MyTEMP: Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP) is a 4-year cluster-randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of using a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol versus a dialysate temperature of 36.5°C on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalization. Randomization was performed at the level of the dialysis center ("the cluster"). OBJECTIVE: The objective is to outline the statistical analysis plan for the MyTEMP trial. DESIGN: MyTEMP is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized trial. SETTING: A total of 84 dialysis centers in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Approximately 13 500 patients will have received in-center hemodialysis at the 84 participating dialysis centers during the trial period (April 3, 2017, to March 1, 2021, with a maximum follow-up to March 31, 2021). METHODS: Patient identification, baseline characteristics, and study outcomes will be obtained primarily through Ontario administrative health care databases held at ICES. Covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 84 dialysis centers (1:1) to the intervention group or the control group. Centers in the intervention group used a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol, and centers in the control group used a fixed dialysate temperature of 36.5°C. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (defined as a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) recorded in administrative health care databases. The key secondary outcome is the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure, defined as the patients' predialysis systolic blood pressure minus their nadir systolic blood pressure during the dialysis treatment. Anonymized data on patients' predialysis and intradialytic systolic blood pressure were collected at monthly intervals from each dialysis center. ANALYSIS PLAN: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The primary outcome will be analyzed at the patient level as the hazard ratio of time-to-first event, estimated from a subdistribution hazards model. Within-center correlation will be accounted for using a robust sandwich estimator. In the primary analysis, patients' observation time will end if they experience the primary outcome, emigrate from Ontario, or die of a noncardiovascular cause (which will be treated as a competing risk event). The between-group difference in the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure obtained during the dialysis sessions throughout the trial period will be analyzed at the center level using an unadjusted random-effects linear mixed model. TRIAL STATUS: The MyTEMP trial period is April 3, 2017, to March 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report results by 2023 once the updated data are available at ICES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MyTEMP is registered with the US National Institutes of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366). STATISTICAL ANALYTIC PLAN: Version 1.1 June 15, 2021.

CONTEXTE: L'essai MyTEMP (Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate Temperature) est un essai clinique randomisé en grappes d'une durée de 4 ans comparant l'effet d'un protocole de dialysat personnalisé à température réduite par rapport au dialysat à 36,5 °C sur les hospitalisations et les décès dus à des problèmes cardiovasculaires. La répartition aléatoire des sujets a été effectuée au niveau du centre de dialyse (ci-après appelé « groupe ¼). OBJECTIFS: Exposer les grandes lignes du plan d'analyse statistique de l'essai MyTEMP. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: MyTEMP est un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, basé sur un registre, et randomisé en grappes. CADRE: L'essai est mené dans 84 centres de dialyse en Ontario (Canada). SUJETS: On estime qu'environ 13 500 patients auront reçu des soins d'hémodialyse dans les 84 centres de dialyse participants au cours de la période de l'essai (3 avril 2017 au 1er mars 2021; suivi maximal jusqu'au 31 mars 2021). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les résultats et les données concernant l'identification des patients et leurs caractéristiques initiales seront principalement tirés des bases de données administratives du système de santé ontarien tenues par l'ICES. Une répartition aléatoire restreinte par les covariables a été employée pour classer les 84 centres de dialyse (1:1) dans le groupe d'intervention ou le groupe témoin. Le groupe d'intervention a utilisé un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à température réduite et le groupe témoin un dialysat à température fixe (36,5 °C). RÉSULTATS: Le principal critère d'évaluation est la combinaison d'un décès d'origine cardiovasculaire ou d'une hospitalisation majeure liée à la santé cardiovasculaire (définie comme une hospitalisation pour un infarctus du myocarde, une insuffisance cardiaque congestive ou un AVC ischémique) enregistrée dans les bases de données administratives du système de santé. Le principal critère d'évaluation secondaire est la baisse moyenne de la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique, laquelle est définie comme la tension artérielle systolique du patient avant la dialyse moins la tension artérielle systolique minimale pendant la dialyse. Les données anonymisées sur la tension artérielle systolique initiale et la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique des patients ont été colligées à intervalles mensuels dans chaque centre de dialyse. PLAN D'ANALYSE: L'analyse primaire adoptera une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter. Le principal critère d'évaluation sera analysé au niveau du patient comme le risque relatif de survenue d'un premier événement, estimé à partir d'un modèle de risques de sous-distribution. La corrélation intracentre sera prise en compte à l'aide d'un robuste estimateur sandwich. Dans l'analyse primaire, le temps d'observation des patients prendra fin s'ils présentent le principal critère d'évaluation, s'ils déménagent hors de l'Ontario ou s'ils décèdent d'une cause non cardiovasculaire (qui sera traitée comme un événement à risque concurrentiel). La différence entre les groupes quant à la baisse moyenne de la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique, obtenue pendant les séances de dialyse tout au long de l'essai, sera analysée au niveau du centre avec un modèle linéaire mixte à effets aléatoires non corrigé. STATUT DE L'ESSAI: L'essai MyTEMP couvre la période du 3 avril 2017 au 31 mars 2021. Nous comptons analyser et rendre compte des résultats d'ici 2023, dès que les données mises à jour seront disponibles à l'ICES. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: MyTEMP est enregistré auprès du National Institute of Health des États-Unis sur clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366).

