The reasons for a clinical trial on incremental haemodialysis

A practical approach to implementing incremental haemodialysis

The majority of end-stage kidney disease patients are treated with haemodialysis (HD). Starting HD can pose physical, social, and psychological challenges to patients, and mortality rates within the first 6 months are disproportionately high, with intensive HD regimens implicated as a potential factor. Starting HD with an incremental approach, taking residual kidney function (RKF) into account, potentially allows for a gentle start with reduced dialysis intensity. Dialysis intensity (session time or frequency) can then be proportionally increased as RKF reduces. This approach to starting HD has been reported in observational studies to result in better patient self-reported health quality of life and reduced costs, and now several definitive randomised controlled trials are underway comparing an incremental approach to the conventional thrice weekly paradigm. Physician concerns over the risk of inadequate dialysis, with consequent increased emergency admissions, and practical challenges of how to estimate RKF and implement incremental dialysis have impeded widespread adoption. Addressing these challenges is paramount to increasing the uptake of incremental HD. Careful patient selection lies at the heart of a successful incremental HD programme. Generally, patients with a residual urea clearance of > 3 ml/min/1.73 m2 can be considered suitable for starting with incremental HD provided they comply with fluid intake, salt and other dietary recommendations. Calculating RKF from regular interdialytic urine collections and appropriately adjusting sessional HD clearance targets are practical and conceptual challenges. In this report we aim to disentangle these complexities and provide a step-by-step guide for patient selection and adjusting dialysis sessional targets.

Incremental dialysis: two complementary views

Franco Casino and Mariana Murea discuss today's knowledge about the 'incremental dialysis' concept. Franco Casino frames the problem by saying that, in the presence of substantial residual kidney function, kidney replacement therapy can begin with low doses and/or frequencies, to be gradually increased to compensate for any subsequent losses of residual kidney function, keeping the total clearance above the minimum levels of adequacy. He remarks that studies so far have documented that this approach is safe. He recognizes that adequate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are necessary to confirm the safety and simplify and standardize the practical aspects of this approach. Mariana Murea objects that most of the evidence gathered so far primarily derives from retrospective and observational studies, which can be influenced by socioeconomic constraints. She argues for the need for RCTs to provide compelling empirical evidence on the efficacy of incremental dialysis. Nephrologists are still reluctant to adopt this approach for various reasons, including unfamiliarity with the method, lack of practical guidance and financial disincentives. Several countries have ongoing or planned RCTs comparing incremental dialysis with conventional dialysis. These trials can shift the haemodialysis paradigm if they validate the safety and effectiveness of this approach. The moderators believe that the results of ongoing trials must be carefully interpreted, and further validation may be needed across different patient populations or healthcare settings. The ultimate goal is to gather robust evidence that could lead to widespread adoption of incremental haemodialysis, optimizing treatment, reducing overtreatment, preserving resources and improving patients' quality of life.

Does delivering more dialysis improve clinical outcomes? What randomized controlled trials have shown

Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have sought to determine whether different dialysis techniques, dialysis doses and frequencies of treatment are able to improve clinical outcomes in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Virtually all of these RCTs were enacted on the premise that 'more' haemodialysis might improve clinical outcomes compared to 'conventional' haemodialysis. Aim of the present narrative review was to analyse these landmark RCTs by posing the following question: were their intervention strategies (i.e., earlier dialysis start, higher haemodialysis dose, intensive haemodialysis, increase in convective transport, starting haemodialysis with three sessions per week) able to improve clinical outcomes? The answer is no. There are at least two main reasons why many RCTs have failed to demonstrate the expected benefits thus far: (1) in general, RCTs included relatively small cohorts and short follow-ups, thus producing low event rates and limited statistical power; (2) the designs of these studies did not take into account that ESKD does not result from a single disease entity: it is a collection of different diseases and subtypes of kidney dysfunction. Patients with advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis treatment differ on a multitude of levels including residual kidney function, biochemical parameters (e.g., acid base balance, serum electrolytes, mineral and bone disorder), and volume overload. In conclusion, the different intervention strategies of the RCTs herein reviewed were not able to improve clinical outcomes of ESKD patients. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process. Future RCTs should account for the heterogeneity of patients when considering inclusion/exclusion criteria and study design, and should a priori consider subgroup analyses to highlight specific subgroups that can benefit most from a particular intervention.

Kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis is a heterogeneous syndrome: we should treat it like one

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis, commonly labeled end-stage kidney disease or chronic kidney disease stage 5D, is a heterogeneous syndrome -a key reason that may explain why: treating advanced kidney dysfunction is challenging and many clinical trials involving patients on dialysis have failed, thus far. Treatment with dialytic techniques - of which maintenance thrice-weekly hemodialysis is most commonly used - is broadly named kidney 'replacement' therapy, a term that casts the perception of a priori abandonment of intrinsic kidney function and subsumes patients into a single, homogeneous group.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with advanced kidney failure necessitating dialytic therapy may have ongoing endogenous kidney function, and differ in their clinical manifestations and needs. Different terminology, for example, kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD) with stages of progressive severity could better capture the range of phenotypes of patients who require kidney 'assistance' therapy.

