The combined diabetes and renal control trial (C-DIRECT) - a feasibility randomised controlled trial to evaluate outcomes in multi-morbid patients with diabetes and on dialysis using a mixed methods approach

Education programmes for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes

BACKGROUND

Adherence to complex regimens for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes is often poor. Interventions to enhance adherence require intensive education and behavioural counselling. However, whether the existing evidence is scientifically rigorous and can support recommendations for routine use of educational programmes in people with CKD and diabetes is still unknown. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of education programmes for people with CKD and diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 19 July 2024 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

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the benefits and harms of educational programmes (information and behavioural instructions and advice given by a healthcare provider, who could be a nurse, pharmacist, educator, health professional, medical practitioner, or healthcare provider, through verbal, written, audio-recording, or computer-aided modalities) for people 18 years and older with CKD and diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened the literature, determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted and entered data. We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous data as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (13 reports, 840 randomised participants) were included. The overall risk of bias was low for objective outcomes and attrition bias, unclear for selection bias, reporting bias and other biases, and high for subjective outcomes. Education programmes compared to routine care alone probably decrease glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (4 studies, 467 participants: MD -0.42%, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.31; moderate certainty evidence; 13.5 months follow-up) and may decrease total cholesterol (179 participants: MD -0.35 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.63 to -00.07; low certainty evidence) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (179 participants: MD -0.40 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; low certainty evidence) at 18 months of follow-up. One study (83 participants) reported education programmes for people receiving dialysis who have diabetes may improve the diabetes knowledge of diagnosis, monitoring, hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia, medication with insulin, oral medication, personal health habits, diet, exercise, chronic complications, and living with diabetes and coping with stress (all low certainty evidence). There may be an improvement in the general knowledge of diabetes at the end of the intervention and at the end of the three-month follow-up (one study, 97 participants; low certainty evidence) in people with diabetes and moderately increased albuminuria (A2). In participants with diabetes and moderately increased albuminuria (A2) (one study, 97 participants), education programmes may improve a participant's beliefs in treatment effectiveness and total self-efficacy at the end of five weeks compared to routine care (low certainty evidence). Self-efficacy for in-home blood glucose monitoring and beliefs in personal control may increase at the end of the three-month follow-up (low certainty evidence). There were no differences in other self-efficacy measures. One study (100 participants) reported an education programme may increase change in behaviour for general diet, specific diet and home blood glucose monitoring at the end of treatment (low certainty evidence); however, at the end of three months of follow-up, there may be no difference in any behaviour change outcomes (all low certainty evidence). There were uncertain effects on death, serious hypoglycaemia, and kidney failure due to very low certainty evidence. No data was available for changes in kidney function (creatinine clearance, serum creatinine, doubling of serum creatinine or proteinuria). For an education programme plus multidisciplinary, co-ordinated care compared to routine care, there may be little or no difference in HbA1c, kidney failure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), systolic or diastolic blood pressure, hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia, and LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (all low certainty evidence in participants with type-2 diabetes mellitus and documented advanced diabetic nephropathy). There were no data for death, patient-orientated measures, change in kidney function (other than eGFR and albuminuria), cardiovascular disease morbidity, quality of life, or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Education programmes may improve knowledge of some areas related to diabetes care and some self-management practices. Education programmes probably decrease HbA1c in people with CKD and diabetes, but the effect on other clinical outcomes is unclear. This review only included eight studies with small sample sizes. Therefore, more randomised studies are needed to examine the efficacy of education programmes on important clinical outcomes in people with CKD and diabetes.

