Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Am J Kidney Dis. 2010 May;55(5):773-99. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2010.02.340. Epub 2010 Apr 3.

KDOQI US commentary on the 2009 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of CKD-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD).

Author information

1
Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston MA, USA.

Abstract

This commentary provides a US perspective on the 2009 KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, Prevention, and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD). KDIGO is an independent international organization with the primary mission of the promotion, coordination, collaboration, and integration of initiatives to develop and implement clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with kidney disease. The National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI), recognizing that international guidelines need to be adapted for each country, convened a group of experts to comment on the application and implementation of the KDIGO guideline for patients with CKD in the United States. This commentary puts the KDIGO guideline into the context of the supporting evidence and the setting of care delivered in the United States and summarizes important differences between prior KDOQI guidelines and the newer KDIGO guideline. It also considers the potential impact of a new bundled payment system for dialysis clinics. The KDIGO guideline addresses the evaluation and treatment of abnormalities of CKD-MBD in adults and children with CKD stages 3-5 on long-term dialysis therapy or with a kidney transplant. Tests considered are those that relate to laboratory, bone, and cardiovascular abnormality detection and monitoring. Treatments considered are interventions to treat hyperphosphatemia, hyperparathyroidism, and bone disease in patients with CKD stages 3-5D and 1-5T. Limitations of the evidence are discussed. The lack of definitive clinical outcome trials explains why most recommendations are not of level 1 but of level 2 strength, which means weak or discretionary recommendations. Suggestions for future research highlight priority areas.

PMID:
20363541
DOI:
10.1053/j.ajkd.2010.02.340
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center