Impact of frequent hemodialysis on anemia management: results from the Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Trials

Patient Survival With Extended Home Hemodialysis Compared to In-Center Conventional Hemodialysis

Introduction

More frequent and/or longer hemodialysis (HD) has been associated with improvements in numerous clinical outcomes in patients on dialysis. Home HD (HHD), which allows more frequent and/or longer dialysis with lower cost and flexibility in treatment planning, is not widely used worldwide. Although, retrospective studies have indicated better survival with HHD, this issue remains controversial. In this multicenter study, we compared thrice-weekly extended HHD with in-center conventional HD (ICHD) in a large patient population with a long-term follow-up.

Methods

We matched 349 patients starting HHD between 2010 and 2014 with 1047 concurrent patients on ICHD by using propensity scores. Patients were followed-up with from their respective baseline until September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were technique survival; hospitalization; and changes in clinical, laboratory, and medication parameters.

Results

The mean duration of dialysis session was 418 ± 54 minutes in HHD and 242 ± 10 minutes in patients on ICHD. All-cause mortality rate was 3.76 and 6.27 per 100 patient-years in the HHD and the ICHD groups, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, HHD was associated with a 40% lower risk for all-cause mortality than ICHD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.80; P < 0.001). In HHD, the 5-year technical survival was 86.5%. HHD treatment provided better phosphate and blood pressure (BP) control, improvements in nutrition and inflammation, and reduction in hospitalization days and medication requirement.

Conclusion

These results indicate that extended HHD is associated with higher survival and better outcomes compared to ICHD.

Interventions for fatigue in people with kidney failure requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in people receiving dialysis that is associated with an increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease and depression. Fatigue can also impair quality of life (QoL) and the ability to participate in daily activities. Fatigue has been established by patients, caregivers and health professionals as a core outcome for haemodialysis (HD).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue in people with kidney failure receiving dialysis, including HD and peritoneal dialysis (PD), including any setting and frequency of the dialysis treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 18 October 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions affecting levels of fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis were included. Studies were eligible if fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes were reported as a primary or secondary outcome. Any mode, frequency, prescription, and duration of therapy were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or standardised MD (SMD) if different scales were used. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-four studies involving 8191 randomised participants were eligible. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions were compared either to placebo or control, or to another pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. In the majority of domains, risks of bias in the included studies were unclear or high. In low certainty evidence, when compared to control, exercise may improve fatigue (4 studies, 217 participants (Iowa Fatigue Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS), or Haemodialysis-Related Fatigue scale score): SMD -1.18, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.31; I2 = 87%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or standard care, aromatherapy may improve fatigue (7 studies, 542 participants (Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Rhoten Fatigue Scale (RFS), PFS or Brief Fatigue Inventory score): SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.50; I2 = 93%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to no intervention, massage may improve fatigue (7 studies, 657 participants (FSS, RFS, PFS or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.47, -0.65; I2 = 81%) and increase energy (2 studies, 152 participants (VAS score): MD 4.87, 95% CI 1.69 to 8.06, I2 = 59%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or control, acupressure may reduce fatigue (6 studies, 459 participants (PFS score, revised PFS, or Fatigue Index): SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.25; I2 = 75%) in HD. A wide range of heterogenous interventions and fatigue-related outcomes were reported for exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure, preventing our capability to pool and analyse the data. Due to the paucity of studies, the effects of pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes, including non-physiological neutral amino acid, relaxation with or without music therapy, meditation, exercise with nandrolone, nutritional supplementation, cognitive-behavioural therapy, ESAs, frequent HD sections, home blood pressure monitoring, blood flow rate reduction, serotonin reuptake inhibitor, beta-blockers, anabolic steroids, glucose-enriched dialysate, or light therapy, were very uncertain. The effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments on death, cardiovascular diseases, vascular access, QoL, depression, anxiety, hypertension or diabetes were sparse. No studies assessed tiredness, exhaustion or asthenia. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure may improve fatigue compared to placebo, standard care or no intervention. Pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions had uncertain effects on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis. Future adequately powered, high-quality studies are likely to change the estimated effects of interventions for fatigue and fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis.

