to standard therapy, including glucocorticoids, rather than strictly as a glucocorticoid-sparing agent as it was tested, has so far led to little reported real-world experience with the drug.

M. Alexander Otto

In the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, the pivotal trial that served as the basis for avacopan’s approval, 331 patients with active newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA or MPA received either avacopan or an oral prednisone taper over 20 weeks on a background of cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine or rituximab. The results of the trial showed avacopan was noninferior to the group that received prednisone taper for remission at 26 weeks and superior to prednisone taper for sustained remission at 52 weeks, but the FDA was concerned that its complex design made it difficult to define the clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV.

The FDA noted that, in the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received glucocorticoids outside of the study protocol. Despite this, avacopan reduced the cumulative glucocorticoid dose over the trial’s 52 weeks by nearly two-thirds, compared with the prednisone group (1,349 mg vs. 3,655 mg).

The data also indicate a higher sustained remission rate at 52 weeks in patients who received induction with rituximab, compared with cyclophosphamide. But trial did not include a maintenance therapy dose of rituximab and is thereby not a good comparison against the standard of care, the FDA said. (ADVOCATE began enrolling patients prior to the FDA's 2018 approval of an expanded indication for patients with GPA or MPA who have achieved disease control after induction treatment.)

At the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting in May 2021, committee members were split on whether to recommend avacopan for approval. The committee voted 9-9 on whether the ADVOCATE trial showed efficacy supporting approval of avacopan, 10-8 in favor of whether the drug’s safety profile supported approval, and 10-8 in favor of the overall benefit-risk profile of avacopan for approval. But rather than give an indication to avacopan to reduce the use of glucocorticoids in adults with GPA or MPA, the agency approved avacopan as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active disease, noting in particular that avacopan “does not eliminate glucocorticoid use.”

The European Union’s marketing authorization for avacopan states its indication for use in combination with a rituximab or cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of adult patients with severe, active GPA or MPA and does not mention a role for reducing glucocorticoids. Avacopan will appear in forthcoming guidelines on management of AAV released by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

In North America, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network recently released an addendum to their guidelines on AAV specifically for avacopan, which includes recommendations to consider adding oral avacopan (30 mg twice daily) for induction of remission in patients with new or relapsing GPA or MPA who are also receiving cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The guidelines also recommend clinicians consider a glucocorticoid tapering schedule that aims for discontinuation at 4 weeks, and continuing avacopan for at least 1 year after induction therapy. The American College of Rheumatology guideline for AAV management, updated in 2021, acknowledges avacopan but did not consider its inclusion prior to FDA approval.

There have been few real-world studies of how patients with AAV are responding to avacopan, but recent studies from researchers in the Netherlands and in France have evaluated prednisone tapering and clinical outcomes.

Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said those real-world studies “seemed to re-enforce the findings from the ADVOCATE study demonstrating the efficacy of avacopan in severe disease with steroid-sparing effects.”

However, Carol Langford, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, emphasized caution is needed when drawing conclusions about avacopan use outside formal studies.

“We are all interested in what other settings this might be used. I think those are things that really require formal investigation to really try and understand better as far as through a study process,” she said.
 

Prescribing experience with avacopan

A spokesperson from Amgen, which recently acquired ChemoCentryx, said in an interview that over 800 physicians in the United States have prescribed avacopan to patients with new or relapsing ANCA-associated vasculitis as induction or maintenance treatment, and physicians have reported outcomes consistent with the ADVOCATE trial.

Many rheumatologists are likely familiar with avacopan but are not used to prescribing it, said Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist with Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

“Rituximab was approved for GPA and MPA a decade ago at this point. It was a drug that we as rheumatologists were used to using. We used it for other indications. Avacopan is a totally new drug, a new mechanism of action, so there’s not a lot of extractable data that we have in terms of comfort with the drug, and so I think that’s one of the biggest hurdles,” she said.

Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said that, when the FDA approved avacopan, it was an “exciting time” in her practice. “I have used avacopan now in a handful of my patients with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis, and the results are similar to what [was] reported in the ADVOCATE trial.”

Amgen offers help for clinicians in obtaining avacopan for patients, financial assistance for patients, and support in navigating insurance, which several rheumatologists noted was important for patients. Dr. Langford said the process of working with the manufacturer to get avacopan while insurance information is being processed has been “fairly smooth.”

