Background. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) management focuses on limiting further renal injury, including avoiding nephrotoxic medications such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We performed a systematic review to evaluate the prevalence of primary care NSAID prescribing in this population. Methods. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to October 2017 for observational studies examining NSAID prescribing practices or use in CKD patients in a primary care setting. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two authors using a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Methodological Evaluation of Observational Research checklist. Results. Our search generated 8055 potentially relevant publications, 304 of which were retrieved for full-text review. A total of 14 studies from 13 publications met our inclusion criteria. There were eight cohort and three cross-sectional studies, two quality improvement intervention studies and one prospective survey, representing a total of 49 209 CKD patients. Cross-sectional point prevalence of NSAID use in CKD patients ranged from 8 to 21%. Annual period prevalence rates ranged from 3 to 33%. Meta-analysis was not performed due to important clinical heterogeneity across study populations. Conclusions. Evidence suggests that NSAID prescriptions/use in primary care among patients with CKD is variable and relatively high. Future research should explore reasons for this to better focus knowledge translation interventions aimed at reducing NSAID use in this patient population.

Background: Chronic renal failure (CRF) is a serious disease that has become a burden on global and local economics and public health. In addition, non-thyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS) has become increasingly more prevalent in CRF patients. Materials and methods: A data search was conducted on the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, and CBM databases to identify studies up to November 1st, 2018, that compared low T3 and normal T3 levels in patients with CRF. Data analysis was done by calculating the relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous variables were described by weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI. The efficacy outcomes included renal function and mortality. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality scale were used to assess the quality of the cohort and cross-sectional studies, respectively. A funnel plot was used to identify publication bias. Results: Seventeen studies with a total of 4593 patients were finally included in the analysis. Among the 17 studies, 11 reported the mortality of CRF patients with low T3 and normal T3 levels. Subgroups were assigned according to different follow-up times and different methods of treatment. The mortality rate in the low T3 group was much higher than in the normal T3 group. 11 studies reported creatinine (Cr) results in patients with low T3 and normal T3 levels and our analysis found no significant differences between the two groups (95%CI: 0.46-0.25; P-heterogeneity = 0.000; P = 0.559). Five studies reported uric acid results and we found no significant differences between the two groups (95%CI: 0.08-0.22; P-heterogeneity = 0.438; P = 0.377). Five studies reported the urea levels in the two groups and our analysis found no significant differences (95%CI: 1.60-1.23; I2 = 0.0%; P-heterogeneity = 0.498;P = 0.798). Conclusion: Low T3 had a greater impact on the short-term prognosis of patients with CRF than on the long-term prognosis. NTIS did not cause substantial kidney damage.

BACKGROUND: Self-management programs may facilitate the improvement of outcomes in medical, role, and emotional management and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. Studies on the effect of three self-management tasks have reported conflicting findings. In addition, systematic reviews are unavailable. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of self-management programs on medical, role, and emotional management and health-related quality of life in chronic kidney disease. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. DATA SOURCES: The meta-analysis involved an online search of the English literature from PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CINAHL and the Chinese literature from the Airiti Library that were published from the inception of the websites until January 1, 2017. REVIEW METHODS: The meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of self-management on chronic kidney disease outcomes. Electronic databases were searched by using keywords: chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, renal failure, dialysis, self-management, self-efficacy, empowerment, cognitive behavioral, and educational. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software 2.0. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. The results revealed that the self-management program significantly enhanced the effects of self-management on outcomes of medical, role, and emotional management and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. The following Hedges' g (effect size) values were obtained: (1) interdialytic weight gain, -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.60 to -0.12, p<0.01); (2) self-efficacy, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.96, p<0.01); (3) anxiety, -0.95 (95% confidence interval, -1.65 to -0.25, p=0.01); (4) depression, -0.63 (95% confidence interval, -0.85 to -0.41, p<0.01) (5) health-related quality of life for the mental component of the SF-36, 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.97, p<0.01); (6) the physical component of the SF-36, 0.61 (95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.86, p<0.01); and (7) the Kidney Disease Quality of Life, 0.41 (95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.65, p<0.01). DISCUSSION: This study revealed a small effect of self-management on interdialytic weight gain; medium effects on self-efficacy, depression, and health-related quality of life; and a large effect on anxiety. However, high-quality randomized controlled trial designs are required to confirm these results, although the existing evidence can guide clinical practitioners and health policy makers.

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects ∼10% of the adult population. The majority of patients with CKD are managed by primary care physicians, and despite the availability of effective treatment options, the use of evidence-based interventions for CKD in this setting remains suboptimal. Clinical pathways have been identified as effective tools to guide primary care physicians in providing evidence-based care. We aimed to describe the availability, characteristics and credibility of clinical pathways for adult CKD using a scoping review methodology. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL and targeted Internet sites from inception to 31 October 2014 to identify studies and resources that identified adult CKD clinical pathways for primary care settings. Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Results: From 487 citations, 41 items were eligible for review: 7 published articles and 34 grey literature resources published between 2001 and 2014. Of the 41 clinical pathways, 32, 24 and 22% were from the UK, USA and Canada, respectively. The majority (66%, n = 31) of clinical pathways were static in nature (did not have an online interactive feature). The majority (76%) of articles/resources reported using one or more clinical practice guidelines as a resource to guide the clinical pathway content. Few articles described a dissemination and evaluation plan for the clinical pathway, but most reported the targeted end-users. Conclusions: Our scoping review synthesized available literature on CKD clinical pathways in the primary care setting. We found that existing clinical pathways are diverse in their design, content and implementation. These results can be used by researchers developing or testing new or existing clinical pathways and by practitioners and health system stakeholders who aim to implement CKD clinical pathways in clinical practice.