Human Factors Contributing to Infection Prevention in Outpatient Hemodialysis Centers: A Mixed Methods Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Infection prevention efforts in dialysis centers can avert patient morbidity and mortality but are challenging to implement. The objective of this study was to better understand how the design of the work system might contribute to infection prevention in outpatient dialysis centers. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods, observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Six dialysis facilities across the United States visited by a multidisciplinary team over 8 months. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: At each facility, structured macroergonomic observations were undertaken by a multidisciplinary team using the SEIPS 1.0 model. Ethnographic observations were collected about staff encounters with dialysis patients including the content of staff conversations. Selective and axial coding were used for qualitative analysis and quantitative data were reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Organizational and sociotechnical barriers and facilitators to infection prevention in the outpatient dialysis setting were identified. Features related to human performance, (eg, alarms, interruptions, and task stacking), work system design (eg, physical space, scheduling, leadership, and culture), and extrinsic factors (eg, patient-related characteristics) were identified. LIMITATIONS: This was an exploratory evaluation with a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study used a systematic macroergonomic approach in multiple outpatient dialysis facilities to identify infection prevention barriers and facilitators related to human performance. Several features common across facilities were identified that may influence infection prevention in outpatient care and warrant further exploration.

A randomized controlled pilot trial of anakinra for hemodialysis inflammation.

Chronic inflammation is highly prevalent among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis and is associated with morbidity and mortality. Inhibiting inflammation with anti-cytokine therapy has been proposed but not well studied in this population. Therefore, we conducted the ACTION trial, a pilot, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of an IL-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra, to evaluate safety, tolerability, and feasibility, and explore efficacy. Eighty hemodialysis patients with plasma concentrations of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) 2 mg/L and above were randomized 1:1 to placebo or anakinra 100 mg, three times per week via the hemodialysis circuit for 24 weeks, with an additional 24 weeks of post-treatment safety monitoring. Efficacy outcomes included changes in hsCRP (primary), cytokines, and patient-reported outcomes. Rates of serious adverse events and deaths were similar with anakinra and placebo (serious adverse events: 2.71 vs 2.74 events/patient-year; deaths: 0.12 vs 0.22 events/patient-year). The rate of adverse events of interest (including infections and cytopenias) was significantly lower with anakinra than placebo (0.48 vs 1.40 events/patient-year). Feasibility was demonstrated by attaining the enrollment target, a retention rate of 80%, and administration of 72% of doses. The median decrease in hsCRP from baseline to Week 24 was 41% in the anakinra group and 6% in the placebo group, a between-group difference that was not statistically significant. For IL-6, the median decreases were significant: 25% and 0% in the anakinra and placebo groups, respectively. An effect of anakinra on patient-reported outcomes was not evident. Thus, anakinra was well tolerated and did not increase infections or cytopenias. The promising safety data and potential efficacy on CRP and IL-6 provide support for conducting definitive trials of IL-1 inhibition to improve outcomes in hemodialysis patients.

Opportunities to Improve Antibiotic Prescribing in Outpatient Hemodialysis Facilities: A Report From the American Society of Nephrology and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Antibiotic Stewardship White Paper Writing Group.

Antibiotic use is necessary in the outpatient hemodialysis setting because patients receiving hemodialysis are at increased risk for infections and sepsis. However, inappropriate antibiotic use can lead to adverse drug events, including adverse drug reactions and infections with Clostridioides difficile and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Optimizing antibiotic use can decrease adverse events and improve infection cure rates and patient outcomes. The American Society of Nephrology and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created the Antibiotic Stewardship in Hemodialysis White Paper Writing Group, comprising experts in antibiotic stewardship, infectious diseases, nephrology, and public health, to highlight strategies that can improve antibiotic prescribing for patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Based on existing evidence and the unique patient and clinical setting characteristics, the following strategies for improving antibiotic use are reviewed: expanding infection and sepsis prevention activities, standardizing blood culture collection processes, treating methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infections with ß-lactams, optimizing communication between nurses and prescribing providers, and improving data sharing across transitions of care. Collaboration among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; American Society of Nephrology; other professional societies such as infectious diseases, hospital medicine, and vascular surgery societies; and dialysis provider organizations can improve antibiotic use and the quality of care for patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis.