Impact of Nutrition Education on Various Health-Related Components of Hemodialysis Patients: A Systematic Review

This study aimed to identify the impact of nutrition education on various health-related components of hemodialysis patients. A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant literature published between 2013 and 2023 was identified across two databases (PubMed and Science Direct). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023460681). Two independent reviewers retrieved the data, and 41 studies were selected. Nine components related to the impact of nutrition education in hemodialysis patients were identified. Each component was clarified by mentioning each study and its results. This study enabled us to characterize the various components of the impact of nutritional education in hemodialysis patients, namely biological markers, quality of life, cost of care, adherence to dietary recommendations, knowledge, malnutrition inflammation, dietary intake, weight change, and behavior change. This systematic review enables healthcare providers to assess the impact of nutritional education on hemodialysis patients. Also, it gives professionals an exact idea of the impact of nutrition education on hemodialysis patients, with knowledge of new methods using behavior change theories and innovative technological tools.

Comparison of the effect of educational and self-management interventions on adherence to treatment in hemodialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Adherence to fluid intake, diet, and drug management is very important in hemodialysis patients. Educational and self-management interventions are frequently used to improve adherence to treatment in hemodialysis patients.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize a comparison of the effect of educational and self-management interventions on adherence to treatment in hemodialysis patients in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted using 11 multidisciplinary databases in June 2020. The PRISMA checklist was used. The subgroup analysis was used to compare the effect of educational and self-management interventions on adherence to fluid intake, diet, and drug management.

RESULTS

In the included studies, educational interventions were performed ranging from 15 to 60 minutes, in 1-72 sessions. Self-management interventions were performed ranging from 10 to 120 minutes, in 1-84 sessions. The overall effect of educational interventions was small on adherence to fluid intake (P = .019, Hedges' g = -0.39), diet in serum phosphorus level (P = .001, Hedges' g = -0.35), drug management (P = .002, Hedges' g = -0.44), and not significant on adherence to diet in serum potassium level (P = .181). The overall effect of self-management interventions was small on adherence to fluid intake (P = .001, Hedges' g = -0.19) and diet in serum phosphorus level (P < .001, Hedges' g = -0.42). Additionally, the overall effect of self-management interventions was moderate on adherence to diet in serum potassium level (P = .002, Hedges' g = -0.75) and drug management (P < .001, Hedges' g = -0.55). There was no difference between the educational and self-management interventions on adherence to fluid intake, diet, and drug management (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis shows that educational and self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on adherence to fluid intake, diet, and drug management and no difference between these interventions. Therefore, these interventions can be used by healthcare professionals. It is also recommended that these interventions be well defined and transferable to routine clinical practice.

Reporting of key methodological and ethical aspects of cluster trials in hemodialysis require improvement: a systematic review

Background

The hemodialysis setting is suitable for trials that use cluster randomization, where intact groups of individuals are randomized. However, cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are complicated in their design, analysis, and reporting and can pose ethical challenges. We reviewed CRTs in the hemodialysis setting with respect to reporting of key methodological and ethical issues.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, published in English, between 2000 and 2019, and indexed in MEDLINE or Embase. Two reviewers extracted data, and study results were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified 26 completed CRTs and five study protocols of CRTs. These studies randomized hemodialysis centers (n = 17, 55%), hemodialysis shifts (n = 12, 39%), healthcare providers (n = 1, 3%), and nephrology units (n = 1, 3%). Trials included a median of 28 clusters with a median cluster size of 20 patients. Justification for using a clustered design was provided by 15 trials (48%). Methods that accounted for clustering were used during sample size calculation in 14 (45%), during analyses in 22 (71%), and during both sample size calculation and analyses in 13 trials (42%). Among all CRTs, 26 (84%) reported receiving research ethics committee approval; patient consent was reported in 22 trials: 10 (32%) reported the method of consent for trial participation and 12 (39%) reported no details about how consent was obtained or its purpose. Four trials (13%) reported receiving waivers of consent, and the remaining 5 (16%) provided no or unclear information about the consent process.

Conclusion

There is an opportunity to improve the conduct and reporting of essential methodological and ethical issues in future CRTs in hemodialysis.

Review Registration

We conducted this systematic review using a pre-specified protocol that was not registered.