Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

Administration of teclistamab in four patients with multiple myeloma requiring hemodialysis

OBJECTIVE

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) has poor outcomes, especially in heavily pretreated patients. Limited data exists on the use of novel therapies in MM patients with renal dysfunction. This case series describes the successful initiation of teclistamab in four patients with heavily pre-treated MM on hemodialysis (HD).

DATA SOURCES

The medical records of four adult MM patients on HD who received teclistamab were retrospectively reviewed.

DATA SUMMARY

All patients completed teclistamab step-up dosing and received at least one full dose. HD runs were administered irrespective of teclistamab initiation. Patients tolerated therapy well, with only one patient experiencing grade 1 CRS, which was managed with supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the complexity of this patient population, close monitoring and multidisciplinary care are crucial. This approach is essential for effectively managing MM patients with renal dysfunction and for exploring novel treatment options.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis (HHD) may be associated with important clinical, social or economic benefits. However, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated HHD versus in-centre HD (ICHD). The relative benefits and harms of these two HD modalities are uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. This update includes non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of HHD versus ICHD in adults with kidney failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2022 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for NRSIs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and NRSIs evaluating HHD (including community houses and self-care) compared to ICHD in adults with kidney failure were eligible. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, vascular access interventions, central venous catheter insertion/exchange, vascular access infection, parathyroidectomy, wait-listing for a kidney transplant, receipt of a kidney transplant, quality of life (QoL), symptoms related to dialysis therapy, fatigue, recovery time, cost-effectiveness, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed, and relevant outcomes were extracted. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes where there was sufficient data.

MAIN RESULTS

From the 1305 records identified, a single cross-over RCT and 39 NRSIs proved eligible for inclusion. These studies were of varying design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional) and involved a widely variable number of participants (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses). Studies also varied in the treatment prescription and delivery (e.g. treatment duration, frequency, dialysis machine parameters) and participant characteristics (e.g. time on dialysis). Studies often did not describe these parameters in detail. Although the risk of bias, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was generally low for most studies, within the constraints of observational study design, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding. Many study outcomes were reported in ways that did not allow direct comparison or meta-analysis. It is uncertain whether HHD, compared to ICHD, may be associated with a decrease in cardiovascular death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 2 NRSIs, 30,900 participants; very low certainty evidence) or all-cause death (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; 9 NRSIs, 58,984 patients; very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether HHD may be associated with a decrease in hospitalisation rate (MD -0.50 admissions per patient-year, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.02; 2 NRSIs, 834 participants; very low certainty evidence), compared with ICHD. Compared with ICHD, it is uncertain whether HHD may be associated with receipt of kidney transplantation (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 6 NRSIs, 10,910 participants; very low certainty evidence) and a shorter recovery time post-dialysis (MD -2.0 hours, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.28; 2 NRSIs, 348 participants; very low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain if HHD may be associated with decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -11.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -21.11 to -2.46; 4 NRSIs, 491 participants; very low certainty evidence) and decreased left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD -17.74 g/m2, 95% CI -29.60 to -5.89; 2 NRSIs, 130 participants; low certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to evaluate the relative association of HHD and ICHD with fatigue or vascular access outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported using 18 different measures across 11 studies (QoL: 6 measures; mental health: 3 measures; symptoms: 1 measure; impact and view of health: 6 measures; functional ability: 2 measures). Few studies reported the same measures, which limited the ability to perform meta-analysis or compare outcomes. It is uncertain whether HHD is more cost-effective than ICHD, both in the first (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.13 to -0.37; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence) and second year of dialysis (SMD -1.47, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.21; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low to very low certainty evidence, HHD, compared with ICHD, has uncertain associations or may be associated with decreased cardiovascular and all-cause death, hospitalisation rate, slower post-dialysis recovery time, and decreased SBP and LVMI. HHD has uncertain cost-effectiveness compared with ICHD in the first and second years of treatment. The majority of studies included in this review were observational and subject to potential selection bias and confounding, especially as patients treated with HHD tended to be younger with fewer comorbidities. Variation from study to study in the choice of outcomes and the way in which they were reported limited the ability to perform meta-analyses. Future research should align outcome measures and metrics with other research in the field in order to allow comparison between studies, establish outcome effects with greater certainty, and avoid research waste.

