Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Oral Furosemide Among Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Pilot Study

Introduction

Diuretic use may reduce volume-related complications in hemodialysis. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of furosemide in patients with hemodialysis-dependent kidney failure.

Methods

We conducted an open label, single-arm, 18-week, dose titration pilot study of oral furosemide (maximum dose 320 mg/day) among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis who reported at least 1 cup of urine output per day. The primary efficacy outcome was an increase from baseline to a specified threshold of 24-hour urine volume, with the threshold based on baseline urine volume (<200 ml/day vs. ≥200 ml/day). Safety outcomes included hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia, and tolerability was assessed by prespecified patient-reported symptoms.

Results

Of the 39 participants, 28 (72%) received the expected furosemide dose, 3 (8%) underwent dose reduction, 5 (12%) discontinued furosemide without dose reduction, and 3 (8%) underwent dose reduction and subsequently discontinued furosemide. The median (quartile 1, quartile 3) baseline 24-hour urine volume was 290 ml (110, 740), and the maximum, average daily study furosemide dose ranged from 69 mg/day to 320 mg/d. The urine output efficacy outcome was met by 12 (33%), 11 (33%), and 7 (22%) participants at weeks 5, 12, and 18, respectively, in the intention-to-treat analysis, and by 12 (39%), 9 (35%), and 7 (28%) participants at weeks 5, 12, and 18, respectively, in the on-treatment analysis. There were no electrolyte, furosemide level, or patient-reported hearing change safety events.

Conclusion

Furosemide was generally safe and well tolerated, but only one-third of participants met the efficacy definition at week 5. The clinical importance of the efficacy findings is uncertain.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Individuals With Pre-existing Kidney Disease and COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care Units in the United States

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Underlying kidney disease is an emerging risk factor for more severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness. We examined the clinical courses of critically ill COVID-19 patients with and without pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and investigated the association between the degree of underlying kidney disease and in-hospital outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS

4,264 critically ill patients with COVID-19 (143 patients with pre-existing kidney failure receiving maintenance dialysis; 521 patients with pre-existing non-dialysis-dependent CKD; and 3,600 patients without pre-existing CKD) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the United States.

PREDICTOR(S)

Presence (vs absence) of pre-existing kidney disease.

OUTCOME(S)

In-hospital mortality (primary); respiratory failure, shock, ventricular arrhythmia/cardiac arrest, thromboembolic events, major bleeds, and acute liver injury (secondary).

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

We used standardized differences to compare patient characteristics (values>0.10 indicate a meaningful difference between groups) and multivariable-adjusted Fine and Gray survival models to examine outcome associations.

RESULTS

Dialysis patients had a shorter time from symptom onset to ICU admission compared to other groups (median of 4 [IQR, 2-9] days for maintenance dialysis patients; 7 [IQR, 3-10] days for non-dialysis-dependent CKD patients; and 7 [IQR, 4-10] days for patients without pre-existing CKD). More dialysis patients (25%) reported altered mental status than those with non-dialysis-dependent CKD (20%; standardized difference=0.12) and those without pre-existing CKD (12%; standardized difference=0.36). Half of dialysis and non-dialysis-dependent CKD patients died within 28 days of ICU admission versus 35% of patients without pre-existing CKD. Compared to patients without pre-existing CKD, dialysis patients had higher risk for 28-day in-hospital death (adjusted HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.09-1.81]), while patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD had an intermediate risk (adjusted HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.08-1.44]).

LIMITATIONS

Potential residual confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the high mortality of individuals with underlying kidney disease and severe COVID-19, underscoring the importance of identifying safe and effective COVID-19 therapies in this vulnerable population.

Effect of ultrafiltration profiling on outcomes among maintenance hemodialysis patients: a pilot randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

More rapid fluid removal during hemodialysis is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes and longer dialysis recovery times. The effect of ultrafiltration (UF) profiling, independent of concomitant sodium profiling, on markers of intradialytic hemodynamics and other outcomes has been inadequately studied.

