Varying Association of Extended Hours Dialysis with Quality of Life

Comparative effectiveness of an individualized model of hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis: a study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial (the TwoPlus trial)

BACKGROUND

Most patients starting chronic in-center hemodialysis (HD) receive conventional hemodialysis (CHD) with three sessions per week targeting specific biochemical clearance. Observational studies suggest that patients with residual kidney function can safely be treated with incremental prescriptions of HD, starting with less frequent sessions and later adjusting to thrice-weekly HD. This trial aims to show objectively that clinically matched incremental HD (CMIHD) is non-inferior to CHD in eligible patients.

METHODS

An unblinded, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial will be conducted across diverse healthcare systems and dialysis organizations in the USA. Adult patients initiating chronic hemodialysis (HD) at participating centers will be screened. Eligibility criteria include receipt of fewer than 18 treatments of HD and residual kidney function defined as kidney urea clearance ≥3.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine output ≥500 mL/24 h. The 1:1 randomization, stratified by site and dialysis vascular access type, assigns patients to either CMIHD (intervention group) or CHD (control group). The CMIHD group will be treated with twice-weekly HD and adjuvant pharmacologic therapy (i.e., oral loop diuretics, sodium bicarbonate, and potassium binders). The CHD group will receive thrice-weekly HD according to usual care. Throughout the study, patients undergo timed urine collection and fill out questionnaires. CMIHD will progress to thrice-weekly HD based on clinical manifestations or changes in residual kidney function. Caregivers of enrolled patients are invited to complete semi-annual questionnaires. The primary outcome is a composite of patients' all-cause death, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits at 2 years. Secondary outcomes include patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes. We aim to enroll 350 patients, which provides ≥85% power to detect an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.9 between CMIHD and CHD with an IRR non-inferiority of 1.20 (α = 0.025, one-tailed test, 20% dropout rate, average of 2.06 years of HD per patient participant), and 150 caregiver participants (of enrolled patients).

DISCUSSION

Our proposal challenges the status quo of HD care delivery. Our overarching hypothesis posits that CMIHD is non-inferior to CHD. If successful, the results will positively impact one of the highest-burdened patient populations and their caregivers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05828823. Registered on 25 April 2023.

Estimating a Minimal Important Difference for the EQ-5D-5L Utility Index in Dialysis Patients

OBJECTIVES

The EQ-5D-5L is a commonly used health-related quality of life instrument for evaluating interventions in patients receiving dialysis; however, the minimal important difference (MID) that constitutes a meaningful treatment effect for this population has not been established. This study aims to estimate the MID for the EQ-5D-5L utility index in dialysis patients.

METHODS

6-monthly EQ-5D-5L measurements were collected from adult dialysis patients between April 2017 and November 2020 at a renal network in Sydney, Australia. EQ-VAS and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale Renal symptom burden scores were collected simultaneously and used as anchors. MID estimates for the EQ-5D-5L utility index were derived using anchor-based and distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

A total of 352 patients with ≥1 EQ-5D-5L observation were included, constituting 1127 observations. Mean EQ-5D-5L utility index at baseline was 0.719 (SD ± 0.267), and mean EQ-5D-5L utility decreased over time by -0.017 per year (95% CI -0.029 to -0.006, P = .004). Using cross-sectional anchor-based methods, MID estimates ranged from 0.073 to 0.107. Using longitudinal anchor-based methods, MID for improvement and deterioration ranged from 0.046 to 0.079 and -0.111 to -0.048, respectively. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, MID for improvement and deterioration ranged from 0.037 to 0.122 and -0.074 to -0.063, respectively. MID estimates from distribution-based methods were consistent with anchor-based estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches provided EQ-5D-5L utility index MID estimates ranging from 0.034 to 0.134. These estimates can inform the target difference or "effect size" for clinical trial design among dialysis populations.

Impact of Difelikefalin on the Health-Related Quality of Life of Haemodialysis Patients with Moderate-To-Severe Chronic Kidney Disease-Associated Pruritus: A Single-Arm Intervention Trial

OBJECTIVE

Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus (CKD-aP) can have a substantial negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), including an increased risk of depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance. This trial aimed to assess the impact of intravenous difelikefalin on HRQoL in haemodialysis patients with moderate-to-severe CKD-aP.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of an open-label, multicentre, single-arm intervention trial assessed pruritus severity and HRQoL at baseline and at 12 weeks of difelikefalin treatment using Worst Itching Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), Sleep Quality Numeric Rating Scale (SQ-NRS), 5-D itch scale, Skindex-10 scale, EQ-5D-5L with Pruritus Bolt-On (EQ-PSO).

