Expanding the Patient's Voice in Nephrology with Patient-Reported Outcomes

Kidney Failure Patients' Perceptions and Definitions of Health: A Qualitative Study

Rationale & Objective

Patients with kidney failure who have used multiple treatment modalities are a unique source of information for how different options may best fit their values. We aimed to understand how people interpret their health and kidney failure treatment experience to inform providers who facilitate shared decision-making conversations.

Study Design

This qualitative, interpretive phenomenological study explores how patients with kidney failure interpret health throughout their treatment trajectory.

Setting & Participants

We recruited a purposive sample of patients who had used 3 or more kidney failure treatment options, including transplant and dialysis from transplant clinics and online support groups, for semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were over 18 and spoke English for a total of 7 current transplant, 10 current home dialysis, and 1 current in-center patient.

Analytical Approach

A 6-step iterative process of data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection.

Results

Half of the 18 participants were Black; 67% were women. Three interrelated themes emerged from interviews: ability to engage in meaningful activities; working for balance; and living in context. Participants evaluated health according to their ability to engage in meaningful activities while balancing their emotional and physical needs with their life goals. When their social and treatment environments supported their autonomy, participants also considered themselves healthy.

Limitations

The inclusion of only English-speaking patients limits the transferability of findings. A longitudinal design, repeated interviews, observation, and dyadic interviews would increase the health care providers' understanding and interpretation of health.

Conclusions

The themes demonstrated patients evaluated health based on ability to engage in meaningful activities while maintaining balance. The treatment context, particularly how health care providers responded to patients' physiological experience, autonomy, and power, influenced interpretation of patient treatment experiences. Integrating patient interpretations of health with quantitative measures of treatment effectiveness can help health care providers better partner with patients to provide effective care for kidney failure.

Range and Consistency of Cardiovascular Outcomes Reported by Clinical Trials in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Trial evidence to improve cardiovascular outcomes is limited by inconsistent reporting of outcomes, which may also lack patient-relevance. This study aimed to assess the range and consistency of cardiovascular outcomes reported by contemporary trials in kidney transplant recipients.

Methods

A systematic review of all randomized controlled trials involving adult kidney transplant recipients that reported at least 1 cardiovascular outcome from January 2012 to December 2019 was performed, including Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases. Trial characteristics were extracted and all levels of specification of the cardiovascular outcome measures reported were analyzed (the measure definition, metric' and method of aggregation). Measures assessing a similar aspect of cardiovascular disease were categorized into outcomes.

Results

From 93 eligible trials involving 27 609 participants, 490 outcome measures were identified. The outcome measures were grouped into 38 outcomes. A cardiovascular composite was the most common outcome reported (40 trials, 43%) followed by cardiovascular mortality (42%) and acute coronary syndrome (31%). Cardiovascular composite was also the most heterogeneous outcome with 77 measures reported followed by cardiovascular mortality (n = 58) and inflammatory biomarkers (n = 51). The most common cardiovascular composite outcome components reported were major cardiovascular events (18 trials), stroke unspecified (11 trials), and myocardial infarction unspecified (10 trials).

Conclusions

There is substantial heterogeneity in cardiovascular outcome reporting in kidney transplant trials.

Protocol for the AKT-MP trial: Access to Kidney Transplantation in Minority Populations

Background

Kidney transplant (KT) is the optimal treatment for kidney failure (KF), and although completion of KT evaluation is an essential step in gaining access to transplantation, the process is lengthy, time consuming, and burdensome. Furthermore, despite similar referral rates to non-Hispanic Whites, both Hispanic/Latinos and American Indians are less likely to be wait-listed or to undergo KT.

Methods

The Access to Kidney Transplantation in Minority Populations (AKT-MP) Trial compares two patient-centered methods to facilitate KT evaluation: kidney transplant fast track (KTFT), a streamlined KT evaluation process; and peer navigators (PN), a peer-assisted evaluation program that incorporates motivational interviewing. This pragmatic randomized trial will use a comparative effectiveness approach to assess whether KTFT or PN can help patients overcome barriers to transplant listing. We will randomly assign patients to the two conditions. We will track participants' medical records and conduct surveys prior to their initial evaluation clinic visit and again after they complete or discontinue evaluation.

Conclusion

Our aims are to (1) compare KTFT and PN to assess improvements in kidney transplant (KT) related outcomes and cost effectiveness; (2) examine how each approach effects changes in cultural/contextual factors, KT concerns, KT knowledge, and KT ambivalence; and (3) develop a framework for widespread implementation of either approach. The results of this trial will provide key information for facilitating the evaluation process, improving patient care, and decreasing disparities in KT.

