Ronco, Claudio

Scientific evidence regarding AKI and acute kidney care has advanced in recent years. However, a knowledge gap remains on the implementation of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) into clinical care. Implementation science (IS) is focused on ensuring that this knowledge is translated in an effective, efficient and sustainable fashion. Objectives: 1) Define the current status of IS; 2) Define a roadmap for accelerating IS with a focus on patient/care partner advocacy, digital tool application, social determinants of health, and resource-limited settings; and 3) Develop a robust and broad research agenda incorporating IS methodology into the programs. Evidence Review: ADQI XXXV was conducted through a modified Delphi process with virtual meetings preceding an in-person meeting. Five workgroups were determined a priori to focus on 1) IS definitions and methods applicable to AKI and acute kidney care; 2) IS literature in AKI and acute kidney care; 3) Innovations in IS to accelerate the adoption, adherence to, and sustainment of EBPs in AKI and acute kidney care; 4) IS methods in resource-limited settings; and 5) Recommendations to identify and evaluate EBPs that are ready for implementation or de-implementation. Prior to the in-person meeting, each workgroup met virtually to review the literature and develop framework questions to address their objectives. During the two-day in person meeting, through iterative discussions, questions and supporting statements were finalized. These questions and statements were agreed upon through voting to achieve consensus, defined as agreement of ≥80%. Conclusions and Relevance: We report a structured multidisciplinary consensus for defining the role of IS in AKI and acute kidney care. Future programs should address these consensus questions and apply these statements along with IS methodology in the translation of science into clinical practice and the implementation/de-implementation of EBPs in clinical care.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed cancer therapy but are associated with immune-related adverse events, including ICI–associated acute kidney injury (ICI-AKI). ICI-AKI presents diagnostic and management challenges and can influence decisions regarding immunosuppression and ICI rechallenge, with important implications for both kidney and cancer outcomes. An international, multidisciplinary panel convened at the 34th Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) consensus conference in September 2024. Systematic literature searches of PubMed were conducted to identify studies on the epidemiology, mechanisms, diagnosis, management, rechallenge, and outcomes of ICI-AKI. The meeting followed the established ADQI process and used a modified Delphi method to achieve consensus. Evidence was reviewed and appraised by workgroups, and consensus statements were developed through structured discussion and voting. Observational data suggest that AKI occurs in up to 20% of patients receiving ICIs, with ICI-AKI accounting for approximately 2%–5% of cases. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis is the most common lesion, observed in 80%–90% of biopsies, although glomerular diseases are increasingly recognized. No clinical features reliably distinguish ICI-AKI from other causes of AKI, and kidney biopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard. Emerging urinary, circulating, and imaging biomarkers show promise but are not yet ready for routine clinical use. Early glucocorticoid initiation (within 3 days of ICI-AKI diagnosis versus >3 days after diagnosis) is associated with higher rates of kidney recovery, although optimal dosing and duration remain uncertain. Recurrent ICI-AKI occurs in fewer than 20% of patients undergoing ICI rechallenge. Management of high-risk populations, including kidney transplant recipients and patients with autoimmune disease or advanced CKD, requires individualized, multidisciplinary decision-making. ICI-AKI is an important and potentially reversible complication of cancer immunotherapy; these consensus statements provide a framework for diagnosis and management, support cautious ICI rechallenge in selected patients, and identify priorities for future research.

Advances in our understanding of uremic retention solutes, and improvements in hemodialysis membranes and other techniques designed to remove uremic retention solutes, offer opportunities to readdress the definition and classification of uremic toxins. A consensus conference was held to develop recommendations for an updated definition and classification scheme on the basis of a holistic approach that incorporates physicochemical characteristics and dialytic removal patterns of uremic retention solutes and their linkage to clinical symptoms and outcomes. The major focus is on the removal of uremic retention solutes by hemodialysis. The identification of representative biomarkers for different classes of uremic retention solutes and their correlation to clinical symptoms and outcomes may facilitate personalized and targeted dialysis prescriptions to improve quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. Recommendations for areas of future research were also formulated, aimed at improving understanding of uremic solutes and improving outcomes in patients with CKD.

AKI is a global concern with a high incidence among patients across acute care settings. AKI is associated with significant clinical consequences and increased health care costs. Preventive measures, as well as rapid identification of AKI, have been shown to improve outcomes in small studies. Providing high-quality care for patients with AKI or those at risk of AKI occurs across a continuum that starts at the community level and continues in the emergency department, hospital setting, and after discharge from inpatient care. Improving the quality of care provided to these patients, plausibly mitigating the cost of care and improving short- and long-term outcomes, are goals that have not been universally achieved. Therefore, understanding how the management of AKI may be amenable to quality improvement programs is needed. Recognizing this gap in knowledge, the 22nd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting was convened to discuss the evidence, provide recommendations, and highlight future directions for AKI-related quality measures and care processes. Using a modified Delphi process, an international group of experts including physicians, a nurse practitioner, and pharmacists provided a framework for current and future quality improvement projects in the area of AKI. Where possible, best practices in the prevention, identification, and care of the patient with AKI were identified and highlighted. This article provides a summary of the key messages and recommendations of the group, with an aim to equip and encourage health care providers to establish quality care delivery for patients with AKI and to measure key quality indicators.

Purpose of the review: Among hospitalized patients, acute kidney injury is common and associated with significant morbidity and risk for mortality. The use of electronic health records (EHR) for prediction and detection of this important clinical syndrome has grown in the past decade. The steering committee of the 15 th Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) conference dedicated a workgroup with the task of identifying elements that may impact the course of events following Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) e-alert. Sources of information: Following an extensive, non-systematic literature search, we used a modified Delphi process to reach consensus regarding several aspects of the utilization of AKI e-alerts. Findings: Topics discussed in this workgroup included progress in evidence base practices, the characteristics of an optimal e-alert, the measures of efficacy and effectiveness, and finally what responses would be considered best practices following AKI e-alerts. Authors concluded that the current evidence for e-alert system efficacy, although growing, remains insufficient. Technology and human-related factors were found to be crucial elements of any future investigation or implementation of such tools. The group also concluded that implementation of such systems should not be done without a vigorous plan to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of e-alerts. Efficacy and effectiveness of e-alerts should be measured by context-specific process and patient outcomes. Finally, the group made several suggestions regarding the clinical decision support that should be considered following successful e-alert implementation. Limitations: This paper reflects the findings of a non-systematic review and expert opinion. Implications: We recommend implementation of the findings of this workgroup report for use of AKI e-alerts.