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients received ≥ 1 dose of difelikefalin, and 197 patients completed 12 weeks of difelikefalin treatment. Clinically meaningful changes from baseline to 12 weeks were observed in all disease-specific measures: 73.7% of patients achieved a ≥ 3-point reduction in the weekly mean of 24 h WI-NRS scores and 66% of patients experienced ≥ 3-point improvements in SQ-NRS scores. Improvements were also observed in all Skindex-10 scale and 5-D itch scale domain scores. The percentage of patients reporting no problems in all EQ-PSO domains increased from 1.4 to 24.7% (p < 0.001), respectively. Patients' generic HRQoL EQ-5D-5L mean utility and EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores increased from baseline to 12 weeks: mean changes 0.04 (p = 0.001) and 2.8 (p = 0.046), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing haemodialysis with moderate-to-severe CKD-aP receiving difelikefalin reported experiencing clinically meaningful improvements in both their pruritus symptoms and itch-related QoL.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov registration number, NCT03998163; first submitted, 7 May 2019.

Relationship Between Standardized Measures of Chronic Kidney Disease-associated Pruritus Intensity and Health-related Quality of Life Measured with the EQ-5D Questionnaire: A Mapping Study

Chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus is linked with decreased health-related quality of life assessed using disease-specific instruments. The extent to which worsening pruritus reduces generic quality of life assessed using the EQ-5D instrument is unknown. Prevalent kidney failure patients receiving in-centre haemodialysis from 5 centres completed the EQ-5D-5L quality of life measure, worst Itching Intensity Numerical Rating Scale and 5-D itch pruritus instruments. Latent class models were used to identify clusters of patients with similarly affected body parts, and mixture models were used to map the pruritus measures to the EQ-5D. Data on 487 respondents were obtained. Latent class analysis identified 3 groups of patients who had progressively worsening severity and an increasing number of body parts affected. Although the worst itching intensity numerical rating scale and 5-D itch instruments correlated with each other, only the latter had a strong relationship with EQ-5D. When controlling for age, sex, diabetes and years receiving dialysis, the meanpredicted EQ-5D utility (1: perfect health, 0: dead) decreased progressively from 0.69 to 0.41. These findings suggest that pruritus instruments that include domains capturing how the individual is physically, mentally and socially affected by their pruritus, in addition to severity, more closely approximate the EQ-5D generic quality of life measure.

Managing the symptom burden associated with maintenance dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Individuals with kidney failure undergoing maintenance dialysis frequently report a high symptom burden that can interfere with functioning and diminish life satisfaction. Until recently, the focus of nephrology care for dialysis patients has been related primarily to numerical targets for laboratory measures, and outcomes such as cardiovascular disease and mortality. Routine symptom assessment is not universal or standardized in dialysis care. Even when symptoms are identified, treatment options are limited and are initiated infrequently, in part because of a paucity of evidence in the dialysis population and the complexities of medication interactions in kidney failure. In May of 2022, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) held a Controversies Conference-Symptom-Based Complications in Dialysis-to identify the optimal means for diagnosing and managing symptom-based complications in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Participants included patients, physicians, behavioral therapists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinical researchers. They outlined foundational principles and consensus points related to identifying and addressing symptoms experienced by patients undergoing dialysis and described gaps in the knowledge base and priorities for research. Healthcare delivery and education systems have a responsibility to provide individualized symptom assessment and management. Nephrology teams should take the lead in symptom management, although this does not necessarily mean taking ownership of all aspects of care. Even when options for clinical response are limited, clinicians should focus on acknowledging, prioritizing, and managing symptoms that are most important to individual patients. A recognized factor in the initiation and implementation of improvements in symptom assessment and management is that they will be based on locally existing needs and resources.

Cardiovascular Effects of Home Dialysis Therapies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with end-stage kidney disease. Currently, thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis for 3 to 5 hours per session is the most common therapy worldwide for patients with treated kidney failure. Outcomes with thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis are poor. Emerging evidence supports the overarching hypothesis that a more physiological approach to administering dialysis therapy, including in the home through home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, may lead to improvement in several cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular outcomes compared with thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis. The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative, which has a goal of increasing the use of home dialysis, is aligned with the American Heart Association's 2024 mission to champion a full and healthy life and health equity. We conclude that incorporation of interdisciplinary care models to increase the use of home dialysis therapies in an equitable manner will contribute to the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for patients with kidney failure and cardiovascular disease.

