Literature DB >> 35675292

Chronic kidney disease causes and outcomes in children: Perspective from a LMIC setting.

Farhana Amanullah1, Amyn A Malik2,3, Zafar Zaidi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) constitutes a major public health challenge, with a global prevalence of 15-74.7 cases /million children. Preventing CKD in children, slowing its progression and management of complications are essential, especially in challenged health systems in low middle income countries (LMIC). We conducted a retrospective review to assess the underlying cause and stage of CKD at presentation and clinical outcomes in children and adolescents at the Indus Hospital and Health Network (IHHN) in Karachi, Pakistan.
METHODS: Children 0-16 years with CKD stage 1 and/or higher at presentation were included. Data including demographics, clinical status and lab results at presentation and during follow-up, surgical intervention if any, kidney function at last visit and outcome at last follow-up was recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 229 children diagnosed with CKD are included in our study. The median age at diagnosis was 10 years with male: female ratio of 1.8:1. Only 5% children presented in stage 1 CKD. The rate of adverse outcomes is 4.5 times higher in children with CKD stage 3-5 compared to early CKD. Congenital anomaly of kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT) was the underlying cause in 49% children. Children with glomerular disease had comparatively worse outcome. Proteinuria, hypertension, anemia and bone disease were associated with high morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSION: The true epidemiology of childhood CKD is unknown in Pakistan. Our cohort showed better CKD outcomes in children diagnosed early with appropriate surgical and medical follow-up. Prompt diagnosis, treatment and prevention of progression can be life-saving in our setting. CKD registry data can inform policy changes that can prevent poor outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35675292      PMCID: PMC9176774          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269632

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.752


Introduction

Independent of the initial cause, CKD is a clinical syndrome characterized by a gradual irreversible loss of kidney function that can further progress to end stage kidney disease (ESRD) [1]. CKD is a major public health problem worldwide with a global adult prevalence of 8–18% [2, 3] and a pediatric prevalence of 15–74.7 cases per million children [4]. Registry data from European countries shows CKD prevalence of 56–96 per million children [5]. Very little is known about its true burden in children particularly in low resource settings. ESRD is a devastating disorder associated with high morbidity and mortality. Childhood CKD presents clinical features such as growth failure and psychosocial issues that significantly impact quality of life. Cardiovascular complications secondary to CKD lead to morbidity in young adulthood [6]. The real impact of CKD in children in developing countries is unknown as most children in early stages remain undiagnosed and many others die without accessing renal replacement therapy (RRT) which is expensive and difficult to implement in children without the necessary health worker capacity and health systems setup, apart from select tertiary centers. Children with CKD pose unique challenges to the health system and their providers who must address the primary kidney disorder as well as the many extra-renal manifestations that complicate management [5]. In Pakistan as in other developing countries, a majority of children with CKD present in late stages and ESRD which comprises an age specific mortality rate for children that is 30–150 times higher than for healthy children even in developed countries [7]. According to the International Pediatric Nephrology Association’s (IPNA) Renal Replacement Therapy Registry, of the 23000 children on chronic dialysis in 2018, 246 children were registered dialysis patients from Pakistani centers [8]. Centers providing pediatric hemodialysis are limited to four major cities (personal communication), resulting in access barriers for children who live in remote locations and require twice weekly hemodialysis. Pakistan ranked 7th highest in terms of number of children on hemodialysis [9]. There is no national pediatric CKD registry in Pakistan and little is known about the epidemiology, risk factors and underlying causes of this potentially devastating condition to inform public health policy makers. Prevention of CKD and its progression in low resource settings will not only save lives but also improve health outcomes and save precious resources. This study is designed to assess demographics, underlying cause of CKD, clinical stage at presentation, and the association of the underlying cause and stage with clinical outcomes among children registered in the pediatric CKD clinic at The Indus Hospital (TIH) in Karachi, where all services are provided free of cost. We hope to develop a comprehensive program that can be replicated in sites across the Indus Hospital and Health Network (IHHN) to provide patient centered quality care of this complicated condition.

