- Email: [email protected]
International comparisons
introduction. 206 prevalence& incidence. 208 dialysis& transplantation. 210
chaptersummary. 212
.,
,Cha
erThirteen
k ~ i ~ ~ds itselfinthemidstoftheworld.In ~"~ ~i~if cretan~fan all°yetetl h[:t reaotsTd:::nl~:~tYup~nthe~:~rs. HILDEGARDEOF BINGEN,Scl¥io5
AmericanJournalof Kidney Diseases,Vo141,
No4,Suppl2 (April),2003:pp$205-$212
ntefmir,
Bangladesh, and the Philippines (66, 53, and 50 pmp).The wide variation in these rates illustrates that resources available to support ESRDprograms are subject to government infrastructures and per capita income. Additional information on the international scope of ESRDis provided by the International Federation of Renal Registries (IFRR), at www.health-tech-net.org/ifrr.
c~tmen t providParbSr°nd°fJnt2xSttafg~hend~Idaisl::~a:e(J~d?~
Ihe rest of the ADR, helping to show the relationship between the United States ESRDprogram and other programs around the world. On the 2000 data collection form we "equested patient counts, by age group, for ESRDincidence :including diabetic nephropathy), prevalence (overall and ~y modality),and transplant activity, along with national censusinformation to use in calculating unadjusted patient rates ~er million population (pmp). We received responses from 23countries.
Despite clear worldwide differences in policy regarding ESRD treatment, international comparisons of ethnic populations provide valuable insight into the provision of care in the U.S. compared to other nations. Asian ESRDpopulations, for example, are well documented in the U.S. data, and can be compared to populations in Japan and Taiwan.The prevalent rates of treated ESRDin Japan and Taiwan were 1,624 and
Norldwide prevalence of treated ESRDcontinues to climb, Nith rates highest in Japan,Taiwan and the United States 11,300-1,600 per m I on population), and lowest in Russia,
~?.
-- ~
United Stales
• 157+ • 130to <
• 129to < • 90to
iT below 9
i~! i ¸¸
:
13.1. Worldwideincidentrates per million population, 2000.
*Japan,dialysisonly
1,352 patients pmp in 2000, respectively, while the point prevalent rate of treated Asian ESRDpatients in the U.S.was 1,266. Incident rates, in contrast, were 252 and 311 pmp in Japan and Taiwan, but almost 400 pmp in the U.S.These differences may be related to patient acceptance rates and to survival time on ESRD. As reported by the IFRR, Mexico has a prevalent rate of 361 pmp, and an incident rate of 181 pmp.These are significantly lower than the reported rates for Hispanics in the U.S.,currently almost 1,000 and 454 pmp, respectively. Such differences in worldwide rates merit further investigation. There are notable differences in rates by age groups.The highest prevalent rates for patients younger than 20, for example, occur in Finland (90 pmp), followed by the U.S.and the Netherlands (77 and 73 pmp). In all other age groups,
~
f
~
:
~
however, U.S.rates exceed those of other countries {not all countries provided data by age group). The use of peritoneal dialysis (CAPDand CCPD)varies considerably from country to country, with the therapy being most popular in Australia and New Zealand. By age group, home therapies are used more frequently in pediatric patients (with the exception of Norway), with use of these therapies decreasing by patient age. Transplant rates are highest in Catalonia, the U.S.,Austria, and Norway (above 45 pmp), and these same counties, with the addition of Sweden, also have the highest rates of functioning grafts. We invite all registries to send us their data using the form on page 259, returning it to us by email ([email protected])or fax (1.612.347.5878).
: : :i~ ~i¸~r
ii~ i:¸¸:~:~:~:!~i:!! :ili
rTaiwan
NewZeala~
orldwide variation in prevalence rates can be attributed to a number of factors. Previous data, for example, have shown that treatment is related to a country's per capita income and governmental infrastructure, each of which can significantly influence the availability and quality of dialysis and transplant services. In addition, countries with excellent survival rates accumulate prevalent patients under ESRDtreatment. The best examples of this phenomenon are Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S., in which prevalent rates fall between 1,300and 1,600 per million population (Table 13.a and Figure 13.2).
W
Of the countries providing prevalent rates by age group, Finland has the highest prevalence of treated children with ESRD and Bangladesh the lowest (Figure 13.3). These extremes correlate with differences in national per capita income: for the year 2000, the World Bank reported an average income of $25,130 in Finland, and only $370 in Bangladesh (www.worldbank.org). In the 2003 ADR we will explore in more depth the relationship between the incidence and prevalence of treated ESRDand a nation's economic indicators. The percent of incident ESRDpatients with diabetes as the cause of renal failure is highest in Brunei and the U.S. (45.1 percent and 45.4 percent, respectively; Table 13.b and Figure 13.4). Interestingly, Brunei, Norway, Greece, Germany, and Taiwan all showed an increase in ESRDdue to diabetes of more than ten percent over the last three years. In Japan, Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Canada,Taiwan, and Finland, diabetes was the cause of ESRD in more than 30 percent of incident patients. The diabetic burden in Latin America is of particular interest. Rates of the disease are perhaps related to the mix of native and immigrant populations. In Chapter Two we show that rates of diabetes in U.S.ESRD patients of Mexican Hispanic origin are as high as 65 percent, and 55 percent in Hispanics of other origins. Such data should be confirmed by comparison to data from other countries. The diabetic population clearly continues to grow, with the disease remaining the leading cause of ESRDworldwide. The increasing burden of this disease and of ESRD treatment itself suggest that international programs to address populations at high risk for developing chronic kidney disease and ESRDare sorely needed around the world. Dam in each table 6. figure arc"presented only for those countries from which the relevant information was available. Tables 13.a & 13.¢ per million population. Figu r ¢ s 13.2--~ 2000.