SUMMARY

Classifying patients with KDRD based on objective, quantitative levels of endogenous kidney function, as well as patient-reported symptoms and quality of life, would facilitate hemodialysis prescriptions tailored to level of kidney dysfunction, clinical needs, and personal priorities. Such classification would encourage clinicians to move toward personalized, physiological, and adaptive approach to hemodialysis therapy.

The spectrum of kidney dysfunction requiring chronic dialysis therapy: Implications for clinical practice and future clinical trials

Staging to capture kidney function and pathophysiologic processes according to severity is widely used in chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury not requiring dialysis. Yet the diagnosis of "end-stage kidney disease" (ESKD) considers patients as a single homogeneous group, with negligible kidney function, in need of kidney replacement therapy. Herein, we review the evidence behind the heterogeneous nature of ESKD and discuss potential benefits of recasting the terminology used to describe advanced kidney dysfunction from a monolithic entity to a disease with stages of ascending severity. We consider kidney assistance therapy in lieu of kidney replacement therapy to better reconcile all available types of therapy for advanced kidney failure including dietary intervention, kidney transplantation, and dialysis therapy at varied schedules. The lexicon "kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis" (KDRD) with stages of ascending severity based on levels of residual kidney function (RKF)-that is, renal urea clearance-and manifestations related to uremia, fluid status, and other abnormalities is discussed. Subtyping KDRD by levels of RKF could advance dialysis therapy as a form of kidney assistance therapy adjusted based on RKF and clinical symptoms. We focus on intermittent hemodialysis and underscore the need to personalize dialysis treatments and improve characterization of patients included in clinical trials.

Renal replacement treatment initiation with twice-weekly versus thrice-weekly haemodialysis in patients with incident dialysis-dependent kidney disease: rationale and design of the TWOPLUS pilot clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The optimal haemodialysis (HD) prescription-frequency and dose-for patients with incident dialysis-dependent kidney disease (DDKD) and substantial residual kidney function (RKF)-that is, renal urea clearance ≥2 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine volume ≥500 mL/day-is not known. The aim of the present study is to test the feasibility and safety of a simple, reliable prescription of incremental HD in patients with incident DDKD and RKF.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This parallel-group, open-label randomised pilot trial will enrol 50 patients from 14 outpatient dialysis units. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive twice-weekly HD with adjuvant pharmacological therapy for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD (incremental HD group) or outright thrice-weekly HD (standard HD group). Age ≥18 years, chronic kidney disease progressing to DDKD and urine output ≥500 mL/day are key inclusion criteria; patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30% and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis will be excluded. Adjuvant pharmacological therapy (ie, effective diuretic regimen, patiromer and sodium bicarbonate) will complement twice-weekly HD. The primary feasibility end points are recruitment rate, adherence to the assigned HD regimen, adherence to serial timed urine collections and treatment contamination. Incidence rate of clinically significant volume overload and metabolic imbalances in the first 3 months after randomisation will be used to assess intervention safety.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina, USA. Patient recruitment began on 14 June 2019, was paused between 13 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic, resumed on 01 June 2020 and will last until the required sample size has been attained. Participants will be followed in usual care fashion for a minimum of 6 months from last individual enrolled. All regulations and measures of ethics and confidentiality are handled in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03740048; Pre-results.

Improving Clearance for Renal Replacement Therapy

The adequacy of hemodialysis is now assessed by measuring the removal of a single solute, urea. The urea clearance provided by current dialysis methods is a large fraction of the blood flow through the dialyzer, and, therefore, cannot be increased much further. However, other solutes, which are less effectively cleared than urea, may contribute more to the residual uremic illness suffered by patients on hemodialysis. Here, we review a variety of methods that could be used to increase the clearance of such nonurea solutes. New clinical studies will be required to test the extent to which increasing solute clearances improves patients' health.