Methods

Children 0–16 years who presented to TIH with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60 ml/min/1.73 2 (estimated using modified Schwartz formula 0.413xheight (cm)/serum creatinine) [10] or lower, CKD stage 1 or higher at presentation (and at a subsequent visit) between 2008 and 2019 were included in this study. Data was collected from the digital hospital management information system (HMIS) patient records, retrospectively. Baseline demographics, clinical status and laboratory data at presentation, including blood pressure (BP), growth parameters, anemia status baseline and during follow-up and kidney function (serum creatinine) at last visit (2019) were recorded. Final outcomes including stable in follow-up, death, dialysis (RRT) and lost to follow-up were also recorded. For children with a congenital anomaly of the kidney or urinary tract or stone disease, the surgical procedure done was also recorded. All data was fully anonymized at time of data extraction.

Analysis

Data was collected on Microsoft Excel. We computed frequency of the stage of CKD at presentation and outcomes of patient. Chi square tests were used to analyze the factors associated with poor outcomes. Kaplan Meier (KM) curves and Cox Proportional Hazard Model were used to analyze time to outcome for early stage vs late stage CKD. Data analysis was done using Stata (StataCorp. 2019. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.).

Ethics approval

As the study was a retrospective medical chart review, ethics approval and requirement for informed consent was waived by the institutional review board (IRB) of Interactive Research and Development (IRD).

Inclusion criteria

Any child/adolescent 0–16 years of age diagnosed with CKD and followed at the Indus Hospital pediatric nephrology and urology clinic from 2008–2019.

Exclusion criteria

Children with Acute kidney injury that reverted to normal kidney function during follow-up.

Definitions

CKD stages in children were defined as follows- [11] Stage 1. Kidney damage with a normal or increased GFR (>90 mL/min per 1.73 m2) Stage 2. Mild reduction in the GFR (60 to 89 mL/min per 1.73 m2) Stage 3. Moderate reduction in the GFR (30 to 59 mL/min per 1.73 m2 Stage 4. Severe reduction in the GFR (15 to 29 mL/min per 1.73 m2) Stage 5. Kidney failure (GFR <15 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or dialysis) Early CKD. Stages 1 and 2 Late CKD/ESRD. Stages 3, 4 and 5 CAKUT. Congenital anomalies of kidney and urinary tract. This category includes obstructive uropathy and reflux nephropathy. Glomerular diseases. Associated with hematuria, proteinuria, hypertension and/or renal dysfunction. This category includes glomerulonephritis and glomerulosclerosis. Cystic disease. Multiple diseases that consist of renal cysts including autosomal recessive and dominant polycystic kidney disease (ARPKD and ADPKD), juvenile nephronophthisis (JNPHP), multicystic dysplastic kidney (MCDK) Anemia. Hemoglobin <11 g/dl and hematocrit <33% [12]. Mineral bone disorder (MBD). A disorder of mineral and bone metabolism due to CKD that is manifested by either one or a combination of the following 1) abnormalities of calcium, phosphorous, PTH or vitamin D metabolism 2) abnormalities in bone histology, linear growth or strength 3) vascular or soft tissue calcification [13]. Growth failure. Height less than the third percentile for age or a height standard deviation score (SDS) more negative than -1.88 [14].

Results

There are a total of 229 children 0–16 years who presented with some degree of persistent kidney dysfunction, were diagnosed with CKD and included in our study. The median age at diagnosis was 10 years (with an IQR of 5–13 years). The median age at outcome was 13 years (with an IQR of 9–15 years). Gender analysis showed that 64.2% children (147/229) were boys with a male to female ratio of 1.8:1. Non- glomerular disease accounted for the most common underlying condition leading to CKD in our cohort (79%) (Table 1) Whereas glomerular disease was the underlying condition in 15% children and in 5.7% children the underlying renal disease could not be identified. CAKUT was the most common cause of CKD in our cohort (49%) with the most common conditions being obstructive uropathy (23.5%, n = 54) and reflux nephropathy (19%, n = 44) (Table 1)
Table 1

Underlying diagnosis among children presenting with CKD.