13.a. Prevalence of ESRD
Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Israel Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Philippines Poland Russia Sweden Thailand United States Uruguay
10,408 5,995 5,239 232 2,732 20,166 5,659 7,594 5,626 2,657 62,657 7,548 4,394 2,913 38,638 186,251 9,073 2,060 2,318 9,766 8,090 5,914 3,266 344,603 2,325
11,045 6,215 5,922 243 2,647 21,863 5,906 8,516 5,916 2,820 59,443 8,079 4,827 3,217 44,071 197,213 9,486 2,209 2,429 1,296 10,672 8,792 6,116 4,736 361,921 2,408
13.2. Prevalence of ESRD
mmmmmll Taiwan m N m n U.5. nnnmmn Catalonia mmml Germany mnumnn Brunei mmm Greece Huron Austria nlmlli Uruguay mlllli Canada IlnNnm Sweden llUl| Czech Rep. lll ll Japan
Netherlands Chile N. Zealand
fill
Australia Finland Norway Hungary Bulgaria
lllll llllll lllll ll)
Poland Thailand
11,593 6,423 6,746 293 2,526 23,411 6,125 9,301 6,374 3,014 71,513 8,735 5,279
206,134 9,851 2,339 2,606 3,861 12,208 9,655 6,319 5,963 378,862 2,473
555.1 748.2 41.9 718.0 333.2 663.8 920.5 512.4 551.6 515.6 763.8 718.1 435.0 482.2 674.2 1,472.5 577.6 543.2 523.1 252.6 55.1 672.4 54.4 1,224 734.9
582.3 772.9 47.0 734.8 322.8 717.0 951.4 567.1 580.0 545.9 723.5 767.8 477.9 518.6 769.0 1,556.7 599.9 5793 544.4 17.3 276.1 59.7 695.1 78.9 1,275 761.1
605.2 798.5 52.7 865.8 319.7 ~761.3 978.1 611.5 624.9 582.3 870.2 830.2 517.7
1,624.1 621.0 610.6 580.3 50.5 315.9 65.7 712.3 99.4 1,298 781.7
13.3 • Prevalence of ESRD, by age Finland INNNIMIINIIR mWJilllIliNIIm~iron United States m m m m l i i l ~ Nethedands fmlllllNIImnmn IIImlNllmi m l l Canada imlll~lllUillllUlllmmllim Sweden tllWmlmiummlmlliiii1~11111 NewZealand IlllllllllRIlllii Australia Austria Gr e Ta~. . . . ~!9 20 o United States / Taiwan Austria NewZealand Sweden I Canada Australia Norway ~ l l Netherlands Finland ~ n m m l Greece ~
0
200
40
60
80
lOO
I
__ 400
L
20"44 600
United States Austria mmmllmmm Taiwan NewZealand a m Canada m m l Greece a m Sweden u m Australia m l Netherlands N i l Norway H i Finland
m
0
2,000
1,000
United States Canada m m Greece A m Austria m m Australia m m Netherlands m m Sweden ~ m m Norway m m NewZealand ~ I m R Finland
800
45-64 3,000 4,000
awaL 0
United States
__
|
~:~&tS~4~grg~'>Y?7*~';~:#r;:;~:*"
~!2~! ~~,I<~~,_.3~
Philippines 300 600 900 1,200 1500 1,800 Rate per million population
4
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Greece ! ~ ~Y"~fv~¢!:~ Canada ~a~;/~: ~,Y~~,> Sweden ~3,~:*>,,~ Austria ~.~+~,~ Netherlands ~>~-::~ Australia i ~:!= Norway Finland NewZealand
Russia
1,000
0
7~-I'-
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Rate per million population
13.b. Percentof incident patients with diabetes Austria Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Philippines Russia Sweden Taiwan United States Uruguay
30.0 32.3
31.3 39.0
30.0 19.8 31.0 33.6 33.0 21.6 18.3
31.3 19.0
36.2 15.5 10.2 62.0
31.9 34.6 21.5 21.I 15.3 35.0 14.0 12.1 19.9
23.0 28.7 43.5 16.4
21.7 29.8 43.4 18.9
32.7 45.1 9.6 32.0 19.9 33.0 31.4 36.2 25.5 19.9 36.5 16,7 15.2 23.4 3.6 25.1 31.7 43.4 17.8
13.4 • Percentof incident patients with diabetes
B,uo~, l
l
l
l
l
u, m m a i l
13.c. Incidenceof ESRD Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Israel Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Philippines Poland Russia Sweden Taiwan
86 129 6 192 73 138 135 121 133 go 148 114 127 152 104 234 94 98 90 11 52 20 127 288
92 135 5 178 78 146 150 147 128 90 148 124 123 176 130 249 98 98 89 18 58 20 125 315
90 133 6 210 78 143 143 126 151 94 175 157 129
United Kingdom United States
77 313
325
337
Uruguay
137
145
126
252 93 107 89 27 66 15 126 311
13.S. Incidenceof ESRD
Japan Germany i
i~ ~m i mi
Czech Rep. l Austria
i
Taiw~S~ ~
Japan~
d
mid
Canada m
i
i
~
~
f
m
f
~
Greece
~
Czech
Rep.~
Canada
Fn ia lndm i D )
Hungami Austria
I
Finland / Netherlands
Norway m m m
45-54 BangladeshI __ 0 lO0 200 300 400 500 600 700 Taiwan i U.S, I I Canada III Greece Austria Uruguay Sweden Norway Netherlands m Australia m
Uruguay Sweden
Philippines
Chile /
Hungary
N. Zealand H I Finland i Netherlands i
Uruguay
Finland m N m
Australia i
Bulgaria m Norway ~ B
Poland Philippines
Bulgaria
m |
Russia Russia
Bangladesh 0
10
20
30
40
Percent of patients
50
N.Zealand 65-74 Bangladesh 0 200 400 600 1200 1600 Taiwan u.s. m m m l m m m l m ! Uruguay l m m m m l Greece m m m m m m m l Canada Sweden m m m l m l m m Austria Immllmmmm Australia a m Netherlands I E Norway ilmlNNi N.Zealand i Finland INto 75+ Bangladesh 0 200 400 600 1200 1600
i m i m l ~ i l lilmm Inl
Norway i
Netherlands
U.S. Canada l m m m m l m l m m l Netherlands ~ m m m i i ~ Uruguay m m m m l Norway i i ~ i Taiwan ~ U i l Australia t a h i t i Finland m m m m m m m Greece I N N I N I N I N N.Zealand i l i a d Austria i ~ Sweden 0-19 Bangladesh 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 U.S. I Taiwan I N.Zealand Uruguay Austria Sweden Canada m m m m Finland m m m Australia m Netherlands Greece i Norway m~mm 20~ Bangladesh[ ] 0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 Taiwan U.S. N.Zealand i Austria I t Canada/ Greece i Uruguay m m m Swedenm m Australia m m