METHODS

Four-phase, blinded crossover trial. Participants (UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg) were assigned in random order to receive hemodialysis with UF profiling (constantly declining UF rate, intervention) vs. hemodialysis with conventional UF (control). Each 3-week 9-treatment period was followed by a 1-week 3-treatment washout period. Participants crossed into each study arm twice (2 phases/arm); 18 treatments per treatment type. The primary outcomes were intradialytic hypotension, pre- to post-dialysis troponin T change, and change from baseline in left ventricular global longitudinal strain. Other outcomes included intradialytic symptoms and blood volume measured-plasma refill (post-dialysis volume status measure), among others. Each participant served as their own control.

RESULTS

On average, the 34 randomized patients (mean age 56 years, 24% female, mean dialysis vintage 6.3 years) had UF rates > 10 mL/h/kg in 56% of treatments during the screening period. All but 2 patients completed the 15-week study (prolonged hospitalization, kidney transplant). There was no significant difference in intradialytic hypotension, troponin T change, or left ventricular strain between hemodialysis with UF profiling and conventional UF. With UF profiling, participants had significantly lower odds of light-headedness and plasma refill compared to hemodialysis with conventional UF.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrafiltration (UF) profiling did not reduce the odds of treatment-related cardiac stress but did reduce the odds of light-headedness and post-dialysis hypervolemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03301740 (registered October 4, 2017).

Feasibility of Tablet-Based Patient-Reported Symptom Data Collection Among Hemodialysis Patients

Introduction

Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis have high symptom burdens but often do not report their symptoms to care teams. Evidence from other diseases suggest that use of symptom electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) may improve outcomes. We assessed the usability of a symptom ePROM system and then implemented a quality improvement (QI) project with the objective of improving symptom communication at a US hemodialysis clinic. During the project, we assessed the feasibility of ePROM implementation and conducted a substudy exploring the effect of ePROM use on patient-centered care.

Methods

After conducting usability testing, we used mixed methods, guided by the Quality Implementation Framework, to implement a 16-week symptom ePROM QI project. We performed pre-, intra-, and postproject stakeholder interviews to identify implementation barriers and facilitators. We collected ePROM system-generated data on symptoms, e-mail alerts, and response rates, among other factors, to inform our feasibility assessment. We compared pre- and postproject outcomes.

Results

There were 62 patient participants (34% black, 16% Spanish-speaking) and 19 care team participants (4 physicians, 15 clinic personnel) at QI project start, and 32 research participants. In total, the symptom ePROM was administered 496 times (completion rate = 84%). The implementation approach and ePROM system were modified to address stakeholder-identified concerns throughout. ePROM implementation was feasible as demonstrated by the program’s acceptability, demand, implementation success, practicality, integration in care, and observed trend toward improved outcomes.

Conclusions

Symptom ePROM administration during hemodialysis is feasible. Trials investigating the effectiveness of symptom ePROMs and optimal administration strategies are needed.

Ultrafiltration-profiled hemodialysis to reduce dialysis-related cardiovascular stress: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Rapid fluid removal (ultrafiltration, UF) is associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis (HD). Fluid removal rates that exceed vascular refill rates can result in hemodynamic instability, end-organ damage to the heart, kidneys, gut and brain, among other organs, and patient symptoms. There are no known evidence-based HD treatment strategies to reduce harm from higher UF rates. Ultrafiltration profiling, the practice of varying UF rates to maximize fluid removal during periods of greatest hydration and plasma oncotic pressure, has been proposed as an HD treatment intervention that may reduce UF rate-related complications. This study is a randomized 4-phase cross-over trial in which participants are successively alternated between study arms with intervening washout periods, and treatment order is randomized. After 4-week screening and 6-week baseline periods, participants are randomized to HD with conventional UF or HD with UF profiling for a period of 3 weeks followed by a 1-week washout period before crossing over. Participants cross into conventional UF and UF profiling phases twice (2 phases per arm). The primary outcomes of interest are intradialytic hypotension (nadir intradialytic systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), pre-to post-HD change in troponin T (expressed as a percentage), change in left ventricular global longitudinal strain (an echocardiographic measure of left ventricular systolic function), and development of intradialytic left ventricular stunning (worsening of contractile function in ≥2 segments). This study will determine the impact of UF profiling on UF rate-related cardiovascular complications in prevalent, maintenance HD patients.