Abstract
Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is one of the most common and significant problems in patients with COVID-19. However, little is known about the incidence and impact of AKI occurring in the community or early in the hospital admission. The traditional KDIGO definition can fail to identify patients for whom hospitalization coincides with recovery of AKI as manifested by a decrease in serum creatinine (sCr). We hypothesized that an extended KDIGO definition, adapted from the International Society of Nephrology 0by25 studies, would identify more cases of AKI in patients with COVID-19 and that these may correspond to community-acquired AKI with similarly poor outcomes as previously reported in this population.
Methods and Findings All individuals in the ISARIC cohort admitted to hospital with SARS-CoV-2 infection from February 15th, 2020, to February 1st, 2021, were included in the study. Data was collected and analysed for the duration of a patient’s admission. Incidence, staging and timing of AKI were evaluated using a traditional and extended KDIGO (eKDIGO) definition which incorporated a commensurate decrease in serum creatinine. Patients within eKDIGO diagnosed with AKI by a decrease in sCr were labelled as deKDIGO. Clinical characteristic and outcomes – intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and in-hospital death - were compared for all three groups of patients. The relationship between eKDIGO AKI and in-hospital death was assessed using survival curves and logistic regression, adjusting for disease severity and AKI susceptibility. 75,670 patients from 54 countries were included in the final analysis cohort. Median length of admission was 12 days (IQR 7, 20). There were twice as many patients with AKI identified by eKDIGO than KDIGO (31.7 vs 16.8%). Those in the eKDIGO group had a greater proportion of stage 1 AKI (58% vs 36% in KDIGO patients). Peak AKI occurred early in the admission more frequently among eKDIGO than KDIGO patients. Compared to those without AKI, patients in the eKDIGO group had worse renal function on admission, more in-hospital complications, higher rates of ICU admission (54% vs 23%) invasive ventilation (45% vs 15%) and increased mortality (38% vs 19%). Patients in the eKDIGO group had a higher risk of in-hospital death than those without AKI (adjusted OR: 1.78, 95% confidence interval: 1.71-1.8, p-value < 0.001). Mortality and rate of ICU admission were lower among deKDIGO than KDIGO patients (25% vs 50% death and 35% vs 70% ICU admission) but significantly higher when compared to patients with no AKI (25% vs 19% death and 35% vs 23% ICU admission) (all p values < 5×10−5). Limitations include ad hoc sCr sampling, exclusion of patients with less than two sCr measurements, and limited availability of sCr measurements prior to initiation of acute dialysis.
Conclusions The use of an extended KDIGO definition to diagnose AKI in this population resulted in a significantly higher incidence rate compared to traditional KDIGO criteria. These additional cases of AKI appear to be occurring in the community or early in the hospital admission and are associated with worse outcomes than those without AKI.
Why was this study done?
Previous studies have shown that acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common problem among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
The current biochemical criteria used to diagnose AKI may be insufficient to capture AKI that develops in the community and is recovering by the time a patient presents to hospital.
The use of an extended definition, that can identify AKI both during its development and recovery phase, may allow us to identify more patients with AKI. These patients may benefit from early management strategies to improve long term outcomes.
What did the researchers do and find?
In this study, we examined AKI incidence, severity and outcomes among a large international cohort of patients with COVID-19 using both a traditional and extended definition of AKI.
We found that using the extended definition identified almost twice as many cases of AKI than the traditional definition (31.7 vs 16.8%).
These additional cases of AKI were generally less severe and occurred earlier in the hospital admission. Nevertheless, they were associated with worse outcomes, including ICU admission and in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio: 1.78, 95% confidence interval: 1.71-1.8, p-value < 0.001) than those with no AKI.
What do these findings mean?
The current definition of AKI fails to identify a large group of patients with AKI that appears to develop in the community or early in the hospital admission.
Given the finding that these cases of AKI are associated with worse admission outcomes than those without AKI, identifying and managing them in a timely manner is enormously important.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://isaric.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Acute-Kidney-Injury-in-COVID-19.pdf
Funding Statement
MW declared funding from the University of Queensland’s Research and Training Scholarship. SM, DF, KY and SS declared funding from Artificial Intelligence for Pandemics (A14PAN) at University of Queensland. SM & SS declared funding from The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQUS, CE170100009). AN declared funding from The Health Research Board of Ireland. JL reports grants from European Commission RECOVER Grant Agreement No 101003589 and European Commission ECRAID-Base Grant Agreement 965313. JPC declared funding from US Center for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation (site PI, SCCM Discovery-PREP Covid-19 and influenza), Herrick Medical LLC (industry-sponsored RCT of iv tubing modification for air-in-line evacuation, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04851782. SK declared funding from Wellcome (222410/Z/21/Z). MGS reports grants from National Institute of Health Research UK, Medical Research Council UK, Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool. LM declared funding from UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Wellcome [215091/Z/18/Z], Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1209135]. SM declared funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. SS declared funding from the University of Queensland Strategic funding and University of Queensland Gender Equity Grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. All other authors declared no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics Committee approval for this work was given by the World Health Organisation Ethics Review Committee (RPC571 and RPC572 on 25 April 2013). Institutional approval was additionally obtained by participating sites including the South Central Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/SS/0028) for the United Kingdom and the Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical) at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa as part of a national surveillance programme (M160667) collectively representing the majority of the data. Other institutional and national approvals are in place as per local requirements.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* The complete list of authors and affiliations are listed at the end of the supplemental material document
Data Availability
The data that underpin this analysis are highly detailed clinical data on individuals hospitalised with COVID-19. Due to the sensitive nature of these data and the associated privacy concerns, they are available via a governed data access mechanism following review of a data access committee. Data can be requested via the IDDO COVID-19 Data Sharing Platform (www.iddo.org/covid-19). The Data Access Application, Terms of Access and details of the Data Access Committee are available on the website. Briefly, the requirements for access are a request from a qualified researcher working with a legal entity who have a health and/or research remit a scientifically valid reason for data access which adheres to appropriate ethical principles. The full terms are at https://www.iddo.org/document/covid-19-data-access-guidelines. A small subset of sites who contributed data to this analysis have not agreed to pooled data sharing as above. In the case of requiring access to these data, please contact the ISARIC team at ncov@isaric.org in the first instance who will look to facilitate access.
