Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of patients with ESKD who receive extracorporeal kidney replacement therapy is rising worldwide. We compared government reimbursement for hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis worldwide, assessed the effect on the government health care budget, and discussed strategies to reduce the cost of kidney replacement therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Cross-sectional global survey of nephrologists in 90 countries to assess reimbursement for dialysis, number of patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and measures to prevent development or progression of CKD, conducted online July to December of 2016. RESULTS: Of the 90 survey respondents, governments from 81 countries (90%) provided reimbursement for maintenance dialysis. The prevalence of patients per million population being treated with long-term dialysis in low- and middle-income countries increased linearly with Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP per capita), but was substantially lower in these countries compared with high-income countries where we did not observe an higher prevalence with higher GDP per capita. The absolute expenditure for dialysis by national governments showed a positive association with GDP per capita, but the percent of total health care budget spent on dialysis showed a negative association. The percentage of patients on peritoneal dialysis was low, even in countries where peritoneal dialysis is better reimbursed than hemodialysis. The so-called peritoneal dialysis–first policy without financial incentive seems to be effective in increasing the utilization of peritoneal dialysis. Few countries actively provide CKD prevention. CONCLUSIONS: In low- and middle-income countries, reimbursement of dialysis is insufficient to treat all patients with ESKD and has a disproportionately high effect on public health expenditure. Current reimbursement policies favor conventional in-center hemodialysis.

Chronic renal failure; Dialysis; Kidney transplantation ; Insuficiència renal crònica; Diàlisi; Trasplantament de ronyó ; Insuficiencia renal crónica; Diálisis; Trasplante de riñón ; Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health problem because of its high prevalence, associated complications and high treatment costs. Several aspects of CKD differ significantly in the Eastern European nephrology community compared with Western Europe because of different geographic, socio-economic, infrastructure, cultural and educational features. The two most frequent aetiologies of CKD, DM and hypertension, and many other predisposing factors, are more frequent in the Eastern region, resulting in more prevalent CKD Stages 3–5. Interventions may minimize the potential drawbacks of the high prevalence of CKD in Eastern Europe, which include several options at various stages of the disease, such as raising public, medical personnel and healthcare authorities awareness; early detection by screening high-risk populations; preventing progression and CKD-related complications by training health professionals and patients; promoting transplantation or home dialysis as the preferred modality; disseminating and implementing guidelines and guided therapy and encouraging/supporting country-specific observational research as well as international collaborative projects. Specific ways to significantly impact CKD-related problems in every region of Europe through education, science and networking are collaboration with non-nephrology European societies who have a common interest in CKD and its associated complications, representation through an advisory role within nephrology via national nephrology societies, contributing to the training of local nephrologists and stimulating patient-oriented research. The latter is mandatory to identify country-specific kidney disease–related priorities. Active involvement of patients in this research via collaboration with the European Kidney Patient Federation or national patient federations is imperative to ensure that projects reflect specific patient needs. ; The treatment of kidney failure is costly, therefore financial support from governments is essential to ensure that all patients receive appropriate treatment. This imposes a major burden on the economy. According to the World Bank, only 74% of governments in Eastern and Central Europe provide full support for KRT [7]. Funding of treatment in earlier stages of CKD is even more problematic because of the high number of patients and because the diagnosis may not be made in a timely manner. Although no objective data are available, it is very likely that public funding at earlier stages of CKD is less common or, at least, less comprehensive than reimbursement of KRT.

A brief comprehensive overview is provided of the elements constituting the burden of kidney disease [chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury]. This publication can be used for advocacy, emphasizing the importance and urgency of reducing this heavy and rapidly growing burden. Kidney diseases contribute to significant physical limitations, loss of quality of life, emotional and cognitive disorders, social isolation and premature death. CKD affects close to 100 million Europeans, with 300 million being at risk, and is projected to become the fifth cause of worldwide death by 2040. Kidney disease also imposes financial burdens, given the costs of accessing healthcare and inability to work. The extrapolated annual cost of all CKD is at least as high as that for cancer or diabetes. In addition, dialysis treatment of kidney diseases imposes environmental burdens by necessitating high energy and water consumption and producing plastic waste. Acute kidney injury is associated with further increases in global morbidity, mortality and economic burden. Yet investment in research for treatment of kidney disease lags behind that of other diseases. This publication is a call for European investment in research for kidney health. The innovations generated should mirror the successful European Union actions against cancer over the last 30 years. It is also a plea to nephrology professionals, patients and their families, caregivers and kidney health advocacy organizations to draw, during the Decade of the Kidney (2020–30), the attention of authorities to realize changes in understanding, research and treatment of kidney disease.

