Quality of Chronic Kidney Disease Management in Canadian Primary Care.
ABSTRACT: Importance:Although patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are routinely managed in primary care settings, no nationally representative study has assessed the quality of care received by these patients in Canada. Objective:To evaluate the current state of CKD management in Canadian primary care practices to identify care gaps to guide development and implementation of national quality improvement initiatives. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study leveraged Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network data from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015, to develop a cohort of 46 162 patients with CKD managed in primary care practices. Data analysis was performed from August 8, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The study examined the proportion of patients with CKD who met a set of 12 quality indicators in 6 domains: (1) detection and recognition of CKD, (2) testing and monitoring of kidney function, (3) use of recommended medications, (4) monitoring after initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), (5) management of blood pressure, and (6) monitoring for glycemic control in those with diabetes and CKD. The study also analyzed associations of divergence from these quality indicators. Results:The cohort comprised 46 162 patients (mean [SD] age, 69.2 [14.0] years; 25 855 [56.0%] female) with stage 3 to 5 CKD. Only 4 of 12 quality indicators were met by 75% or more of the study cohort. These indicators were receipt of an outpatient serum creatinine test within 18 months after confirmation of CKD, receipt of blood pressure measurement at any time during follow-up, achieving a target blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or lower, and receiving a hemoglobin A1c test for monitoring diabetes during follow-up. Indicators in the domains of detection and recognition of CKD, testing and monitoring of kidney function (specifically, urine albumin to creatinine ratio testing), use of recommended medications, and appropriate monitoring after initiation of treatment with ACEIs or ARBs were not met. Only 6529 patients (18.4%) with CKD received a urine albumin test within 6 months of CKD diagnosis, and 3954 (39.4%) had a second measurement within 6 months of an abnormal baseline urine albumin level. Older age (≥85 years) and CKD stage 5 were significantly associated with not satisfying the criteria for the quality indicators across all domains. Across age categories, younger patients (aged 18-49 years) and older patients (≥75 years) were less likely to be tested for albuminuria (314 of 1689 patients aged 18-49 years [18.5%], 1983 of 11 919 patients aged 75-84 years [61.6%], and 614 of 5237 patients aged ≥85 years [11.7%] received the urine albumin to creatinine ratio test within 6 months of initial estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2; P < .001). Patients aged 18 to 49 years were less commonly prescribed recommended medications (222 of 2881 [7.7%]), whereas patients aged 75 to 84 years were prescribed ACEIs or ARBs most frequently (2328 of 5262 [44.2%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:The findings suggest that management of CKD across primary care practices in Canada varies according to quality indicator. This study revealed potential priority areas for quality improvement initiatives in Canadian primary care practices.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Drug-Drug Interactions between Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs), Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARBs) or diuretics can lead to renal failure and hyperkalemia. Thus, monitoring of serum creatinine and potassium is recommended when a first dispensing of NSAID occur in patients treated with these drugs. METHODS: We conducted a pharmacoepidemiological retrospective cohort study using data from the French Health Insurance Reimbursement Database to evaluate the proportion of serum creatinine and potassium laboratory monitoring in patients treated with ACEI, ARB or diuretic and receiving a first dispensing of NSAID. We described the first dispensing of NSAID among 3,500 patients of a 4-year cohort (6,633 patients treated with antihypertensive drugs) and analyzed serum creatinine and potassium laboratory monitoring within the 3 weeks after the first NSAID dispensing. RESULTS: General Practitioners were the most frequent prescribers of NSAIDs (85.5%, 95% CI: 84.3-86.6). The more commonly prescribed NSAIDs were ibuprofen (20%), ketoprofen (15%), diclofenac (15%) and piroxicam (12%). Serum creatinine and potassium monitoring was 10.7% (95% CI: 9.5-11.8) in patients treated by ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics. Overall, monitoring was more frequently performed to women aged over 60, treated with digoxin or glucose lowering drugs, but not to patients treated with ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics. Monitoring was more frequent when NSAIDs' prescribers were cardiologists or anesthesiologists. CONCLUSION: Monitoring of serum creatinine and potassium of patients treated with ACEIs, ARBs or diuretics and receiving a first NSAID dispensing is insufficiently performed and needs to be reinforced through specific interventions.