“Certainly, the ability to get a very rapid 30-day supply with the goal of trying to initiate this as early as possible in the disease process has been helpful,” she said.

In Dr. Dua’s experience, while there were “some glitches or difficulty for providers early on” in how to access and prescribe avacopan, since then “it has been much easier to obtain the medication with the first month being provided to patients free while the authorization process is managed.”

Prescribing avacopan from inpatient pharmacies has been more challenging, she said. “The inpatient side is trickier because each hospital system has their own pharmacy system and regulations that have to be navigated. For outpatients, all the provider needs to do is fill out the start form available on their website, have the patients sign it, and then have it sent in.”
 

Concerns about affordability, insurance approval

Another consideration is cost, with avacopan having an estimated price of $150,000-$200,000 per patient per year.

Dr. Hojjati noted that, while it is easy to prescribe, avacopan is hard to get approved through insurance. “We face the same challenge every time a new medication comes to the market on how to convince the payers to pay for it given higher prices,” she said.

Rheumatologist Michael Putman, MD, MSCI, assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, also acknowledged some difficulties in prescribing the medication. “The insurance companies have no interest in spending $150,000 on a drug that they know nothing about, and patients are a little hesitant to take it because it’s just so new,” he said.

While Dr. Lally said avacopan has not been difficult to get for patients with commercial insurance, reimbursement through Medicare has been problematic. “In many of the Medicare patients it has not really been a feasible option for them to be on the drug for the year of therapy.”
 

Patient response

Dr. Dua said almost all her patients with new or relapsing AAV who require induction are being prescribed avacopan, and that the medication is well tolerated. “The remission and ability to wean prednisone has really paralleled the findings from the clinical trial.”

In her practice, Dr. Hojjati starts patients on avacopan immediately after discharge from the hospital after a major vasculitis flare requiring high-dose glucocorticoids. “Avacopan does not eliminate/replace GC [glucocorticoid] use but has a notable GC-sparing effect and assists in rapid tapering of the GC while treating our severe ANCA-associated vasculitis patients,” she said.

Dr. Lally said her patients are tolerating avacopan well and hasn’t seen any of the safety signals seen in the trial, including liver function abnormalities. She has treated about 20-25 patients with avacopan.

Dr. Putman noted that he has treated about five patients with avacopan but hasn’t seen dramatic efficacy or side effects in his practice, compared with standard therapy.

Unanswered questions about avacopan

A key unanswered question with avacopan is the timeline for tapering glucocorticoids once patients start treatment. “I would like to see much more data on how prednisone is being tapered in clinical practice as well as outcomes in patients who are treated with the standard of care second dose of rituximab at 6 months,” Dr. Dua said.

Dr. Lally noted she has tried to expedite the steroid taper in her patients. “That’s really where I feel this drug is going to have most relevance, is getting it started early in active disease and getting patients off of the reliance on high doses of oral steroids. I have been able to see that in practice, and I do think ultimately that’s going to lead to better outcomes and quality of life for these patients.”

Of the rheumatologists Dr. Lally has spoken to about avacopan, there is “some confusion about what type of patients are appropriate, [and] how sick or not sick the patient needs to be.”

Dr. Putman noted he is unsure which of his patients should be receiving avacopan. “I don’t totally have a sense for where avacopan stands and how often we should be using it” outside of patients with severe disease. He added that the drug is still trying to find a niche because most patients with AAV who take rituximab and steroids get better without additional treatments.

“I think we do a pretty good job treating these diseases even in the preavacopan era. But it’s really a matter of how to really optimize these outcomes, reduce damage, reduce steroid-related and treatment-related toxicity for our patients,” Dr. Lally said.

Dr. Dua reported being a consultant and serving on advisory boards for ChemoCentryx; she was also a site principal investigator for the ADVOCATE trial. Dr. Hojjati reported being on the speaker’s bureau for Amgen. Dr. Langford reported being an investigator in the ADVOCATE trial, and her institution received funding to conduct the trial. Dr. Lally reported being a consultant for Amgen on avacopan. Dr. Putman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

*This story was updated 3/15/2023.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved avacopan (Tavneos) as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV) in October 2021, the oral complement C5a receptor inhibitor was hailed by its developer, ChemoCentryx, as a “new hope” for patients with the disease.

But avacopan’s novelty as a new drug for the rare diseases granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), coupled with its approval as an adjunctive to standard therapy, including glucocorticoids, rather than strictly as a glucocorticoid-sparing agent as it was tested, has so far led to little reported real-world experience with the drug.

