Ethical issues relating to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) care are increasingly being discussed by clinicians and ethicists but are still infrequently considered at a policy level or in the education and training of health care professionals. In most lower-income countries, access to kidney replacement therapies such as dialysis is not universal, leading to overt or implicit rationing of resources and potential exclusion from care of those who are unable to sustain out-of-pocket payments. These circumstances create significant inequities in access to ESKD care within and between countries and impose emotional and moral burdens on patients, families, and health care workers involved in decision-making and provision of care. End-of-life decision-making in the context of ESKD care in all countries may also create ethical dilemmas for policy makers, professionals, patients, and their families. This review outlines several ethical implications of the complex challenges that arise in the management of ESKD care around the world. We argue that more work is required to develop the ethics of ESKD care, so as to provide ethical guidance in decision-making and education and training for professionals that will support ethical practice in delivery of ESKD care. We briefly review steps that may be required to accomplish this goal, discussing potential barriers and strategies for success.
A large gap between the number of people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and those who needed it has been recently identified, and it is estimated that approximately one-half to three-quarters of all people with ESKD in the world may have died prematurely because they could not receive KRT. This estimate is aligned with a previous report that estimated that >3 million people in the world died each year because they could not access KRT. This review discusses the reasons for the differences in treated and untreated ESKD and KRT modalities and outcomes and presents strategies to close the global KRT gap by establishing robust health information systems to guide resource allocation to areas of need, inform KRT service planning, enable policy development, and monitor KRT health outcomes.
The International Society of Nephrology (ISN) region of Oceania and South East Asia (OSEA) is a mix of high- and low-income countries, with diversity in population demographics and densities. Three iterations of the ISN-Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) have been conducted, aiming to deliver in-depth assessments of global kidney care across the spectrum from early detection of CKD to treatment of kidney failure. This paper reports the findings of the latest ISN-GKHA in relation to kidney-care capacity in the OSEA region. Among the 30 countries and territories in OSEA, 19 (63%) participated in the ISN-GKHA, representing over 97% of the region's population. The overall prevalence of treated kidney failure in the OSEA region was 1203 per million population (pmp), 45% higher than the global median of 823 pmp. In contrast, kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in the OSEA region was less available than the global median (chronic hemodialysis, 89% OSEA region vs. 98% globally; peritoneal dialysis, 72% vs. 79%; kidney transplantation, 61% vs. 70%). Only 56% of countries could provide access to dialysis to at least half of people with incident kidney failure, lower than the global median of 74% of countries with available dialysis services. Inequalities in access to KRT were present across the OSEA region, with widespread availability and low out-of-pocket costs in high-income countries and limited availability, often coupled with large out-of-pocket costs, in middle- and low-income countries. Workforce limitations were observed across the OSEA region, especially in lower-middle-income countries. Extensive collaborative work within the OSEA region and globally will help close the noted gaps in kidney-care provision.