Catalonia
-=r col... i
m
Germany
Ta,wanimi Greece ~
~
13,6,Incidenceof ESRD,byage
1O0
200
300
Rate per million population
Rateper million population
M
odalities of treatment vary widely around the world, reflecting differences in healthcare systems and in cultural perspectives on the human body. In New Zealand and Australia, for example, 60 to 70 percent of the dialysis population is treated with a home therapy, either peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis (Table 13.d and Figure 13.7). New Zealand patients are more likely than those of any other reporting country to be treated with peritoneal dialysis, while home hemodialysis is used in almost one-fifth of Australian patients. Such figures are in marked contrast to those of countries such as Japan, in which 95 percent of patients are treated with in-center hemodialysis. In most countries home hemodialysis is used rarely, if at all. Since 1998, only 0.5 percent of the U.S. dialysis population has been treated with this therapy. But as new information continues to become available on overnight and daily dialysis, the use of home treatments may begin to increase. Long overnight dialysis has, indeed, been used in Tassin, France for many years; readers are referred to publications about this treatment. The use of home therapy is most likely in younger patients, while most older patients (except for those in New Zealand and Australia) are treated with hemodialysis (Figure 13.8). The use of transplant as a modality also differs widely around the world. Prevalent rates for patients with functioning grafts, for example, vary from a high of 437 per million population in Norway to a low of 2.6 in Bangladesh (Table 13.e and Figure 13.9). Increases over time in the prevalent rates of functioning grafts suggest improved graft survival, illustrated in Chapter Eight for the U.S.transplant population. Seven of the nine countries with transplant rates of more than 30 per million population are European, with the U.S. and Canada ranked second and fifth (Table 13.f and Figure 13.10).Transplant rates for children are highest in the Netherlands, Finland, and Norway, and in Norway the rate for elderly patients is more than five times higher than in any other country (Figure 13.1I)
Australia Austria Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Russia Sweden Taiwan United States Uruguay
40.2 92.2 88.7 96.2 72.2 94.7 96.4
40.8 91.8 85.8 96.3 74.3 95.2 96.6
73.0 91 .I 89.6 96.7
73.5 92.8 89.6 95.8 88.6 95.5 67.6 25.7 83.4 89.7 93.6 72.1 94.7 90.0 94.1
95.2 68.4 22.7 81.3 89.4 93.4 72.4 95.1 89.0 95.6
41.2 91.9 83.5 97.2 76.0 95.4 96.3 93.3 76.0 93.7 89.5 94.1
42.6 7.6 11.3 3.8 26.3 5.2 3.6
41.9 7.9 14.2 33 24.0 4.7 3.4
26.4 7.3 10.3 3.3
95.8 67.6 27.9 81.2 89.4 93.2 72.8 93.9 90.7 94.4
4.7 29.8 58.7 18.6 10.6 6.6 25.6 4.g I O.S 4.4
25.0 6.2 10.4 4.2 10.6 4.5 30.S 58.6 16.4 10.3 6.4 25.8 S.3 9.5 5.9
13.7. Distribution of prevalent dialysis patients
17.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.1
17.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.1~ 0.0
0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0
4.2 30.6 56.6 18.5 10.6 6.8 25.3 6.1 8.8 5.6
0,0 1,8 18,6 0,2 0.0 0,0 1.9 0.0 O.S 0.0
1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.8 1S.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.0
17.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 15.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 O.S 0.0
13.8, Prevalent dialysis patients, by age
Bulgaria Chile Japan
Home hemodialysis CAPD/CCPD
i R
ummim
Sweden L Australia Finland ~
Catalonia
__ II I
_ __ T r
II
Uruguay Hungary
,uog~ I Norway I
Taiwan Germany
IIIIII
Canada L Finland I Sweden ~ Netherlands ~ Austra a N. Zealand I
illii
Czech Rep.
'll . .
.
.
.
.
.
Taiwan i l ~ A ~ m ~ = = m ~ ~ CUa~U~oU~i m In-center hemodialysis Russia Bi I n Home hemodlalysls" ' Hunga~ Austria u.s. tl| ni i m ~ . ?,pD,~CPD ,~ /~Greece t l m ~ ~ ~ = d t l l m n Norway Finlana ~ l Canada i l l l l ~ m I l l l l m I R m u l l l ~ l ~ l l n Sweden ~ Jl Netherlan~ls U .... Australia N. Zealand ~
Russia Austria U.S. Greece Poland
Taiwan ImlmmmU l m i H l l m l i m m Hu~g~
n Catag~nia Russia
Brunei
u
m
u
m
m
mmllil ~
~
Austria ~ U.S. Norway. Greece Finland Neth~rlanc~s ~.anaoa n Sweden Australia N. Zealand
i m n~ m~ mm lma~Nm mlm l~
Norway
i
Canada Finland
National economies and infrastructures, the willingness to provide reimbursement for immunosuppressive medications, and cultural attitudes toward transplantation all affect the use of transplant as a treatment for ESRD. In addition, any efforts to expand transplant programs are limited by organ availability, a problem existing worldwide.
41.5 7.8 16.5 2.8 22.2 4.6 3.7 6.7 22.6 5.4 10.5 5.9
Russia Huqgab, Catalonia Uruguay Talwan Austria U.S. ~ ~ Greece i Netherlands Finland I R i I N i ~ Canada Norway ~ l i m m l l Sweden Australia N. Zealand
Sweden Netherlands Australia
~
20
40
60
80
Percentofpatients
100
20
_
~
!
~
N. Zealand
....
