Table 1 Methodology

Port et al. 2004 [2]

US

Random sample (n = 17,245) from all 7 DOPPS I countries (N = 52,905)

6 Cox proportional hazards models (one for each factor); a 7th Cox survival model was also used which adjusted for all six HD practices simultaneously. All models were adjusted for age, race, years of ESRD, country & 15 summary comorbid conditions (CAD, CHF, other cardiac disease, PVD, HTN, cerebrovascular disease, DM, lung disease, dyspnea, Hx cancer (active or inactive, excluding skin cancer), GI bleeding in past 12 months, neurologic disease, psychiatric disease, HIV/AIDS, and recurrent skin disease (including gangrene).

1914 prevalent HD patients from US DOPPS II

2001 US Renal Data System Annual Data Report

Estimation of the total US HD patient population in 2004 by extrapolation of 2001 data using a 6% annual growth rate

The expected gain in patient-years was calculated from the difference in the area under the 5-year survival curves between survival of the US haemodialysis population based on actual current death rates versus projected survival of the US haemodialysis population if all patients currently outside of the six practice guidelines were instead within them.

PY = [(N₀/L) * FD] + [(N₁/L) * (t – (FD/L))],

Assumptions:

• t = 5 years

• L = 0.251 if all patients outside of the target ranges for the six HD practices are brought within these target ranges

• L = 0.30 if there is no change from the current proportion of patients outside the six target ranges

• N₀ = 313,000

• N₁ = 116,477

Jadoul et al. 2007 [13]

Belgium

>  20,000 (from all 12 DOPPS I and II countries)

Same as US study except: 1 modifiable practice differed (substituted albumin-corrected serum calcium for IDWG); did not adjust for dyspnea

538 prevalent HD patients from Belgian DOPPS II

Outpatient HD patient population reported in the 2001 Flemish-speaking and French-speaking registries

Estimation of the total Belgian HD patient population in 2006 by extrapolation of 2001 data using a 7.5% annual growth rate

Same as US but on Belgian data

Same as US except:

• L = 0.113 if all patients outside of the target ranges for the six HD practices are brought within these target ranges

• L = 0.22 if there is no change from the current proportion of patients outside the six target ranges

• N₀ = 6373

• N₁ = 1591

Piera et al. 2007 [14]

Spain

>  20,000 (from all 12 DOPPS I and II countries)

Same as US study except: 1 modifiable practice differed (substituted albumin-corrected serum calcium for IDWG); did not adjust for dyspnea

613 from Spanish DOPPS II

Informe de la Sociedad Española de Nefrología de 2005

Estimation of the total Spanish HD patient population in 2006 by extrapolation of 2005 data using a 5.1% annual growth rate

Same as US but on Spanish data

Same as US except:

• L = 0.099 if all patients outside of the target ranges for the six HD practices are brought within these target ranges

• L = 0.170 if there is no change from the current proportion of patients outside the six target ranges

• N₀ = 20,920

• N₁ = 4902

Canaud et al. 2008 [15]

France

>  20,000 (from all 12 DOPPS I and II countries)

Same as US study except: 1 modifiable practice differed (substituted albumin-corrected serum calcium for IDWG); did not adjust for dyspnea

532 from French DOPPS II

Bulletin Epidemiologique Hebdomadaire de 2005

Estimation of the total French HD patient population in 2006 by extrapolation of 2005 data using a 5.3% annual growth rate

Same as US but on French data

Same as US except:

• L = 0.157 if all patients outside of the target ranges for the six HD practices are brought within these target ranges

• L = 0.223 if there is no change from the current proportion of patients outside the six target ranges

• N₀ = 31,987

• N₁ = 6070

Wikström et al. 2010 [16]

Sweden

>  20,000 (from all 12 DOPPS I and II countries)

Same as US study except: 1 modifiable practice differed (substituted albumin-corrected serum calcium for IDWG); did not adjust for dyspnea

547 prevalent HD patients from Swedish DOPPS II

2003 Swedish Renal Registry

Estimation of the total Swedish HD patient population in 2006 by extrapolation of 2003 data using a 4.5% annual growth rate

Same as US but on Swedish data

Same as US except:

• L = 0.180 if all patients outside of the target ranges for the six HD practices are brought within these target ranges

• L = 0.274 if there is no change from the current proportion of patients outside the six target ranges

• N₀ = 2434

• N₁ = 769

MONITOR-CKD5

Austria

France

Germany

Italy

Poland

Romania

Slovenia

Spain

Switzerland

United Kingdom*

Not applicable

Utilizes published RR rates from various DOPPS studies (see Table 2 for details)

2023 from MONITOR-CKD5

Austria, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, UK: ERA-EDTA Registry 2014;

France: REIN Rapport Annuel 2014;

Germany: QuaSi-Niere-Bericht 2006–2007;

Italy: RIDT Report 2011–2013;

Slovenia: ERA-EDTA Registry 2013

Estimation of the HD patient population in 2017 in the 10 countries participating in the MONITOR-CKD5 study by extrapolation of 2014 data (except for Germany for which 2006 data were available, and Italy and Slovenia for which 2013 data were available) using a 5% annual growth rate

Same as US but on data from 10 European countries

Same as US except:

L = 0.170 if all patients outside the target ranges for the six HD practices are brought within these target range

L = 0.203 if there is no change from the current proportion of patients outside the six target ranges

N₀ = 303,517

N₁ = 66,597