Management of Patients With Glomerulonephritis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations From the Canadian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Rapid Response Team.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: This article will provide guidance on how to best manage patients with glomerulonephritis (GN) during the COVID-19 pandemic. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: We reviewed relevant published literature, program-specific documents, and guidance documents from international societies. An informal survey of Canadian nephrologists was conducted to identify practice patterns and expert opinions. We hosted a national webinar with invited input and feedback after webinar. METHODS: The Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) Board of Directors invited physicians with expertise in GN to contribute. Specific COVID-19-related themes in GN were identified, and consensus-based recommendations were made by this group of nephrologists. The recommendations received further peer input and review by Canadian nephrologists via a CSN-sponsored webinar. This was attended by 150 kidney health care professionals. The final consensus recommendations also incorporated review by Editors of the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. KEY FINDINGS: We identified 9 areas of GN management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) clinic visit scheduling, (2) clinic visit type, (3) provision of multidisciplinary care, (4) blood and urine testing, (5) home-based monitoring essentials, (6) immunosuppression, (7) other medications, (8) patient education and support, and (9) employment. LIMITATIONS: These recommendations are expert opinion, and are subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, a parallel review process was created that may not be as robust as standard arm's length peer review processes. IMPLICATIONS: These recommendations are intended to provide optimal care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our recommendations may change based on the evolving evidence.

Management of Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Suggestions From the Canadian Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Rapid Response Team.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: To provide guidance on the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) not requiring kidney replacement therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Program-specific documents, pre-existing, and related to COVID-19; documents from national and international kidney agencies; national and international webinars, including webinars that we hosted for input and feedback; with additional information from formal and informal review of published academic literature. METHODS: Challenges in the care of patients with advanced CKD during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted within the Canadian Senior Renal Leaders Forum discussion group. The Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) developed the COVID-19 rapid response team (RRT) to address these challenges. They identified a lead with expertise in advanced CKD who identified further nephrologists and administrators to form the workgroup. A nation-wide survey of advanced CKD clinics was conducted. The initial guidance document was drafted and members of the workgroup reviewed and discussed all suggestions in detail via email and a virtual meeting. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The document was reviewed by the CSN COVID-19 RRT, an ethicist and an infection control expert. The suggestions were presented at a CSN-sponsored interactive webinar, attended by 150 kidney health care professionals, for further peer input. The document was also sent for further feedback to experts who had participated in the initial survey. Final revisions were made based on feedback received until April 28, 2020. Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease (CJKHD) editors reviewed the parallel process peer review and edited the manuscript for clarity. KEY FINDINGS: We identified 11 broad areas of advanced CKD care management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) clinic visit scheduling, (2) clinic visit type, (3) provision of multidisciplinary care, (4) bloodwork, (5) patient education/support, (6) home-based monitoring essentials, (7) new referrals to multidisciplinary care clinic, (8) kidney replacement therapy, (9) medications, (10) personal protective equipment, and (11) COVID-19 risk in CKD. We make specific suggestions for each of these areas. LIMITATIONS: The suggestions in this paper are expert opinion, and subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, a parallel review process was created that may not be as robust as standard arms' length peer-review processes. IMPLICATIONS: These suggestions are intended to provide guidance for advanced CKD directors, clinicians, and administrators on how to provide the best care possible during a time of altered priorities and reduced resources.