A multicenter descriptive analysis of anemia management in hemodialysis patients and its association with quality of life

BACKGROUND

Appropriate management of anemia in patients with hemodialysis (HD) involves the administration of iron supplementation and erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs), in addition to monitoring the response. This study aimed to evaluate the treatment of anemia in patients with HD and describe the factors associated with it and its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

The study was cross-sectional in design. The patients were included from three dialysis centers in Palestine from June to September 2018. The data collection instrument consisted of two portions; the initial portion contained demographic and clinical information on the patients, while the second consisted of the European Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D-5 L) and the visual analog scale EQ (EQ-VAS).

RESULTS

The study included 226 patients. Their mean age (± SD) was 57 ± 13.9 years. The mean level of hemoglobin (Hb) (± SD) was 10.63 ± 1.71 g/dl, and 34.1% of the patients had a Hb level of 10-11.5 g/dl. All patients who required iron supplementation received it intravenously with a dose of 100 mg of iron sucrose. Almost 86.7% of the patients received darbepoetin alfa intravenously at 0.45 mcg/kg a week, and 24% had a Hb level > 11.5 g/dl. There were significant associations between the level of Hb and the number of comorbid diseases and the ESA that was received. However, other demographics and clinical factors did not significantly affect Hb levels. Certain variables, such as exercise, were a predictor of a higher quality of life. It should be noted that there is a significant impact of a low Hb value on the EQ-VAS scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that more than half of the patients had a Hb level below the recommended goal of Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Furthermore, a significant association was found between patients' Hb level and HRQOL. Therefore, the appropriate treatment of anemia in patients with HD should be followed by adherence to the guideline recommendations, which consequently improves the HRQOL of HD patients, in addition to obtaining optimal therapy.

Benefits and risks of frequent or longer haemodialysis: weighing the evidence

Although the ability of individuals with end-stage renal disease to maintain body homoeostasis is equally impaired during all weekdays, conventional haemodialysis (HD) treatment is scheduled thrice weekly, containing two short and one long interdialytic interval. This intermittent nature of HD and the consequent fluctuations in volume, metabolic parameters and electrolytes have long been hypothesized to predispose to complications. Large observational studies link the first weekday with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Several schemes of frequent and/or longer, home or in-centre HD have been introduced, aiming to alleviate the above risks by both increasing total dialysis duration and reducing the duration of interdialytic intervals. Observational studies in this field have non-uniform results, showing that enhanced frequency in home (but not in-centre) HD is associated with reduced mortality. Evidence from the randomized Daily and Nocturnal Trials of the Frequent HD Network suggest the opposite, showing mortality benefits with in-centre daily but not with home nocturnal dialysis. Secondary analyses of these trials indicate that daily and nocturnal schedules do not have equal effects on intermediate outcomes. Alternative schemes, such as thrice weekly in-centre nocturnal HD or every-other-day HD, seem to also offer improvements in several intermediate endpoints, but need further testing with randomized trials. This review summarizes the effects of frequent and/or longer HD methods on hard and intermediate outcomes, attempting to provide a balanced overview of the field.

A swan song for Kt/Vurea

Dialyzer clearance of urea multiplied by dialysis time and normalized for urea distribution volume (Kt/V_urea or simply Kt/V) has been used as an index of dialysis adequacy since more than 30 years. This article reviews the flaws of Kt/V, starting with a lack of proof of concept in three randomized controlled hard outcome trials (RCTs), and continuing with a long list of conditions where the concept of Kt/V was shown to be flawed. This information leaves little room for any conclusion other than that Kt/V, as an indicator of dialysis adequacy, is obsolete. The dialysis patient might benefit more if, instead, the nephrology community concentrates in the future on pursuing the optimal dialysis dose that conforms with adequate quality of life and on factors that are likely to affect outcomes more than Kt/V. These include residual renal function, volume status, dialysis length, ultrafiltration rate, the number of intra-dialytic hypotensive episodes, interdialytic blood pressure, serum potassium and phosphate, serum albumin, and C reactive protein.