Underlying CauseDiagnosisN%
Non glomerular (n: 182/229, 79%)CAKUT11249

VUR

4419

Obstructive uropathy

5423.5

UTIs

125
Hypoplastic/dysplastic kidneys229.6
Stone disease4017.5
Cystic disease83.5
Glomerular diseaseGlomerular disease3415
Unknown135.7
VUR Obstructive uropathy UTIs Most children presented in stages 3–5 of CKD (n = 166; 72.5%) with only 5% (n = 12) presenting in stage 1. Less than a third of the children in our cohort presented in stage 1–2 combined (Table 2).
Table 2

CKD stage at presentation.

CKD stage at presentationN%
1125.2
25122.3
36227.1
45423.6
55021.8
Analysis of overall outcomes showed that of the cohort only 46.3% children were in stable clinical and or surgical follow-up at the end of the study. Children with poor renal outcomes include 18% on dialysis (although their final outcome at the dialysis facility was not known at the time of study completion). Children lost to follow-up were 25.8% and confirmed dead were 10% (Table 3). We found that 65% (73/112) children presented in earlier CKD, underwent urologic surgery and had a renal survival of 90% (66/73) at 10-year follow-up. Another important finding was that among the children with posterior urethral valves (PUV) (n = 34) that is known to be associated with poorer outcomes, even though 70.5% presented with an eGFR 30 ml/min/1.73m2 and lower, 62% had stable dialysis free outcomes long term.
Table 3

Outcome at final follow-up among children who presented with CKD.

OutcomesN%
Stable in follow-up10646.3
On RRT (dialysis)4118
Lost to follow-up5925.8
Died2310
We compared early CKD stages (1 and 2) with later CKD stages/ ESRD (3, 4 and 5) to evaluate the difference in outcomes if any and created a Kaplan Meier (KM) curve which showed that survival in the first 6 months was similar between the two groups (0.96 vs 0.81) with a sharper drop in the later CKD stages and a survival at 2nd year of 0.91 vs 0.67. The survival rate in the later CKD cohort dropped to nearly half that of the earlier CKD cohort by the 4th year of follow-up (0.90 vs 0.60; Fig 1). The incidence rate of death and loss to follow-up among those with early CKD was 3/100 person years compared to the later stages 16/100 person years.
Fig 1

Survival curve of children with early stages of CKD compared to those with later stages (ESRD).

Children with glomerular disease leading to CKD had the worst outcomes (death or loss to follow-up) compared to children diagnosed with CAKUT who had the most favorable outcomes. Children with stone disease (50% of whom presented in later stages of CKD) had intermediate outcomes (Fig 2).
Fig 2

Survival curves for each underlying disease category in the cohort.

The rate of adverse outcome (death or dialysis) is 4.5 times higher (95% CI: 2.3–8.7) in children with late CKD/ESRD as compared to early CKD after adjusting for age and sex (Table 4). Hazards ratio for age was statistically significant as older age at diagnosis was found to be associated with higher rates of adverse outcomes (Table 4).
Table 4

Unadjusted and adjusted results from Cox Proportional Hazard Model for death or dialysis in patients diagnosed with late CKD/ESRD compared to early CKD.

UnadjustedAdjusted
HR95%CIHR95%CI
Late CKD/ESRD5.22.7–10.04.52.3–8.7
Sex (Male)0.610.35–1.10.780.44–1.4
Age (1 year)1.11.1–1.21.11.0–1.2
Hypertension prevalence was 37% overall increasing to 73% among children in later CKD stages 3–5. Similarly, children with CKD stages 3–5 had an anemia prevalence of 81% (n = 48/64) compared to 33% (n = 52/165) in the earlier CKD group (Table 5). Presence of proteinuria, hypertension, anemia, and mineral bone disorder were statistically significantly associated with adverse outcomes.
Table 5

Prevalence of manifestations of late-stage CKD in our cohort.

CKD 3–5
Risk FactorsYesNoTotal
n (%)n (%)
N = 64N = 165
Proteinuria (N = 210)33 (58.9)39 (25.3)72
HTN (N = 215)45 (72.6)37 (23.6)82
MBD (N = 219)38 (67.9)55 (34.6)93
Anemia (N = 219)48 (81.4)52 (32.5)100
Growth Failure (N = 218)50 (86.2)120 (55.0)170

Discussion

The most important finding of our 10-year experience is that delayed presentation at CKD stage 3–5 significantly increases the hazard of poor renal outcomes and mortality. Delayed recognition of CKD mostly results in poor clinical outcomes and significant economic burden on limited health resources. Almost half the children in our CKD cohort had a congenital anomaly of the kidney and urinary tract as the underlying cause. Although this has been shown from most registry data from developed countries, a possible reason for this finding in our study from a developing country regional center is that the Indus Hospital is a tertiary care referral center with an active pediatric urology service well integrated with nephrology services. CAKUT are common causes of CKD in children, representing 53% of the diagnoses in the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children (CKiD) study as well as the most common cause in the North American Pediatrics Renal Transplant Cooperative study (NAPRTCs) data [15]. The most important conditions in this category in the CKiD data consist of obstructive uropathy (20%) and reflux nephropathy (15%), similar to our cohort. An Indian study from 2017 that reported obstructive uropathy (15%) reflux nephropathy and neurogenic bladder (32%) as the most common causes [16]. Similar findings of predominance of CAKUT are also seen in, the ItalKid Project and the ESCAPE trial [5, 17] as well as a Japanese CKD survey in children where CAKUT represented 68% causes of CKD in children [18]. Our cohort had 15% children with glomerular causes underlying their CKD, very similar to an Indian study that was also set in a tertiary care setting [16]. Interestingly in an Iranian study with 244 children glomerular disorders accounted for 35.2% of CKD and a study from Nigeria reported 90% prevalence of glomerular diseases among children with CKD. The authors described high infection rates resulting in glomerular diseases and lack of routine prenatal imaging and capacity to detect congenital urologic anomalies as the cause of low prevalence of CAKUT in this group [16]. Additionally urologic anomalies often have subtle initial symptoms that care givers may not notice. This is in contrast to glomerular disease where symptoms (hematuria, edema, oliguria) prompt care givers to seek earlier care. An exclusive renal disease center in Karachi receives the bulk of renal emergencies, which could be a reason for lower glomerular disease prevalence in our cohort. In one study this renal center found that 63.8% (74/116) of renal emergencies in children were due to glomerular disease, also notable was nearly 40% poor renal outcomes (CKD, ESRD and death) in this group [19]. A significant proportion (17.5%) of children in our cohort had urolithiasis. Kidney stones, unfortunately, are a leading cause of renal failure in Pakistan and an increase in renal stone prevalence in children and adults has been noted worldwide [20-23]. The Indus Hospital has a large patient catchment area and provides free of charge services to all patients making it a tertiary care hospital of choice for complicated urolithiasis patients especially children and those requiring multispecialty care. In a study from a major renal center in Pakistan, 67% (n = 242/360) patients with stones presented with renal dysfunction and 32% had poor outcomes (dialysis and death). The same center reported that 20% of children who had renal transplants developed ESRD from stone disease [24]. The prevalence of hypertension is tenfold higher with CKD compared to the general pediatric population and is known to increase as children progress through the stages of CKD, so by the time children are on dialysis, 70% will be hypertensive [25]. In our CKD cohort we found a hypertension