40
60
Percent of patients
80
100
Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Russia Sweden United Kingdom United States Uruguay
259.6 364.2 2.3 31.0 31.1 255.1 384.1 108.8 189.6 316.9 179.0 125.0 135.0 127.7 287.8 245.5 401.4 74.7 13.1 362.9 211.4 342.9 80.9
265.3 385.8 2.4 36.3 36.1 273.0 403.2 117.4 217.8 331.8 177.5 135.4 141.7 151.1 298.6 256.1 420.4
273.3 407.4 2.6 41.4 43.4 289.8 428.5 126.9 240.0 353.2 230.2 139.4 153.8
15.3 371.3
317.2 264.7 436.9 97.9 17.1 377.6
357.3 93.2
375.4 104.9
76.8
Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Netherlands New Zealand Norway Philippines Poland Russia Sweden Taiwan United Kingdom United States Uruguay
28 47 0.26 3.1 6 34 61 18 33 36 29 16 24
24 53 0.21 6.0 12 35 57 18 31 30 28 15 22 24 31 29 46 2.6 16 3.3 34 7 29 50 13
31 28 46 2.3 14 3.2 40 9 30 50 1g
28 49 0.36 5.9 7 38 58 18 34 37 27 12 25 36 28 46 3.5 21 3.0 32 12 52 20
13,9. Prevalent rates of functioning grafts
Data in each table & figure are presented only for those countries from wh. ich the relevant information was available. Tables 13.e-f per million population. Figures 1 3 . 7 - I I 2000. 13.11 • Transplant rates, by age
13.10. Transplant rates Netherlands Finland Norway
Norway Catalonia
~
~
~
J
Sweden U.S, Finland Netherlands
A u s t r i a m i m m
nml!
mmmm
rennin|
Canada
mmmu
Finlandm m m m
mmmm
immiml
Australia t
i o
mmmmmmmm mmnl Sweden mm|ml Nzea,andH i m
m m
Czech Rep. b
mlmm
Australia m
m
m
~
l
lamb
Germany
l
ibm
Hungary
Hungary ~
Poland
Ch,em | Uruguay Poland
IBBIIm mllll
20
mm Chile lib Taiwan m) Greece Im)
Greece ~ !
I
Bangladesh
1 200
300
400
Rate per million population
500
60
45-64
100 120 •
Bulgaria I
0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 Norway l l l l m l l l l ~ i ~ i i l l m l a l m lllllmllll U.S. Canada Austria i I n Netherlands m Sweden / N.Zealand / Greece / Finland ! Brunei I Australia 75-1-
0
65-74
~lN
Bangladesh f
IO0
80
m
INN
Russia I
0
60
50 I
Austria I u.s. Netherlands Canada I l m m m m Finland I I I m l m m N.Zealand m Sweden I N n Australia m Greece/ Brunei ~
Philippines !
Russia
40
Norway
Brunei I
~
15
Uruguay
Bulgaria ! Brunei
0-19
12
I
Netherlands
Czech Rep. Germany
m
Noway
Canada H
N. Zealand
U.S. l • m m ~ l l m • l U n m Brunei m a u I i m l a Australia mmmmlll N.Zealand Sweden Greece Austria O 3 6 9 U.S. Austria N.Zealand Finland I Norway I Canada I Netherlands I Swed Austr~ Gree Brun 10 20 30 40 U.S. I Austria Norway Canada Nil Sweden m Finland • Netherlands III II Australia m m l n m m N.Zealand re•iNImnm Greece m m Brunei
us m N m m m i
Austria
ml
I I III
can
C a t a l o n i a , , , , , ,
10
20
30
40
50
Rate per million population
60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Rate per million population
30
Patient populations& analytical methods
• The highest incident rates of ESRD(from 2S0 to 337 per million population)
• This year's new data collection form was distributed by the USRDSto all
occur in the U.S.,Taiwan, and Japan.
countries with renal registries. On the form we requested, by age group,
• The use of dialytic modalities varies significantly worldwide, with Australia
general population estimates, incident counts (including counts of patients
and New Zealand having the highest percentage of patients on home
with diabetic nephropathy), prevalent counts (overall and by modality), and counts of living donor and cadaveric transplants. • ,
dialysis therapy (60-70 percent). •
Home therapies are used most often in pediatric and young adult popu-
Each registry was asked to provide information for patients treated in the
lations, while in most countries older patients tend to be place~l on hemo-
years 1998 to 2000.
dialysis.
Using the general population estimates, we calculated unadjusted incident, prevalent, and transplant rates per million population.
• Additional information was obtained from the IFRRwebsite at www.healthtech-net.org/ifrr.
•
Home hemodialysis is utilized most extensively in Australia and New Zealand.
• TransplantratesarehighestinCatalonia,theU.S.,Austria,and Norway(above 45 per million population), and these same counties, with the addition of Sweden, also have the highest rates of functioning grafts.
Conclusions •
Prevalent rates of treated ESRD continue to rise significantly around the
50 per million population, and are highest in the Netherlands, Finland, and
world. Between 1998 and 2000, the largest rate increases occurred in Thai-
Norway.
land (83 percent),Poland (25 percent),Brunei (21 percent),Chile, Hungary, and Russia(each at 19 percent). Countries with more established ESRDtreatment programs have shown growth rates of 6-16 percent. • Prevalent rates are highest in Japan,Taiwan, and the United States. • Finland has the highest prevalence oftreated ESRDin the pediatric population (almost 90 per million population). •
•
• Transplant rates for younger populations generally range between 20 and
• Transplant rates for elderly patients in Norway are more than five times higher than those in any other country. • The worldwide increase in rates of functioning grafts appears to reflect improved graft survival. • Treatment options for ESRDpatients are limited by health policies, governmental infrastructure, and gross per capita income.