Main Barriers to the Introduction of a Home Haemodialysis Programme in Poland: A Review of the Challenges for Implementation and Criteria for a Successful Programme

Introduction: Home dialysis in Poland is restricted to the peritoneal dialysis (PD) modality, with the majority of dialysis patients treated using in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD). Home haemodialysis (HHD) is an additional home therapy to PD and provides an attractive alternative to ICHD that combines dialysis with social distancing; eliminates transportation needs; and offers clinical, economic, and quality of life benefits. However, HHD is not currently provided in Poland. This review was performed to provide an overview of the main barriers to the introduction of a HHD programme in Poland. Main findings: The main high-level barrier to introducing HHD in Poland is the absence of specific health legislation required for clinician prescribing of HHD. Other barriers to overcome include clear definition of reimbursement, patient training and education (including infrastructure and experienced personnel), organisation of logistics, and management of complications. Partnering with a large care network for HHD represents an alternative option to payers for the provision of a new HHD service. This may reduce some of the barriers which need to be overcome when compared with the creation of a new HHD service and its supporting network due to the pre-existing infrastructure, processes, and staff of a large care network. Conclusions: Provision of HHD is not solely about the provision of home treatment, but also the organisation and definition of a range of support services that are required to deliver the service. HHD should be viewed as an additional, complementary option to existing dialysis modalities which enables choice of modality best suited to a patient’s needs.

Beta-2 microglobulin and all-cause mortality in the era of high-flux hemodialysis: results from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study

BACKGROUND

Beta-2 microglobulin (β2M) accumulates in hemodialysis (HD) patients, but its consequences are controversial, particularly in the current era of high-flux dialyzers. High-flux HD treatment improves β2M removal, yet β2M and other middle molecules may still contribute to adverse events. We investigated patient factors associated with serum β2M, evaluated trends in β2M levels and in hospitalizations due to dialysis-related amyloidosis (DRA), and estimated the effect of β2M on mortality.

METHODS

We studied European and Japanese participants in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study. Analysis of DRA-related hospitalizations spanned 1998-2018 (n = 23 976), and analysis of β2M and mortality in centers routinely measuring β2M spanned 2011-18 (n = 5332). We evaluated time trends with linear and Poisson regression and mortality with Cox regression.

RESULTS

Median β2M changed nonsignificantly from 2.71 to 2.65 mg/dL during 2011-18 (P = 0.87). Highest β2M tertile patients (>2.9 mg/dL) had longer dialysis vintage, higher C-reactive protein and lower urine volume than lowest tertile patients (≤2.3 mg/dL). DRA-related hospitalization rates [95% confidence interval (CI)] decreased from 1998 to 2018 from 3.10 (2.55-3.76) to 0.23 (0.13-0.42) per 100 patient-years. Compared with the lowest β2M tertile, adjusted mortality hazard ratios (95% CI) were 1.16 (0.94-1.43) and 1.38 (1.13-1.69) for the middle and highest tertiles. Mortality risk increased monotonically with β2M modeled continuously, with no indication of a threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

DRA-related hospitalizations decreased over 10-fold from 1998 to 2018. Serum β2M remains positively associated with mortality, even in the current high-flux HD era.

Challenges of reducing protein-bound uremic toxin levels in chronic kidney disease and end stage renal disease

The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the worldwide population is currently estimated between 11% and 13%. Adequate renal clearance is compromised in these patients and the accumulation of a large number of uremic retention solutes results in an irreversible worsening of renal function which can lead to end stage renal disease (ESRD). Approximately three million ESRD patients currently receive renal replacement therapies (RRTs), such as hemodialysis, which only partially restore kidney function, as they are only efficient in removing mainly small, unbound solutes from the circulation while leaving larger and protein-bound uremic toxins (PBUTs) untouched. The accumulation of PBUTs in patients highly increases the risk of cardiovascular events and is associated with higher mortality and morbidity in CKD and ESRD. In this review, we address several strategies currently being explored toward reducing PBUT concentrations, including clinical and medical approaches, therapeutic techniques, and recent developments in RRT technology. These include preservation of renal function, limitation of colon derived PBUTs, oral sorbents, adsorbent RRT technology, and use of albumin displacers. Despite the promising results of the different approaches to promote enhanced removal of a small percentage of the more than 30 identified PBUTs, on their own, none of them provide a treatment with the required efficiency, safety and cost-effectiveness to prevent CKD-related complications and decrease mortality and morbidity in ESRD.

The influence of mortality rate from membrane flux for end-stage renal disease: A meta-analysis

To evaluate the influence of the high-flux hemodialysis (HFHD) and the low-flux hemodialysis (LFHD) on mortality rate for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Four electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrails were searched to identify relevant randomized clinical trials up to 31 August 2015. Seven studies enrolling a total of 4412 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For all-cause mortality comparing with LFHD, the result showed that there were significant difference (RR=0.75; 95% CI [0.60-0.94]; I²=84%; P<0.00001). For death due to infection comparing with LFHD, the result showed that there was no significant difference (RR=0.92; 95% CI [0.75-1.13]; I²=0%; P=0.86). For cardiovascular mortality, the overall meta-analysis result showed that there was a significant difference between the HFHD versus the LFHD (RR=0.75; 95% CI [0.60-0.94]; I²=55%; P=0.11). Publication bias was not detected by funnel plot. Based on these results, our study suggests that the HFHD has superior effectiveness over LFHD for long-term survival in ESRD.

