Improving Diverse and Equitable Involvement of Patients and Caregivers in Research in CKD: Report of a Better Evidence and Translation-Chronic Kidney Disease (BEAT-CKD) Workshop.

Patient and caregiver involvement can enhance the uptake and impact of research, but the involvement of patients and caregivers who are underserved and marginalized is often limited. A better understanding of how to make involvement in research more broadly accessible, supportive, and inclusive for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and caregivers is needed. We conducted a national workshop involving patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers from across Australia to identify strategies to increase the diversity of patients and caregivers involved in CKD research. Six themes were identified. Building trust and a sense of safety was considered pivotal to establishing meaningful relationships to support knowledge exchange. Establishing community and connectedness was expected to generate a sense of belonging to motivate involvement. Balancing stakeholder goals, expectations, and responsibilities involved demonstrating commitment and transparency by researchers. Providing adequate resources and support included strategies to minimize the burden of involvement for patients and caregivers. Making research accessible and relatable was about nurturing patient and caregiver interest by appealing to intrinsic motivators. Adapting to patient and caregiver needs and preferences required tailoring the approach for individuals and the target community. Strategies and actions to support these themes may support more diverse and equitable involvement of patients and caregivers in research in CKD.

Associations of neutral pH, low-GDP peritoneal dialysis solutions with patient survival, transfer to haemodialysis and peritonitis.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions containing low levels of glucose degradation products (GDPs) are associated with attenuation of peritoneal membrane injury and vascular complications. However, clinical benefits associated with neutral-pH, low-GDP (N-pH/L-GDP) solutions remain unclear. METHODS: Using data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry, we examined the associations between N-pH/L-GDP solutions and all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, transfer to haemodialysis (HD) for ≥30 days and PD peritonitis in adult incident PD patients in Australia and New Zealand between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2020 using adjusted Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 12 814 incident PD patients, 2282 (18%) were on N-pH/L-GDP solutions. The proportion of patients on N-pH/L-GDP solutions each year increased from 11% in 2005 to 33% in 2017. During the study period, 5330 (42%) patients died, 4977 (39%) experienced transfer to HD and 5502 (43%) experienced PD peritonitis. Compared with the use of conventional solutions only, the use of any form of N-pH/L-GDP solution was associated with reduced risks of all-cause mortality {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.74]}, cardiovascular mortality [aHR 0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.77)], infection-related mortality [aHR 0.62 (95% CI 0.47-0.83)] and transfer to HD [aHR 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.86)] but an increased risk of PD peritonitis [aHR 1.16 (95% CI 1.07-1.26)]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received N-pH/L-GDP solutions had decreased risks of all-cause and cause-specific mortality despite an increased risk of PD peritonitis. Studies assessing the causal relationships are warranted to determine the clinical benefits of N-pH/L-GDP solutions.