M. Alexander Otto

In the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, the pivotal trial that served as the basis for avacopan’s approval, 331 patients with active newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA or MPA received either avacopan or an oral prednisone taper over 20 weeks on a background of cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine or rituximab. The results of the trial showed avacopan was noninferior to the group that received prednisone taper for remission at 26 weeks and superior to prednisone taper for sustained remission at 52 weeks, but the FDA was concerned that its complex design made it difficult to define the clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV.

The FDA noted that, in the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received glucocorticoids outside of the study protocol. Despite this, avacopan reduced the cumulative glucocorticoid dose over the trial’s 52 weeks by nearly two-thirds, compared with the prednisone group (1,349 mg vs. 3,655 mg).

The data also indicate a higher sustained remission rate at 52 weeks in patients who received induction with rituximab, compared with cyclophosphamide. But trial did not include a maintenance therapy dose of rituximab and is thereby not a good comparison against the standard of care, the FDA said. (ADVOCATE began enrolling patients prior to the FDA's 2018 approval of an expanded indication for patients with GPA or MPA who have achieved disease control after induction treatment.)

At the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting in May 2021, committee members were split on whether to recommend avacopan for approval. The committee voted 9-9 on whether the ADVOCATE trial showed efficacy supporting approval of avacopan, 10-8 in favor of whether the drug’s safety profile supported approval, and 10-8 in favor of the overall benefit-risk profile of avacopan for approval. But rather than give an indication to avacopan to reduce the use of glucocorticoids in adults with GPA or MPA, the agency approved avacopan as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active disease, noting in particular that avacopan “does not eliminate glucocorticoid use.”

The European Union’s marketing authorization for avacopan states its indication for use in combination with a rituximab or cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of adult patients with severe, active GPA or MPA and does not mention a role for reducing glucocorticoids. Avacopan will appear in forthcoming guidelines on management of AAV released by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

In North America, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network recently released an addendum to their guidelines on AAV specifically for avacopan, which includes recommendations to consider adding oral avacopan (30 mg twice daily) for induction of remission in patients with new or relapsing GPA or MPA who are also receiving cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The guidelines also recommend clinicians consider a glucocorticoid tapering schedule that aims for discontinuation at 4 weeks, and continuing avacopan for at least 1 year after induction therapy. The American College of Rheumatology guideline for AAV management, updated in 2021, acknowledges avacopan but did not consider its inclusion prior to FDA approval.

There have been few real-world studies of how patients with AAV are responding to avacopan, but recent studies from researchers in the Netherlands and in France have evaluated prednisone tapering and clinical outcomes.

Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said those real-world studies “seemed to re-enforce the findings from the ADVOCATE study demonstrating the efficacy of avacopan in severe disease with steroid-sparing effects.”

However, Carol Langford, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, emphasized caution is needed when drawing conclusions about avacopan use outside formal studies.

“We are all interested in what other settings this might be used. I think those are things that really require formal investigation to really try and understand better as far as through a study process,” she said.
 

Prescribing experience with avacopan

A spokesperson from Amgen, which recently acquired ChemoCentryx, said in an interview that over 800 physicians in the United States have prescribed avacopan to patients with new or relapsing ANCA-associated vasculitis as induction or maintenance treatment, and physicians have reported outcomes consistent with the ADVOCATE trial.

Many rheumatologists are likely familiar with avacopan but are not used to prescribing it, said Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist with Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

“Rituximab was approved for GPA and MPA a decade ago at this point. It was a drug that we as rheumatologists were used to using. We used it for other indications. Avacopan is a totally new drug, a new mechanism of action, so there’s not a lot of extractable data that we have in terms of comfort with the drug, and so I think that’s one of the biggest hurdles,” she said.

Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said that, when the FDA approved avacopan, it was an “exciting time” in her practice. “I have used avacopan now in a handful of my patients with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis, and the results are similar to what [was] reported in the ADVOCATE trial.”

Amgen offers help for clinicians in obtaining avacopan for patients, financial assistance for patients, and support in navigating insurance, which several rheumatologists noted was important for patients. Dr. Langford said the process of working with the manufacturer to get avacopan while insurance information is being processed has been “fairly smooth.”

“Certainly, the ability to get a very rapid 30-day supply with the goal of trying to initiate this as early as possible in the disease process has been helpful,” she said.