The Predialysis Serum Sodium Level Modifies the Effect of Hemodialysis Frequency on Left-Ventricular Mass: The Frequent Hemodialysis Network Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Daily and Nocturnal trials aimed to compare the effects of hemodialysis (HD) given 6 versus 3 times per week. More frequent in-center HD significantly reduced left-ventricular mass (LVM), with more pronounced effects in patients with low urine volumes. In this study, we aimed to explore another potential effect modifier: the predialysis serum sodium (SNa) and related proxies of plasma tonicity. METHODS: Using data from the FHN Daily and Nocturnal Trials, we compared the effects of frequent HD on LVM among patients stratified by SNa, dialysate-to-predialysis serum-sodium gradient (GNa), systolic and diastolic blood pressure, time-integrated sodium-adjusted fluid load (TIFL), and extracellular fluid volume estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis. RESULTS: In 197 enrolled subjects in the FHN Daily Trial, the treatment effect of frequent HD on ∆LVM was modified by SNa. When the FHN Daily Trial participants are divided into lower and higher predialysis SNa groups (less and greater than 138 mEq/L), the LVM reduction in the lower group was substantially higher (-28.0 [95% CI -40.5 to -15.4] g) than in the higher predialysis SNa group (-2.0 [95% CI -15.5 to 11.5] g). Accounting for GNa, TIFL also showed more pronounced effects among patients with higher GNa or higher TIFL. Results in the Nocturnal Trial were similar in direction and magnitude but did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: In the FHN Daily Trial, the favorable effects of frequent HD on left-ventricular hypertrophy were more pronounced among patients with lower predialysis SNa and higher GNa and TIFL. Whether these metrics can be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from frequent HD or other dialytic or nondialytic interventions remains to be determined. Prospective, adequately powered studies studying the effect of GNa reduction on mortality and hospitalization are needed.

Safety and cardiovascular efficacy of spironolactone in dialysis-dependent ESRD (SPin-D): a randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple dosage trial.

The safety and efficacy of spironolactone is uncertain in end-stage renal disease. We randomized 129 maintenance hemodialysis patients to placebo (n=51) or spironolactone 12.5 mg (n=27), 25 mg (n=26), or 50 mg (n=25) daily for 36 weeks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple dosage trial to assess safety, tolerability and feasibility and to explore cardiovascular efficacy. The primary safety endpoints were hyperkalemia (potassium > 6.5 mEq/L) and hypotension requiring emergency department visit or hospitalization. Diastolic function was assessed by Doppler echocardiography. 125 participants (97%) completed dose escalation, with no significant difference in permanent study drug discontinuation between the groups (27.5% in placebo versus 16.7% in the combined spironolactone groups and 28% in the 50 mg group). Hyperkalemia frequency was similar between spironolactone and placebo (0.49 versus 0.50 events per patient-year) but demonstrated a significant linear trend due primarily to an increased event rate at the 50 mg dose (0.89 events per patient-year). The primary hypotension outcome was infrequent and similar with spironolactone and placebo (0.11 versus 0 events per patient-year). Gynecomastia was rare and did not differ significantly between groups. Change in diastolic function was similar with spironolactone and placebo. Spironolactone appears safe in carefully monitored maintenance hemodialysis patients, but did not affect cardiovascular parameters in this small study. Hyperkalemia occurs more frequently as dosage increases to 50 mg daily.

Changes in Biomarker Profile and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Regression: Results from the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Trials.

BACKGROUND: Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is feasible with more frequent hemodialysis (HD). We aimed to ascertain pathways associated with regression of left ventricular mass (LVM) in patients enrolled in the Frequent HD Network (FHN) trials. METHODS: This was a post hoc observational cohort study. We hypothesized LVH regression with frequent HD was associated with a different cardiovascular biomarker profile. Regressors were defined as patients who achieved a reduction of more than 10% in LVM at 12 months. Progressors were defined as patients who had a minimum of 10% increase in LVM at 12 months. RESULTS: Among 332 randomized patients, 243 had biomarker data available. Of these, 121 patients did not progress or regress, 77 were regressors, and 45 were progressors. Mean LVM change differed between regressors and progressors by -65.6 (-74.0 to -57.2) g, p < 0.001. Regressors had a median (interquartile range) increase in dialysis frequency (from 3.0 [3.0-3.0] to 4.9 [3-5.7] per week, p = 0.001) and reductions in pre-dialysis systolic (from 149.0 [136.0-162.0] to 136.0 [123.0-152.0] mm Hg, p < 0.001) and diastolic (from 83.0 [71.0-91.0] to 76.0 [68.0-84.0] mm Hg, p < 0.001) blood pressures. Klotho levels increased in regressors versus progressors (76.9 [10.5-143.3] pg/mL, p = 0.024). Tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase (TIMP)-2 levels fell in regressors compared to progressors (-7,853 [-14,653 to -1,052] pg/mL, p = 0.024). TIMP-1 and log (brain natriuretic -peptide [BNP]) levels also tended to fall in regressors. Changes in LVM correlated inversely with changes in klotho (r = -0.24, p = 0.014). -Conclusions: Markers of collagen turnover and changes in klotho levels are potential novel pathways associated with regression of LVH in the dialysis population, which will require further prospective validation.