Major Outcomes With Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP): Rationale and Design of a Pragmatic, Registry-Based, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Small randomized trials demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature reduced the average drop in intradialytic blood pressure. Some observational studies demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. There is now the need for a large randomized trial that compares the effect of a low vs high dialysate temperature on major cardiovascular outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to test the effect of outpatient hemodialysis centers randomized to (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol for 4 years on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalizations. DESIGN: The design of the study is a pragmatic, registry-based, open-label, cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hemodialysis centers in Ontario, Canada, were randomized on February 1, 2017, for a trial start date of April 3, 2017, and end date of March 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 84 hemodialysis centers will care for approximately 15 500 patients and provide over 4 million dialysis sessions over a 4-year follow-up. INTERVENTION: Hemodialysis centers were randomized (1:1) to provide (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol of 36.5°C. For the personalized protocol, nurses set the dialysate temperature between 0.5°C and 0.9°C below the patient's predialysis body temperature for each dialysis session, to a minimum dialysate temperature of 35.5°C. PRIMARY OUTCOME: A composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) captured in Ontario health care administrative databases. PLANNED PRIMARY ANALYSIS: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The hazard ratio of time-to-first event will be estimated from a Cox model. Within-center correlation will be considered using a robust sandwich estimator. Observation time will be censored on the trial end date or when patients die from a noncardiovascular event. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT02628366.

CONTEXTE: De petits essais à répartition aléatoire ont montré que l'utilisation d'un dialysat à basse température réduisait le risque d'hypotension intra-dialytique. De même, certaines études observationnelles ont démontré qu'un dialysat à basse température était associé à un plus faible risque de mortalité toute cause ou d'origine cardiovasculaire. Le temps est venu de procéder à un vaste essai à répartition aléatoire comparant les effets d'un dialysat à basse température et à température standard sur les principaux résultats cardiovasculaires. OBJECTIF: Répartir aléatoirement des centres d'hémodialyse ambulatoire pour qu'ils suivent pendant quatre ans (i) un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à basse température ou (ii) un protocole de dialysat à température standard, et tester l'effet sur les hospitalisations et la mortalité attribuables à des événements cardiovasculaires. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Un essai clinique à répartition aléatoire en grappes. CADRE: Le 1er février 2017, des centres d'hémodialyse de l'Ontario (Canada) ont été répartis aléatoirement en vue d'un essai qui a débuté le 3 avril 2017 et qui se poursuivra jusqu'au 31 mars 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Quatre-vingt-quatre centres d'hémodialyse qui prendront en charge environ 15 500 patients pendant les quatre ans de suivi. INTERVENTION: Les centres d'hémodialyse ont été répartis aléatoirement (1:1) pour offrir (i) un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à température réduite ou (ii) un protocole de dialysat à 36,5°C. Pour le protocole personnalisé, les infirmières règlent la température du dialysat entre 0,5 et 0,9°C sous la température corporelle du patient mesurée avant la dialyse, jusqu'à une température minimale de 35,5°C. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Un ensemble d'hospitalisations attribuables à un événement cardiovasculaire majeur (accident ischémique cérébral non fatal, infarctus du myocarde ou insuffisance cardiaque congestive) et de décès d'origine cardiovasculaire consignés dans les bases de données de santé de l'Ontario. PRINCIPALE ANALYSE ENVISAGÉE: L'analyse primaire adoptera une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter. Un modèle de Cox servira à estimer le rapport de risque du temps écoulé jusqu'au premier événement. La corrélation intra-centre sera prise en compte à l'aide d'un estimateur sandwich robuste. Le temps d'observation sera censuré à la date de fin de l'essai ou au moment d'un décès non lié à un événement cardiovasculaire.