A brief comprehensive overview is provided of the elements constituting the burden of kidney disease [chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury]. This publication can be used for advocacy, emphasizing the importance and urgency of reducing this heavy and rapidly growing burden. Kidney diseases contribute to significant physical limitations, loss of quality of life, emotional and cognitive disorders, social isolation and premature death. CKD affects close to 100 million Europeans, with 300 million being at risk, and is projected to become the fifth cause of worldwide death by 2040. Kidney disease also imposes financial burdens, given the costs of accessing healthcare and inability to work. The extrapolated annual cost of all CKD is at least as high as that for cancer or diabetes. In addition, dialysis treatment of kidney diseases imposes environmental burdens by necessitating high energy and water consumption and producing plastic waste. Acute kidney injury is associated with further increases in global morbidity, mortality and economic burden. Yet investment in research for treatment of kidney disease lags behind that of other diseases. This publication is a call for European investment in research for kidney health. The innovations generated should mirror the successful European Union actions against cancer over the last 30 years. It is also a plea to nephrology professionals, patients and their families, caregivers and kidney health advocacy organizations to draw, during the Decade of the Kidney (2020-30), the attention of authorities to realize changes in understanding, research and treatment of kidney disease.

An increased risk of cardiovascular disease, independent of conventional risk factors, is present even at minor levels of renal impairment and is highest in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis. Renal dysfunction changes the level, composition and quality of blood lipids in favour of a more atherogenic profile. Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) or ESRD have a characteristic lipid pattern of hypertriglyceridaemia and low HDL cholesterol levels but normal LDL cholesterol levels. In the general population, a clear relationship exists between LDL cholesterol and major atherosclerotic events. However, in patients with ESRD, LDL cholesterol shows a negative association with these outcomes at below average LDL cholesterol levels and a flat or weakly positive association with mortality at higher LDL cholesterol levels. Overall, the available data suggest that lowering of LDL cholesterol is beneficial for prevention of major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD and in kidney transplant recipients but is not beneficial in patients requiring dialysis. The 2013 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for Lipid Management in CKD provides simple recommendations for the management of dyslipidaemia in patients with CKD and ESRD. However, emerging data and novel lipid-lowering therapies warrant some reappraisal of these recommendations. ; AO was supported by Spanish Government ISCIII FEDER funds (PI16/02057, ISCIII-RETIC REDinREN RD16/0009) and Community of Madrid (B2017/BMD-3686 CIFRA2-CM).

Reimbursement for chronic dialysis consumes a substantial portion of healthcare costs for a relatively small proportion of the total population. Each country has a unique reimbursement system that attempts to control rising costs. Thus, comparing the reimbursement systems between countries might be helpful to find solutions to minimize costs to society without jeopardizing quality of treatment and outcomes. We conducted a survey of seven countries to compare crude reimbursement for various dialysis modalities and evaluated additional factors, such as inclusion of drugs or physician payments in the reimbursement package, adjustment in rates for specific patient subgroups, and pay for performance therapeutic thresholds. The comparison examines the United States, the province of Ontario in Canada, and five European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom). Important differences between countries exist, resulting in as much as a 3.3-fold difference between highest and lowest reimbursement rates for chronic hemodialysis. Differences persist even when our data were adjusted for per capita gross domestic product. Reimbursement for peritoneal dialysis is lower in most countries except Germany and the United States. The United Kingdom is the only country that has implemented an incentive if patients use an arteriovenous fistula. Although home hemodialysis (prolonged or daily dialysis) allows greater flexibility and better patient outcomes, reimbursement is only incentivized in The Netherlands. Unfortunately, it is not yet clear that such differences save money or improve quality of care. Future research should focus on directly testing both outcomes.

International audience ; The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

International audience ; The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

International audience ; The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

International audience ; The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

International audience ; The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

International audience ; The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research approach.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became binding law in the European Union Member States in 2018, as a step toward harmonizing personal data protection legislation in the European Union. The Regulation governs almost all types of personal data processing, hence, also, those pertaining to biomedical research. The purpose of this article is to highlight the main practical issues related to data and biological sample sharing that biomedical researchers face regularly, and to specify how these are addressed in the context of GDPR, after consulting with ethics/legal experts. We identify areas in which clarifications of the GDPR are needed, particularly those related to consent requirements by study participants. Amendments should target the following: (1) restricting exceptions based on national laws and increasing harmonization, (2) confirming the concept of broad consent, and (3) defining a roadmap for secondary use of data. These changes will be achieved by acknowledged learned societies in the field taking the lead in preparing a document giving guidance for the optimal interpretation of the GDPR, which will be finalized following a period of commenting by a broad multistakeholder audience. In parallel, promoting engagement and education of the public in the relevant issues (such as different consent types or residual risk for re-identification), on both local/national and international levels, is considered critical for advancement. We hope that this article will open this broad discussion involving all major stakeholders, toward optimizing the GDPR and allowing a harmonized transnational research ...