Background

Costs can be a major barrier to medication adherence in low and middle-income countries and are an important target for policy-level interventions. The use of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) for secondary prevention of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) averts substantial morbidity and mortality, yet the total out-of-pocket costs for patients receiving this intervention are unknown.

Objective

To estimate the total out-of-pocket costs for obtaining BPG prophylaxis among RHD patients in India.

Methods

We prospectively collected self-reported drug-, transportation-, and provider-related costs for secondary prophylaxis among RHD patients presenting for follow-up to a tertiary care centre in New Delhi, India. Monthly costs were estimated by adjusting unit costs by frequency of drug administration.

Results

The cost data provided by 420 patients [mean age (±SD) 11.6 (±2.9) years] was analysed. Majority of the patients were male (65.2%), hailed from rural areas (87.1%), and belonged to lower socioeconomic strata (73.3%). The median monthly total out-of-pocket costs (IQR) for obtaining BPG injections was Indian rupee (INR) 62.5 (42.5-117.0). The median costs for procuring the drug (IQR) was INR 34.0(30.0-39.0). Whereas median costs (IQR) for health care provider and transportation was INR 16.0 [0-32.0]) and INR 11 [0-31.0] respectively. When expressed as mean (SD), the costs for transportation constituted 50% of the total costs, whereas the mean cost for drug procurement and drug administration constituted 30% and 22% of the total costs respectively.

Conclusion

RHD patients receiving BPG prophylaxis incur substantial out-of-pocket costs, with transportation costs constituting nearly half of the total expenditures. National investments in RHD control must be strategically directed at improving health care access and drug supply in order to lower the total costs of secondary prophylaxis and improve adherence rates.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the National Kidney Foundation collaborated to provide an update to the Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for nutrition in chronic kidney disease (CKD). These guidelines provide a valuable update to many aspects of the nutrition care process. They include changes in the recommendations for nutrition screening and assessment, macronutrients, and targets for electrolytes and minerals. The International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism assembled a special review panel of experts and evaluated these recommendations prior to public review. As one of the highlights of the CPG, the recommended dietary protein intake range for patients with diabetic kidney disease is 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day, whereas for CKD patients without diabetes it is 0.55-0.6 g/kg/day. The International Society of Renal Nutrition and Metabolism endorses the CPG with the suggestion that clinicians may consider a more streamlined target of 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day, regardless of CKD etiology, while striving to achieve intakes closer to 0.6 g/kg/day. For implementation of these guidelines, it will be important that all stakeholders work to detect kidney disease early to ensure effective primary and secondary prevention. Once identified, patients should be referred to registered dietitians or the region-specific equivalent, for individualized medical nutrition therapy to slow the progression of CKD. As we turn our attention to the new CPG, we as the renal nutrition community should come together to strengthen the evidence base by standardizing outcomes, increasing collaboration, and funding well-designed observational studies and randomized controlled trials with nutritional and dietary interventions in patients with CKD.

Objective

To better define the prevalence of protein-energy wasting (PEW) in kidney disease is poorly defined.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of PEW prevalence from contemporary studies including more than 50 subjects with kidney disease, published during 2000-2014 and reporting on PEW prevalence by subjective global assessment or malnutrition-inflammation score. Data were reviewed throughout different strata: (1) acute kidney injury (AKI), (2) pediatric chronic kidney disease (CKD), (3) nondialyzed CKD 3-5, (4) maintenance dialysis, and (5) subjects undergoing kidney transplantation (Tx). Sample size, period of publication, reporting quality, methods, dialysis technique, country, geographical region, and gross national income were a priori considered factors influencing between-study variability.

Results

Two studies including 189 AKI patients reported a PEW prevalence of 60% and 82%. Five studies including 1776 patients with CKD stages 3-5 reported PEW prevalence ranging from 11% to 54%. Finally, 90 studies from 34 countries including 16,434 patients on maintenance dialysis were identified. The 25th-75th percentiles range in PEW prevalence among dialysis studies was 28-54%. Large variation in PEW prevalence across studies remained even when accounting for moderators. Mixed-effects meta-regression identified geographical region as the only significant moderator explaining 23% of the observed data heterogeneity. Finally, two studies including 1067 Tx patients reported a PEW prevalence of 28% and 52%, and no studies recruiting pediatric CKD patients were identified.

Conclusion

By providing evidence-based ranges of PEW prevalence, we conclude that PEW is a common phenomenon across the spectrum of AKI and CKD. This, together with the well-documented impact of PEW on patient outcomes, justifies the need for increased medical attention.