When is more frequent hemodialysis beneficial?

The use of frequent hemodialysis (HD) is growing, with the hope of improving outcomes in end-stage renal disease. We narratively review the three randomized trials, 15 comparative cohort studies, and several case series of frequent HD that empirically demonstrate the potential efficacy and adverse effects of these regimens. Taken together, the randomized studies suggest frequent HD may result in left ventricular mass regression. This effect is most pronounced when left ventricular mass is abnormal, but attenuated by significant residual urine output. Both frequent short and long HD consistently improved blood pressure control and reduced antihypertensive use, despite greater weekly interdialytic weight gains. Serum phosphate was lowered. Frequent short daytime HD improved health-related quality of life, while frequent long overnight HD did not. Regarding adverse effects, frequent HD patients underwent significantly more procedures to salvage arteriovenous vascular accesses. An absolute increase in hypotensive episodes was observed with frequent short HD, while frequent long HD accelerated residual renal function loss and increased perceived caregiver burden. The effect of frequent HD on mortality is controversial, due to conflicting results and limitations of published studies. Finally, pregnancy outcomes may be substantially better with frequent long HD. On the basis of these data, we suggest frequent HD is most likely to benefit patients with left ventricular hypertrophy particularly if there is minimal urine output, those unable to attain dry weight on a thrice weekly schedule, and pregnant women. All patients receiving frequent HD should be advised of and monitored for potential risks.

Peritoneal or hemodialysis for the frail elderly patient, the choice of 2 evils?

Management of older people on dialysis requires focus on the wider aspects of aging as well as dialysis. Almost all frail and older patients receiving dialysis will default to in-center hemodialysis, although the availability of assisted peritoneal dialysis enables dialysis at home. As with any disease management decision, patients approaching end-stage renal disease need all the appropriate facts about their prognosis, the natural history of their disease without dialysis, and the resulting outcomes and complications of the different dialysis modalities. Hemodialysis in the older age group can be complicated by intradialytic hypotension, prolonged time to recovery, and vascular access-related problems. Peritoneal dialysis can be difficult for older patients with impaired physical or cognitive function and can become a considerable burden. Use of incremental dialysis, changes in hemodialysis frequency, and delivery and use of assistance for peritoneal dialysis can ameliorate quality of life for older patients. Understanding each individual's goals of care in the context of his or her life experience is particularly important in the elderly, when overall life expectancy is relatively short, and life experience or quality of life may be the priority. Indeed, some patients select the option of no dialysis or conservative care. With multifaceted assessments of care, physicians should be able to give individual patients the ability to select and continue to make the best decisions for their care.

Limited reduction in uremic solute concentrations with increased dialysis frequency and time in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily Trial.

The Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily Trial compared conventional three-times weekly treatment to more frequent treatment with a longer weekly treatment time in patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. Evaluation at one year showed favorable effects of more intensive treatment on left ventricular mass, blood pressure, and phosphate control, but modest or no effects on physical or cognitive performance. The current study compared plasma concentrations of uremic solutes in stored samples from 53 trial patients who received three-times weekly in-center hemodialysis for an average weekly time of 10.9 hours and 30 trial patients who received six-times weekly in-center hemodialysis for an average of 14.6 hours. Metabolomic analysis revealed that increased treatment frequency and time resulted in an average reduction of only 15 percent in the levels of 107 uremic solutes. Quantitative assays confirmed that increased treatment did not significantly reduce levels of the putative uremic toxins p-cresol sulfate or indoxyl sulfate. Kinetic modeling suggested that our ability to lower solute concentrations by increasing hemodialysis frequency and duration may be limited by the presence of non-dialytic solute clearances and/or changes in solute production. Thus, failure to achieve larger reductions in uremic solute concentrations may account, in part, for the limited benefits observed with increasing frequency and weekly treatment time in Frequent Hemodialysis Daily Trial participants.

