The NightLife study - the clinical and cost-effectiveness of thrice-weekly, extended, in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis versus daytime haemodialysis using a mixed methods approach: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In-centre nocturnal haemodialysis (INHD) offers extended-hours haemodialysis, 6 to 8 h thrice-weekly overnight, with the support of dialysis specialist nurses. There is increasing observational data demonstrating potential benefits of INHD on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a lack of randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to confirm these benefits and assess safety. METHODS: The NightLife study is a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre RCT comparing the impact of 6 months INHD to conventional haemodialysis (thrice-weekly daytime in-centre haemodialysis, 3.5-5 h per session). The primary outcome is the total score from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life tool at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep and cognitive function, measures of safety, adherence to dialysis and impact on clinical parameters. There is an embedded Process Evaluation to assess implementation, health economic modelling and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention to understand factors that influence recruitment and retention. Adults (≥ 18 years old) who have been established on haemodialysis for > 3 months are eligible to participate. DISCUSSION: There are 68,000 adults in the UK that need kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with in-centre haemodialysis the treatment modality for over a third of cases. HRQoL is an independent predictor of hospitalisation and mortality in individuals on maintenance dialysis. Haemodialysis is associated with poor HRQoL in comparison to the general population. INHD has the potential to improve HRQoL. Vigorous RCT evidence of effectiveness is lacking. The NightLife study is an essential step in the understanding of dialysis therapies and will guide patient-centred decisions regarding KRT in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: ISRCTN87042063. Registered: 14/07/2020.

Reducing the carbon footprint of research: experience from the NightLife study.

BACKGROUND: As set out in the Climate Change Act (2008), the UK National Health Service (NHS) has made a commitment to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and reach net zero by 2050. Research forms a core part of NHS activity and reducing the carbon footprint of clinical trials is a core element of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Carbon Reduction Strategy (2019). KEY ARGUMENTS: However, support from funding organisations on how to achieve these targets is lacking. This brief communication article reports the reduction in the carbon footprint of the NightLife study, an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis on quality of life. CONCLUSION: By using remote conferencing software and innovative data collection methods, we demonstrated a total saving of 136 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over three workstreams during the first 18 months of the study, following grant activation on 1 January 2020. In addition to the environmental impact, there were additional benefits seen to cost as well as increased participant diversity and inclusion. This work highlights ways in which trials could be made less carbon intensive, more environmentally sustainable and better value for money.

Randomized Trial-PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: Whether clinically implementable exercise interventions in people receiving hemodialysis (HD) therapy improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remains unknown. The PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life (PEDAL) study evaluated the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month intradialytic exercise program. METHODS: In a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial, people receiving HD were randomly assigned to (i) intradialytic exercise training (exercise intervention group [EX]) and (ii) usual care (control group [CON]). Primary outcome was change in Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short-Form Physical Component Summary (KDQOL-SF 1.3 PCS) from baseline to 6 months. Cost-effectiveness was determined using health economic analysis; physiological impairment was evaluated by peak oxygen uptake; and harms were recorded. RESULTS: We randomized 379 participants; 335 and 243 patients (EX n = 127; CON n = 116) completed baseline and 6-month assessments, respectively. Mean difference in change PCS from baseline to 6 months between EX and CON was 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1 to 4.8) arbitrary units (P = 0.055); no improvements were observed in peak oxygen uptake or secondary outcome measures. Participants in the intervention group had poor compliance (47%) and poor adherence (18%) to the exercise prescription. Cost of delivering intervention ranged from US$598 to US$1092 per participant per year. The number of participants with harms was similar between EX (n = 69) and CON (n = 56). A primary limitation was the lack of an attention CON. Many patients also withdrew from the study or were too unwell to complete all physiological outcome assessments. CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month intradialytic aerobic exercise program was not clinically beneficial in improving HRQoL as delivered to this cohort of deconditioned patients on HD.

A Cost-Effective Analysis of the CYCLE-HD Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: No formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed for programs of cycling exercise during dialysis (intradialytic cycling [IDC]). The objective of this analysis is to determine the effect of a 6-month program of IDC on health care costs. METHODS: This is a retrospective formal cost-effectiveness analysis of adult participants with end-stage kidney disease undertaking in-center maintenance hemodialysis enrolled in the CYCLE-HD trial. Data on hospital utilization, primary care consultations, and prescribed medications were extracted from medical records for the 6 months before, during, and after a 6-month program of thrice-weekly IDC. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a health care service perspective and included the cost of implementing the IDC intervention. The base-case analyses included a 6-month "within trial" analysis and a 12-month "within and posttrial" analysis considering health care utilization and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. RESULTS: Data from the base-case within trial analysis, based on 109 participants (n = 56 control subjects and n = 53 IDC subjects) showed a reduction in health care utilization costs between groups, favoring the IDC group, and a 73% chance of IDC being cost-effective compared with control subjects at a willingness to pay of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When QoL data points were extrapolated forward to 12 months, the probability of IDC being cost-effective was 93% and 94% at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis broadly confirms these findings. CONCLUSION: A 6-month program of IDC is cost-effective and the implementation of these programs nationally should be a priority.

