National strategies for addressing chronic kidney disease (CKD) are crucial to improving kidney health. We sought to describe country-level variations in non-communicable disease (NCD) strategies and CKD-specific policies across different regions and income levels worldwide. The International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) was a multinational cross-sectional survey conducted between July and October 2018. Responses from key opinion leaders in each country regarding national NCD strategies, the presence and scope of CKD-specific policies, and government recognition of CKD as a health priority were described overall and according to region and income level. 160 countries participated in the GKHA survey, comprising 97.8% of the world's population. Seventy-four (47%) countries had an established national NCD strategy, and 53 (34%) countries reported the existence of CKD-specific policies, with substantial variation across regions and income levels. Where CKD-specific policies existed, non-dialysis CKD care was variably addressed. 79 (51%) countries identified government recognition of CKD as a health priority. Low- and low-middle income countries were less likely to have strategies and policies for addressing CKD and have governments which recognise it as a health priority. The existence of CKD-specific policies, and a national NCD strategy more broadly, varied substantially across different regions around the world but was overall suboptimal, with major discrepancies between the burden of CKD in many countries and governmental recognition of CKD as a health priority. Greater recognition of CKD within national health policy is critical to improving kidney healthcare globally.

• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

BACKGROUND: Health information systems (HIS) are fundamental tools for the surveillance of health services, estimation of disease burden and prioritization of health resources. Several gaps in the availability of HIS for kidney disease were highlighted by the first iteration of the Global Kidney Health Atlas. METHODS: As part of its second iteration, the International Society of Nephrology conducted a cross-sectional global survey between July and October 2018 to explore the coverage and scope of HIS for kidney disease, with a focus on kidney replacement therapy (KRT). RESULTS: Out of a total of 182 invited countries, 154 countries responded to questions on HIS (85% response rate). KRT registries were available in almost all high-income countries, but few low-income countries, while registries for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) or acute kidney injury (AKI) were rare. Registries in high-income countries tended to be national, in contrast to registries in low-income countries, which often operated at local or regional levels. Although cause of end-stage kidney disease, modality of KRT and source of kidney transplant donors were frequently reported, few countries collected data on patient-reported outcome measures and only half of low-income countries recorded process-based measures. Almost no countries had programs to detect AKI and practices to identify CKD-targeted individuals with diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, rather than members of high-risk ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm significant heterogeneity in the global availability of HIS for kidney disease and highlight important gaps in their coverage and scope, especially in low-income countries and across the domains of AKI, non-dialysis CKD, patient-reported outcomes, process-based measures and quality indicators for KRT service delivery.

• MeSH
• Renal Insufficiency, Chronic * epidemiology   therapy   MeSH
• Kidney MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
• Developing Countries MeSH
• Health Information Systems * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Hemodialysis (HD) is the most common form of kidney replacement therapy. This study aimed to examine the use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care worldwide. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders (clinicians, policy makers, and consumer representatives) in 182 countries were convened by the International Society of Nephrology from July to September 2018. OUTCOMES: Use, availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality of HD care. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, representatives from 160 (88%) countries participated. Median country-specific use of maintenance HD was 298.4 (IQR, 80.5-599.4) per million population (pmp). Global median HD use among incident patients with kidney failure was 98.0 (IQR, 81.5-140.8) pmp and median number of HD centers was 4.5 (IQR, 1.2-9.9) pmp. Adequate HD services (3-4 hours 3 times weekly) were generally available in 27% of low-income countries. Home HD was generally available in 36% of high-income countries. 32% of countries performed monitoring of patient-reported outcomes; 61%, monitoring of small-solute clearance; 60%, monitoring of bone mineral markers; 51%, monitoring of technique survival; and 60%, monitoring of patient survival. At initiation of maintenance dialysis, only 5% of countries used an arteriovenous access in almost all patients. Vascular access education was suboptimal, funding for vascular access procedures was not uniform, and copayments were greater in countries with lower levels of income. Patients in 23% of the low-income countries had to pay >75% of HD costs compared with patients in only 4% of high-income countries. LIMITATIONS: A cross-sectional survey with possibility of response bias, social desirability bias, and limited data collection preventing in-depth analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, findings reveal substantial variations in global HD use, availability, accessibility, quality, and affordability worldwide, with the lowest use evident in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