Patients receiving frequent hemodialysis have better health-related quality of life compared to patients receiving conventional hemodialysis.

Most patients with end-stage kidney disease value their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and want to know how it will be affected by their dialysis modality. We extended the findings of two prior clinical trial reports to estimate the effects of frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis on additional measures of HRQoL. The Daily Trial randomly assigned 245 patients to receive frequent (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) in-center hemodialysis. The Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 patients to receive frequent nocturnal (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) home hemodialysis. All patients were on conventional hemodialysis prior to randomization, with an average feeling thermometer score of 70 to 75 (a visual analog scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), an average general health scale score of 40 to 47 (a score from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), and an average dialysis session recovery time of 2 to 3 hours. Outcomes are reported as the between-treatment group differences in one-year change in HRQoL measures and analyzed using linear mixed effects models. After one year in the Daily Trial, patients assigned to frequent in-center hemodialysis reported a higher feeling thermometer score, better general health, and a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session compared to standard thrice-weekly dialysis. After one year in the Nocturnal Trial, patients assigned to frequent home hemodialysis also reported a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session, but no statistical difference in their feeling thermometer or general health scores compared to standard home dialysis schedules. Thus, patients receiving day or nocturnal hemodialysis on average recovered approximately one hour earlier from a frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis session. Patients treated in an in-center dialysis facility reported better HRQoL with frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis.

Long-Term Effects of Frequent In-Center Hemodialysis.

The Frequent Hemodialysis Network Daily Trial randomized 245 patients to receive six (frequent) or three (conventional) in-center hemodialysis sessions per week for 12 months. As reported previously, frequent in-center hemodialysis yielded favorable effects on the coprimary composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in self-reported physical health. Here, we determined the long-term effects of the 12-month frequent in-center hemodialysis intervention. We determined the vital status of patients over a median of 3.6 years (10%-90% range, 1.5-5.3 years) after randomization. Using an intention to treat analysis, we compared the mortality hazard in randomized groups. In a subset of patients from both groups, we reassessed left ventricular mass and self-reported physical health a year or more after completion of the intervention; 20 of 125 patients (16%) randomized to frequent hemodialysis died during the combined trial and post-trial observation periods in contrast to 34 of 120 patients (28%) randomized to conventional hemodialysis. The relative mortality hazard for frequent versus conventional hemodialysis was 0.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.93); with censoring of time after kidney transplantation, the relative hazard was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.99). Bayesian analysis suggested a relatively high probability of clinically significant benefit and a very low probability of harm with frequent hemodialysis. In conclusion, a 12-month frequent in-center hemodialysis intervention significantly reduced long-term mortality, suggesting that frequent hemodialysis may benefit selected patients with ESRD.

Introduction of Biosimilar Therapeutics Into Nephrology Practice in the United States: Report of a Scientific Workshop Sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation.

Biosimilars are biologic medicines highly similar to the reference product with no meaningful clinical differences in terms of safety, purity, and potency. All biologic medicines are produced by living cells, resulting in an inherent heterogeneity in their higher order structures and post-translational modifications. In 2010, the US Congress enacted legislation to streamline the approval process for biosimilars of products losing patent protection, with the goal of decreasing costs and improving patient access to therapeutically important but expensive biologic agents. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first biosimilar agent through this pathway. Approval of additional biosimilar agents in the United States, including those used by nephrologists, is anticipated. Given the relative lack of knowledge regarding biosimilars and their approval process and a lack of trust by the nephrology community regarding their safety and efficacy, the National Kidney Foundation conducted a symposium, Introduction of Biosimilar Therapeutics Into Nephrology Practice in the U.S., September 17 to 18, 2015. Issues related to manufacturing, the regulatory approval process, interchangeability, substitution/switching, nomenclature, and clinician and patient awareness and acceptance were examined. This report summarizes the main discussions at the symposium, highlights several controversies, and makes recommendations related to public policy, professional and patient education, and research needs.