Diabetes is the leading cause of ESRDworldwide, occurring in only 3.6 per-
• With incident and prevalent rates oftreated ESRDcontinuing to increase
cent of incident patients in Russia but more than 40 percent in both Brunei
worldwide, and diabetes being the largest cause of ESRD, programs to
and the U.S.
identify those populations at high risk for chronic kidney disease and
High rates of diabetes in U.S. ESRDpatients of Hispanic origin suggest that
ESRDare needed in order to reduce the burdens of these diseases around
the disease should be evaluated in Hispanic populations worldwide.
the world.
chaptersummary. 212
.,
,Cha
erThirteen
k ~ i ~ ~ds itselfinthemidstoftheworld.In ~"~ ~i~if cretan~fan all°yetetl h[:t reaotsTd:::nl~:~tYup~nthe~:~rs. HILDEGARDEOF BINGEN,Scl¥io5
AmericanJournalof Kidney Diseases,Vo141,
No4,Suppl2 (April),2003:pp$205-$212
ntefmir,
Bangladesh, and the Philippines (66, 53, and 50 pmp).The wide variation in these rates illustrates that resources available to support ESRDprograms are subject to government infrastructures and per capita income. Additional information on the international scope of ESRDis provided by the International Federation of Renal Registries (IFRR), at www.health-tech-net.org/ifrr.
c~tmen t providParbSr°nd°fJnt2xSttafg~hend~Idaisl::~a:e(J~d?~
Ihe rest of the ADR, helping to show the relationship between the United States ESRDprogram and other programs around the world. On the 2000 data collection form we "equested patient counts, by age group, for ESRDincidence :including diabetic nephropathy), prevalence (overall and ~y modality),and transplant activity, along with national censusinformation to use in calculating unadjusted patient rates ~er million population (pmp). We received responses from 23countries.
Despite clear worldwide differences in policy regarding ESRD treatment, international comparisons of ethnic populations provide valuable insight into the provision of care in the U.S. compared to other nations. Asian ESRDpopulations, for example, are well documented in the U.S. data, and can be compared to populations in Japan and Taiwan.The prevalent rates of treated ESRDin Japan and Taiwan were 1,624 and
Norldwide prevalence of treated ESRDcontinues to climb, Nith rates highest in Japan,Taiwan and the United States 11,300-1,600 per m I on population), and lowest in Russia,
~?.
-- ~
United Stales
• 157+ • 130to <
• 129to < • 90to
iT below 9
i~! i ¸¸
:
13.1. Worldwideincidentrates per million population, 2000.
*Japan,dialysisonly
1,352 patients pmp in 2000, respectively, while the point prevalent rate of treated Asian ESRDpatients in the U.S.was 1,266. Incident rates, in contrast, were 252 and 311 pmp in Japan and Taiwan, but almost 400 pmp in the U.S.These differences may be related to patient acceptance rates and to survival time on ESRD. As reported by the IFRR, Mexico has a prevalent rate of 361 pmp, and an incident rate of 181 pmp.These are significantly lower than the reported rates for Hispanics in the U.S.,currently almost 1,000 and 454 pmp, respectively. Such differences in worldwide rates merit further investigation. There are notable differences in rates by age groups.The highest prevalent rates for patients younger than 20, for example, occur in Finland (90 pmp), followed by the U.S.and the Netherlands (77 and 73 pmp). In all other age groups,
~
f
~
:
~
however, U.S.rates exceed those of other countries {not all countries provided data by age group). The use of peritoneal dialysis (CAPDand CCPD)varies considerably from country to country, with the therapy being most popular in Australia and New Zealand. By age group, home therapies are used more frequently in pediatric patients (with the exception of Norway), with use of these therapies decreasing by patient age. Transplant rates are highest in Catalonia, the U.S.,Austria, and Norway (above 45 pmp), and these same counties, with the addition of Sweden, also have the highest rates of functioning grafts. We invite all registries to send us their data using the form on page 259, returning it to us by email ([email protected])or fax (1.612.347.5878).
: : :i~ ~i¸~r
ii~ i:¸¸:~:~:~:!~i:!! :ili
rTaiwan
NewZeala~
orldwide variation in prevalence rates can be attributed to a number of factors. Previous data, for example, have shown that treatment is related to a country's per capita income and governmental infrastructure, each of which can significantly influence the availability and quality of dialysis and transplant services. In addition, countries with excellent survival rates accumulate prevalent patients under ESRDtreatment. The best examples of this phenomenon are Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S., in which prevalent rates fall between 1,300and 1,600 per million population (Table 13.a and Figure 13.2).
W
Of the countries providing prevalent rates by age group, Finland has the highest prevalence of treated children with ESRD and Bangladesh the lowest (Figure 13.3). These extremes correlate with differences in national per capita income: for the year 2000, the World Bank reported an average income of $25,130 in Finland, and only $370 in Bangladesh (www.worldbank.org). In the 2003 ADR we will explore in more depth the relationship between the incidence and prevalence of treated ESRDand a nation's economic indicators. The percent of incident ESRDpatients with diabetes as the cause of renal failure is highest in Brunei and the U.S. (45.1 percent and 45.4 percent, respectively; Table 13.b and Figure 13.4). Interestingly, Brunei, Norway, Greece, Germany, and Taiwan all showed an increase in ESRDdue to diabetes of more than ten percent over the last three years. In Japan, Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Canada,Taiwan, and Finland, diabetes was the cause of ESRD in more than 30 percent of incident patients. The diabetic burden in Latin America is of particular interest. Rates of the disease are perhaps related to the mix of native and immigrant populations. In Chapter Two we show that rates of diabetes in U.S.ESRD patients of Mexican Hispanic origin are as high as 65 percent, and 55 percent in Hispanics of other origins. Such data should be confirmed by comparison to data from other countries. The diabetic population clearly continues to grow, with the disease remaining the leading cause of ESRDworldwide. The increasing burden of this disease and of ESRD treatment itself suggest that international programs to address populations at high risk for developing chronic kidney disease and ESRDare sorely needed around the world. Dam in each table 6. figure arc"presented only for those countries from which the relevant information was available. Tables 13.a & 13.¢ per million population. Figu r ¢ s 13.2--~ 2000.