Effect of High-Flux Dialysis on Circulating FGF-23 Levels in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients: Results from a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (HD), increased levels of circulating fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF-23) are independently associated with cardiovascular events and mortality. Interventional strategies aiming to reduce levels of FGF-23 in HD patients are of particular interest. The purpose of the current study was to compare the impact of high-flux versus low-flux HD on circulating FGF-23 levels.

METHODS

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the MINOXIS study, including 127 dialysis patients randomized to low-flux (n = 62) and high-flux (n = 65) HD for 52 weeks. Patients with valid measures for FGF-23 investigated baseline and after 52 weeks were included.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, a significant increase in FGF-23 levels after one year of low-flux HD was observed (Delta plasma FGF-23: +4026 RU/ml; p < 0.001). In contrast, FGF-23 levels remained stable in the high flux group (Delta plasma FGF-23: +373 RU/ml, p = 0.70). The adjusted difference of the absolute change in FGF-23 levels between the two treatment groups was statistically significant (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Over a period of 12 months, high-flux HD was associated with stable FGF-23 levels, whereas the low-flux HD group showed an increase of FGF-23. However, the implications of the different FGF 23 time-trends in patients on high flux dialysis, as compared to the control group, remain to be explored in specifically designed clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00007612.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Home haemodialysis is associated with improved survival and quality of life in uncontrolled studies. However, relative benefits and harms of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of home haemodialysis versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register was searched up to 31 October 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of home versus in-centre haemodialysis in adults with ESKD were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two investigators independently. Study risk of bias and other patient-centred outcomes were extracted. Insufficient data were available to conduct meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a single cross-over RCT (enrolling 9 participants) that compared home haemodialysis (long hours: 6 to 8 hours, 3 times/week) with in-centre haemodialysis (short hours: 3.5 to 4.5 hours, 3 times/weeks) for 8 weeks in prevalent home haemodialysis patients. Outcome data were limited and not available for the end of the first phase of treatment in this cross-over study which was at risk of bias due to differences in dialysate composition between the two treatment comparisons.Overall, home haemodialysis reduced 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure and improved uraemic symptoms, but increased treatment-related burden of disease and interference in social activities. Insufficient data were available for mortality, hospitalisation or dialysis vascular access complications or treatment durability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient randomised data were available to determine the effects of home haemodialysis on survival, hospitalisation, and quality of life compared with in-centre haemodialysis. Given the consistently observed benefits of home haemodialysis on quality of life and survival in uncontrolled studies, and the low prevalence of home haemodialysis globally, randomised studies evaluating home haemodialysis would help inform clinical practice and policy.

Assessment of subjective and hemodynamic tolerance of different high- and low-flux dialysis membranes in patients undergoing chronic intermittent hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical experience and experimental data suggest that intradialytic hemodynamic profiles could be influenced by the characteristics of the dialysis membranes. Even within the worldwide used polysulfone family, intolerance to specific membranes was occasionally evoked. The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamically some of the commonly used polysulfone dialyzers in Switzerland. We performed an open-label, randomized, cross-over trial, including 25 hemodialysis patients. Four polysulfone dialyzers, A (Revaclear high-flux, Gambro, Stockholm, Sweden), B (Helixone high-flux, Fresenius), C (Xevonta high-flux, BBraun, Melsungen, Germany), and D (Helixone low-flux, Fresenius, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany), were compared. The hemodynamic profile was assessed and patients were asked to provide tolerance feedback. The mean score (±SD) subjectively assigned to dialysis quality on a 1-10 scale was A 8.4 ± 1.3, B 8.6 ± 1.3, C 8.5 ± 1.6, D 8.5 ± 1.5. Kt/V was A 1.58 ± 0.30, B 1.67 ± 0.33, C 1.62 ± 0.32, D 1.45 ± 0.31. The low- compared with the high-flux membranes, correlated to higher systolic (128.1 ± 13.1 vs. 125.6 ± 12.1 mmHg, P < 0.01) and diastolic (76.8 ± 8.7 vs. 75.3 ± 9.0 mmHg; P < 0.05) pressures, higher peripheral resistance (1.44 ± 0.19 vs. 1.40 ± 0.18 s × mmHg/mL; P < 0.05) and lower cardiac output (3.76 ± 0.62 vs. 3.82 ± 0.59 L/min; P < 0.05). Hypotension events (decrease in systolic blood pressure by >20 mmHg) were 70 with A, 87 with B, 73 with C, and 75 with D (P < 0.01 B vs. A, 0.05 B vs. C and 0.07 B vs. D). The low-flux membrane correlated to higher blood pressure levels compared with the high-flux ones. The Helixone high-flux membrane ensured the best efficiency. Unfortunately, the very same dialyzer correlated to a higher incidence of hypotensive episodes.