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is the receptor that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses for entry into lung cells. Because ACE-2 may be modulated by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), there is concern that patients treated with ACEIs and ARBs are at higher risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.<h4>Aim</h4>This study sought to analyze the association of COVID-19 pneumonia with previous treatment with ACEIs and ARBs.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We retrospectively reviewed 684 consecutive patients hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and tested by polymerase chain reaction assay. Patients were split into two groups, according to whether (group 1, n = 484) or not (group 2, n = 250) COVID-19 was confirmed. Multivariable adjusted comparisons included a propensity score analysis.<h4>Results</h4>The mean age was 63.6 ± 18.7 years, and 302 patients (44%) were female. Hypertension was present in 42.6% and 38.4% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.28). Treatment with ARBs was more frequent in group 1 than group 2 (20.7% vs. 12.0%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-2.98; P = 0.004). No difference was found for treatment with ACEIs (12.7% vs. 15.7%, respectively; OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.52-1.26; P = 0.35). Propensity score-matched multivariable logistic regression confirmed a significant association between COVID-19 and previous treatment with ARBs (adjusted OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.38-4.04; P = 0.002). Significant interaction between ARBs and ACEIs for the risk of COVID-19 was observed in patients aged > 60 years, women, and hypertensive patients.<h4>Conclusions</h4>This study suggests that ACEIs and ARBs are not similarly associated with COVID-19. In this retrospective series, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia more frequently had previous treatment with ARBs compared with patients without COVID-19.
Project description:Conflicting evidence exists about the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 clinical outcomes. We aimed to provide a comprehensive/updated evaluation of the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes, including exploration of interclass differences between ACEIs and ARBs, using a systematic review/meta-analysis approach conducted in Medline (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library, and medRxiv from inception to 22 May 2020. English studies that evaluated the effect of ACEIs/ARBs among patients with COVID-19 were included. Studies' quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were analyzed using the random-effects modeling stratified by exposure (ACEIs/ARBs, ACEIs, and ARBs). Heterogeneiity was assessed using I2 statistic. Several subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the impact of potential confounders. Overall, 27 studies were eligible. The pooled analyses showed nonsignificant associations between ACEIs/ARBs and death (OR:0.97, 95%CI:0.75,1.27), ICU admission (OR:1.09;95%CI:0.65,1.81), death/ICU admission (OR:0.67; 95%CI:0.52,0.86), risk of COVID-19 infection (OR:1.01; 95%CI:0.93,1.10), severe infection (OR:0.78; 95%CI:0.53,1.15), and hospitalization (OR:1.15; 95%CI:0.81,1.65). However, the subgroup analyses indicated significant association between ACEIs/ARBs and hospitalization among USA studies (OR:1.59; 95%CI:1.03,2.44), peer-reviewed (OR:1.93, 95%CI:1.38,2.71), good quality and studies which reported adjusted measure of effect (OR:1.30, 95%CI:1.10,1.50). Significant differences were found between ACEIs and ARBs with the latter being significantly associated with lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection (OR:0.24; 95%CI: 0.17,0.34). In conclusion, high-quality evidence exists for the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on some COVID-19 clinical outcomes. For the first time, we provided evidence, albeit of low quality, on interclass differences between ACEIs and ARBs for some of the reported clinical outcomes.
Project description:Dual renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockade using angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in combination with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) is reported to improve proteinuria in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. However, its renoprotective effect and safety remain uncertain in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). From January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2009, we enrolled 14,117 pre-dialytic stage 5 CKD patients with serum creatinine >6mg/dL and hematocrit <28% under the treatment with erythropoiesis stimulating agents and RAS blockade. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) against the commencement of long-term dialysis and all-cause mortality for ACEI/ARB users. Over a median follow-up of 7 months, 9,867 patients (69.9%) required long-term dialysis and 2,805 (19.9%) died before progression to end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis. In comparison with the ARB-only users, dual blockade with ACEIs and ARBs was associated with a significantly higher risk of (1) death in all CKD patients (HR = 1.49, [95%CI, 1.30-1.71]; P = 0.02) and in diabetic subgroup (HR = 1.58, [95%CI, 1.34-1.86]; P = 0.02); (2) composite endpoint of long-term dialysis or death in diabetic subgroup (HR = 1.10, [95%CI, 1.01-1.20]; P = 0.04); (3) hyperkalemia-associated hospitalization in non-diabetic subgroup (HR, 2.74, [95%CI, 1.05-7.15]; P = 0.04). However, ACEIs users were associated with higher mortality than ARBs users in all CKD patients (HR = 1.17, [95%CI, 1.07-1.27]; P = 0.03) and in diabetic subgroup (HR = 1.32, [95%CI, 1.18-1.48]; P = 0.03). Monotherapy of RAS blockade, especially ARB, is more effective and safer than dual RAS blockade in pre-dialytic stage 5 CKD patients.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend titrating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers (BBs) to target doses used in pivotal placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a number of RCTs comparing different doses (i.e. higher versus lower doses) of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs, the effects of higher versus lower doses on efficacy and safety remains unclear. For this reason, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs in patients with HFrEF. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid from inception to April 25th, 2018 and opentrials.net and clinicaltrials.gov for relevant trials that compared different doses of medications in heart failure. We analyzed trials by drug class (ACEIs, ARBs, and BBs) for efficacy outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, HF hospitalizations, HF worsening). For safety outcomes, we pooled trials within and across drug classes. RESULTS:Our meta-analysis consisted of 14 RCTs. Using GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for ACEIs and ARBs was assessed as generally moderate for efficacy and high for adverse effects, whereas overall quality for BBs was very low to low. Over ~2-4 years higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs or BBs did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.96 (0.87-1.04), BBs RR 0.25 (0.06-1.01)] or all cause hospitalizations [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.98 (0.93-1.04), BBs RR 0.93 (0.39-2.24)]. However, all point estimates favoured higher doses. Higher doses of ARBs significantly reduced hospitalization for HF [RR 0.89 (0.80-0.99)- 2.8% ARR], and higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs significantly reduced HF worsening [RR 0.85 (0.79-0.92)- 5.1% ARR and 0.91 (0.84-0.99)- 3.2% ARR, respectively] compared to lower doses. None of the differences between higher versus lower doses of BBs were significant; however, precision was low. Higher doses of these medications compared to lower doses increased the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events, hypotension, dizziness, and for ACEIs and ARBs, increased hyperkalemia and elevations in serum creatinine. Absolute increase in harms for adverse effects ranged from ~ 3 to 14%. CONCLUSIONS:Higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs reduce the risk of HF worsening compared to lower doses, and higher doses of ARBs also reduce the risk of HF hospitalization but the evidence is sparse and imprecise. Higher doses increase the chance of adverse effects compared to lower doses. Evidence for BBs is inconclusive. These results support initially always starting at low doses of ACEIs/ARBs and only titrating the dose up if the patient tolerates dose increases.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Structured comparison of pharmacoeconomic analyses for ACEIs and ARBs in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy is still lacking. This review aims to systematically review the cost-effectiveness of both ACEIs and ARBs in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE for the period from November 1, 1999 to Oct 31, 2011. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the articles included and extracted data. All cost-effectiveness results were converted to 2011 Euros.<h4>Results</h4>Up to October 2011, 434 articles were identified. After full-text checking and quality assessment, 30 articles were finally included in this review involving 39 study settings. All 6 ACEIs studies were literature-based evaluations which synthesized data from different sources. Other 33 studies were directed at ARBs and were designed based on specific trials. The Markov model was the most common decision analytic method used in the evaluations. From the cost-effectiveness results, 37 out of 39 studies indicated either ACEIs or ARBs were cost-saving comparing with placebo/conventional treatment, such as amlodipine. A lack of evidence was assessed for valid direct comparison of cost-effectiveness between ACEIs and ARBs.<h4>Conclusion</h4>There is a lack of direct comparisons of ACEIs and ARBs in existing economic evaluations. Considering the current evidence, both ACEIs and ARBs are likely cost-saving comparing with conventional therapy, excluding such RAAS inhibitors.