13.a. Prevalence of ESRD
Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Israel Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Philippines Poland Russia Sweden Thailand United States Uruguay
10,408 5,995 5,239 232 2,732 20,166 5,659 7,594 5,626 2,657 62,657 7,548 4,394 2,913 38,638 186,251 9,073 2,060 2,318 9,766 8,090 5,914 3,266 344,603 2,325
11,045 6,215 5,922 243 2,647 21,863 5,906 8,516 5,916 2,820 59,443 8,079 4,827 3,217 44,071 197,213 9,486 2,209 2,429 1,296 10,672 8,792 6,116 4,736 361,921 2,408
13.2. Prevalence of ESRD
mmmmmll Taiwan m N m n U.5. nnnmmn Catalonia mmml Germany mnumnn Brunei mmm Greece Huron Austria nlmlli Uruguay mlllli Canada IlnNnm Sweden llUl| Czech Rep. lll ll Japan
Netherlands Chile N. Zealand
fill
Australia Finland Norway Hungary Bulgaria
lllll llllll lllll ll)
Poland Thailand
11,593 6,423 6,746 293 2,526 23,411 6,125 9,301 6,374 3,014 71,513 8,735 5,279
206,134 9,851 2,339 2,606 3,861 12,208 9,655 6,319 5,963 378,862 2,473
555.1 748.2 41.9 718.0 333.2 663.8 920.5 512.4 551.6 515.6 763.8 718.1 435.0 482.2 674.2 1,472.5 577.6 543.2 523.1 252.6 55.1 672.4 54.4 1,224 734.9
582.3 772.9 47.0 734.8 322.8 717.0 951.4 567.1 580.0 545.9 723.5 767.8 477.9 518.6 769.0 1,556.7 599.9 5793 544.4 17.3 276.1 59.7 695.1 78.9 1,275 761.1
605.2 798.5 52.7 865.8 319.7 ~761.3 978.1 611.5 624.9 582.3 870.2 830.2 517.7
1,624.1 621.0 610.6 580.3 50.5 315.9 65.7 712.3 99.4 1,298 781.7
13.3 • Prevalence of ESRD, by age Finland INNNIMIINIIR mWJilllIliNIIm~iron United States m m m m l i i l ~ Nethedands fmlllllNIImnmn IIImlNllmi m l l Canada imlll~lllUillllUlllmmllim Sweden tllWmlmiummlmlliiii1~11111 NewZealand IlllllllllRIlllii Australia Austria Gr e Ta~. . . . ~!9 20 o United States / Taiwan Austria NewZealand Sweden I Canada Australia Norway ~ l l Netherlands Finland ~ n m m l Greece ~
0
200
40
60
80
lOO
I
__ 400
L
20"44 600
United States Austria mmmllmmm Taiwan NewZealand a m Canada m m l Greece a m Sweden u m Australia m l Netherlands N i l Norway H i Finland
m
0
2,000
1,000
United States Canada m m Greece A m Austria m m Australia m m Netherlands m m Sweden ~ m m Norway m m NewZealand ~ I m R Finland
800
45-64 3,000 4,000
awaL 0
United States
__
|
~:~&tS~4~grg~'>Y?7*~';~:#r;:;~:*"
~!2~! ~~,I<~~,_.3~
Philippines 300 600 900 1,200 1500 1,800 Rate per million population
4
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Greece ! ~ ~Y"~fv~¢!:~ Canada ~a~;/~: ~,Y~~,> Sweden ~3,~:*>,,~ Austria ~.~+~,~ Netherlands ~>~-::~ Australia i ~:!= Norway Finland NewZealand
Russia
1,000
0
7~-I'-
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Rate per million population
13.b. Percentof incident patients with diabetes Austria Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Philippines Russia Sweden Taiwan United States Uruguay
30.0 32.3
31.3 39.0
30.0 19.8 31.0 33.6 33.0 21.6 18.3
31.3 19.0
36.2 15.5 10.2 62.0
31.9 34.6 21.5 21.I 15.3 35.0 14.0 12.1 19.9
23.0 28.7 43.5 16.4
21.7 29.8 43.4 18.9
32.7 45.1 9.6 32.0 19.9 33.0 31.4 36.2 25.5 19.9 36.5 16,7 15.2 23.4 3.6 25.1 31.7 43.4 17.8
13.4 • Percentof incident patients with diabetes
B,uo~, l
l
l
l
l
u, m m a i l
13.c. Incidenceof ESRD Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Israel Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Philippines Poland Russia Sweden Taiwan
86 129 6 192 73 138 135 121 133 go 148 114 127 152 104 234 94 98 90 11 52 20 127 288
92 135 5 178 78 146 150 147 128 90 148 124 123 176 130 249 98 98 89 18 58 20 125 315
90 133 6 210 78 143 143 126 151 94 175 157 129
United Kingdom United States
77 313
325
337
Uruguay
137
145
126
252 93 107 89 27 66 15 126 311
13.S. Incidenceof ESRD
Japan Germany i
i~ ~m i mi
Czech Rep. l Austria
i
Taiw~S~ ~
Japan~
d
mid
Canada m
i
i
~
~
f
m
f
~
Greece
~
Czech
Rep.~
Canada
Fn ia lndm i D )
Hungami Austria
I
Finland / Netherlands
Norway m m m
45-54 BangladeshI __ 0 lO0 200 300 400 500 600 700 Taiwan i U.S, I I Canada III Greece Austria Uruguay Sweden Norway Netherlands m Australia m
Uruguay Sweden
Philippines
Chile /
Hungary
N. Zealand H I Finland i Netherlands i
Uruguay
Finland m N m
Australia i
Bulgaria m Norway ~ B
Poland Philippines
Bulgaria
m |
Russia Russia
Bangladesh 0
10
20
30
40
Percent of patients
50
N.Zealand 65-74 Bangladesh 0 200 400 600 1200 1600 Taiwan u.s. m m m l m m m l m ! Uruguay l m m m m l Greece m m m m m m m l Canada Sweden m m m l m l m m Austria Immllmmmm Australia a m Netherlands I E Norway ilmlNNi N.Zealand i Finland INto 75+ Bangladesh 0 200 400 600 1200 1600
i m i m l ~ i l lilmm Inl
Norway i
Netherlands
U.S. Canada l m m m m l m l m m l Netherlands ~ m m m i i ~ Uruguay m m m m l Norway i i ~ i Taiwan ~ U i l Australia t a h i t i Finland m m m m m m m Greece I N N I N I N I N N.Zealand i l i a d Austria i ~ Sweden 0-19 Bangladesh 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 U.S. I Taiwan I N.Zealand Uruguay Austria Sweden Canada m m m m Finland m m m Australia m Netherlands Greece i Norway m~mm 20~ Bangladesh[ ] 0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 140 Taiwan U.S. N.Zealand i Austria I t Canada/ Greece i Uruguay m m m Swedenm m Australia m m