Nocturnal hemodialysis: improved quality of life and patient outcomes

Conventional hemodialysis is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, as well as a reduced quality of life. There is a growing interest in the provision of more intensive hemodialysis, due to associated benefits in terms of reduced cardiovascular morbidity, better regulation of mineral metabolism, as well as its impact on quality of life measures, fertility, and sleep. Nocturnal hemodialysis, both in center and at home, allows the delivery of more intensive hemodialysis. This review discusses the benefits of nocturnal hemodialysis and evaluates the evidence based on available literature.

Effect of incident nocturnal home hemodialysis versus incident continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis on employment rate, clinical, and laboratory outcomes: A 1-year retrospective observation study

INTRODUCTION

While studies demonstrated favorable outcomes of nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHHD), direct comparison on employment rate, clinical and laboratory outcomes between the NHHD and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) had not been previously performed.

METHODS

A 1-year retrospective observation study was performed in 20 incidents alternate night NHHD and 81 incident CAPD patients of Chinese ethnicity, who were sex, diabetic status, and Charlson comorbidity index matched, but not age due to our center's age limit for NHHD enrollment. The primary outcome was the difference in employment rate at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included differences in clinical parameters (weight, blood pressure, number of antihypertensive medication, dosage of phosphate binders, and erythropoietin stimulating agent) and laboratory parameters (residual renal function, mineral metabolic markers, hemoglobin).

FINDINGS

NHHD subjects were 5 years younger than CAPD patients, and they had higher employment rate (80% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.01) at 1 year, with age-adjusted odds ratio for employment was 6.10 (95% confidence interval 1.77-20.99, P = 0.04). They consumed less aluminum-based phosphate binder (0 vs. 1800 mg, P < 0.01), but showed no significant disparities in other clinical parameters. Residual renal function in both groups declined comparably, nonetheless NHHD group had lower serum phosphate (1.37 vs. 1.71 mmol/L, P = 0.01) and calcium phosphate product (3.13 vs. 4.12 mmol² /L² , P < 0.01), with similar hemoglobin levels.

DISCUSSION

NHHD appeared to offer higher employment rate, lower dosage of aluminum-based phosphate binder and mineral metabolic markers at 1 year compared with CAPD in Hong Kong.

Frequent hemodialysis: history of the modality and assessment of outcomes

About 660,000 individuals have end-stage renal disease in the USA, the vast majority of whom are receiving standard, in-center, thrice-weekly hemodialysis (HD). The morbidity and mortality among patients receiving standard HD remain unacceptably high. Studies conducted over the past two decades have provided a substantial amount of information on the advantages and drawbacks of providing more frequent HD treatment, either in-center or at home. In this article I summarize these studies, focusing special attention on the randomized, cross-over study assessing outcomes in children who received either frequent, in-center HD or traditional, thrice-weekly, in-center HD performed by Laskin et al. (Pediatr Nephrol doi: 10.1007/s00467-017-3656-x , 2017).

Chronic Hemodialysis Therapy in the West

BACKGROUND

Chronic hemodialysis (HD) in the 1960s encompassed a wide variety of prescriptions from twice weekly to five times per week HD. Over time, HD prescriptions in the West became standardized at three times per week, 2.5-4 h per session, with occasional additional treatments for volume overload.

SUMMARY

When clinical trials of dialysis dose failed to show significant benefit of extending time compared with the traditional dialysis prescription, interest in more frequent HD was renewed. Consequently, there has been growth in home HD therapies as well as alternative dialysis prescriptions. Data from recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits and risks of these more frequent therapies, with surprising differences in outcomes between short daily HD and long nocturnal HD. More frequent therapies improve control of both hypertension and hyperphosphatemia, but at the expense of increased vascular access complications and, at least for nocturnal HD, a faster loss of residual renal function.