Patient-reported outcomes in hemodialysis vascular access: A call to action

While access-related dysfunction is a clear driver of clinical outcomes and costs, the full impact of vascular access dysfunction on patient experience and quality of life is not fully characterized in the literature. One way to more comprehensively characterize the patient experience from the patient perspective is through patient reported outcomes (PROs). However, the limited implementation of PROs in clinical trials, patient registries, quality measurement, and other research settings has significantly constrained the patient voice in evaluation of vascular access outcomes and vascular access decision-making. To address these issues, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, assembled an interdisciplinary workgroup to enhance uptake of access-related PROs with the aims of: (1) reviewing the domains of HRQOL that are affected by vascular access, collect information on existing instruments that measure access-specific HRQOL in hemodialysis, and identify gaps in existing measures; (2) identifying and critically assessing barriers to widespread use of access-specific PRO measures; and (3) defining initiatives to overcome barriers and make recommendations for strategies to improve the use and utility of access-specific PRO measures. A consensus group process identified potential barriers to use of PRO measures in six categories: (1) PRO misperceptions, (2) patient factors, (3) regulators and payers, (4) instrument factors, (5) study design, and (6) physicians. The workgroup provided recommendations for actions to promote the widespread utilization of vascular access-related PRO measures in five categories: (1) development of vascular access-specific PRO measures, (2) ensuring comprehensive assessment when using vascular access PRO measures, (3) ensuring accessibility and applicability of vascular access PRO measures to all end stage kidney disease populations, (4) establishing universal guidelines and accepted vascular access PRO measures, and (5) engaging stakeholders across all facets.

A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases

An application of telemedicine of growing interest and relevance is the use of personal computers and mobile devices to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are self-reports of patients' health status without interpretation by anyone else. The tools developed to assess PROs are known as patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). The technological innovations that have led to an increased ownership of electronic devices have also facilitated the development of electronic PROMs (ePROMs). ePROMs are a conduit for telemedicine in the care of patients with chronic diseases. Various studies have demonstrated that the use of ePROMs in routine clinical practice is both acceptable and feasible with patients increasingly expressing a preference for an electronic mode of administration. There is increasing evidence that the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePROMs) could have significant impacts on outcomes valued by patients, healthcare providers and researchers. Whilst the development and implementation of these systems may be initially costly and resource-intensive, patient preferences and existing evidence to support their implementation suggests the need for continued research prioritisation in this area. This narrative review summarises and discusses evidence of the impact of ePROMs on clinical parameters and outcomes relevant to chronic diseases. We also explore recently published literature regarding issues that may influence the robust implementation of ePROMs for routine clinical practice.

Engaging patients and family members to design and implement patient-centered kidney disease research

We need more research projects that partner and engage with patients and family members as team members. Doing this requires that patients and family members set research priorities and fully participate in research teams. Models for this patient and family member engagement as research partners can help increase patient centered outcomes research. In this article, we describe how we have successfully engaged patients with kidney disease and family members as Co-Investigators on a 5-year research project testing a health system intervention to improve kidney disease care. Background This article describes a method for successful engagement of patients and family members in all stages of a 5-year comparative effectiveness research trial to improve transitions of care for patients from chronic kidney disease to end-stage kidney disease. Methods This project utilized the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's conceptual model for engagement with patients and family members. We conducted a qualitative analysis of grant planning meetings to determine patient and family member Co-Investigators' priorities for research and to include these engagement efforts in the research design. Patient and family member Co-Investigators partnered in writing this paper. Results Patients and family members were successfully engaged in remote and in-person meetings to contribute actively to research planning and implementation stages. Three patient-centered themes emerged from our data related to engagement that informed our research plan: kidney disease treatment decision-making, care transitions from chronic to end-stage kidney disease, and patient-centered outcomes. Conclusions The model we have employed represents a new paradigm for kidney disease research in the United States, with patients and family members engaged as full research partners. As a result, the study tests an intervention that directly responds to their needs, and it prioritizes the collection of outcomes data most relevant to patient and family member Co-Investigators. Trial registration NCT02722382 .

Toward Patient-Centered Innovation: A Conceptual Framework for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Transformative Kidney Replacement Devices

Individuals with dialysis-dependent kidney failure experience considerable disease- and treatment-related decline in functional status and overall well-being. Despite these experiences, there have been few substantive technological advances in KRT in decades. As such, new federal initiatives seek to accelerate innovation. Historically, integration of patient perspectives into KRT product development has been limited. However, the US Food and Drug Administration recognizes the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into the total product life cycle (i.e., from product conception to postmarket surveillance) and encourages the consideration of patient-reported outcomes in regulatory-focused clinical trials when appropriate. Recognizing the significance of identifying patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that capture contemporary patient priorities, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and US Food and Drug Administration, convened a workgroup to (1) develop a conceptual framework for a health-related quality of life PROM; (2) identify and map existing PROMs to the conceptual framework, prioritizing them on the basis of their supporting evidence for use in the regulatory environment; and (3) describe next steps for identifying PROMs for use in regulatory clinical trials of transformative KRT devices. This paper summarizes the proposed health-related quality-of-life PROM conceptual framework, maps and prioritizes PROMs, and identifies gaps and future needs to advance the development of rigorous, meaningful PROMS for use in clinical trials of transformative KRT devices.

