P0842MANAGEMENT OF RENAL RISK PATIENTS AND THERAPEUTIC CHANGES AFTER DIAGNOSIS OF KIDNEY DISEASE IN PRIMARY CARE. (6th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zitt, Emanuel; Sprenger-Mähr, Hannelore; Lhotta, Karl
• Is Part Of: Nephrology dialysis transplantation. Volume 35(2020)Supplement 3
• Publication Date: 2020-06-06
• Subjects: Nephrology -- Periodicals; Hemodialysis -- Periodicals; Kidneys -- Transplantation -- Periodicals; Hemodialysis; Kidneys -- Transplantation; Nephrology; Periodicals; 616.61
• DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfaa142.P0842
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0931-0509

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Aims: Screening for chronic kidney disease (CKD) is proposed in high risk groups. Whether a new CKD diagnosis in general practice leads to improved patient management, is largely unknown. Method: To answer this question and evaluate the kidney disease specific pharmacological care in renal risk patients, a screening study in patients at high risk for kidney disease was performed in the primary care setting in ten general practices in the state of Vorarlberg, Austria. General practitioners were provided with guidelines for the management of CKD with a focus on blood pressure control, RAS inhibition and use of statins. Results: In total, 434 patients between age 35 and 77 were included (61% males, mean age 56±7 years, eGFR 86±15 ml/min, body mass index 31±6 kg/m, blood pressure 135±16/83±10 mmHg), of whom 80% had hypertension, 43% had diabetes and 42% were obese. RAS-blockers were already taken by 64% of patients, statins by 39%. A diagnosis of CKD (stage ≥G3 and/or ≥A2) was established in 73 patients (17%), 60% of them had diabetes. Compared to patients without CKD, CKD patients were already treated more often with RAS-blockers (78% vs 61%, p=0.005), whereas statin usage was comparable (44% vs 38%, p=0.3347). After CKD diagnosis, medical therapy was changed in 13 patients (18%). A RAS-blocker was initiated in two out of the 16 patients without a preexisting RAS-blocker (12.5%), the dosage was increased in one patient. Antihypertensive therapy was intensified adding amlodipine in seven patients (10%), and a statin was begun in six (15%) out of 41 statin-naive patients. In those without CKD after the screening, therapy was changed in 40 patients (11%). Compared to patients with CKD, fewer patients started a statin therapy (5% vs 15%, p=0.012) and were additionally treated with amlodipine (3% vs 10%, p=0.021) to optimize blood pressure control. Conclusion: This study shows that in the primary care setting a great proportion of CKD patients are already on RAS-blockers, whereas the prescription rate for statins is low. A diagnosis of CKD led to a moderate increase in statin therapy, which leaves further opportunity for improvement. The reasons for this rather low use of statins in CKD patients need to be determined.