KEY MESSAGES

In the West, the standard HD prescription is three treatments per week with a minimal time of 3.0 h and dialysis is performed in an outpatient dialysis center. A minority of patients will have a fourth treatment per week for volume issues. Alternative HD prescriptions, although rare, are more available compared to the recent past.

FACTS FROM EAST AND WEST

(1) While developed Western and Asian countries provide end-stage renal disease patients full access to HD, healthcare systems from South and South-East Asia can offer access to HD only to a limited fraction of the patients in need. Even though the annual costs of HD are much lower in less developed countries (for instance 30 times lower in India compared to the US), patients often cannot afford costs not covered by health insurance. (2) The recommended dialysis pattern in the West is at least three sessions weekly with high-flux dialyzers. Studies from Shanghai and Taiwan might however indicate a benefit of twice versus thrice weekly sessions. In less developed Asian countries, a twice weekly pattern is common, sometimes with dialyzer reuse and inadequate water treatment. A majority of patients decrease session frequency or discontinue the program due to financial constraint. (3) As convective therapies are gaining popularity in Europe, penetration in Asia is low and limited by costs. (4) In Asian countries, in particular in the South and South-East, hepatitis and tuberculosis infections in HD patients are higher than in the West and substantially increase mortality. (5) Progress has recently been made in countries like Thailand and Brunei to provide universal HD access to all patients in need. Nevertheless, well-trained personnel, reliable registries and better patient follow-up would improve outcomes in low-income Asian countries.

Long-Term Effects of Frequent In-Center Hemodialysis

The Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily Trial randomized 245 patients to receive six (frequent) or three (conventional) in-center hemodialysis sessions per week for 12 months. As reported previously, frequent in-center hemodialysis yielded favorable effects on the coprimary composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in self-reported physical health. Here, we determined the long-term effects of the 12-month frequent in-center hemodialysis intervention. We determined the vital status of patients over a median of 3.6 years (10%-90% range, 1.5-5.3 years) after randomization. Using an intention to treat analysis, we compared the mortality hazard in randomized groups. In a subset of patients from both groups, we reassessed left ventricular mass and self-reported physical health a year or more after completion of the intervention; 20 of 125 patients (16%) randomized to frequent hemodialysis died during the combined trial and post-trial observation periods in contrast to 34 of 120 patients (28%) randomized to conventional hemodialysis. The relative mortality hazard for frequent versus conventional hemodialysis was 0.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.93); with censoring of time after kidney transplantation, the relative hazard was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.99). Bayesian analysis suggested a relatively high probability of clinically significant benefit and a very low probability of harm with frequent hemodialysis. In conclusion, a 12-month frequent in-center hemodialysis intervention significantly reduced long-term mortality, suggesting that frequent hemodialysis may benefit selected patients with ESRD.

Kt/V (and especially its modifications) remains a useful measure of hemodialysis dose

Removal of small molecular weight solutes shows a strong relationship to hemodialysis outcomes. In contrast, survival with high-flux dialysis or hemodiafiltration is only slightly better than with low-flux hemodialysis. Despite laboratory evidence regarding toxicity of protein-bound uremic solutes, few data exist showing that increased removal of this class of molecules impacts outcomes. In the FHN trials, there was no effect of frequent dialysis, including frequent and long dialysis, on nutrition or control of anemia, outcomes expected to be sensitive to uremic toxin removal; the main benefit appeared to be better volume control. Scaling of hemodialysis dose to total body water may not be optimal. Kt/V scaling to body surface area and use of a continuous measure such as standard Kt/V reduces the likelihood of underdialysis of small patients, including children, and women. Minimum hemodialysis time may best be considered in respect to ultrafiltration rate, and a maximum target ultrafiltration rate unscaled to body size may be optimal. Intensive, extended dialysis may cause adverse effects to residual kidney function, and more information needs to be collected to better understand how urine volume modifies dose requirements, and how to maximize the chances of preserving residual kidney function.