Cultivating Innovative Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Registry Trials Embedded in Hemodialysis Care: Workshop Proceedings From 2018.

Hemodialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for persons with kidney failure. However, those on hemodialysis still face a poor quality of life and a short life expectancy. High-quality research evidence from large randomized controlled trials is needed to identify interventions that improve the experiences, outcomes, and health care of persons receiving hemodialysis. With the support of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and its Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, the Innovative Clinical Trials in Hemodialysis Centers initiative brought together Canadian and international kidney researchers, patients, health care providers, and health administrators to participate in a workshop held in Toronto, Canada, on June 2 and 3, 2018. The workshop served to increase knowledge and awareness about the conduct of innovative, pragmatic, cluster-randomized registry trials embedded into routine hemodialysis care and provided an opportunity to discuss and build support for new trial ideas. The workshop content included structured presentations, facilitated group discussions, and expert panel feedback. Partnerships and promising trial ideas borne out of the workshop will continue to be developed to support the implementation of future large-scale trials.

L'hémodialyse constitue un traitement essentiel au maintien de la vie pour les personnes atteintes d'insuffisance rénale. Les patients hémodialysés voient cependant leur qualité et leur espérance de vie réduites. Des données de recherches probantes, provenant de vastes essais cliniques contrôlés à répartition aléatoire, sont nécessaires pour améliorer l'expérience, les résultats et les soins des patients hémodialysés. Grâce au soutien des Instituts de recherche en santé du Canada (IRSC) et de leur Stratégie de recherche axée sur le patient (SRAP), l'initiative sur les essais cliniques novateurs (ECN) en centres d'hémodialyse a réuni divers intervenants en santé rénale (chercheurs, patients, fournisseurs de soins et administrateurs), du Canada et de partout dans le monde, lors d'un colloque qui s'est tenu à Toronto les 2 et 3 juin 2018. Ce colloque a permis d'accroître la sensibilisation et les connaissances sur la conduite d'essais cliniques novateurs, répartis en grappes, pragmatiques et intégrés aux soins d'hémodialyse de routine. Cette rencontre a également fourni une occasion de discuter de nouvelles idées d'essais cliniques et de susciter les appuis nécessaires à leur réalisation. Le colloque s'est déroulé sous forme de présentations structurées, de discussions animées en groupe et de rétroaction de la part d'un comité d'experts. Les idées de recherche prometteuses et les partenariats issus de ce colloque continueront d'être développés pour soutenir la réalisation d'essais cliniques futurs de grande envergure.

