Int J Med Sci 2021; 18(9):1975-1979. doi:10.7150/ijms.53189 This issue
Can a multidisciplinary approach slow renal progression in CKD patients?
1. Department of Adult Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002 Thailand.
2. Research and Training Center for Enhancing Quality of Life of Working Age People, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
3. Department of Medicine, Chumpae Hospital, Khon Kaen, 40002Thailand.
4. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002 Thailand.
5. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002 Thailand.
Theeranut A, Methakanjanasak N, Surit P, Srina J, Sirivongs D, Adisuksodsai D, Lertsinudom S, Sawanyawisuth K. Can a multidisciplinary approach slow renal progression in CKD patients?. Int J Med Sci 2021; 18(9):1975-1979. doi:10.7150/ijms.53189. Available from https://www.medsci.org/v18p1975.htm
Background: Several randomized controlled trials have examined the benefits of multidisciplinary CKD care on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). But, the results are inconclusive.
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether or not multidisciplinary CKD care was beneficial in terms of CKD progression.
Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial and conducted at community hospital, Thailand. The inclusion criteria were patients with age of 18 years or older and diagnosed with up to stage 3b CKD based on the KDIGO guidelines. Eligible patients divided into two groups: intervention and control group. The intervention group received a type of multidisciplinary treatment, while patients in the control group received the standard treatment administered at the outpatient clinic. The primary outcome was eGFR outcomes at three months after enrollment.
Results: During the study period, there were 334 patients who met the study criteria. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: intervention (166 patients; 49.70%) and control (168 patients; 50.30%). There were three outcomes that differed significantly between the two groups at 3 months: mean difference of eGFR from baseline, proportion of patients with eGFR decline greater than 4 mL/min/1.73 m2, and difference in CKD stage from baseline. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the intervention group experienced CKD improvement by one stage (24.10% vs 5.95%), and a significantly lower percentage experienced decline by one stage (8.43% vs 35.12%) than in the control group.
Conclusion: Slower renal progression in patients with up to stage 3b CKD was shown in patients who were treated by a multidisciplinary approach.
Keywords: CKD, education, glomerular filtration rate.