Catalonia
-=r col... i
m
Germany
Ta,wanimi Greece ~
~
13,6,Incidenceof ESRD,byage
1O0
200
300
Rate per million population
Rateper million population
M
odalities of treatment vary widely around the world, reflecting differences in healthcare systems and in cultural perspectives on the human body. In New Zealand and Australia, for example, 60 to 70 percent of the dialysis population is treated with a home therapy, either peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis (Table 13.d and Figure 13.7). New Zealand patients are more likely than those of any other reporting country to be treated with peritoneal dialysis, while home hemodialysis is used in almost one-fifth of Australian patients. Such figures are in marked contrast to those of countries such as Japan, in which 95 percent of patients are treated with in-center hemodialysis. In most countries home hemodialysis is used rarely, if at all. Since 1998, only 0.5 percent of the U.S. dialysis population has been treated with this therapy. But as new information continues to become available on overnight and daily dialysis, the use of home treatments may begin to increase. Long overnight dialysis has, indeed, been used in Tassin, France for many years; readers are referred to publications about this treatment. The use of home therapy is most likely in younger patients, while most older patients (except for those in New Zealand and Australia) are treated with hemodialysis (Figure 13.8). The use of transplant as a modality also differs widely around the world. Prevalent rates for patients with functioning grafts, for example, vary from a high of 437 per million population in Norway to a low of 2.6 in Bangladesh (Table 13.e and Figure 13.9). Increases over time in the prevalent rates of functioning grafts suggest improved graft survival, illustrated in Chapter Eight for the U.S.transplant population. Seven of the nine countries with transplant rates of more than 30 per million population are European, with the U.S. and Canada ranked second and fifth (Table 13.f and Figure 13.10).Transplant rates for children are highest in the Netherlands, Finland, and Norway, and in Norway the rate for elderly patients is more than five times higher than in any other country (Figure 13.1I)
Australia Austria Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Japan Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Russia Sweden Taiwan United States Uruguay
40.2 92.2 88.7 96.2 72.2 94.7 96.4
40.8 91.8 85.8 96.3 74.3 95.2 96.6
73.0 91 .I 89.6 96.7
73.5 92.8 89.6 95.8 88.6 95.5 67.6 25.7 83.4 89.7 93.6 72.1 94.7 90.0 94.1
95.2 68.4 22.7 81.3 89.4 93.4 72.4 95.1 89.0 95.6
41.2 91.9 83.5 97.2 76.0 95.4 96.3 93.3 76.0 93.7 89.5 94.1
42.6 7.6 11.3 3.8 26.3 5.2 3.6
41.9 7.9 14.2 33 24.0 4.7 3.4
26.4 7.3 10.3 3.3
95.8 67.6 27.9 81.2 89.4 93.2 72.8 93.9 90.7 94.4
4.7 29.8 58.7 18.6 10.6 6.6 25.6 4.g I O.S 4.4
25.0 6.2 10.4 4.2 10.6 4.5 30.S 58.6 16.4 10.3 6.4 25.8 S.3 9.5 5.9
13.7. Distribution of prevalent dialysis patients
17.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.1
17.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.1~ 0.0
0.6 1.6 0.0 0.0
4.2 30.6 56.6 18.5 10.6 6.8 25.3 6.1 8.8 5.6
0,0 1,8 18,6 0,2 0.0 0,0 1.9 0.0 O.S 0.0
1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.8 1S.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.0
17.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 15.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 O.S 0.0
13.8, Prevalent dialysis patients, by age
Bulgaria Chile Japan
Home hemodialysis CAPD/CCPD
i R
ummim
Sweden L Australia Finland ~
Catalonia
__ II I
_ __ T r
II
Uruguay Hungary
,uog~ I Norway I
Taiwan Germany
IIIIII
Canada L Finland I Sweden ~ Netherlands ~ Austra a N. Zealand I
illii
Czech Rep.
'll . .
.
.
.
.
.
Taiwan i l ~ A ~ m ~ = = m ~ ~ CUa~U~oU~i m In-center hemodialysis Russia Bi I n Home hemodlalysls" ' Hunga~ Austria u.s. tl| ni i m ~ . ?,pD,~CPD ,~ /~Greece t l m ~ ~ ~ = d t l l m n Norway Finlana ~ l Canada i l l l l ~ m I l l l l m I R m u l l l ~ l ~ l l n Sweden ~ Jl Netherlan~ls U .... Australia N. Zealand ~
Russia Austria U.S. Greece Poland
Taiwan ImlmmmU l m i H l l m l i m m Hu~g~
n Catag~nia Russia
Brunei
u
m
u
m
m
mmllil ~
~
Austria ~ U.S. Norway. Greece Finland Neth~rlanc~s ~.anaoa n Sweden Australia N. Zealand
i m n~ m~ mm lma~Nm mlm l~
Norway
i
Canada Finland
National economies and infrastructures, the willingness to provide reimbursement for immunosuppressive medications, and cultural attitudes toward transplantation all affect the use of transplant as a treatment for ESRD. In addition, any efforts to expand transplant programs are limited by organ availability, a problem existing worldwide.
41.5 7.8 16.5 2.8 22.2 4.6 3.7 6.7 22.6 5.4 10.5 5.9
Russia Huqgab, Catalonia Uruguay Talwan Austria U.S. ~ ~ Greece i Netherlands Finland I R i I N i ~ Canada Norway ~ l i m m l l Sweden Australia N. Zealand
Sweden Netherlands Australia
~
20
40
60
80
Percentofpatients
100
20
_
~
!
~
N. Zealand
....