Effect of Coaching to Increase Water Intake on Kidney Function Decline in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease: The CKD WIT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In observational studies, increased water intake is associated with better kidney function. Objective: To determine the effect of coaching to increase water intake on kidney function in adults with chronic kidney disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CKD WIT (Chronic Kidney Disease Water Intake Trial) randomized clinical trial was conducted in 9 centers in Ontario, Canada, from 2013 until 2017 (last day of follow-up, May 25, 2017). Patients had stage 3 chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria) and a 24-hour urine volume of less than 3.0 L. Interventions: Patients in the hydration group (n = 316) were coached to drink more water, and those in the control group (n = 315) were coached to maintain usual intake. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in kidney function (eGFR from baseline to 12 months). Secondary outcomes included 1-year change in plasma copeptin concentration, creatinine clearance, 24-hour urine albumin, and patient-reported overall quality of health (0 [worst possible] to 10 [best possible]). Results: Of 631 randomized patients (mean age, 65.0 years; men, 63.4%; mean eGFR, 43 mL/min/1.73 m2; median urine albumin, 123 mg/d), 12 died (hydration group [n = 5]; control group [n = 7]). Among 590 survivors with 1-year follow-up measurements (95% of 619), the mean change in 24-hour urine volume was 0.6 L per day higher in the hydration group (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.7; P < .001). The mean change in eGFR was -2.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the hydration group and -1.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the control group (adjusted between-group difference, -0.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% CI, -1.8 to 1.2; P = .74]). The mean between-group differences (hydration vs control) in secondary outcomes were as follows: plasma copeptin, -2.2 pmol/L (95% CI, -3.9 to -0.5; P = .01); creatinine clearance, 3.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 0.8 to 6.4; P = .01); urine albumin, 7 mg per day (95% CI, -4 to 51; P = .11); and quality of health, 0.2 points (95% CI, -0.3 to 0.3; P = .22). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with chronic kidney disease, coaching to increase water intake compared with coaching to maintain the same water intake did not significantly slow the decline in kidney function after 1 year. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01766687.

Impact of modality choice on rates of hospitalization in patients eligible for both peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization rates are a relevant consideration when choosing or recommending a dialysis modality. Previous comparisons of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have not been restricted to individuals who were eligible for both therapies. ♢ METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of people 18 years of age and older who were eligible for both PD and HD, and who started outpatient dialysis between 2007 and 2010 in four Canadian dialysis programs. Zero-inflated negative binomial models, adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, were used to examine the association between modality choice and rates of hospitalization. ♢ RESULTS: The study enrolled 314 patients. A trend in the HD group toward higher rates of hospitalization, observed in the primary analysis, became significant when modality was treated as a time-varying exposure or when the population was restricted to elective outpatient starts in patients with at least 4 months of pre-dialysis care. Cardiovascular disease, infectious complications, and elective surgery were the most common reasons for hospital admission; only 23% of hospital stays were directly related to complications of dialysis or kidney disease. ♢ CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to promote PD utilization are unlikely to result in increased rates of hospitalization, and efforts to reduce hospital admissions should focus on potentially avoidable causes of cardiovascular disease and infectious complications.

Choosing peritoneal dialysis reduces the risk of invasive access interventions.

BACKGROUND: Patients choosing between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) should be well informed of the risks and benefits of each modality. Invasive access interventions are important outcomes because frequent interventions lower patient's quality of life and consume limited resources. The objective of this study was to compare the risk of access interventions between the two modalities. METHODS: Three hundred and sixty-nine incident chronic dialysis patients were prospectively enrolled at four Canadian centers that were eligible for both modalities, received at least 4 months of pre-dialysis care and started dialysis electively as an outpatient. Two hundred and twenty-four (61%) chose PD and 145 (39%) chose HD. Patients were followed for an average of 1.3 years (range 0.07-3.6 years). RESULTS: In the PD group, there were fewer access interventions (2.5 versus 3.1 interventions per patient, adjusted odds ratio of 0.79 for PD versus HD, P = 0.005) and a lower intervention rate (2.3 versus 1.9 per patient-year, adjusted rate ratio of 0.81 for PD versus HD, P = 0.04). PD catheters were less likely to experience primary failure (4.6 versus 32%, P < 0.0001), showed a trend toward lower intervention rates during use (0.8 versus 1.2 per patient-year, P = 0.06), and had equal patency compared to fistulae (1-year patency of 84 versus 88%, P = 0.48). Patients managed exclusively with HD catheters (28% of the HD group) required 1.7 interventions per patient and an intervention rate of 1.9 per patient-year. CONCLUSION: Patients who choose PD require fewer access interventions to maintain dialysis access than patients choosing HD.