In Dr. Dua’s experience, while there were “some glitches or difficulty for providers early on” in how to access and prescribe avacopan, since then “it has been much easier to obtain the medication with the first month being provided to patients free while the authorization process is managed.”

Prescribing avacopan from inpatient pharmacies has been more challenging, she said. “The inpatient side is trickier because each hospital system has their own pharmacy system and regulations that have to be navigated. For outpatients, all the provider needs to do is fill out the start form available on their website, have the patients sign it, and then have it sent in.”
 

Concerns about affordability, insurance approval

Another consideration is cost, with avacopan having an estimated price of $150,000-$200,000 per patient per year.

Dr. Hojjati noted that, while it is easy to prescribe, avacopan is hard to get approved through insurance. “We face the same challenge every time a new medication comes to the market on how to convince the payers to pay for it given higher prices,” she said.

Rheumatologist Michael Putman, MD, MSCI, assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, also acknowledged some difficulties in prescribing the medication. “The insurance companies have no interest in spending $150,000 on a drug that they know nothing about, and patients are a little hesitant to take it because it’s just so new,” he said.

While Dr. Lally said avacopan has not been difficult to get for patients with commercial insurance, reimbursement through Medicare has been problematic. “In many of the Medicare patients it has not really been a feasible option for them to be on the drug for the year of therapy.”
 

Patient response

Dr. Dua said almost all her patients with new or relapsing AAV who require induction are being prescribed avacopan, and that the medication is well tolerated. “The remission and ability to wean prednisone has really paralleled the findings from the clinical trial.”

In her practice, Dr. Hojjati starts patients on avacopan immediately after discharge from the hospital after a major vasculitis flare requiring high-dose glucocorticoids. “Avacopan does not eliminate/replace GC [glucocorticoid] use but has a notable GC-sparing effect and assists in rapid tapering of the GC while treating our severe ANCA-associated vasculitis patients,” she said.

Dr. Lally said her patients are tolerating avacopan well and hasn’t seen any of the safety signals seen in the trial, including liver function abnormalities. She has treated about 20-25 patients with avacopan.

Dr. Putman noted that he has treated about five patients with avacopan but hasn’t seen dramatic efficacy or side effects in his practice, compared with standard therapy.

Unanswered questions about avacopan

A key unanswered question with avacopan is the timeline for tapering glucocorticoids once patients start treatment. “I would like to see much more data on how prednisone is being tapered in clinical practice as well as outcomes in patients who are treated with the standard of care second dose of rituximab at 6 months,” Dr. Dua said.

Dr. Lally noted she has tried to expedite the steroid taper in her patients. “That’s really where I feel this drug is going to have most relevance, is getting it started early in active disease and getting patients off of the reliance on high doses of oral steroids. I have been able to see that in practice, and I do think ultimately that’s going to lead to better outcomes and quality of life for these patients.”

Of the rheumatologists Dr. Lally has spoken to about avacopan, there is “some confusion about what type of patients are appropriate, [and] how sick or not sick the patient needs to be.”

Dr. Putman noted he is unsure which of his patients should be receiving avacopan. “I don’t totally have a sense for where avacopan stands and how often we should be using it” outside of patients with severe disease. He added that the drug is still trying to find a niche because most patients with AAV who take rituximab and steroids get better without additional treatments.

“I think we do a pretty good job treating these diseases even in the preavacopan era. But it’s really a matter of how to really optimize these outcomes, reduce damage, reduce steroid-related and treatment-related toxicity for our patients,” Dr. Lally said.

Dr. Dua reported being a consultant and serving on advisory boards for ChemoCentryx; she was also a site principal investigator for the ADVOCATE trial. Dr. Hojjati reported being on the speaker’s bureau for Amgen. Dr. Langford reported being an investigator in the ADVOCATE trial, and her institution received funding to conduct the trial. Dr. Lally reported being a consultant for Amgen on avacopan. Dr. Putman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

*This story was updated 3/15/2023.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved avacopan (Tavneos) as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV) in October 2021, the oral complement C5a receptor inhibitor was hailed by its developer, ChemoCentryx, as a “new hope” for patients with the disease.

But avacopan’s novelty as a new drug for the rare diseases granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), coupled with its approval as an adjunctive to standard therapy, including glucocorticoids, rather than strictly as a glucocorticoid-sparing agent as it was tested, has so far led to little reported real-world experience with the drug.