The Symptom Monitoring with Feedback Trial (SWIFT): protocol for a registry-based cluster randomised controlled trial in haemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Kidney failure prevalence is increasing worldwide. Haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or kidney transplantation are undertaken to extend life with kidney failure. People receiving haemodialysis commonly experience fatigue, pain, nausea, cramping, itching, sleeping difficulties, anxiety and depression. This symptom burden contributes to poor health-related quality of life (QOL) and is a major reason for treatment withdrawal and death. The Symptom monitoring WIth Feedback Trial (SWIFT) will test the hypothesis that regular symptom monitoring with feedback to people receiving haemodialysis and their treating clinical team can improve QOL.

METHODS

We are conducting an Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) registry-based cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical- and cost-effectiveness at 12 months, of 3-monthly symptom monitoring using the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale-Renal (IPOS-Renal) survey with clinician feedback, compared with usual care among adults treated with haemodialysis. Participants complete symptom scoring using a tablet, which are provided to participants and to clinicians. The trial aims to recruit 143 satellite haemodialysis centres, (up to 2400 participants). The primary outcome is change in health-related QOL, as measured by EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, symptom severity (including haemodialysis-associated fatigue), healthcare utilisation and cost-effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

SWIFT is the first registry-based trial in the Australian haemodialysis population to investigate whether regular symptom monitoring with feedback to participants and clinicians improves QOL. SWIFT is embedded in the ANZDATA Registry facilitating pragmatic recruitment from public and private dialysis clinics, throughout Australia. SWIFT will inform future collection, storage and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) within a clinical quality registry. As the first trial to rigorously estimate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of routine PROMs collection and reporting in haemodialysis units, SWIFT will provide invaluable information to health services, clinicians and researchers working to improve the lives of those with kidney failure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001061921 . Registered on 16 October 2020.

[Prolonged hemodialysis: Rationale, practical organization, results]

In France, long nocturnal dialyses, eight hours three-times a week, are sparsely proposed. However, numerous studies reported that this specific type of dialysis is associated to better blood pressure control, better cardiac remodeling, better mineral and nutritional balance as well as better life quality and survival rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, we aimed at quantifying the benefits, risks and obstacles of developing night dialysis and at describing the results of a program that took place in Rennes from 2002 to 2019. Data were collected between 2008 and 2014 for eighteen case-patients and were compared to thirty-six controls that underwent conventional dialysis. Patients were paired according sex, age and year of dialysis start. RESULTS: The median age for dialysis start was 47.5 years [27-60] with a male prevalence (5/1). After six months, a significant difference was reported for postdialytic, systolic and diastolic pressure (respectively 126±15 vs 139±21 [P=0.04] and 72±9 vs 81±14 [P=0.02]) despite an antihypertensive reduction ranging from 2.4±1.4 to 1.3±0.9 per day at six months and 0.7±0.9 at one year (P=0.02). An increase of nPCR was evidenced at 6 and 9 months (P=0.02). At the end of the study, the phosphate level was maintained for both cohorts at the expense of an increased consumption of phosphate binder for the long nocturnal dialysis group (P=0.025). As a whole, 61% of the patients that pursued long night dialysis maintained a professional activity compared to only 30% for the controls (P=0.04). This highlights the advantages of night dialysis for maintaining employment but also the bias that represents the employment status in observational study on this specific topic.

Quality of Life in Caregivers of Patients Randomized to Standard- Versus Extended-Hours Hemodialysis

Introduction

Caregivers are essential for the health, safety, and independence of many patients and incur financial and personal cost in this role, including increased burden and lower quality of life (QOL) compared to the general population. Extended-hours hemodialysis may be the preference of some patients, but little is known about its effects on caregivers.

Methods

Forty caregivers of participants of the ACTIVE Dialysis trial, who were randomized to 12 months extended (median 24 hours/wk) or standard (12 hours/wk) hemodialysis, were included. Utility-based QOL was measured by EuroQOL–5 Dimension–3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) and Short Form–6 Dimensions (SF-6D) and health-related QOL (HRQOL) was measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) and the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI) at enrolment and then every 3 months until the end of the study.

Results

At baseline, utility-based QOL and HRQOL were similar in both groups. At follow-up, caregivers of people randomized to extended-hours dialysis experienced a greater decrease in utility-based QOL measured by EQ-5D-3L compared with caregivers of people randomized to standard hours (–0.18±0.30 vs. –0.02±0.16, P = 0.04). There were no differences between extended- and standard-hours groups in mean change in SF-6D (0.03±0.12 vs. –0.04±0.1, P = 0.8), PCS (–1.2±9.8 vs. –5.6±9.8, P = 0.2), MCS (–4.1±11.2 vs. –0.5±7.1, P = 0.4), and PWI (2.3±17.6 vs. 0.00±20.4, P = 0.9).