Impact of contraindications, barriers to self-care and support on incident peritoneal dialysis utilization.

BACKGROUND: Targets for peritoneal dialysis (PD) utilization may be difficult to achieve because many older patients have contraindications to PD or barriers to self-care. The objectives of this study were to determine the impact that contraindications and barriers to self-care have on incident PD use, and to determine whether family support increased PD utilization when home care support is available. METHODS: Consecutive incident dialysis patients were assessed for PD eligibility, offered PD if eligible and followed up for PD use. All patients lived in regions where home care assistance was available. RESULTS: The average patient age was 66 years. One hundred and ten (22%) of the 497 patients had absolute medical or social contraindications to PD. Of the remaining 387 patients who were potentially eligible for PD, 245 (63%) had at least one physical or cognitive barrier to self-care PD. Patients with barriers were older, weighed less and were more likely to be female, start dialysis as an inpatient and have a history of vascular disease, cardiac disease and cancer. Family support was associated with an increase in PD eligibility from 63% to 80% (P = 0.003) and PD choice from 40% to 57% (P = 0.03) in patients with barriers to self-care. Family support increased incidence PD utilization from 23% to 39% among patients with barriers to self-care (P = 0.009). When family support was available, 34% received family-assisted PD, 47% received home care-assisted PD, 12% received both family- and home care-assisted PD, and 7% performed only self-care PD. Incident PD use in an incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) population was 30% (147 of the 497 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Contraindications, barriers to self-care and the availability of family support are important drivers of PD utilization in the incident ESRD population even when home assistance is available. These factors should be considered when setting targets for PD.

A cross-sectional immunosurveillance study of anti-EPO antibody levels in CRF patients receiving epoetin alfa in 5 Ontario Renal Centers.

BACKGROUND: Epoetin alfa (Eprex*; Johnson & Johnson, Manati, PR) has been used successfully to correct the anemia of chronic renal failure for more than 12 years. Anti-erythropoietin (anti-EPO) antibodies have been reported in a small number of patients, resulting in a blood disorder, pure red cell aplasia (PRCA). To evaluate the utility of a large-scale anti-EPO antibody screening program in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) administered epoetin alfa, a study involving 5 large renal centers in southern Ontario, Canada, was conducted. METHODS: More than 1,500 hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and predialysis patients were screened for the prevalence of anti-EPO antibodies by means of a radioimmunoprecipitation (RIP) assay. Serum samples were drawn and shipped to PPD Development (Richmond, VA) for the immunoprecipitation assay. Serum EPO levels also were measured. All samples that tested positive or borderline for antibodies were sent to MDS Pharma Services (Montreal, Canada) for the neutralization assay. RESULTS: Of 1,531 samples tested, 1 patient tested low-positive and 3 borderline results were detected by means of RIP. PRCA previously was diagnosed in the patient with the low-positive antibody level; the patient was treated with cyclosporine and currently is being administered epoetin alfa with good response. The 3 patients with borderline antibody results manifested no clinical signs of PRCA. Neutralization assays performed on all 4 serum samples were negative for anti-EPO antibodies. CONCLUSION: Results from this surveillance study show that the prevalence of antibody to EPO in patients with CKD administered epoetin alfa in 5 Canadian renal centers is low, and the value of a large-scale antibody screening program for PRCA cannot be justified.

Arteriovenous fistula-associated high-output cardiac failure: a review of mechanisms.

High-output cardiac failure can be a rare complication of high-output arteriovenous fistula. The authors present a case in which a hemodialysis patient with a high-flow arteriovenous fistula has cardiac failure that improves with fistula closure. The hemodynamic effects of a fistula are reviewed, and the hemodialysis literature regarding high-output cardiac failure is summarized. To gain insight into the problem of high-output cardiac failure, research efforts should focus on the prospective monitoring of high-access flows.