The changing landscape of home dialysis in the United States

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the changing landscape of home dialysis in the United States over the past decade, including recent research on clinical outcomes in patient undergoing peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis, and to describe the impact of recent payment reforms for patients with end-stage renal disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Accumulating evidence supports the conclusion that clinical outcomes for patients treated with peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis are as good as or better than for patients treated with conventional in-center hemodialysis. The recent implementation of the Medicare-expanded prospective payment system for the care of end-stage renal disease patients has resulted in substantial growth in the utilization of peritoneal dialysis in the United States. Utilization of home hemodialysis has also grown, but the contribution of the expanded prospective payment system to this growth is less certain.

SUMMARY

Home dialysis, including peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis, represents an important alternative to in-center hemodialysis that is effective and patient-centered. Over the coming decade, the growth in the number of end-stage renal disease patient treated with home dialysis modalities should prompt further comparative and cost-effectiveness research, increased attention to racial and ethnic disparities, and investments in home dialysis education for both patients and providers.

VIDEO ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/CONH/A13.

Long-term Effects of Frequent Nocturnal Hemodialysis on Mortality: The Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial

BACKGROUND

Few data are available regarding the long-term mortality rate for patients receiving nocturnal home hemodialysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Posttrial observational study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial participants who consented to extended follow-up.

INTERVENTION

The FHN Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 individuals to 6-times-weekly home nocturnal hemodialysis or 3-times-weekly hemodialysis for 1 year. Patients were enrolled starting in March 2006 and follow-up was completed by May 2010. After the 1-year trial concluded, FHN Nocturnal participants were free to modify their hemodialysis prescription.

OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS

We obtained dates of death and kidney transplantation through July 2011 using linkage to the US Renal Data System and queries of study centers. We used log-rank tests and Cox regression to relate mortality to the initial randomization assignment.

RESULTS

Median follow-up for the trial and posttrial observational period was 3.7 years. In the nocturnal arm, there were 2 deaths during the 12-month trial period and an additional 12 deaths during the extended follow-up. In the conventional arm, the numbers of deaths were 1 and 4, respectively. In the nocturnal dialysis group, the overall mortality HR was 3.88 (95% CI, 1.27-11.79; P=0.01). Using as-treated analysis with a 12-month running treatment average, the HR for mortality was 3.06 (95% CI, 1.11-8.43; P=0.03). Six-month running treatment data analysis showed an HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.44-3.22; P=0.7).

LIMITATIONS

These results should be interpreted cautiously due to a surprisingly low (0.03 deaths/patient-year) mortality rate for individuals randomly assigned to conventional home hemodialysis, low statistical power for the mortality comparison due to the small sample size, and the high rate of hemodialysis prescription changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients randomly assigned to nocturnal hemodialysis had a higher mortality rate than those randomly assigned to conventional dialysis. The implications of this result require further investigation.

Pro: Should we move to more frequent haemodialysis schedules?

Most end-stage renal disease patients on maintenance haemodialysis follow the typical schedule of three sessions per week, and thus remain outside dialysis for two short intervals (∼2 days in duration) and for a longer interval (∼3 days) at the end of each week. This pattern was historically enforced more due to calendar logistics and less due to factors related to health and disease. Therefore, it is long hypothesized that the intermittent nature of haemodialysis and the consequent shifts and fluctuations in volume status and metabolic parameters during the dialysis-free periods may pre-dispose patients to several complications. Recent large-scale observational studies in haemodialysis patients link the first week-day (including the last hours of the long interval and the subsequent dialysis session) with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Previous observational studies support that enhanced-frequency home haemodialysis is associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality, while randomized studies suggest that short-daily or alternate-day in-centre haemodialysis offer improvements in left ventricular hypertrophy, blood pressure, phosphorous homeostasis and other intermediate end points when compared with conventional thrice-weekly in-centre haemodialysis. This article summarizes available evidence relating long inter-dialytic intervals with elevated cardiovascular risk, potential mechanisms for this association and the main benefits of more frequent dialytic modalities.

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.