The Effect of Increased Frequency of Hemodialysis on Volume-Related Outcomes: A Secondary Analysis of the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Trials.

In previous reports of the Frequent Hemodialysis Network trials, frequent hemodialysis (HD) reduced extracellular fluid (ECF) and left ventricular mass (LVM), with more pronounced effects observed among patients with low urine volume (UVol). We analyzed the effect of frequent HD on interdialytic weight gain (IDWG) and a time-integrated estimate of ECF load (TIFL). We also explored whether volume and sodium loading contributed to the change in LVM over the study period. Treatment effects on volume parameters were analyzed for modification by UVol and the dialysate-to-serum sodium gradient. Predictors of change in LVM were determined using linear regression. Frequent HD reduced IDWG and TIFL in the Daily Trial. Among patients with UVol <100 ml/day, reduction in TIFL was associated with LVM reduction. This suggests that achievement of better volume control could attenuate changes in LVM associated with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. TIFL may prove more useful than IDWG alone in guiding HD practice. Video Journal Club 'Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco' at http://www.karger.com/?doi=441966.

Long-term Effects of Frequent Nocturnal Hemodialysis on Mortality: The Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the long-term mortality rate for patients receiving nocturnal home hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Posttrial observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) Nocturnal Trial participants who consented to extended follow-up. INTERVENTION: The FHN Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 individuals to 6-times-weekly home nocturnal hemodialysis or 3-times-weekly hemodialysis for 1 year. Patients were enrolled starting in March 2006 and follow-up was completed by May 2010. After the 1-year trial concluded, FHN Nocturnal participants were free to modify their hemodialysis prescription. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: We obtained dates of death and kidney transplantation through July 2011 using linkage to the US Renal Data System and queries of study centers. We used log-rank tests and Cox regression to relate mortality to the initial randomization assignment. RESULTS: Median follow-up for the trial and posttrial observational period was 3.7 years. In the nocturnal arm, there were 2 deaths during the 12-month trial period and an additional 12 deaths during the extended follow-up. In the conventional arm, the numbers of deaths were 1 and 4, respectively. In the nocturnal dialysis group, the overall mortality HR was 3.88 (95% CI, 1.27-11.79; P=0.01). Using as-treated analysis with a 12-month running treatment average, the HR for mortality was 3.06 (95% CI, 1.11-8.43; P=0.03). Six-month running treatment data analysis showed an HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.44-3.22; P=0.7). LIMITATIONS: These results should be interpreted cautiously due to a surprisingly low (0.03 deaths/patient-year) mortality rate for individuals randomly assigned to conventional home hemodialysis, low statistical power for the mortality comparison due to the small sample size, and the high rate of hemodialysis prescription changes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomly assigned to nocturnal hemodialysis had a higher mortality rate than those randomly assigned to conventional dialysis. The implications of this result require further investigation.

Risk of vascular access complications with frequent hemodialysis.

Frequent hemodialysis requires using the vascular access more often than with conventional hemodialysis, but whether this increases the risk for access-related complications is unknown. In two separate trials, we randomly assigned 245 patients to receive in-center daily hemodialysis (6 days per week) or conventional hemodialysis (3 days per week) and 87 patients to receive home nocturnal hemodialysis (6 nights per week) or conventional hemodialysis, for 12 months. The primary vascular access outcome was time to first access event (repair, loss, or access-related hospitalization). Secondary outcomes were time to all repairs and time to all losses. In the Daily Trial, 77 (31%) of 245 patients had a primary outcome event: 33 repairs and 15 losses in the daily group and 17 repairs, 11 losses, and 1 hospitalization in the conventional group. Overall, the risk for a first access event was 76% higher with daily hemodialysis than with conventional hemodialysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-2.79; P=0.017); among the 198 patients with an arteriovenous (AV) access at randomization, the risk was 90% higher with daily hemodialysis (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.25; P=0.02). Daily hemodialysis patients had significantly more total AV access repairs than conventional hemodialysis patients (P=0.011), with 55% of all repairs involving thrombectomy or surgical revision. Losses of AV access did not differ between groups (P=0.58). We observed similar trends in the Nocturnal Trial, although the results were not statistically significant. In conclusion, frequent hemodialysis increases the risk of vascular access complications. The nature of the AV access repairs suggests that this risk likely results from increased hemodialysis frequency rather than heightened surveillance.