Vascular access-specific health-related quality of life impacts among hemodialysis patients: qualitative development of the hemodialysis access-related quality of life (HARQ) instrument

BACKGROUND

End stage kidney disease and hemodialysis dependence are associated with impairments in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which may be related to vascular access (VA). Few HRQOL measures are VA-specific and none differentiate HRQOL impact by VA type. We developed a VA-targeted HRQOL measure to distinguish the impact of fistulas, grafts and catheters.

METHODS

We created an initial item pool based on literature review and then conducted focus groups at 4 US sites with 37 adults and interviews with nine dialysis clinicians about VA's impact on HRQOL. We then drafted the Hemodialysis Access-Related Quality of Life (HARQ) measure and cognitively tested it with 17 hemodialysis patients. Focus group and cognitive interview participants were diverse in age, gender, years on dialysis, and VA.

RESULTS

We identified six domains for the HARQ: symptoms, physical functioning, emotional impacts, social and role functioning, sleep, and care-related burdens. Cognitive interviews indicated that items were easily understood and supported content validity. Attributing HRQOL impact to VA as opposed to other hemodialysis burden was challenging for some items. Some items were dropped that were considered redundant by patients, limitations while dressing was added, and reference to VA-specific impact was included for each item. The average Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level for the revised 47-item HARQ was 5.3.

CONCLUSIONS

The HARQ features VA-specific content not addressed in other HRQOL measures, making it ideal for comparisons of different VA types and new VA technologies. The psychometric properties of the HARQ will be evaluated in future research.

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into dialysis policy: Current initiatives, challenges, and opportunities

Governments at national and state levels regulate dialysis care in the United States to ensure safe practices, and continually elevate the quality of care. An objective of these regulatory policies is the independent evaluation of dialysis unit outcomes by patients, caregivers, and the community to facilitate choices as well as to advance equal access to high quality dialysis care. These polices recognized decades ago that it was fundamental to include the patient perspective in the assessment and evaluation of dialysis care quality by requiring both individual and aggregate patient reported outcomes (PROs). Although there is support for integrating the patient perspective, concerns persist about the implementation of these polices including selection of PRO measures, administration timing and reach, as well as interpretation of results including benchmarking to permit comparisons across organizations. The experience from the early adoption of PROs into dialysis policies in conjunction with advances in electronic health records, personal data capture and monitoring, and analytics is poised to address these concerns. The dialysis community has the opportunity to lead the way in innovation related to PRO implementation not only in kidney disease care, but also for other healthcare conditions or contexts such as oncology, surgical, and acute care.

Problems with analyses and interpretation of data in "use of the KDQOL-36™ for assessment of health-related quality of life among dialysis patients in the United States"

A recent article in the journal reported analyses of KDQOL-36™ survey data collected from 240,343 adults (330,412 surveys) dialyzed at a large dialysis organization in the United States during 2014-2016. The authors concluded that the KDQOL-36™ Symptoms and Problems of Kidney Disease scale had the highest mean score of the KDQOL-36™ scales. We note that this inference was erroneous because the scales are not scored on the same numeric scale. In addition, the authors found that responses to a general health perceptions item ("In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor") was not significantly associated with any of the 5 KDQOL-36 scale scores. In contrast, we find significant and noteworthy correlations in two other datasets. These analytic issues call into question the accuracy and validity of the conclusions of this paper.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Adults With Kidney Disease: Current Measures, Ongoing Initiatives, and Future Opportunities for Incorporation Into Patient-Centered Kidney Care

Tools that measure patients' experiences and perceptions of disease are increasingly being recognized as important components of a multidisciplinary personalized approach to care. These patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have the ability to provide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers with valuable insights into patients' symptoms and experiences that are unable to be ascertained by laboratory markers alone. If developed rigorously, studied systematically, and used judiciously, PROMs can effectively incorporate the patient voice into clinical care, clinical trials, and health care policy. PROMs have continued to gain attention and interest within the nephrology community, but key challenges and opportunities for their seamless uptake and integration remain. In this narrative overview, we provide nephrologists with a comprehensive list of existing PROMs developed for adults with kidney disease with information on their gaps and limitations; a rationale to support the continued incorporation of PROMs into nephrology clinical trials, clinical care, and health care policy; and a summary of ongoing initiatives and future opportunities to do so.