Routine assessment of kidney urea clearance, dialysis dose and protein catabolic rate in the once-weekly haemodialysis regimen

BACKGROUND

The dialysis dose (Kt/V) and normalized protein catabolic rate (PCRn) are the most useful indices derived from the urea kinetic model (UKM) in haemodialysis (HD) patients. The kidney urea clearance (Kru) is another important UKM parameter which plays a key role in the prescription of incremental HD. Ideally, the three kinetic parameters should be assessed using the complex software Solute Solver based on the double pool UKM. In the clinical setting, however, the three indices are estimated with simplified formulae. The recently introduced software SPEEDY assembles the aforementioned equations in a plain spreadsheet, to produce quite accurate results of Kru, Kt/V and PCRn. Unfortunately, specific equations to compute Kt/V and PCRn for patients on a once-weekly HD regimen (1HD/wk) were not available at the time SPEEDY was built-up. We devised a new version of SPEEDY (SPEEDY-1) and an even simpler variant (SPEEDY-1S), using two recently published equations for the 1HD/wk schedule . Moreover, we also added a published equation to estimate the equivalent renal clearance (EKR) normalized to urea distribution volume (V) of 35 L (EKR₃₅) from Kru and Kt/V . Aim of the present study was to compare the results obtained using the new methods (SPEEDY-1 and SPEEDY-1S) with those provided by the reference method Solute Solver.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

One hundred historical patients being treated with the once-weekly HD regimen were enrolled. A total of 500 HD sessions associated to the availability of monthly UKM studies were analysed in order to obtain Kru, single pool Kt/V (spKt/V), equilibrated Kt/V (eKt/V), V, PCRn and EKR₃₅ values by using Solute Solver, SPEEDY-1 and SPEEDY-1S.

RESULTS

When comparing the paired values of the above UKM parameters, as computed by SPEEDY-1 and Solute Solver, respectively, all differences but one were statistically significant at the one-sample t-test; however, the agreement limits at Bland-Altman analysis showed that all differences were negligible. When comparing the paired values of the above UKM parameters, as computed by SPEEDY-1S and Solute Solver, respectively, all differences were statistically significant; however, the agreement limits showed that the differences were negligible as far as Kru, spKt/V and eKt/V are concerned, though much larger regarding V, PCRn and EKR₃₅.

CONCLUSIONS

We implemented SPEEDY with a new version specific for the once-weekly HD regimen, SPEEDY-1. It provides accurate results and is presently the best alternative to Solute Solver. Using SPEEDY-1S led to a larger difference in PCRn and EKR₃₅, which could be acceptable for clinical practice if SPEEDY-1 is not available.

Improving the "second generation Daugirdas equation" to estimate Kt/V on the once-weekly haemodialysis schedule

INTRODUCTION

The haemodialysis (HD) dose, as expressed by Kt/V urea, is currently routinely estimated with the second generation Daugirdas (D2) equation (Daugirdas in J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1205-1213, 1993). This equation, initially devised for a thrice-weekly schedule, was modified to be used for all dialysis schedules (Daugirdas et al. in Nephrol Dial Transplant 28:2156-2160, 2013), by adopting a variable factor that adjusts for the urea generation (GFAC) over the preceding inter-dialysis interval (PIDI, days). This factor was set at 0.008 for the mid-week session of the standard thrice-weekly HD schedule. In theory, by setting PIDI = 7, one could get GFAC = 0.0025, to be used in patients on the once-weekly (1HD/wk) schedule, but actually this has never been tested. Moreover, GFAC was derived not taking into account the residual kidney urea clearance (Kru). Aim of the present study was to provide a specific value of GFAC for patients on  a once-weekly hemodialysis schedule.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The equation to predict GFAC (GFAC-1) in the 1HD/wk schedule was established in a group of 80 historical Italian patients (group 1) and validated in a group of 100 historical Spanish patients (group 2), by comparing the Kt/V computed using GFAC-1 (Kt/V_GFAC-1) with the reference Kt/V (Kt/V_SS) values, as computed with the web-based Solute-Solver software (SS) (Daugirdas et al. in Am J Kidney Dis 54:798-809, 2009). Three more sets of Kt/V (Kt/V_0.008, Kt/V_0.0025 and Kt/V_0.0035) values were computed using the GFAC of the original D2 equation (0.008), the GFAC predicted by PIDI/7 (0.0025) and the mean observed GFAC-1 (0.0035), respectively. They were compared with the reference Kt/V_SS values.

RESULTS

The predicting equation obtained from group 1 was: GFAC-1 = 0.0022 + 0.0105 × Kru/V (R² = 0.93). Mean Kt/V_SS in the group 2 was 1.54 ± 0.29 SD (N = 500 HD sessions). The mean percent differences for Kt/V_0.008, Kt/V_0.0025, Kt/V_GFAC-1, and Kt/V_0.0035 were 5.1 ± 1.0%, - 1.4 ± 0.7%, 0.0 ± 0.3%, - 0.3 ± 0.7%, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between Kt/V values, except for Kt/V_0.008.

CONCLUSION

A linear relationship was found between GFAC and Kru/V in patients on the 1HD/wk schedule. Such a relationship is able to improve the "second generation Daugirdas equation" for an accurate estimate of the single pool Kt/V in this setting. However, a simple replacement in the D2 equation of 0.008 with the mean observed GFAC (0.0035) could suffice in the clinical practice.