Outcomes for clinical trials involving adults with chronic kidney disease: a multinational Delphi survey involving patients, caregivers, and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many outcomes of high priority to patients and clinicians are infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in CKD, which generates research waste and limits evidence-informed decision making. We aimed to generate consensus among patients/caregivers and health professionals on critically important outcomes for trials in CKD prior to kidney failure and the need for kidney replacement therapy, and to describe the reasons for their choices. METHODS: Online two-round international Delphi survey. Adult patients with CKD (all stages and diagnoses), caregivers and health professionals, who could read English, Spanish, or French were eligible. Participants rated the importance of outcomes using a Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and a best-worst scale. The scores for the two groups were assessed to determine absolute and relative importance. Comments were analysed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 1 399 participants from 73 countries completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey including 628 (45%) patients/caregivers and 771 (55%) health professionals. In Round 2, 790 participants (56% response rate) from 63 countries completed the survey including 383 (48%) patients/caregivers and 407 (52%) health professionals. The overall top five outcomes were: kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease, and death. In the final round, patients/caregivers indicated higher scores for most outcomes (17/22 outcomes), and health professionals gave higher priority to mortality, hospitalization, and cardiovascular disease (mean difference > 0.3). Consensus was based upon the two groups yielding median scores of ≥ 7 and mean scores > 7, and the proportions of both groups rating the outcome as 'critically important' being greater than 50%. Four themes reflected the reasons for their priorities: imminent threat of a health catastrophe, signifying diminishing capacities, ability to self-manage and cope, and tangible and direct consequences. CONCLUSION: Across trials in CKD, the outcomes of highest priority to patients, caregivers, and health professionals were kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease, and death.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Home haemodialysis (HHD) may be associated with important clinical, social or economic benefits. However, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated HHD versus in-centre HD (ICHD). The relative benefits and harms of these two HD modalities are uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. This update includes non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of HHD versus ICHD in adults with kidney failure. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2022 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. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for NRSIs. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and NRSIs evaluating HHD (including community houses and self-care) compared to ICHD in adults with kidney failure were eligible. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, vascular access interventions, central venous catheter insertion/exchange, vascular access infection, parathyroidectomy, wait-listing for a kidney transplant, receipt of a kidney transplant, quality of life (QoL), symptoms related to dialysis therapy, fatigue, recovery time, cost-effectiveness, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed, and relevant outcomes were extracted. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes where there was sufficient data. MAIN RESULTS: From the 1305 records identified, a single cross-over RCT and 39 NRSIs proved eligible for inclusion. These studies were of varying design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional) and involved a widely variable number of participants (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses). Studies also varied in the treatment prescription and delivery (e.g. treatment duration, frequency, dialysis machine parameters) and participant characteristics (e.g. time on dialysis). Studies often did not describe these parameters in detail. Although the risk of bias, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was generally low for most studies, within the constraints of observational study design, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding. Many study outcomes were reported in ways that did not allow direct comparison or meta-analysis. It is uncertain whether HHD, compared to ICHD, may be associated with a decrease in cardiovascular death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 2 NRSIs, 30,900 participants; very low certainty evidence) or all-cause death (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; 9 NRSIs, 58,984 patients; very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether HHD may be associated with a decrease in hospitalisation rate (MD -0.50 admissions per patient-year, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.02; 2 NRSIs, 834 participants; very low certainty evidence), compared with ICHD. Compared with ICHD, it is uncertain whether HHD may be associated with receipt of kidney transplantation (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 6 NRSIs, 10,910 participants; very low certainty evidence) and a shorter recovery time post-dialysis (MD -2.0 hours, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.28; 2 NRSIs, 348 participants; very low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain if HHD may be associated with decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -11.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -21.11 to -2.46; 4 NRSIs, 491 participants; very low certainty evidence) and decreased left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD -17.74 g/m2, 95% CI -29.60 to -5.89; 2 NRSIs, 130 participants; low certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to evaluate the relative association of HHD and ICHD with fatigue or vascular access outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported using 18 different measures across 11 studies (QoL: 6 measures; mental health: 3 measures; symptoms: 1 measure; impact and view of health: 6 measures; functional ability: 2 measures). Few studies reported the same measures, which limited the ability to perform meta-analysis or compare outcomes. It is uncertain whether HHD is more cost-effective than ICHD, both in the first (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.13 to -0.37; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence) and second year of dialysis (SMD -1.47, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.21; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low to very low certainty evidence, HHD, compared with ICHD, has uncertain associations or may be associated with decreased cardiovascular and all-cause death, hospitalisation rate, slower post-dialysis recovery time, and decreased SBP and LVMI. HHD has uncertain cost-effectiveness compared with ICHD in the first and second years of treatment. The majority of studies included in this review were observational and subject to potential selection bias and confounding, especially as patients treated with HHD tended to be younger with fewer comorbidities. Variation from study to study in the choice of outcomes and the way in which they were reported limited the ability to perform meta-analyses. Future research should align outcome measures and metrics with other research in the field in order to allow comparison between studies, establish outcome effects with greater certainty, and avoid research waste.

Peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people commencing dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis (HD) are two possible modalities for people with kidney failure commencing dialysis. Only a few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated PD versus HD. The benefits and harms of the two modalities remain uncertain. This review includes both RCTs and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of PD, compared to HD, in people with kidney failure initiating dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies from 2000 to June 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for NRSIs from 2000 until 28 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and NRSIs evaluating PD compared to HD in people initiating dialysis were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using standard Cochrane methods, and relevant outcomes were extracted for each report. The primary outcome was residual kidney function (RKF). Secondary outcomes included all-cause, cardiovascular and infection-related death, infection, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, technique survival, life participation and fatigue. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 153 reports of 84 studies (2 RCTs, 82 NRSIs) were included. Studies varied widely in design (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses) and in the included populations (broad inclusion criteria versus restricted to more specific participants). Additionally, treatment delivery (e.g. automated versus continuous ambulatory PD, HD with catheter versus arteriovenous fistula or graft, in-centre versus home HD) and duration of follow-up varied widely. The two included RCTs were deemed to be at high risk of bias in terms of blinding participants and personnel and blinding outcome assessment for outcomes pertaining to quality of life. However, most other criteria were assessed as low risk of bias for both studies. Although the risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) was generally low for most NRSIs, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding due to the constraints of the observational study design. In children, there may be little or no difference between HD and PD on all-cause death (6 studies, 5752 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; I2 = 28%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (3 studies, 7073 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.59; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and was unclear for infection-related death (4 studies, 7451 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46; I2 = 56%; very low certainty). In adults, compared with HD, PD had an uncertain effect on RKF (mL/min/1.73 m2) at six months (2 studies, 146 participants: MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.60; I2 = 82%; very low certainty), 12 months (3 studies, 606 participants: MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 2.43; I2 = 81%; very low certainty) and 24 months (3 studies, 334 participants: MD 0.71, 95% CI -0.02 to 1.48; I2 = 72%; very low certainty). PD had uncertain effects on residual urine volume at 12 months (3 studies, 253 participants: MD 344.10 mL/day, 95% CI 168.70 to 519.49; I2 = 69%; very low certainty). PD may reduce the risk of RKF loss (3 studies, 2834 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.68; I2 = 17%; low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on all-cause death (42 studies, 700,093 participants: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; I2 = 99%; very low certainty). In an analysis restricted to RCTs, PD may reduce the risk of all-cause death (2 studies, 1120 participants: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). PD had uncertain effects on both cardiovascular (21 studies, 68,492 participants: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; I2 = 92%) and infection-related death (17 studies, 116,333 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42; I2 = 98%) (both very low certainty). Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing bacteraemia/bloodstream infection (2 studies, 2582 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.18; I2 = 68%) and the number of patients experiencing infection episodes (3 studies, 277 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.62; I2 = 20%) (both very low certainty). PD may reduce the number of bacteraemia/bloodstream infection episodes (2 studies, 2637 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; I2 = 24%; low certainty). Compared with HD; It is uncertain whether PD reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (4 studies, 110,850 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 55%), coronary artery disease (3 studies, 5826 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.97; I2 = 62%); ischaemic heart disease (2 studies, 58,374 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.28; I2 = 95%), congestive heart failure (3 studies, 49,511 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.21; I2 = 89%) and stroke (4 studies, 102,542 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; I2 = 0%) because of low to very low certainty evidence. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on the number of patients experiencing hospitalisation (4 studies, 3282 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.30; I2 = 97%) and all-cause hospitalisation events (4 studies, 42,582 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.29; I2 = 91%) (very low certainty). None of the included studies reported specifically on life participation or fatigue. However, two studies evaluated employment. Compared with HD, PD had uncertain effects on employment at one year (2 studies, 593 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.43; I2 = 97%; very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The comparative effectiveness of PD and HD on the preservation of RKF, all-cause and cause-specific death risk, the incidence of bacteraemia, other vascular complications (e.g. stroke, cardiovascular events) and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. life participation and fatigue) are uncertain, based on data obtained mostly from NRSIs, as only two RCTs were included.

International peritoneal dialysis training practices and the risk of peritonitis.

BACKGROUND: The effects of training practices on outcomes of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD) are poorly understood and there is a lack of evidence informing best training practices. This prospective cohort study aims to describe and compare international PD training practices and their association with peritonitis. METHODS: Adult patients on PD <3 months participating in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS) were included. Training characteristics (including duration, location, nurse affiliation, modality, training of family members, use of individual/group training and use of written/oral competency assessments) were reported at patient and facility levels. The hazard ratio (HR) for time to first peritonitis was estimated using Cox models, adjusted for selected patient and facility case-mix variables. RESULTS: A total of 1376 PD patients from 120 facilities across seven countries were included. Training was most commonly performed at the facility (81%) by facility-affiliated nurses (87%) in a 1:1 setting (79%). In the UK, being trained by both facility and third-party nurses was associated with a reduced peritonitis risk [adjusted HR 0.31 (95% confidence interval 0.15-0.62) versus facility nurses only]. However, this training practice was utilized in only 5 of 14 UK facilities. No other training characteristics were convincingly associated with peritonitis risk. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence to support that peritonitis risk was associated with when, where, how or how long PD patients are trained.

Dialysis modality utilization patterns and mortality in older persons initiating dialysis in Australia and New Zealand.

AIM: The benefits of dialysis in the older population remain highly debated, particularly for certain dialysis modalities. This study aimed to explore the dialysis modality utilization patterns between in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home haemodialysis (HHD) and their association with outcomes in older persons. METHODS: Older persons (≥75 years) initiating dialysis in Australia and New Zealand from 1999 to 2018 reported to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) registry were included. The main aim of the study was to characterize dialysis modality utilization patterns and describe individual characteristics of each pattern. Relationships between identified patterns and survival, causes of death and withdrawal were examined as secondary analyses, where the pattern was considered as the exposure. RESULTS: A total of 10 306 older persons initiated dialysis over the study period. Of these, 6776 (66%) and 1535 (15%) were exclusively treated by ICHD and PD, respectively, while 136 (1%) ever received HHD during their dialysis treatment course. The remainder received both ICHD and PD: 906 (9%) started dialysis on ICHD and 953 (9%) on PD. Different individual characteristics were seen across dialysis modality utilization patterns. Median survival time was 3.0 (95%CI 2.9-3.1) years. Differences in survival were seen across groups and varied depending on the time period following dialysis initiation. Dialysis withdrawal was an important cause of death and varied according to individual characteristics and utilization patterns. CONCLUSION: This study showed that dialysis modality utilization patterns in older persons are associated with mortality, independent of individual characteristics.

The case for increased peritoneal dialysis utilization in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has several advantages compared to haemodialysis (HD), but there is evidence showing underutilization globally, especially in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs) where kidney replacement therapies (KRT) are often unavailable, inaccessible, and unaffordable. Only 11% of all dialysis patients worldwide use PD, more than 50% of whom live in China, the United States of America, Mexico, or Thailand. Various barriers to increased PD utilization have been reported worldwide including patient preference, low levels of education, and lower provider reimbursement. However, unique but surmountable barriers are applicable to LLMICs including the excessively high cost of providing PD (related to PD fluids in particular), excessive cost of treatment borne by patients (relative to HD), lack of adequate PD training opportunities for doctors and nurses, low workforce availability for kidney care, and challenges related to some PD outcomes (catheter-related infections, hospitalizations, mortality, etc.). This review discusses some known barriers to PD use in LLMICs and leverages data that show a global trend in reducing rates of PD-related infections, reducing rates of modality switches from HD, and improving patient survival in PD to discuss how PD use can be increased in LLMICs. We therefore, challenge the idea that low PD use in LLMICs is unavoidable due to these barriers and instead present opportunities to improve PD utilization in LLMICs.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Development of an international Delphi survey to establish core outcome domains for trials in adults with glomerular disease.

Outcomes relevant to treatment decision-making are inconsistently reported in trials involving glomerular disease. Here, we sought to establish a consensus-derived set of critically important outcomes designed to be reported in all future trials by using an online, international two-round Delphi survey in English. To develop this, patients with glomerular disease, caregivers and health professionals aged 18 years and older rated the importance of outcomes using a Likert scale and a Best-Worst scale. The absolute and relative importance was assessed and comments were analyzed thematically. Of 1198 participants who completed Round 1, 734 were patients/caregivers while 464 were health care professionals from 59 countries. Of 700 participants that completed Round 2, 412 were patients/caregivers and 288 were health care professionals. Need for dialysis or transplant, kidney function, death, cardiovascular disease, remission-relapse and life participation were the most important outcomes to patients/caregivers and health professionals. Patients/caregivers rated patient-reported outcomes higher while health care professionals rated hospitalization, death and remission/relapse higher. Four themes explained the reasons for their priorities: confronting death and compounded suffering, focusing on specific targets in glomerular disease, preserving meaning in life, and fostering self-management. Thus, consistent reporting of these critically important outcomes in all trials involving glomerular disease is hoped to improve patient-centered decision-making.

Establishing a Core Outcome Set for Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD) Consensus Workshop.

The omission of outcomes that are of relevance to patients, clinicians, and regulators across trials in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) limits shared decision making. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on October 25, 2018, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all ADPKD trials. This article summarizes the discussion from the workshops and the SONG-PKD core outcome set. Key stakeholders including 11 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policy makers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Four themes emerged: "Relevance of trajectory and impact of kidney function" included concerns about a patient's prognosis and uncertainty of when they may need to commence kidney replacement therapy and the lack of an early prognostic marker to inform long-term decisions; "Discerning and defining pain specific to ADPKD" highlighted the challenges in determining the origin of pain, adapting to the chronicity and repeated episodes of pain, the need to place emphasis on pain management, and to have a validated measure for pain; "Highlighting ADPKD consequences" encompassed cyst-related complications and reflected patient's knowledge because of family history and the hereditary nature of ADPKD; and "Risk for life-threatening but rare consequences" such as cerebral aneurysm meant considering both frequency and severity of the outcome. Kidney function, mortality, cardiovascular disease, and pain were established as the core outcomes for ADPKD.

Peritoneal Dialysis Use and Practice Patterns: An International Survey Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Approximately 11% of people with kidney failure worldwide are treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD). This study examined PD use and practice patterns across the globe. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders including clinicians, policy makers, and patient representatives in 182 countries convened by the International Society of Nephrology between July and September 2018. OUTCOMES: PD use, availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were received from 88% (n=160) of countries and there were 313 participants (257 nephrologists [82%], 22 non-nephrologist physicians [7%], 6 other health professionals [2%], 17 administrators/policy makers/civil servants [5%], and 11 others [4%]). 85% (n=156) of countries responded to questions about PD. Median PD use was 38.1 per million population. PD was not available in 30 of the 156 (19%) countries responding to PD-related questions, particularly in countries in Africa (20/41) and low-income countries (15/22). In 69% of countries, PD was the initial dialysis modality for≤10% of patients with newly diagnosed kidney failure. Patients receiving PD were expected to pay 1% to 25% of treatment costs, and higher (>75%) copayments (out-of-pocket expenses incurred by patients) were more common in South Asia and low-income countries. Average exchange volumes were adequate (defined as 3-4 exchanges per day or the equivalent for automated PD) in 72% of countries. PD quality outcome monitoring and reporting were variable. Most countries did not measure patient-reported PD outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Low responses from policy makers; limited ability to provide more in-depth explanations underpinning outcomes from each country due to lack of granular data; lack of objective data. CONCLUSIONS: Large inter- and intraregional disparities exist in PD availability, accessibility, affordability, delivery, and reporting of quality outcome measures around the world, with the greatest gaps observed in Africa and South Asia.

Multicenter registry analysis comparing survival on home hemodialysis and kidney transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: In the era of organ shortage, home hemodialysis (HHD) has been identified as the possible preferential bridge to kidney transplantation. Data are conflicting regarding the comparability of HHD and transplantation outcomes. This study aimed to compare patient and treatment survival between HHD patients and kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: The Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry was used to include incident HHD patients on Day 90 after initiation of kidney replacement therapy and first kidney-only transplant recipients in Australia and New Zealand from 1997 to 2017. Survival times were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method comparing HHD patients with subtypes of kidney transplant recipients using the log-rank test. Adjusted analyses were performed with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models for time to all-cause mortality. Time-to-treatment failure or death was assessed as a composite secondary outcome. RESULTS: The study compared 1411 HHD patients with 4960 living donor (LD) recipients, 6019 standard criteria donor (SCD) recipients and 2427 expanded criteria donor (ECD) recipients. While LD and SCD recipients had reduced risks of mortality compared with HHD patients [LD adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.71; SCD HR = 0.65 95% CI 0.52-0.79], the risk of mortality was comparable between ECD recipients and HHD patients (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.73-1.12). LD, SCD and ECD kidney recipients each experienced superior time-to-treatment failure or death compared with HHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: This large registry study showed that kidney transplant offers a survival benefit compared with HHD but that this advantage is not significant for ECD recipients.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis for people with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require urgent initiation of dialysis but without having a permanent dialysis access have traditionally commenced haemodialysis (HD) using a central venous catheter (CVC). However, several studies have reported that urgent initiation of peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a viable alternative option for such patients. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of urgent-start PD compared to HD initiated using a CVC in adults and children with CKD requiring long-term kidney replacement therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 May 2020 for randomised controlled trials through contact with the Information Specialist 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 Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. For non-randomised controlled trials, MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to 11 February 2020) and EMBASE (OVID) (1980 to 11 February 2020) were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs comparing urgent-start PD to HD initiated using a CVC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed the quality of studies independently. Additional information was obtained from the primary investigators. The estimates of effect were analysed using random-effects model and results were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The GRADE framework was used to make judgments regarding certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, seven observational studies (991 participants) were included: three prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies. All the outcomes except one (bacteraemia) were graded as very low certainty of evidence given that all included studies were observational studies and few events resulting in imprecision, and inconsistent findings. Urgent-start PD may reduce the incidence of catheter-related bacteraemia compared with HD initiated with a CVC (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.41; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), which translated into 131 fewer bacteraemia episodes per 1000 (95% CI 89 to 145 fewer). Urgent-start PD has uncertain effects on peritonitis risk (2 studies, 301 participants: RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.23 to 13.62; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 419 participants: RR 3.99, 95% CI 1.2 to 12.05; very low certainty evidence), exit-site bleeding (1 study, 178 participants: RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.33; very low certainty evidence), catheter malfunction (2 studies; 597 participants: RR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.91; I2 = 66%; very low certainty evidence), catheter re-adjustment (2 studies, 225 participants: RR: 0.13; 95% CI 0.00 to 18.61; I2 = 92%; very low certainty evidence), technique survival (1 study, 123 participants: RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; very low certainty evidence), or patient survival (5 studies, 820 participants; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence) compared with HD initiated using a CVC. Two studies using different methods of measurements for hospitalisation reported that hospitalisation was similar although one study reported higher hospitalisation rates in HD initiated using a catheter compared with urgent-start PD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with HD initiated using a CVC, urgent-start PD may reduce the risk of bacteraemia and had uncertain effects on other complications of dialysis and technique and patient survival. In summary, there are very few studies directly comparing the outcomes of urgent-start PD and HD initiated using a CVC for patients with CKD who need to commence dialysis urgently. This evidence gap needs to be addressed in future studies.

Dialysis initiation in older persons across centres and over time in Australia and New Zealand.

AIM: With improved life expectancy over time, the burden of kidney failure resulting in kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in older persons is increasing. This study aimed to describe the age distribution at dialysis initiation in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) across centres and over time. METHODS: Adults initiating dialysis as first KRT in ANZ from 1999 to 2018 reported to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry were included. The primary outcomes were the age distribution and the proportion of older persons (75 years and older) initiating dialysis across centres and over time. Secondary outcomes were characterization of the older population compared with younger people and differences in dialysis modality and treatment trajectories between groups. RESULTS: Over the study period, 55 382 people initiated dialysis as first KRT, including 10 306 older persons, in 100 centres. Wide variation in age distribution across states/countries was noted, although the proportion of older persons at dialysis initiation did not significantly change over time (from 13% in 1999 to 19% in 2003, then remaining stable thereafter). Older persons were less likely to be treated with home therapies compared with younger people. Older persons were mostly Caucasians; had higher socioeconomic position, more cardiovascular comorbidities and higher eGFR at baseline; and resided in major cities. Higher proportions of older persons per centre were noted in privately funded facilities. CONCLUSION: Wide variations were noted in the proportions of older persons initiating dialysis across centres and states/country, which were associated with different case-mix across regions, particularly in terms of ethnicity, remoteness and socioeconomic advantage.

Perspectives on blood pressure by patients on haemo- and peritoneal dialysis.

AIM: The management of blood pressure in patients requiring dialysis remains challenging and controversial. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients treated with peritoneal or haemodialysis regarding blood pressure, to inform patient-centred management. METHODS: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of qualitative data from multiple data sets derived from the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative. We extracted and analysed the responses of adult patients (aged 18 years or over) on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and their caregivers. Qualitative data were extracted from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys and two consensus workshops completed as part of the SONG-Haemodialysis and SONG-Peritoneal dialysis projects. RESULTS: Collectively, the studies involved 644 patients and caregivers from 86 countries. We identified four themes: helpless and incapacitated (including the subthemes of disabling and debilitating symptoms, limiting ability to work, fear of "crashes" - a sudden drop in blood pressure - forced to depend on others); dismissed and ignored (disregarded as a problem, lacking information, education and reassurance); escalating medication burden; and taking control for improved self-management (determining thresholds in fluid management, establishing a routine for proactive monitoring). CONCLUSION: Blood pressure symptoms are debilitating for patients on dialysis and exacerbated by a perceived lack of information about how to understand and manage these symptoms. More patient-centred management of blood pressure, particularly symptom-causing blood pressure, in patients on dialysis is likely to substantially improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Variability and trends over time and across centres in haemodialysis weekly duration in Australia and New Zealand.

AIM: Haemodialysis treatment prescription varies widely internationally. This study explored patient- and centre-level characteristics associated with weekly haemodialysis hours. METHODS: Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry data were analysed. Characteristics associated with weekly duration were evaluated using mixed-effects linear regression models with patient- and centre-level covariates as fixed effects, and dialysis centre and state as random effects using the 2017 prevalent in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) and home haemodialysis (HHD) cohorts. Evaluation of patterns of weekly duration over time analysed the 2000 to 2017 incident ICHD and HHD cohorts. RESULTS: Overall, 12 494 ICHD and 1493 HHD prevalent patients in 2017 were included. Median weekly treatment duration was 13.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 12-15) hours for ICHD and 16 (IQR 15-20) hours for HHD. Male sex, younger age, higher body mass index, arteriovenous fistula/graft use, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ethnicity and longer dialysis vintage were associated with longer weekly duration for both ICHD and HHD. No centre characteristics were associated with duration. Variability in duration across centres was very limited in ICHD compared with HHD, with variation in HHD being associated with state. Duration did not vary significantly over time for ICHD, whereas longer weekly HHD treatments were reported between 2006 and 2012 compared with before and after this period. CONCLUSION: This study in the Australian and New Zealand haemodialysis population showed that weekly duration was primarily associated with patient characteristics. No centre effect was demonstrated. Practice patterns seemed to differ across states/countries, with more variability in HHD than ICHD.

Burden of kidney failure from atheroembolic disease and association with survival in people receiving dialysis in Australia and New Zealand: a multi-centre registry study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of mortality in kidney failure (KF). Patients with KF from atheroembolic disease are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease than other causes of KF. This study aimed to determine survival on dialysis for patients with KF from atheroembolic disease compared with other causes of KF. METHODS: All adults (≥ 18 years) with KF initiating dialysis as the first kidney replacement therapy between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2017 according to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant registry were included. Patients were grouped into either: KF from atheroembolic disease and all other causes of KF. Survival outcomes were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis adjusted for patient-related characteristics. RESULTS: Among 65,266 people on dialysis during the study period, 334 (0.5%) patients had KF from atheroembolic disease. A decreasing annual incidence of KF from atheroembolic disease was observed from 2008 onwards. Individuals with KF from atheroembolic disease demonstrated worse survival on dialysis compared to those with other causes of KF (HR 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-2.03). The respective one- and five-year survival rates were 77 and 23% for KF from atheroembolic disease and 88 and 47% for other causes of KF. After adjustment for patient characteristics, KF from atheroembolic disease was not associated with increased patient mortality (adjusted HR 0.93 95% CI 0.82-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes on dialysis are worse for individuals with KF from atheroembolic disease compared to those with other causes of KF, probably due to patient demographics and higher comorbidity.

Establishing core outcome domains in pediatric kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents (SONG-KIDS) consensus workshops.

Trials in children with chronic kidney disease do not consistently report outcomes that are critically important to patients and caregivers. This can diminish the relevance and reliability of evidence for decision making, limiting the implementation of results into practice and policy. As part of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents (SONG-Kids) initiative, we convened 2 consensus workshops in San Diego, California (7 patients, 24 caregivers, 43 health professionals) and Melbourne, Australia (7 patients, 23 caregivers, 49 health professionals). This report summarizes the discussions on the identification and implementation of the SONG-Kids core outcomes set. Four themes were identified; survival and life participation are common high priority goals, capturing the whole child and family, ensuring broad relevance across the patient journey, and requiring feasible and valid measures. Stakeholders supported the inclusion of mortality, infection, life participation, and kidney function as the core outcomes domains for children with chronic kidney disease.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.