MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CKD-CHECK (CKD-CHECK EGFR Chart in Kidney disease) is a toolkit that was developed to auto-generate patients' eGFR trend using a line graph, displaying the trend visually over a year. It identifies patients with rapid CKD progression, triggers the doctors to order appropriate tests (proteinuria quantification or renal imaging) and helps in decision making (continued monitoring at primary care level or referral to nephrologist). The toolkit was piloted among medical officers practising in a hospital-based primary care clinic treating patients with eGFR<60ml/min/1.73m2 using an interventional before-after study design from February to May 2022. In the preintervention period, the CKD patients were managed based on standard practice. The doctors then used the CKDCHECK toolkit on the same group of CKD patients during the intervention period. The feasibility and acceptability of the toolkit was assessed at the end of the study period using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) questionnaires. All patients' clinical data and referral rate were collected retrospectively through medical files and electronic data systems. Comparison between the pre- and post-intervention group were analysed using paired t-test and McNemar test, with statistical significance p value of <0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 25 medical officers used the toolkit on 60 CKD patients. The medical officers found the CKD-CHECK toolkit to be highly acceptable and feasible in primary care setting. The baseline characteristics of the patients were a mean age of 72 years old, predominantly females and Chinese ethnicity. Majority of the CKD patients had diabetes mellitus, hypertension and dyslipidemia. The numbers of CKD rapid progressors was similar (26.7% in the preintervention group vs 33.3% in the post-intervention group). There were no significant differences in terms of proteinuria assessment and ultrasound kidney for CKD rapid progressors before and after the intervention. However, a significant number of CKD rapid progressors were referred to nephrologists after the use of CKD-CHECK toolkit (p=0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: CKD-CHECK toolkit is acceptable and feasible to be used in primary care. Preliminary findings show that the CKD-CHECK toolkit improved the primary care doctor's referral of rapid CKD progressors to nephrologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-arm prospective cohort study was conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 categories 2 and 3 treated with Paxlovid® and a matched control group. A standard risk-stratified scoring system was used to establish Paxlovid® eligibility. All patients who were prescribed Paxlovid® and took at least one dose of Paxlovid® were included in the study. The control patients were selected from a centralised COVID-19 patient registry and matched based on age, gender and COVID-19 stage severity.
RESULTS: A total of 552 subjects were included in the study and evenly allocated to the treatment and control groups. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalisation after diagnosis [Paxlovid®: 26 (9.4%), Control: 34 (12.3%), OR: 0.74; 95%CI, 0.43-1.27; p=0.274] or all-cause death [Paxlovid®: 2 (0.7%), Control: 3 (1.1%), OR 1.51; 95%CI, 0.25-9.09; p=0.999]. There was no significant reduction in hospitalisation duration, intensive care unit admission events or supplementary oxygen requirement in the treatment arm. Ethnicity, COVID-19 severity at diagnosis, comorbidities and vaccination status were predictors of hospitalisation events.
CONCLUSION: In this two-arm study, Paxlovid® did not significantly lower the incidence of hospitalisation, all-cause death and the need for supplemental oxygen. Adverse effects were frequent but not severe. Paxlovid® efficacy varied across settings and populations, warranting further real-world investigations.