Living Well With Kidney Disease and Effective Symptom Management: Consensus Conference Proceedings.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) confers a high burden of uremic symptoms that may be underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Unpleasant symptoms, such as CKD-associated pruritus and emotional/psychological distress, often occur within symptom clusters, and treating 1 symptom may potentially alleviate other symptoms in that cluster. The Living Well with Kidney Disease and Effective Symptom Management Consensus Conference convened health experts and leaders of kidney advocacy groups and kidney networks worldwide to discuss the effects of unpleasant symptoms related to CKD on the health and well-being of those affected, and to consider strategies for optimal symptom management. Optimizing symptom management is a cornerstone of conservative and preservative management which aim to prevent or delay dialysis initiation. In persons with kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis (KDRD), incremental transition to dialysis and home dialysis modalities offer personalized approaches. KDRD is proposed as the preferred term given the negative connotations of "failure" as a kidney descriptor, and the success stories in CKD journeys. Engaging persons with CKD to identify and prioritize their personal values and individual needs must be central to ensure their active participation in CKD management, including KDRD. Person-centered communication and care are required to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion; education/awareness that considers the health literacy of persons with CKD; and shared decision-making among the person with CKD, care partners, and providers. By putting the needs of people with CKD, including effective symptom management, at the center of their treatment, CKD can be optimally treated in a way that aligns with their goals.

Development of a Patient Preference Survey for Wearable Kidney Replacement Therapy Devices.

Background: Recent innovations have the potential to disrupt the current paradigm for kidney failure treatment. The US Food and Drug Administration is committed to incorporating valid scientific evidence about how patients weigh the benefits and risks of new devices into their decision making, but to date, premarket submission of patient preference information (PPI) has been limited for kidney devices. With input from stakeholders, we developed a survey intended to yield valid PPI, capturing how patients trade off the potential benefits and risks of wearable dialysis devices and in-center hemodialysis. Methods: We conducted concept elicitation interviews with individuals receiving dialysis to inform instrument content. After instrument drafting, we conducted two rounds of pretest interviews to evaluate survey face validity, comprehensibility, and perceived relevance. We pilot tested the survey with in-center hemodialysis patients to assess comprehensibility and usability further. Throughout, we used participant input to guide survey refinements. Results: Thirty-six individuals receiving in-center or home dialysis participated in concept elicitation (N=20) and pretest (N=16) interviews. Participants identified reduced fatigue, lower treatment burden, and enhanced freedom as important benefits of a wearable device, and many expressed concerns about risks related to device disconnection-specifically bleeding and infection. We drafted a survey that included descriptions of the risks of serious bleeding and serious infection and an assessment of respondent willingness to wait for a safer device. Input from pretest interviewees led to various instrument modifications, including treatment descriptions, item wording, and risk-level explanations. Pilot testing of the updated survey among 24 in-center hemodialysis patients demonstrated acceptable survey comprehensibility and usability, although 50% of patients required some assistance. Conclusions: The final survey is a 54-item web-based instrument that will yield estimates of the maximal acceptable risk for the described wearable device and willingness to wait for wearable devices with lower risk.

Nomenclature in nephrology: preserving 'renal' and 'nephro' in the glossary of kidney health and disease.

A recently published nomenclature by a "Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO) Consensus Conference suggested that the word "kidney" should be used in medical writings instead of "renal" or "nephro" when referring to kidney disease and kidney health. Whereas the decade-old move to use "kidney" more frequently should be supported when communicating with the public-at-large, such as the World Kidney Day, or in English speaking countries in communications with patients, care-partners, and non-medical persons, our point of view is that "renal" or "nephro" should not be removed from scientific and technical writings. Instead, the terms can coexist and be used in their relevant contexts. Cardiologists use "heart" and "cardio" as appropriate such as "heart failure" and "cardiac care units" and have not replaced "cardiovascular" with "heartvessel", for instance. Likewise, in nephrology, we consider that "chronic kidney disease" and "continuous renal replacement therapy" should coexist. We suggest that in scientific writings and technical communications, the words "renal" and "nephro" and their derivatives are more appropriate and should be freely used without any pressure by medical journals to compel patients, care-partners, healthcare providers, researchers and other stakeholders to change their selected words and terminologies. We call to embrace the terms "kidney", "renal" and "nephro" as they are used in different contexts and ask that scientific and medical journals not impose terminology restrictions for kidney disease and kidney health. The choice should be at the discretion of the authors, in the different contexts including in scientific journals.

Dialysis Patient-Centeredness and Precision Medicine: Focus on Incremental Home Hemodialysis and Preserving Residual Kidney Function.

An exponential interest in incremental transition to dialysis recently has emerged in lieu of outright three times/wk hemodialysis initiation as the standard of care. Incremental dialysis is consistent with precision medicine, given individualized dialysis dose adjustment based on patient's dynamic needs, leading to reduced patient suffering from longer or more frequent dialysis treatments and improved health-related quality of life. It includes twice-weekly or less frequent hemodialysis treatments with or without a low-protein diet on nondialysis days, or a shorter (<3 h) hemodialysis treatment three times per week or more frequent treatments, a useful approach for home hemodialysis initiation. Peritoneal dialysis also can be initiated incrementally with a shorter dwell time, less daily solution volume, or therapy for fewer than 7days per week. Subsequent transition to more frequent or more intense dialysis therapy within several months or longer will counter worsening fluid retention and uremia, for example, whenever residual urea clearance decreases to less than 2mL/min or if urine volume reaches less than 500mL/d, especially if loss of nocturia ensues. There are many advantages to using precision medicine tools to institute incremental dialysis protocols including preservation of residual kidney function, adhering to patient preference, and allowing for a greater patient-centeredness. Incremental dialysis may become the treatment of choice in End-stage renal disease Seamless Care Organizations (ESCO). This article also features a home hemodialysis patient's experience as a real-world scenario of how individualization of dialysis therapy based on unique patient characteristics and adjustment and shortening of hemodialysis treatment time and frequency led to improved patient experience, compliance with treatment regimen, and increased urine output, and the role of future ESCOs.