Conclusion

Poorer utility-based QOL, as measured by the EQ-5D-3L, was observed in caregivers of patients receiving extended-hours hemodialysis in this small study. Though the findings are exploratory, the possibility that mode of dialysis delivery negatively impacts on caregivers supports the prioritization of research on burden and impact of service delivery in this population.

Home and facility haemodialysis patients: a comparison of outcomes in a matched cohort

Background

Home haemodialysis (HHD) is utilized significantly less often than facility HD globally with few exceptions, despite being associated with improved survival and better quality of life. Previously HHD was exclusively offered to younger patients with a few comorbidities. However, with the increasing burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) alongside an ageing population, increasing numbers of older patients are being treated with HHD. This study aims to re-evaluate survival and related outcomes in the context of this epidemiological shift.

Methods

A matched cohort design was used to compare all-cause mortality, transplantation, average biochemical values and graft survival 6 months post-transplant between HHD and facility HD patients. A total of 181 HHD patients from a major hospital network were included with 413 facility HD patients from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry matched by age, gender and cause of ESKD. Survival analysis and competing risks analysis (for transplantation) were performed.

Results

After adjusting for body mass index, smoking status, racial group and comorbidities, HHD was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death compared with facility HD patients [hazard ratio 0.47 (95% confidence interval 0.30–0.74)]. Transplantation rates were comparable, with high rates of graft survival at 6 months in both groups. Haemoglobin, calcium and parathyroid hormone levels did not vary significantly. However, HHD patients had significantly lower phosphate levels.

Conclusions

In this study, improved survival outcomes were observed in patients on home compared with facility dialysis, with comparable rates of transplantation, graft survival and biochemical control.

A Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Quality of Life By Dialysis Modality in the Treatment of Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review

Background:

There is an increasing demand to incorporate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as quality of life (QOL) in decision-making when selecting a chronic dialysis modality.

Objective:

To compare the change in QOL over time among similar patients on different dialysis modalities to provide unique and novel insights on the impact of dialysis modality on PROMs.

Design:

Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials were examined via a comprehensive search strategy incorporating multiple bibliographic databases.

Setting:

Data were extracted from relevant studies from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2019 without limitations on country of study conduction.

Patients:

Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with end-stage kidney disease of any cause who were prescribed dialysis treatment (either as lifetime treatment or bridge to transplant).

Measurements:

The 5 comparisons were peritoneal dialysis (PD) vs in-center hemodialysis (ICHD), home hemodialysis (HHD) vs ICHD, HHD modalities compared with one another, HHD vs PD, and self-care ICHD vs traditional nurse-based ICHD.

Methods:

Included studies compared adults on different dialysis modalities with repeat measures within individuals to determine changes in QOL between dialysis modalities (in-center or home dialysis). Methodological quality was assessed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN 50) checklist. A narrative synthesis was conducted, synthesizing the direction and size of any observed effects across studies.

Results:

Two randomized controlled trials and 9 prospective cohort studies involving a combined total of 3711 participants were included. Comparing PD and ICHD, 5 out of 9 studies found significant differences (P < .05) favoring PD in the change of multiple QOL domains, including “physical component score,” “role of social component score,” “cognitive status,” “role limitation due to emotional function,” “role limitation due to physical function,” “bodily pain,” “burden of kidney disease,” “effects of kidney disease on daily life,” “symptoms/problems,” “sexual function,” “finance,” and “patient satisfaction.” Conversely, 3 of these studies demonstrated statistically significant differences (P < .05) favoring ICHD in the domains of “role limitation due to physical function,” “general health,” “support from staff,” “sleep quality,” “social support,” “health status,” “social interaction,” “body image,” and “overall health.” Comparing HHD and ICHD, significant differences (P < .05) favoring HHD for the QOL domains of “general health,” “burden of kidney disease,” and the visual analogue scale were reported.

Limitations:

Our study is constrained by the small sample sizes of included studies, as well as heterogeneity among both study populations and validated QOL scales, limiting inter-study comparison.

Conclusions:

We identified differences in specific QOL domains between dialysis modalities that may aid in patient decision-making based on individual priorities.

Trial registration:

PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42016046980.

Primary funding source:

The original research for this study was derived from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) 2017 optimal use report, titled “Dialysis Modalities for the Treatment of End-Stage Kidney Disease: A Health Technology Assessment.” The CADTH receives funding from Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec.