Rita S. Suri

Bio: Rita S. Suri is an academic researcher from McGill University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dialysis & Hemodialysis. The author has an hindex of 33, co-authored 105 publications receiving 4283 citations. Previous affiliations of Rita S. Suri include McGill University Health Centre & University of Western Ontario.

Long-term renal prognosis of diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.

Abstract: ContextThe long-term renal prognosis of patients with diarrhea-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) remains controversial.ObjectivesTo quantify the long-term renal prognosis of patients with diarrhea-associated HUS and to identify reasons for different estimates provided in the literature.Data SourcesWe searched MEDLINE and Experta Medica (EMBASE) bibliographic databases and conference proceedings, and we contacted experts until February 2003. We also searched the Institute for Scientific Information index and reference lists of all studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria. The search strategy included the terms hemolytic-uremic syndrome, purpura, thrombotic thrombocytopenic, Escherichia coli O157, longitudinal studies, kidney diseases, hypertension, and proteinuriaStudy SelectionAny study that followed up 10 or more patients with primary diarrhea-associated HUS for at least 1 year for renal sequelae.Data ExtractionTwo authors independently abstracted data on study and patient characteristics, renal measures, outcomes, and prognostic features. Disagreements were resolved by a third author or by consensus.Data SynthesisForty-nine studies of 3476 patients with a mean follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 1-22 years at last follow-up) from 18 countries, 1950 to 2001, were summarized. At the time of recruitment, patients were aged 1 month to 18 years. In the different studies, death or permanent end-stage renal disease (ESRD) ranged from 0% to 30%, with a pooled incidence of 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10%-15%). A glomerular filtration rate lower than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m2, hypertension, or proteinuria was extremely variable and ranged from 0% to 64%, with a pooled incidence of 25% (95% CI, 20%-30%). A higher severity of acute illness was strongly associated with worse long-term prognosis. Studies with a higher proportion of patients with central nervous system symptoms (coma, seizures, or stroke) had a higher proportion of patients who died or developed permanent ESRD at follow-up (explaining 44% of the between-study variability, P = .01). Studies with a greater proportion of patients lost to follow-up also described a worse prognosis (P = .001) because these patients were typically healthier than those followed up. One or more years after diarrhea-associated HUS, patients with a predicted creatinine clearance higher than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m2, no overt proteinuria, and no hypertension appeared to have an excellent prognosis.ConclusionsDeath or ESRD occurs in about 12% of patients with diarrhea-associated HUS, and 25% of survivors demonstrate long-term renal sequelae. Patients lost to follow-up contribute to worse estimates in some studies. The severity of acute illness, particularly central nervous system symptoms and the need for initial dialysis, is strongly associated with a worse long-term prognosis.

Intensive Hemodialysis Associates with Improved Survival Compared with Conventional Hemodialysis

Abstract: Patients undergoing conventional maintenance hemodialysis typically receive three sessions per week, each lasting 2.5–5.5 hours. Recently, the use of more intensive hemodialysis (>5.5 hours, three to seven times per week) has increased, but the effects of these regimens on survival are uncertain. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine whether intensive hemodialysis associates with better survival than conventional hemodialysis. We identified 420 patients in the International Quotidian Dialysis Registry who received intensive home hemodialysis in France, the United States, and Canada between January 2000 and August 2010. We matched 338 of these patients to 1388 patients in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study who received in-center conventional hemodialysis during the same time period by country, ESRD duration, and propensity score. The intensive hemodialysis group received a mean (SD) 4.8 (1.1) sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 7.4 (0.87) hours per session; the conventional group received three sessions per week with a mean treatment time of 3.9 (0.32) hours per session. During 3008 patient-years of follow-up, 45 (13%) of 338 patients receiving intensive hemodialysis died compared with 293 (21%) of 1388 patients receiving conventional hemodialysis (6.1 versus 10.5 deaths per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% confidence interval, 0.34–0.87]). The strength and direction of the observed association between intensive hemodialysis and improved survival were consistent across all prespecified subgroups and sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, there is a strong association between intensive home hemodialysis and improved survival, but whether this relationship is causal remains unknown.

Minutes to recovery after a hemodialysis session: a simple health-related quality of life question that is reliable, valid, and sensitive to change.