Exercise programme to improve quality of life for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving haemodialysis: the PEDAL RCT.

BACKGROUND: Whether or not clinically implementable exercise interventions in haemodialysis patients improve quality of life remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: The PEDAL (PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life in patients with chronic kidney disease) trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month intradialytic exercise programme on quality of life compared with usual care for haemodialysis patients. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, multicentre randomised controlled trial of haemodialysis patients from five haemodialysis centres in the UK and randomly assigned them (1 : 1) using a web-based system to (1) intradialytic exercise training plus usual-care maintenance haemodialysis or (2) usual-care maintenance haemodialysis. SETTING: The setting was five dialysis units across the UK from 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were adult patients with end-stage kidney disease who had been receiving haemodialysis therapy for > 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive usual-care maintenance haemodialysis or usual-care maintenance haemodialysis plus intradialytic exercise training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the study was change in Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form, version 1.3, physical component summary score (from baseline to 6 months). Cost-effectiveness was determined using health economic analysis and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Additional secondary outcomes included quality of life (Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form, version 1.3, generic multi-item and burden of kidney disease scales), functional capacity (sit-to-stand 60 and 10-metre Timed Up and Go tests), physiological measures (peak oxygen uptake and arterial stiffness), habitual physical activity levels (measured by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Duke Activity Status Index), fear of falling (measured by the Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale), anthropometric measures (body mass index and waist circumference), clinical measures (including medication use, resting blood pressure, routine biochemistry, hospitalisations) and harms associated with intervention. A nested qualitative study was conducted. RESULTS: We randomised 379 participants; 335 patients completed baseline assessments and 243 patients (intervention, n = 127; control, n = 116) completed 6-month assessments. The mean difference in change in physical component summary score from baseline to 6 months between the intervention group and control group was 2.4 arbitrary units (95% confidence interval -0.1 to 4.8 arbitrary units; p = 0.055). Participants in the intervention group had poor compliance (49%) and very poor adherence (18%) to the exercise prescription. The cost of delivering the intervention ranged from £463 to £848 per participant per year. The number of participants with harms was similar in the intervention (n = 69) and control (n = 56) groups. LIMITATIONS: Participants could not be blinded to the intervention; however, outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. CONCLUSIONS: On trial completion the primary outcome (Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form, version 1.3, physical component summary score) was not statistically improved compared with usual care. The findings suggest that implementation of an intradialytic cycling programme is not an effective intervention to enhance health-related quality of life, as delivered to this cohort of deconditioned patients receiving haemodialysis. FUTURE WORK: The benefits of longer interventions, including progressive resistance training, should be confirmed even if extradialytic delivery is required. Future studies also need to evaluate whether or not there are subgroups of patients who may benefit from this type of intervention, and whether or not there is scope to optimise the exercise intervention to improve compliance and clinical effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83508514. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Although the benefits of exercise in the general population are well recognised, we do not know if offering cycling exercise during haemodialysis is an effective way to improve quality of life, and if this would be a cost-effective way to provide exercise training for this patient population. To determine whether or not this type of exercise training is effective, and provides value for money, this study compared cycling during haemodialysis treatment, three times per week for 6 months, with usual care that does not include routine delivery of any exercise training. Five regions of the UK were included in the study. We compared the results from the two groups at the start of the study and at 6 months, after correcting for age and diabetes status. We also assessed the economic impact of delivering the cycling during haemodialysis programme and interviewed people from different regions of the UK in both groups. The baseline assessments revealed a deconditioned population in the study. There was no difference in quality of life or any physical function measures between the group that performed cycling during haemodialysis and the usual-care group. Compliance with the exercise intervention was very poor. Interviews with patients showed that patient engagement with the exercise training was linked to the presence of an exercise culture, and leadership to provide this, in the renal unit. An economic evaluation showed that delivering cycling during haemodialysis would not be value for money when delivered to a deconditioned haemodialysis population. Ways to engage patients with exercise training during their haemodialysis treatment should be explored further.