Project description:<h4>Importance</h4>The renin-angiotensin system has been implicated in mood disorders. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are among the most commonly used medications, yet their effects on mental health outcomes, particularly suicide, are poorly understood. This study examined the association between suicide and exposure to ACEIs and ARBs. Because of differences in their mode of action, it was speculated that ARBs would be associated with a higher risk of suicide than ACEIs.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the association between suicide and exposure to ARBs compared with ACEIs.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This population-based nested case-control study of individuals aged 66 years and older used administrative claims databases in Ontario, Canada, from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2019. Cases were individuals who died by suicide within 100 days of receiving an ACEI or ARB. The date of death served as the index date. For each case, 4 controls were identified and matched by age (within 1 year), sex, and presence of hypertension and diabetes. All individuals received an ACEI or ARB within 100 days before the index date.<h4>Exposures</h4>Use of an ACEI or ARB.<h4>Main outcomes and measures</h4>Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios for the association between suicide and exposure to ARBs compared with ACEIs.<h4>Results</h4>Nine hundred sixty-four cases were matched to 3856 controls. The median (interquartile range) age of cases and controls was 76 (70-82) years. Most cases (768 [79.7%]) and controls (3068 [79.6%]) were men. Among cases, 260 (26.0%) were exposed to ARBs, and 704 (18.4%) were exposed to ACEIs. Among controls, 741 (74.0%) were exposed to ARBs, and 3115 (81.6%) were exposed to ACEIs. Compared with ACEI exposure, ARB exposure was associated with higher risk of death by suicide (adjusted odds ratio,?1.63; 95% CI,?1.33-2.00). The findings were consistent in a sensitivity analysis excluding individuals with a history of self-harm (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.29-1.98).<h4>Conclusions and relevance</h4>The use of ARBs may be associated with an increased risk of suicide compared with ACEIs. Preferential use of ACEIs over ARBs should be considered whenever possible, particularly in patients with severe mental health illness.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The advantages of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs) and delaying end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is well-known. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in non-dialysis CKD stages 3-5 patients are still a controversial issue.<h4>Methods</h4>Two investigators (Yaru Zhang and Dandan He) independently searched and identified relevant studies from MEDLINE (from 1950 to October 2018), EMBASE (from 1970 to October 2018), and the Cochrane Library database. Randomised clinical trials in non-dialysis CKD3-5 patients treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors were included. We used standard criteria (Cochrane risk of bias tool) to assess the inherent risk of bias of trials. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome by random-effects model. A 2-sided p value <?0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all statistical analyses were performed using STATA, version 15.0. This network meta-analysis was undertaken by the frequency model.<h4>Results</h4>Forty-four randomised clinical trials with 42,319 patients were included in our network meta-analysis. ACEIs monotherapy significantly decreased the odds of kidney events (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.73), cardiovascular events (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.84), cardiovascular death (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63-0.86) and all-cause death (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.91) when compared to placebo. According to the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA), ACEI monotherapy had the highest probabilities of their protective effects on outcomes of kidney events (SUCRA 93.3%), cardiovascular events (SUCRA 77.2%), cardiovascular death (SUCRA 86%), and all-cause death (SUCRA 94.1%), even if there were no significant differences between ACEIs and other antihypertensive drugs, including calcium channel blockers (CCBs), ?-blockers and diuretics on above outcomes except for kidney events. ARB monotherapy and combination therapy of an ACEI plus an ARB showed no more advantage than CCBs, ?