prevalence of 37% and the prevalence increased to 73% among children in later CKD stages 3–5. The overall prevalence is lower compared to NAPRTCS where 50% children with CKD were hypertensive and CKiD that showed 54% of participants had hypertension at enrolment [26, 27]. As no child had ambulatory BPs performed we do not have estimates of masked or undiagnosed hypertension in this population which may have been high [28]. Presence of hypertension was associated with poorer outcomes in our CKD population. We found an anemia prevalence of 81% in our late CKD cohort (compared to 33% in the earlier CKD group) and a significant association with dialysis and death. NAPRTCs reports an anemia prevalence of 73% at stage 3 CKD, 87% at stage 4 and >93% at stage 5 [29]. Anemia is known to be a risk factor for poor outcomes including poor growth, neurocognitive problems and is an independent predictor of mortality in adolescents on hemodialysis [30, 31]. An evaluation of overall outcomes showed that only 46% children (82% of whom had non-glomerular CKD) in our cohort were doing well in stable follow-up. More than half the children had poorer renal and possibly survival outcomes, highlighting the terminal nature of childhood ESRD in our setting where services are limited and are not available closer to patient’s homes. Even though mortality was 10% we expect the 25% lost to follow-up also had poor outcomes. CAKUT are the most common cause of ESRD in children but have a very heterogeneous course, with severely affected newborns progressing to ESRD very early on but in most children who are properly managed renal function improves and remains stable at least till puberty [32]. An important finding of our study is that in a pediatric urology referral center such as ours, prompt referral, diagnosis and integrated management (including urologic surgery) may have helped improve outcomes in the non-glomerular/ urologic CKD group. Our finding of 62% of those with PUV having stable dialysis free outcomes long term compares favorably to some studies in literature that found poorer outcomes in PUV-CKD associated with a high nadir creatinine among other variables [33, 34]. In our cohort renal stones are associated with poorer renal survival likely due to late CKD (70%) presentation. Stone disease is a preventable cause of CKD and is not a recognized cause of renal failure in developed countries. Renal stone disease requires urgent public health attention for prevention and early detection in Pakistan, particularly in rural settings. In our cohort, presence of proteinuria, hypertension, anemia and mineral bone disorder at baseline were statistically significantly associated with poorer renal survival and mortality. It has been shown that especially among glomerular patients, higher levels of proteinuria, hypertension and persistent anemia are significantly associated with CKD progression [35]. Our findings can serve to indicate targets for specific interventions in our population to improve renal outcomes. Children with growth failure accounted for 78% of the CKD cohort which is much higher than that reported by NAPRTCS (35%). Although there is some correlation between kidney function and poor growth, marked growth retardation is seen at all levels of kidney function in the NAPRTCS registry. Growth failure requires optimum nutrition and expensive growth hormone treatment which is often absent in our setting [36]. To our knowledge, this is the first study from Pakistan to document the epidemiology of CKD in children and associated risk factors for progression. We were able to follow up 74% of all children registered in the program to provide 10-year outcomes and calculate the associated hazard for CKD presentation at baseline. Our study has some limitations. This is a retrospective study and hence we were not able to explore all associated risk factors due to incomplete or missing data. The study is based in an urban tertiary referral center and hence findings may not be generalizable to the entire population.