The cardiovascular determinants of physical function in patients with end-stage kidney disease on haemodialysis.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are often sedentary and decreased functional capacity associates with mortality. The relationship between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and physical function has not been fully explored. Understanding the relationships between prognostically relevant measures of CVD and physical function may offer insight into how exercise interventions might target specific elements of CVD. 130 patients on haemodialysis (mean age 57 ± 15 years, 73% male, dialysis vintage 1.3 years (0.5, 3.4), recruited to the CYCLE-HD trial (ISRCTN11299707), underwent cardiovascular phenotyping with cardiac MRI (left ventricular (LV) structure and function, pulse wave velocity (PWV) and native T1 mapping) and cardiac biomarker assessment. Participants completed the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) and sit-to-stand 60 (STS60) as field-tests of physical function. Linear regression models identified CV determinants of physical function measures, adjusted for age, gender, BMI, diabetes, ethnicity and systolic blood pressure. Troponin I, PWV and global native T1 were univariate determinants of ISWT and STS60 performance. NT pro-BNP was a univariate determinant of ISWT performance. In multivariate models, NT pro-BNP and global native T1 were independent determinants of ISWT and STS60 performance. LV ejection fraction was an independent determinant of ISWT distance. However, age and diabetes had the strongest relationships with physical function. In conclusion, NT pro-BNP, global native T1 and LV ejection fraction were independent CV determinants of physical function. However, age and diabetes had the greatest independent influence. Targeting diabetic care may ameliorate deconditioning in these patients and a multimorbidity approach should be considered when developing exercise interventions.

The assessment of coronary artery disease in patients with end-stage renal disease.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Clustering of traditional atherosclerotic and non-traditional risk factors drive the excess rates of coronary and non-coronary CVD in patients with ESRD. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a key disease process, present in ∼50% of the haemodialysis population ≥65 years of age. Patients with ESRD are more likely to be asymptomatic, posing a challenge to the correct identification of CAD, which is essential for appropriate risk stratification and management. Given the lack of randomized clinical trial evidence in this population, current practice is informed by observational data with a significant potential for bias. For this reason, the most appropriate approach to the investigation of CAD is the subject of considerable discussion, with practice patterns largely varying between different centres. Traditional imaging modalities are limited in their diagnostic accuracy and prognostic value for cardiac events and survival in patients with ESRD, demonstrated by the large number of adverse cardiac outcomes among patients with negative test results. This review focuses on the current understanding of CAD screening in the ESRD population, discussing the available evidence for the use of various imaging techniques to refine risk prediction, with an emphasis on their strengths and limitations.

Novel cardiac nuclear magnetic resonance method for noninvasive assessment of myocardial fibrosis in hemodialysis patients.

Left ventricular hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis frequently occur in patients with end-stage renal disease receiving hemodialysis therapy and are associated with poor prognosis. Native T1 mapping is a novel cardiac magnetic resonance imaging technique that measures native myocardial T1 relaxation, a surrogate of myocardial fibrosis. Here we compared global and segmental native myocardial T1 time and global longitudinal, circumferential and segmental strain, and cardiac function of 35 hemodialysis patients and 22 control individuals. The median native global T1 time was significantly higher in the hemodialysis than the control group (1270 vs. 1085 ms), with the septal regions of hemodialysis patients having significantly higher median T1 times than nonseptal regions (1293 vs. 1252 ms). The mean peak global circumferential strain and global longitudinal strain were both significantly reduced in hemodialysis patients compared with controls (-18.3 vs. -21.7 and -16.1 vs. -20.4, respectively). Systolic strain was also significantly reduced in the septum compared with the nonseptal myocardium in hemodialysis patients (-16.2 vs. -21.9) but not in control subjects. Global circumferential strain and longitudinal strain significantly correlated with global native T1 values (r = 0.41 and 0.55, respectively), and the septal native T1 significantly correlated with the septal systolic strain (r = 0.46). Thus, myocardial fibrosis may be assessed noninvasively with native T1 mapping; the interventricular septum appears to be particularly prone to the development of fibrosis in hemodialysis patients.

Individualised dialysate temperature improves intradialytic haemodynamics and abrogates haemodialysis-induced myocardial stunning, without compromising tolerability.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Haemodialysis-induced myocardial stunning is associated with intradialytic hypotension, increased likelihood of cardiovascular events and death. Dialysis at 35°C reduces stunning, but adverse thermal symptoms limit technique adoption. This study investigated whether individualised body temperature dialysis improves haemodynamic stability and abrogates stunning. METHODS: Randomised crossover study of 11 patients compared LV regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMAs) at 37°C (HD(37)) and body temperature ('individualised', HD(ind)). Regional systolic function was quantitatively assessed by echocardiography. Haemodynamics were assessed using continuous pulse wave analysis. Thermal symptoms were scored by questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean predialysis body temperature was 36.0 ± 0.1°C. Mean number of peak stress RWMAs per patient was lower with HD(ind) (3.9 ± 1.4 vs. 5.3 ± 1.5, p = 0.03). Intradialytic systolic BP was higher during HD(ind) versus HD(37) (p < 0.001). Individualised body temperature dialysis demonstrated symptomatic tolerability comparable to HD(37). CONCLUSIONS: Individualised-temperature haemodialysis abrogates stunning, providing effective haemodynamic stabilisation at no additional therapy cost.