-blockers and diuretics in all primary outcomes. In the subgroup of non-dialysis diabetic kidney disease patients, no drugs, including ACEIs or ARBs, significantly lowered the odds of cardiovascular events and all-cause death. However, ACEIs were still better than other antihypertensive drugs including ARBs in all-cause death but not ARBs in cardiovascular events according to the SUCRA. Only ARBs had significant differences in preventing the occurrence of kidney events compared with placebo (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95). Both ACEI/ARB monotherapy and combination therapy had higher odds of hyperkalaemia. ACEIs had 3.81 times higher odds than CCBs (95% CI 1.58-9.20), ARBs had 2.08-5.10 times higher odds than placebo and CCBs and combination therapy of an ACEI and an ARB had 4.80-24.5 times higher odds than all other treatments. Compared with placebo, CCBs and ? blockers, ACEI therapy significantly increased the odds of cough (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.76-4.77; OR 8.21, 95% CI 3.13-21.54 and OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.08-3.00). There were no statistical differences in hypotension among all comparisons except ACEIs versus placebo.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Although ACEIs increased the odds of hyperkalaemia, cough and hypotension, they were still superior to ARBs and other antihypertensive drugs and had the highest benefits for the prevention of kidney events, cardiovascular outcomes, cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality in non-dialysis CKD3-5 patients. In patients with advanced diabetic kidney disease, ACEIs were superior to ARBs in lowering risk of all-cause death but not in kidney events and cardiovascular events.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effect of cardiologist care on adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention medications, mortality and readmission within 6 months of discharge in patients with heart failure (HF). DESIGN:Retrospective observational study based on administrative data. SETTING:Local Healthcare Authority (LHA) of Bologna, one of the largest LHAs of Italy with ~870?000 inhabitants. PARTICIPANTS:All patients residing in the LHA of Bologna discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of HF between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Multivariable regression analysis was used to assess the association of inpatient and outpatient cardiologist care with adherence to evidence-based medications, all-cause mortality and hospital readmission (including emergency room visits) within 6 months of discharge. RESULTS:The study population included 2650 patients (mean age 82.3 years). 340 (12.8%) patients were discharged from cardiology wards, while 635 (24.0%) were seen by a cardiologist during follow-up. Inpatient and outpatient cardiologist care was associated with an increased likelihood of adherence to ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), ?-blockers and aldosterone antagonists after discharge. The risk of mortality was significantly lower among patients adherent to ACEIs/ARBs and/or ?-blockers (-53% and -28%, respectively); the risk of hospital readmission was significantly lower among patients adherent to ACEIs/ARBs (-28%). CONCLUSIONS:Compared with non-specialist care, cardiologist care improves patient adherence to evidence-based medications and might thus favourably affect mortality and readmission following HF.
Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIM:Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) type 2 is the receptor of SARSCoV-2 for cell entry into lung cells. Because ACE-2 may be modulated by ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), there are concern that patients treated with ACEIs and ARBs are at higher risk for COVID-19 infection or severity. This study sought to analyse the association of severe forms of COVID-19 and mortality with hypertension and a previous treatment with ACEI and ARB. METHODS:Prospective follow-up of 433 consecutive patients hospitalised for COVID-19 pneumonia confirmed by PCR or highly probable on clinical, biological, and radiological findings, and included in the COVHYP study. Mortality and severe COVID-19 (criteria: death, intensive care unit, or hospitalisation >30 days) were compared in patients receiving or not ACEIs and ARBs. Follow-up was 100% at hospital discharge, and 96.5% at >1month. RESULTS:Age was 63.6±18.7 years, and 40%) were female. At follow-up (mean 78±50 days), 136 (31%) patients had severity criteria (death, 64 ; intensive care unit, 73; hospital stay >30 days, 49). Hypertension (55.1% vs 36.7%, P<0.001) and antihypertensive treatment were associated with severe COVID-19 and mortality. The association between ACEI/ARB treatment and COVID-19 severity criteria found in univariate analysis (Odds Ratio 1.74, 95%CI [1.14-2.64], P=0.01) was not confirmed when adjusted on age, gender, and hypertension (adjusted OR1.13 [0.59-2.15], P=0.72). Diabetes and hypothyroidism were associated with severe COVID-19, whereas history of asthma was not. CONCLUSION:This study suggests that previous treatment with ACEI and ARB is not associated with hospital mortality, 1- and 2-month mortality, and severity criteria in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. No protective effect of ACEIs and ARBs on severe pneumonia related to COVID-19 was demonstrated.