M. Alexander Otto

In the phase 3 ADVOCATE trial, the pivotal trial that served as the basis for avacopan’s approval, 331 patients with active newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA or MPA received either avacopan or an oral prednisone taper over 20 weeks on a background of cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine or rituximab. The results of the trial showed avacopan was noninferior to the group that received prednisone taper for remission at 26 weeks and superior to prednisone taper for sustained remission at 52 weeks, but the FDA was concerned that its complex design made it difficult to define the clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV.

The FDA noted that, in the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received glucocorticoids outside of the study protocol. Despite this, avacopan reduced the cumulative glucocorticoid dose over the trial’s 52 weeks by nearly two-thirds, compared with the prednisone group (1,349 mg vs. 3,655 mg).

The data also indicate a higher sustained remission rate at 52 weeks in patients who received induction with rituximab, compared with cyclophosphamide. But trial did not include a maintenance therapy dose of rituximab and is thereby not a good comparison against the standard of care, the FDA said. (ADVOCATE began enrolling patients prior to the FDA's 2018 approval of an expanded indication for patients with GPA or MPA who have achieved disease control after induction treatment.)

At the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee meeting in May 2021, committee members were split on whether to recommend avacopan for approval. The committee voted 9-9 on whether the ADVOCATE trial showed efficacy supporting approval of avacopan, 10-8 in favor of whether the drug’s safety profile supported approval, and 10-8 in favor of the overall benefit-risk profile of avacopan for approval. But rather than give an indication to avacopan to reduce the use of glucocorticoids in adults with GPA or MPA, the agency approved avacopan as an adjunctive treatment for severe, active disease, noting in particular that avacopan “does not eliminate glucocorticoid use.”

The European Union’s marketing authorization for avacopan states its indication for use in combination with a rituximab or cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of adult patients with severe, active GPA or MPA and does not mention a role for reducing glucocorticoids. Avacopan will appear in forthcoming guidelines on management of AAV released by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

In North America, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network recently released an addendum to their guidelines on AAV specifically for avacopan, which includes recommendations to consider adding oral avacopan (30 mg twice daily) for induction of remission in patients with new or relapsing GPA or MPA who are also receiving cyclophosphamide or rituximab. The guidelines also recommend clinicians consider a glucocorticoid tapering schedule that aims for discontinuation at 4 weeks, and continuing avacopan for at least 1 year after induction therapy. The American College of Rheumatology guideline for AAV management, updated in 2021, acknowledges avacopan but did not consider its inclusion prior to FDA approval.

There have been few real-world studies of how patients with AAV are responding to avacopan, but recent studies from researchers in the Netherlands and in France have evaluated prednisone tapering and clinical outcomes.

Anisha B. Dua, MD, an associate professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said those real-world studies “seemed to re-enforce the findings from the ADVOCATE study demonstrating the efficacy of avacopan in severe disease with steroid-sparing effects.”

However, Carol Langford, MD, MHS, director of the Center for Vasculitis Care and Research at the Cleveland Clinic, emphasized caution is needed when drawing conclusions about avacopan use outside formal studies.

“We are all interested in what other settings this might be used. I think those are things that really require formal investigation to really try and understand better as far as through a study process,” she said.
 

Prescribing experience with avacopan

A spokesperson from Amgen, which recently acquired ChemoCentryx, said in an interview that over 800 physicians in the United States have prescribed avacopan to patients with new or relapsing ANCA-associated vasculitis as induction or maintenance treatment, and physicians have reported outcomes consistent with the ADVOCATE trial.

Many rheumatologists are likely familiar with avacopan but are not used to prescribing it, said Lindsay S. Lally, MD, a rheumatologist with Hospital for Special Surgery in New York.

“Rituximab was approved for GPA and MPA a decade ago at this point. It was a drug that we as rheumatologists were used to using. We used it for other indications. Avacopan is a totally new drug, a new mechanism of action, so there’s not a lot of extractable data that we have in terms of comfort with the drug, and so I think that’s one of the biggest hurdles,” she said.

Mehrnaz Hojjati, MD, a rheumatologist with Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said that, when the FDA approved avacopan, it was an “exciting time” in her practice. “I have used avacopan now in a handful of my patients with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis, and the results are similar to what [was] reported in the ADVOCATE trial.”