• MeSH
• Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical MeSH
• Kidney Failure, Chronic therapy   MeSH
• Renal Dialysis * MeSH
• Health Services Accessibility MeSH
• Patient Reported Outcome Measures MeSH
• Internationality * MeSH
• Quality of Health Care MeSH
• Practice Patterns, Physicians' * MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Costs and Cost Analysis MeSH
• Nephrology MeSH
• Cost Sharing MeSH
• Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
• Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
• Developing Countries MeSH
• Transportation of Patients MeSH
• Health Expenditures MeSH
• Developed Countries MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Approximately 11% of people with kidney failure worldwide are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study examined PD use and practice patterns across the globe. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders including clinicians, policy makers, and patient representatives in 182 countries convened by the International Society of Nephrology between July and September 2018. OUTCOMES: PD use, availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were received from 88% (n=160) of countries and there were 313 participants (257 nephrologists [82%], 22 non-nephrologist physicians [7%], 6 other health professionals [2%], 17 administrators/policy makers/civil servants [5%], and 11 others [4%]). 85% (n=156) of countries responded to questions about PD. Median PD use was 38.1 per million population. PD was not available in 30 of the 156 (19%) countries responding to PD-related questions, particularly in countries in Africa (20/41) and low-income countries (15/22). In 69% of countries, PD was the initial dialysis modality for≤10% of patients with newly diagnosed kidney failure. Patients receiving PD were expected to pay 1% to 25% of treatment costs, and higher (>75%) copayments (out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients) were more common in South Asia and low-income countries. Average exchange volumes were adequate (defined as 3-4 exchanges per day or the equivalent for automated PD) in 72% of countries. PD quality outcome monitoring and reporting were variable. Most countries did not measure patient-reported PD outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Low responses from policy makers; limited ability to provide more in-depth explanations underpinning outcomes from each country due to lack of granular data; lack of objective data. CONCLUSIONS: Large inter- and intraregional disparities exist in PD availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures around the world, with the greatest gaps observed in Africa and South Asia.

• MeSH
• Kidney Failure, Chronic therapy   MeSH
• Health Services Accessibility * MeSH
• Patient Reported Outcome Measures MeSH
• Outcome Assessment, Health Care MeSH
• Internationality * MeSH
• Quality of Health Care MeSH
• Physicians MeSH
• Practice Patterns, Physicians' * MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Costs and Cost Analysis MeSH
• Nephrology MeSH
• Nephrologists MeSH
• Peritoneal Dialysis * MeSH
• Cost Sharing MeSH
• Delivery of Health Care MeSH
• Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
• Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
• Developing Countries MeSH
• Administrative Personnel MeSH
• Health Expenditures MeSH
• Developed Countries MeSH
• Health Policy MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH

OBJECTIVES: The Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) is a multinational, cross-sectional survey designed to assess the current capacity for kidney care across all world regions. The 2017 GKHA involved 125 countries and identified significant gaps in oversight, funding and infrastructure to support care for patients with kidney disease, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Here, we report results from the survey for the second iteration of the GKHA conducted in 2018, which included specific questions about health financing and oversight of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care worldwide. SETTING: A cross-sectional global survey. PARTICIPANTS: Key stakeholders from 182 countries were invited to participate. Of those, stakeholders from 160 countries participated and were included. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes included cost of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), funding for dialysis and transplantation, funding for conservative kidney management, extent of universal health coverage, out-of-pocket costs for KRT, within-country variability in ESKD care delivery and oversight systems for ESKD care. Outcomes were determined from a combination of desk research and input from key stakeholders in participating countries. RESULTS: 160 countries (covering 98% of the world's population) responded to the survey. Economic factors were identified as the top barrier to optimal ESKD care in 99 countries (64%). Full public funding for KRT was more common than for conservative kidney management (43% vs 28%). Among countries that provided at least some public coverage for KRT, 75% covered all citizens. Within-country variation in ESKD care delivery was reported in 40% of countries. Oversight of ESKD care was present in all high-income countries but was absent in 13% of low-income, 3% of lower-middle-income, and 10% of upper-middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Significant gaps and variability exist in the public funding and oversight of ESKD care in many countries, particularly for those in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

• MeSH
• Kidney Failure, Chronic * therapy   MeSH
• Renal Dialysis * MeSH
• Health Services Accessibility MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
• Developing Countries MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

• MeSH
• Autophagy * physiology   MeSH
• Autophagosomes MeSH
• Biomarkers MeSH
• Biological Assay standards   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Lysosomes MeSH
• Autophagy-Related Proteins metabolism   MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural MeSH
• Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. MeSH
• Guideline MeSH

• Publication type
• Textbook MeSH

• Conspectus
• Patologie. Klinická medicína
• NML Fields
• vnitřní lékařství
• NML Publication type
• kolektivní monografie

• MeSH
• Autophagy * physiology   MeSH
• Biological Assay methods   standards   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Computer Simulation MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural MeSH
• Guideline MeSH