Abstract: Patients who have end-stage renal failure and are treated by hemodialysis (HD) face a stressful chronic illness with a demanding treatment regimen that affects quality of life. Quality-of-life domains can be measured by assessment questionnaires that are easy to complete, reliable, valid, and sensitive to change. There is current interest in HD regimens that provide more frequent treatments (e.g., daily) than the conventional thrice weekly. Improvement in quality of life by these regimens has been reported. A published prospective, cohort, controlled study (London Daily/Nocturnal Hemodialysis Study) included the results of a number of quality-of-life indicators that were applied to the study patients. In general, the indicators used were well established and of proven validity. Included was one single question that was added intuitively and had not received previous validation: "How long does it take you to recover from a dialysis session?" The responses to this question allow the validation of this simple question as a tool to be used in HD clinical research. Twenty-three patients who were treated by frequent HD (5 to 7 d or nights) and 22 control subjects who were treated by thrice-weekly dialysis were studied during an 18-mo period. The "time to recovery" question was administered along with a battery of renal disease-specific questionnaires and the Generic Medical Outcomes Survey 36 Item-Short Form (SF-36) plus the global Health Utilities Index. Missing data rates, reliability over time, construct validity, and sensitivity to change were assessed from the "time to recovery" responses by standard methods. The question was administered on a total of 314 occasions and answered successfully on 313. The test-retest correlation over 3-mo intervals was highly significant (r = 0.962, P = 0.000; n = 100). Convergent construct validity was established by significant correlations between time to recovery and fatigue (r = 0.38, P = 0.000; n = 313), dialysis stress (r = 0.348, P = 0.000), disease stress (r = 0.374, P = 0.000), SF-36 subscales especially vitality (r = -0.356 P = 0.000), and the Health Utilities Index (r = -0.232, P = 0.000). These scales captured mainly physical or physiologic domains. Divergent construct validity was established by lack of correlations between "time to recovery" and a number of subscales that captured mainly emotional or psychosocial domains, e.g., SF-36 subscale for "role emotional" (r = -0.102, NS) and dialysis stressors such as access problems (r = -0.015, NS) or equipment malfunction (r = 0.032, NS). Test sensitivity was established when the conventionally dialyzed group showed no significant difference in time to recovery between baseline and other time periods, whereas the daily/nocturnal group had a significant reduction between baseline (while on conventional dialysis) and the result at each other time period (minimum P = 0.05). There also was a significant difference between the control and experimental groups over time (ANOVA P = 0.000). The response to the question, "How long does it take you to recover from a dialysis session?" is interpreted easily, is easy to which to respond, shows stability over time by test-retest, shows both convergent and divergent validity, and is sensitive to change. As such, it should be considered as a standard question in HD-related studies in which a health-related quality-of-life outcome is examined.

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

Abstract: tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice—Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Sixth Special Issue

Abstract: The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149-162, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Department of health & human services

Abstract: Vision for Transformation Strengths: The SHSIP describes a holistic transformation plan and ensures connections between various plan components. The State’s Plan seeks to reward health care providers for better care, smarter spending, and healthier people through higher quality, instead of quantity of services by utilizing valuebased purchasing across public and private payers. The SHSIP provides a well-detailed description of the proposed value-based models of care through the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model, resulting in the statewide implementation of Accountable Health Communities (AHCs). The SHSIP outlines a long-term vision of building and expanding the PCMH model into a Community Centered Health Homes (CCHHs) model, which will focus on prevention and collaboration with other communitybased organizations. Another strength identified is the amount of existing PCMHs operating within the State. The SHSIP provides a course of action to assist non-PCMH practices to become nationally certified, as well as, goals for a single, statewide PCMH model to be used by all providers and payers within the state. The implementation of the AHCs will be key in addressing social determinants of health within various communities and seems to align well with the PCMH goals. This focus on population and community health will enable the State to make a broader impact and support the long-term goal of moving towards a CCHH model. The focus on the improvement of clinical, behavioral, and oral health care within the urban, rural, and frontier communities is well aligned and consistent with the SIM goals and the overall Triple Aim initiative. Figure 18: Driver Diagram clearly shows how the State plans to achieve the Triple Aim by 2020.