40
60
Percent of patients
80
100
Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Russia Sweden United Kingdom United States Uruguay
259.6 364.2 2.3 31.0 31.1 255.1 384.1 108.8 189.6 316.9 179.0 125.0 135.0 127.7 287.8 245.5 401.4 74.7 13.1 362.9 211.4 342.9 80.9
265.3 385.8 2.4 36.3 36.1 273.0 403.2 117.4 217.8 331.8 177.5 135.4 141.7 151.1 298.6 256.1 420.4
273.3 407.4 2.6 41.4 43.4 289.8 428.5 126.9 240.0 353.2 230.2 139.4 153.8
15.3 371.3
317.2 264.7 436.9 97.9 17.1 377.6
357.3 93.2
375.4 104.9
76.8
Australia Austria Bangladesh Brunei Bulgaria Canada Catalonia Chile Czech Republic Finland Germany Greece Hungary Italy Netherlands New Zealand Norway Philippines Poland Russia Sweden Taiwan United Kingdom United States Uruguay
28 47 0.26 3.1 6 34 61 18 33 36 29 16 24
24 53 0.21 6.0 12 35 57 18 31 30 28 15 22 24 31 29 46 2.6 16 3.3 34 7 29 50 13
31 28 46 2.3 14 3.2 40 9 30 50 1g
28 49 0.36 5.9 7 38 58 18 34 37 27 12 25 36 28 46 3.5 21 3.0 32 12 52 20
13,9. Prevalent rates of functioning grafts
Data in each table & figure are presented only for those countries from wh. ich the relevant information was available. Tables 13.e-f per million population. Figures 1 3 . 7 - I I 2000. 13.11 • Transplant rates, by age
13.10. Transplant rates Netherlands Finland Norway
Norway Catalonia
~
~
~
J
Sweden U.S, Finland Netherlands
A u s t r i a m i m m
nml!
mmmm
rennin|
Canada
mmmu
Finlandm m m m
mmmm
immiml
Australia t
i o
mmmmmmmm mmnl Sweden mm|ml Nzea,andH i m
m m
Czech Rep. b
mlmm
Australia m
m
m
~
l
lamb
Germany
l
ibm
Hungary
Hungary ~
Poland
Ch,em | Uruguay Poland
IBBIIm mllll
20
mm Chile lib Taiwan m) Greece Im)
Greece ~ !
I
Bangladesh
1 200
300
400
Rate per million population
500
60
45-64
100 120 •
Bulgaria I
0 20 40 60 80 I00 120 Norway l l l l m l l l l ~ i ~ i i l l m l a l m lllllmllll U.S. Canada Austria i I n Netherlands m Sweden / N.Zealand / Greece / Finland ! Brunei I Australia 75-1-
0
65-74
~lN
Bangladesh f
IO0
80
m
INN
Russia I
0
60
50 I
Austria I u.s. Netherlands Canada I l m m m m Finland I I I m l m m N.Zealand m Sweden I N n Australia m Greece/ Brunei ~
Philippines !
Russia
40
Norway
Brunei I
~
15
Uruguay
Bulgaria ! Brunei
0-19
12
I
Netherlands
Czech Rep. Germany
m
Noway
Canada H
N. Zealand
U.S. l • m m ~ l l m • l U n m Brunei m a u I i m l a Australia mmmmlll N.Zealand Sweden Greece Austria O 3 6 9 U.S. Austria N.Zealand Finland I Norway I Canada I Netherlands I Swed Austr~ Gree Brun 10 20 30 40 U.S. I Austria Norway Canada Nil Sweden m Finland • Netherlands III II Australia m m l n m m N.Zealand re•iNImnm Greece m m Brunei
us m N m m m i
Austria
ml
I I III
can
C a t a l o n i a , , , , , ,
10
20
30
40
50
Rate per million population
60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Rate per million population
30
Patient populations& analytical methods
• The highest incident rates of ESRD(from 2S0 to 337 per million population)
• This year's new data collection form was distributed by the USRDSto all
occur in the U.S.,Taiwan, and Japan.
countries with renal registries. On the form we requested, by age group,
• The use of dialytic modalities varies significantly worldwide, with Australia
general population estimates, incident counts (including counts of patients
and New Zealand having the highest percentage of patients on home
with diabetic nephropathy), prevalent counts (overall and by modality), and counts of living donor and cadaveric transplants. • ,
dialysis therapy (60-70 percent). •
Home therapies are used most often in pediatric and young adult popu-
Each registry was asked to provide information for patients treated in the
lations, while in most countries older patients tend to be place~l on hemo-
years 1998 to 2000.
dialysis.
Using the general population estimates, we calculated unadjusted incident, prevalent, and transplant rates per million population.
• Additional information was obtained from the IFRRwebsite at www.healthtech-net.org/ifrr.
•
Home hemodialysis is utilized most extensively in Australia and New Zealand.
• TransplantratesarehighestinCatalonia,theU.S.,Austria,and Norway(above 45 per million population), and these same counties, with the addition of Sweden, also have the highest rates of functioning grafts.
Conclusions •
Prevalent rates of treated ESRD continue to rise significantly around the
50 per million population, and are highest in the Netherlands, Finland, and
world. Between 1998 and 2000, the largest rate increases occurred in Thai-
Norway.
land (83 percent),Poland (25 percent),Brunei (21 percent),Chile, Hungary, and Russia(each at 19 percent). Countries with more established ESRDtreatment programs have shown growth rates of 6-16 percent. • Prevalent rates are highest in Japan,Taiwan, and the United States. • Finland has the highest prevalence oftreated ESRDin the pediatric population (almost 90 per million population). •
•
• Transplant rates for younger populations generally range between 20 and
• Transplant rates for elderly patients in Norway are more than five times higher than those in any other country. • The worldwide increase in rates of functioning grafts appears to reflect improved graft survival. • Treatment options for ESRDpatients are limited by health policies, governmental infrastructure, and gross per capita income.
Diabetes is the leading cause of ESRDworldwide, occurring in only 3.6 per-
• With incident and prevalent rates oftreated ESRDcontinuing to increase
cent of incident patients in Russia but more than 40 percent in both Brunei
worldwide, and diabetes being the largest cause of ESRD, programs to
and the U.S.
identify those populations at high risk for chronic kidney disease and
High rates of diabetes in U.S. ESRDpatients of Hispanic origin suggest that
ESRDare needed in order to reduce the burdens of these diseases around
the disease should be evaluated in Hispanic populations worldwide.
the world.