Conclusions

The diagnosis of CKD is linked with a constant risk of progression, a steady decline in kidney function over time to the point of end stage kidneys requiring expensive and challenging renal replacement therapies and high risk of mortality. Further complications of CKD compromise the overall well-being of the child. Early identification of common causes of CKD in children including CAKUT and renal stones is associated with improved renal and overall survival. Our study helps highlight the need for a National childhood CKD registry and public health measures to enhance early diagnosis, management and prevention of progression of CKD In children.

Questionnaire-inclusivity_CKD in children.

(DOCX) Click here for additional data file. 18 Feb 2022
PONE-D-21-33769
Chronic kidney disease causes and outcomes in children: perspective from a LMIC setting.
PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Amyn Abdul Malik Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 31 March 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rajendra Bhimma, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscrip 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Dr. Amyn Abdul Malik PONE-D-21-33769: Chronic kidney disease causes and outcomes in children: perspective from a LMIC setting. Thank you for your submission of the above manuscript. It has been reviewed and there are a few concerns raised by the reviewers that need to be addressed. Please respond to these as soon as possible. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. The paper is a retrospective review of 229 children who presented in various stages of CKD. The introduction adequately sets the background for the study and the method used is appropriate for the report. The findings are in keeping with previously published work and highlight the importance of early presentation to prognosis. The discussion contextualises the results well and the conclusions are inciteful. I would suggest that the paper be accepted for publication but that a few minor changes are made as follows: The Introduction • The statement starting on Line 71 needs referencing • The statement starting on Line 75 is unclear as to its meaning and needs to be rephrased and referenced The Discussion • The sentence beginning on Line 233 does not read well and is too long. It should be rephrased • The sentence starting on Line 242 does not read well and needs to be rephrased • The sentence starting on Line 266 has a full stop in error between the word “cohort” and the word “which” (Line 267) and “which” should be spelt with a small case w The Tables • I am not sure that the title of Table 5 is correct. I think that the features mentioned would be regarded as manifestations of, rather than risk factors for, late-stage CKD Reviewer #2: The study is relevant and informative. A letter from the institution allowing the use of anonymized data would strengthen the ethical standards required for the paper. There is a valid rationale for the study. Research questions are plainly identified and acceptable but the research question should mention a comparison between early and late stage chronic kidney disease as well as a comparison of glomerular and non-glomerular disease. These important comparisons are provided in the results. The protocol was technically sound and well planned. The outcome was valid and the stated hypothesis was adequately tested. However, results from the analysis are mentioned under discussion and should be fully reassigned to the results section before they can be discussed later. The discussion should also make methodical reference to the results obtained. The data is available for scrutiny. The methodology is feasible and can likely be reproduced and replicated. The statistical analysis appear valid. Overall an insightful study that adds to the existing body of knowledge. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Cecil Levy Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
15 Mar 2022 March 1, 2022 Dear Dr. Bhimma We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your careful review of this manuscript and the insightful comments to help improve our work. We have attempted to address all the concerns that have been raised. We believe that the manuscript is stronger as a result. Please see our point-by-point responses below. As this is review of medical records for which requirement for informed consent was waived, data can be accessed upon email to the corresponding author and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of IRD at irb@ird.global. On behalf of the authorship team, Amyn Malik Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting paper. The paper is a retrospective review of 229 children who presented in various stages of CKD. The introduction adequately sets the background for the study and the method used is appropriate for the report. The findings are in keeping with previously published work and highlight the importance of early presentation to prognosis. The discussion contextualises the results well and the conclusions are inciteful. Authors: We appreciate your insightful comments on our work and thank you for your time to review it. I would suggest that the paper be accepted for publication but that a few minor changes are made as follows: The Introduction • The statement starting on Line 71 needs referencing Authors: Reference to the online registry maintained by International Pediatric Nephrology Association (IPNA) has been added. • The statement starting on Line 75 is unclear as to its meaning and needs to be rephrased and referenced Authors: We have rephrased and referenced this statement as follows: “Pakistan ranked 7th highest in terms of number of children on hemodialysis.