The CONVINCE randomized trial found positive effects on quality of life for patients with chronic kidney disease treated with hemodiafiltration.

In the CONVINCE trial, the primary analysis demonstrated a survival benefit for patients receiving high-dose hemodiafiltration (HDF) as compared with high-flux hemodialysis (HD). A secondary objective was to evaluate effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); assessed in eight domains (physical function, cognitive function, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, pain interference, social participation) applying instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) before randomization and every three months thereafter. In total 1360 adults with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease, eligible to receive high-flux HDF (23 liters or more), were randomized (1:1); 84% response rate to all questionnaires. Both groups reported a continuous deterioration in all HRQoL domains. Overall, raw score changes from baseline were more favorable in the HDF group, resulting in a significant omnibus test after a median observation period of 30 months. Most relevant single raw score differences were reported for cognitive function. Patients receiving HDF reported a decline of -0.95 units (95% confidence interval - 2.23 to +0.34) whereas HD treated patients declined by -3.90 units (-5.28 to - 2.52). A joint model, adjusted for mortality differences, utilizing all quarterly assessments, identified a significantly slower HRQoL decline in physical function, cognitive function, pain interference, and social participation for the HDF group. Their physical health summary score declined -0.46 units/year slower compared to the HD group. Thus, the CONVINCE trial showed a beneficial effect of high-dose hemodiafiltration for survival as well as a moderate positive effect on patients' quality of life, most pronounced with respect to their cognitive function. REGISTRATION: NTR7138 on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Using a measurement type-independent metric to compare patterns of determinants between patient-reported versus performance-based physical function in hemodialysis patients.

PURPOSE: We applied a previously established common T-score metric for patient-reported and performance-based physical function (PF), offering the unique opportunity to directly compare measurement type-specific patterns of associations with potential laboratory-based, psychosocial, sociodemographic, and health-related determinants in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from the CONVINCE trial (N = 1,360), a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing high-flux hemodialysis with high-dose hemodiafiltration. To explore the associations of potential determinants with performance-based versus patient-reported PF, we conducted multiple linear regression (backward elimination with cross-validation and Lasso regression). We used standardized T-scores as estimated from the PROMIS PF short-form 4a (patient-reported PF) and the Physical Performance Test (performance-based PF) as dependent variables. RESULTS: Performance-based and patient-reported PF were both significantly associated with a laboratory marker-based indicator of muscle mass (simplified creatinine index), although the effects were relatively small (partial f2 = 0.04). Age was negatively associated with PF; the effect size was larger for performance-based (partial f2 = 0.12) than for patient-reported PF (partial f2 = 0.08). Compared to performance-based PF, patient-reported PF showed a stronger association with self-reported health domains, particularly pain interference and fatigue. When using the individual difference between patient-reported and performance-based T-scores as outcome, we found that younger age and more fatigue were associated with lower patient-reported PF compared to performance-based PF (small effect size). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported and performance-based assessments were similarly associated with an objective marker of physical impairment in hemodialysis patients. Age and fatigue may result in discrepancies when comparing performance-based and patient-reported scores on the common PF scale. Trial Registration CONVINCE is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (Register ID: NL64750.041.18). The registration can be accessed at: https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/52958 .

Actioning the findings of hard endpoint clinical trials as they emerge in the realm of chronic kidney disease care: a review and a call to action.

Fewer than half of patients treated with hemodialysis survive 5 years. Multiple therapeutics are used to address the complications of advanced chronic kidney disease but most have not been found to improve clinical outcomes. Clinical trials of treatment innovations for chronic kidney diseases and dialysis care have been suboptimal in number and quality. Recent trials are changing this trend. Practice and policy change when new evidence emerges remains frequently impeded by resource and organizational constraints and accordingly, clinical practice guidelines are updated years or decades after definitive evidence is produced. Ultimately, practice change in health systems is slow, leading to impaired uptake of effective medical interventions and lower value healthcare, although innovations in rapid guideline production are emerging. What can be done to ensure that conclusive evidence is taken up in practice, policy and healthcare funding? We use the example of the recently published hard endpoint study "Comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD" (CONVINCE) (hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis), to explain how a new trial can impact on medical knowledge and change in practices. We (i) assess how the trial can be placed in the context of the totality of the evidence, (ii) define whether or not further trials of convective dialysis therapies are still needed and (iii) examine whether the evidence for convective therapies is now ready to inform practice, policy and funding change. When looking at CONVINCE in the context of the totality of evidence, we show that it addresses dialysis quality improvement priorities and is consistent with other trials evaluating convective dialysis therapies, and that the evidence for convective dialysis therapies is now definitive. Once updated evidence for cost-effectiveness in specific healthcare settings and patient-reported outcomes become available, we should therefore determine whether or not clinical practice guidelines should recommend uptake of convective dialysis therapies routinely, and move on to evaluating other treatments.

Oral manifestations after vaccinations: A systematic review of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the prevalence and types of oral adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) in people who received at least one dose of any type of vaccine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a bibliographic search about oral AEFIs in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Ovid from database inception to November 07, 2022. Risk of bias was assessed using the MURAD or the Quality In Prognosis Studies tools. Random-effects proportional meta-analysis was applied. RESULTS: A total of 119 studies involving 343 people were eligible. These reported AEFIs occurred following administration of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine, anti-influenza vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and anti-smallpox vaccine. The most common to be affected in vaccinated people were buccal mucosa (63.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 33.4-88.2) and lips (55.7%; 95% CI, 41.1-69.8). The most prevalent oral AEFIs were ulceration (55.2%; 95% CI 24.4-84.0), swelling (65.2%; 95% CI 34.9-89.8), and burning sensation (18.3%; 95% CI 7.9-31.8). CONCLUSIONS: The mechanisms underlying oral AEFIs should be further investigated to promptly recognize oral manifestations and provide optimal management for people undergoing vaccination.

Blood pressure lowering for kidney transplant recipients: systematic review with network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension affects 50-90% of kidney transplant recipients and is associated with cardiovascular disease and graft loss. We aimed to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering agents in people with a functioning kidney transplant. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through to October 2023. RCTs evaluating blood pressure lowering agents administered for at least 2 weeks in people with a functioning kidney transplant with and without preexisting hypertension were eligible. Two reviewers independently extracted data. The primary outcome was graft loss. Treatment effects were estimated using random effects network meta-analysis, with treatment effects expressed as an odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes together with their 95% confidence interval (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE for network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies (7547 adults) were included. Two studies were conducted in children. No blood pressure-lowering agent reduced the risk of graft loss, withdrawal because of adverse events, death, cardiovascular or kidney outcomes compared with placebo/other drug class. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blocker therapy may incur greater odds of hyperkalemia compared with calcium channel blockers [odds ratio (OR) 5.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.47-12.16; and OR 8.67, 95% CI 2.65-28.36; low certainty evidence, respectively). CONCLUSION: The evidentiary basis for the comparative benefits and safety of blood pressure lowering agents in people with a functioning kidney transplant is limited to guide treatment decision-making.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), for whom the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people who have existing coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review published in 2009, and includes evidence from 27 new studies (25,068 participants) in addition to the 26 studies (20,324 participants) assessed previously; and excludes three previously included studies (107 participants). This updated review includes 50 studies (45,285 participants); of these 38 (37,274 participants) were meta-analysed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits (such as reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, MI and stroke; and slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)) and harms (muscle and liver dysfunction, withdrawal, and cancer) of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD who were not on dialysis. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 5 June 2012 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on mortality, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD not on dialysis were the focus of our literature searches. Data collection and analysis: Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (lipids, creatinine clearance and proteinuria) and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (major cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal ...