Automated peritoneal dialysis versus continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis for people with kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a home-based kidney replacement therapy (KRT) performed in people with kidney failure. PD can be performed by manual filling and draining of the abdominal cavity, i.e. continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD), or using a device connected to the PD catheter that is programmed to perform PD exchanges, i.e. automated PD (APD). APD is considered to have several advantages over CAPD, such as a lower incidence of peritonitis, fewer mechanical complications, and greater psychosocial acceptability. Acknowledging the increasing uptake of APD in incident and prevalent patients undergoing PD, it is important to re-evaluate the evidence on the comparative clinical and patient-reported outcomes of APD compared to CAPD. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of APD to CAPD in people with kidney failure. SEARCH METHODS: In this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies until 29 August 2024. 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing APD with CAPD in adults (≥ 18 years) with kidney failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects meta-analyses, expressing effect estimates as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous data. Certainty in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs (131 randomised people) comparing APD with CAPD were included in this update. One RCT had a follow-up of six months, and one RCT had a follow-up of 24 months. The risk of bias in the included studies was mostly low, except for the high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of APD compared to CAPD on death, hospitalisations, PD-related peritonitis, change of dialysis modality, residual kidney function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), overhydration, blood pressure, exit-site infections, tunnel infections, mechanical complications, PD catheter removal, or dialysis adequacy measures. These results were largely based on low to very low certainty evidence; hence, caution is warranted when drawing conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists to decide between APD and CAPD in kidney failure patients with regard to clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, current evidence is insufficient as a guide for clinical practice. Given that the sample sizes of existing studies are generally small with insufficient follow-up, there is a need for large-scale, multicentre studies. Future research should focus on possible differences between APD and CAPD in residual kidney function, euvolaemia, and patient-reported outcomes such as HRQoL, symptoms, patient satisfaction and life participation.

The solitary versus supported experience: Care inequality between rare and common cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with a rare cancer (RC) often have a more complex disease trajectory than patients with a common cancer. Research involving both patient groups is needed to identify differences and resemblances. In this study, we aimed to explore and compare experiences, needs and quality of life of patients with rare and common cancer throughout the disease trajectory. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study was conducted, including patients with rare and common cancer (n = 25). Participants were purposively selected to reflect heterogeneity of cancer types. A semi-structured topic list was used. Focus groups (n = 4) were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed, using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified emphasizing care inequality between patients with rare and common cancer: (1) The solitary experience: lack of information and support impact the RC patient, (2) Sudden impact, but recognition reduces the common cancer burden, and (3) Absence of psychosocial care requires being empowered as a cancer patient. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RC are faced with enormous challenges due to the high impact of their solitary experience on their quality of life, while patients with common cancer generally experience social support and recognition alleviating their burden. Centralisation of care for patients with RC is needed and tailored psychosocial care should be provided to overcome inequalities.

Quality of life of patients with rare cancer: a comparison with patients with colorectal cancer and the association with disease trajectory-related factors.

PURPOSE: Differences in quality of life (QoL) between patients with rare and common cancer might be explained by the specific challenges patients with rare cancer face during their disease trajectory, but research is scarce. This study aimed to (1) assess the difference in QoL between patients with rare and common cancer (i.e. colorectal cancer (CRC)) and (2) examine the association between disease trajectory-related factors and QoL in patients with rare cancer. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected among adults with rare cancer by a nationwide online survey in the Netherlands. For comparison with patients with CRC, data from the Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer (PLCRC) cohort were used. Associations were assessed by linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Data from 1525 patients with rare cancer and 1047 patients with CRC were analysed. Having a rare cancer was significantly associated with a lower QoL compared to having CRC (p < 0.001). Disease trajectory-related factors significantly associated with QoL in patients with rare cancer were time until diagnosis, misdiagnoses, information on best treatment options, information on late and/or long-term effects, and both satisfaction with physician and specialized nurse care (all: p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients with rare cancers have a lower self-reported QoL than patients with CRC, and several disease trajectory-related factors are associated with QoL in patients with rare cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: To improve QoL of patients with rare cancer, appropriate guidance and support by healthcare professionals throughout the disease trajectory are needed, as well as early diagnosis and proper referral to centres of expertise.