(9)” The Discussion • The sentence beginning on Line 233 does not read well and is too long. It should be rephrased Authors: Thank you for the suggestion. We have rephrased this as follows: “An evaluation of overall outcomes showed that only 46% children (82% of whom had non-glomerular CKD) in our cohort were doing well in stable follow-up. More than half the children had poorer renal and possibly survival outcomes, highlighting the terminal nature of childhood ESRD in our setting where services are limited and are not available closer to patient’s homes.” • The sentence starting on Line 242 does not read well and needs to be rephrased Authors: We have rephreased this sentence as follows: “An important finding of our study is that in a pediatric urology referral center such as ours, prompt referral, diagnosis and integrated management (including urologic surgery) may have helped improve outcomes in the non-glomerular/ urologic CKD group.” • The sentence starting on Line 266 has a full stop in error between the word “cohort” and the word “which” (Line 267) and “which” should be spelt with a small case w Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected this error. The Tables • I am not sure that the title of Table 5 is correct. I think that the features mentioned would be regarded as manifestations of, rather than risk factors for, late-stage CKD Authors: Thank you for the suggestion. We agree that these are associations/manifestations of late-stage CKD. We have corrected the title accordingly. Reviewer #2: The study is relevant and informative. A letter from the institution allowing the use of anonymized data would strengthen the ethical standards required for the paper. There is a valid rationale for the study. Research questions are plainly identified and acceptable but the research question should mention a comparison between early and late stage chronic kidney disease as well as a comparison of glomerular and non-glomerular disease. These important comparisons are provided in the results. Authors: Thank you for these suggestions. We have added the following to the introduction: “This study is designed to assess demographics, underlying cause of CKD, clinical stage at presentation, and the association of the underlying cause and stage with clinical outcomes among children registered in the pediatric CKD clinic at The Indus Hospital (TIH) in Karachi, where all services are provided free of cost.” We have also uploaded a separate IRB waiver letter in the system as well. The protocol was technically sound and well planned. The outcome was valid and the stated hypothesis was adequately tested. However, results from the analysis are mentioned under discussion and should be fully reassigned to the results section before they can be discussed later. The discussion should also make methodical reference to the results obtained. Authors: Thank you for pointing this out. We have moved all results from the discussion section to the results section and have referenced the discussion accordingly with out results. The data is available for scrutiny. The methodology is feasible and can likely be reproduced and replicated. The statistical analysis appear valid. Overall an insightful study that adds to the existing body of knowledge. Authors: We appreciate your insightful comments on our work and thank you for your time to review it. Submitted filename: Response Letter_20220301.docx Click here for additional data file. 21 Apr 2022
PONE-D-21-33769R1
Chronic kidney disease causes and outcomes in children: perspective from a LMIC setting.
PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Malik, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers are largely satisfied with the changes made to the manuscript - however, Reviewer 2 has one minor request that should be addressed. Please see the reviewers' comments below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Natasha McDonald, PhD Associate Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper looks great. The only typo left to correct is the reference in the sentence starting on Line 71 'According to the International Pediatric Nephrology Association’s (IPNA)(8) Renal Replacement Therapy Registry......' should be moved to after the word 'centres' on line 73 as follows: "According to the International Pediatric Nephrology Association’s (IPNA) Renal Replacement Therapy Registry, of the 23000 children on chronic dialysis in 2018, 246 children were registered dialysis patients from Pakistani centers.(8) Reviewer #2: Kindly add the anaemia prevalence results on line 238 and 239 to the results section and add the corresponding discussion around anaemia in the discussion. The rest of the paper is readily acceptable. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Cecil Levy Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
12 May 2022 April 25, 2022 Dear Dr. McDonald We would like to thank you and the reviewers for your careful review of the revised manuscript to help improve our work. We have attempted to address all the remaining concerns. We believe that the manuscript is stronger as a result. Please see our point-by-point responses in red below. On behalf of the authorship team, Amyn Malik Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The paper looks great. The only typo left to correct is the reference in the sentence starting on Line 71 'According to the International Pediatric Nephrology Association’s (IPNA)(8) Renal Replacement Therapy Registry......' should be moved to after the word 'centres' on line 73 as follows: "According to the International Pediatric Nephrology Association’s (IPNA) Renal Replacement Therapy Registry, of the 23000 children on chronic dialysis in 2018, 246 children were registered dialysis patients from Pakistani centers.(8) Authors: Thank you. We have corrected the reference placement as advised. Reviewer #2: Kindly add the anaemia prevalence results on line 238 and 239 to the results section and add the corresponding discussion around anaemia in the discussion. The rest of the paper is readily acceptable. Authors: Thank you. We have added the anemia results and the relevant discussion as follows: “Similarly, children with CKD stages 3-5 had an anemia prevalence of 81% (n=48/64) compared to 33% (n=52/165) in the earlier CKD group (Table 5). Presence of proteinuria, hypertension, anemia, and mineral bone disorder were statistically significantly associated with adverse outcomes.” (line 181-184) “We found an anemia prevalence of 81% in our late CKD cohort (compared to 33% in the earlier CKD group) and a significant association with dialysis and death. NAPRTCs reports an anemia prevalence of 73% at stage 3 CKD, 87% at stage 4 and >93% at stage 5.(29) Anemia is known to be a risk factor for poor outcomes including poor growth, neurocognitive problems and is an independent predictor of mortality in adolescents on hemodialysis.(30, 31)” (line 239-244) Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx Click here for additional data file. 25 May 2022 Chronic kidney disease causes and outcomes in children: perspective from a LMIC setting. PONE-D-21-33769R2 Dear Dr. Malik, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Carla Pegoraro Division Editor PLOS ONE 30 May 2022 PONE-D-21-33769R2 Chronic kidney disease causes and outcomes in children: perspective from a LMIC setting. Dear Dr. Malik: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr Carla Pegoraro Staff Editor PLOS ONE
  29 in total

1.  Urologic care and progression to end-stage kidney disease: a Chronic Kidney Disease in Children (CKiD) nested case-control study.

Authors:  D I Chu; A G Abraham; G E Tasian; M R Denburg; M E Ross; S A Zderic; S L Furth
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2019-03-16       Impact factor: 1.830

2.  Epidemiology and clinicopathologic outcome of pediatric chronic kidney disease in Nigeria, a single cenetr study.

Authors:  Wasiu Adekunle Olowu; Olufemi Adefehinti; Theophilus Adesola Aladekomo
Journal:  Arab J Nephrol Transplant       Date:  2013-05

Review 3.  Treatment of hypertension in children with chronic kidney disease.

Authors:  Susan Halbach; Joseph Flynn
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 5.369

4.  Pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease in children: results of a nationwide survey in Japan.

Authors:  Kenji Ishikura; Osamu Uemura; Shuichi Ito; Naohiro Wada; Motoshi Hattori; Yasuo Ohashi; Yuko Hamasaki; Ryojiro Tanaka; Koichi Nakanishi; Tetsuji Kaneko; Masataka Honda
Journal:  Nephrol Dial Transplant       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 5.992

5.  Risk for anemia in pediatric chronic kidney disease patients: a report of NAPRTCS.

Authors:  Meredith A Atkinson; Karen Martz; Bradley A Warady; Alicia M Neu
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 3.714

6.  Psychosocial rehabilitation and satisfaction with life in adults with childhood-onset of end-stage renal disease.

Authors:  Joachim Rosenkranz; Evelyn Reichwald-Klugger; Jun Oh; Martin Turzer; Otto Mehls; Franz Schaefer
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2005-06-08       Impact factor: 3.714

7.  Hypertension and progression of chronic renal insufficiency in children: a report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study (NAPRTCS).

Authors:  Mark Mitsnefes; Ping-Leung Ho; Paul T McEnery
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 10.121

8.  Risk factors for progression to end-stage renal disease in children with posterior urethral valves.

Authors:  M S Ansari; Anil Gulia; Aneesh Srivastava; Rakesh Kapoor
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 1.830

9.  Blood pressure in children with chronic kidney disease: a report from the Chronic Kidney Disease in Children study.

Authors:  Joseph T Flynn; Mark Mitsnefes; Christopher Pierce; Steven R Cole; Rulan S Parekh; Susan L Furth; Bradley A Warady
Journal:  Hypertension       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 10.190

10.  Timing and outcome of renal replacement therapy in patients with congenital malformations of the kidney and urinary tract.

Authors:  Elke Wühl; Karlijn J van Stralen; Enrico Verrina; Anna Bjerre; Christoph Wanner; James Goya Heaf; Oscar Zurriaga; Andries Hoitsma; Patrick Niaudet; Runolfur Palsson; Pietro Ravani; Kitty J Jager; Franz Schaefer
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2012-10-18       Impact factor: 8.237

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.