Amgen offers help for clinicians in obtaining avacopan for patients, financial assistance for patients, and support in navigating insurance, which several rheumatologists noted was important for patients. Dr. Langford said the process of working with the manufacturer to get avacopan while insurance information is being processed has been “fairly smooth.”

“Certainly, the ability to get a very rapid 30-day supply with the goal of trying to initiate this as early as possible in the disease process has been helpful,” she said.

In Dr. Dua’s experience, while there were “some glitches or difficulty for providers early on” in how to access and prescribe avacopan, since then “it has been much easier to obtain the medication with the first month being provided to patients free while the authorization process is managed.”

Prescribing avacopan from inpatient pharmacies has been more challenging, she said. “The inpatient side is trickier because each hospital system has their own pharmacy system and regulations that have to be navigated. For outpatients, all the provider needs to do is fill out the start form available on their website, have the patients sign it, and then have it sent in.”
 

Concerns about affordability, insurance approval

Another consideration is cost, with avacopan having an estimated price of $150,000-$200,000 per patient per year.

Dr. Hojjati noted that, while it is easy to prescribe, avacopan is hard to get approved through insurance. “We face the same challenge every time a new medication comes to the market on how to convince the payers to pay for it given higher prices,” she said.

Rheumatologist Michael Putman, MD, MSCI, assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, also acknowledged some difficulties in prescribing the medication. “The insurance companies have no interest in spending $150,000 on a drug that they know nothing about, and patients are a little hesitant to take it because it’s just so new,” he said.

While Dr. Lally said avacopan has not been difficult to get for patients with commercial insurance, reimbursement through Medicare has been problematic. “In many of the Medicare patients it has not really been a feasible option for them to be on the drug for the year of therapy.”
 

Patient response

Dr. Dua said almost all her patients with new or relapsing AAV who require induction are being prescribed avacopan, and that the medication is well tolerated. “The remission and ability to wean prednisone has really paralleled the findings from the clinical trial.”

In her practice, Dr. Hojjati starts patients on avacopan immediately after discharge from the hospital after a major vasculitis flare requiring high-dose glucocorticoids. “Avacopan does not eliminate/replace GC [glucocorticoid] use but has a notable GC-sparing effect and assists in rapid tapering of the GC while treating our severe ANCA-associated vasculitis patients,” she said.

Dr. Lally said her patients are tolerating avacopan well and hasn’t seen any of the safety signals seen in the trial, including liver function abnormalities. She has treated about 20-25 patients with avacopan.

Dr. Putman noted that he has treated about five patients with avacopan but hasn’t seen dramatic efficacy or side effects in his practice, compared with standard therapy.

Unanswered questions about avacopan

A key unanswered question with avacopan is the timeline for tapering glucocorticoids once patients start treatment. “I would like to see much more data on how prednisone is being tapered in clinical practice as well as outcomes in patients who are treated with the standard of care second dose of rituximab at 6 months,” Dr. Dua said.

Dr. Lally noted she has tried to expedite the steroid taper in her patients. “That’s really where I feel this drug is going to have most relevance, is getting it started early in active disease and getting patients off of the reliance on high doses of oral steroids. I have been able to see that in practice, and I do think ultimately that’s going to lead to better outcomes and quality of life for these patients.”

Of the rheumatologists Dr. Lally has spoken to about avacopan, there is “some confusion about what type of patients are appropriate, [and] how sick or not sick the patient needs to be.”

Dr. Putman noted he is unsure which of his patients should be receiving avacopan. “I don’t totally have a sense for where avacopan stands and how often we should be using it” outside of patients with severe disease. He added that the drug is still trying to find a niche because most patients with AAV who take rituximab and steroids get better without additional treatments.

“I think we do a pretty good job treating these diseases even in the preavacopan era. But it’s really a matter of how to really optimize these outcomes, reduce damage, reduce steroid-related and treatment-related toxicity for our patients,” Dr. Lally said.

Dr. Dua reported being a consultant and serving on advisory boards for ChemoCentryx; she was also a site principal investigator for the ADVOCATE trial. Dr. Hojjati reported being on the speaker’s bureau for Amgen. Dr. Langford reported being an investigator in the ADVOCATE trial, and her institution received funding to conduct the trial. Dr. Lally reported being a consultant for Amgen on avacopan. Dr. Putman reported no relevant financial disclosures.

*This story was updated 3/15/2023.

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.