A Randomized Trial of Intravenous Iron Supplementation and Exercise on Exercise Capacity in Iron-Deficient Nonanemic Patients With CKD.

Introduction: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are often iron deficient, even when not anemic. This trial evaluated whether iron supplementation enhances exercise capacity of nonanemic patients with CKD who have iron-deficiency. Methods: Prospective, multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial of nondialysis patients with CKD and iron-deficiency but without anemia (Hemoglobin [Hb] >110 g/l). Patients were assigned 1:1 to intravenous (IV) iron therapy, or placebo. An 8-week exercise program commenced at week 4. The primary outcome was the mean between-group difference in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) at 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes included 6MWT at 12 weeks, transferrin saturation (TSAT), serum ferritin (SF), Hb, renal function, muscle strength, functional capacity, quality of life, and adverse events at baseline, 4 weeks, and at 12 weeks. Mean between-group differences were analyzed using analysis of covariance models. Results: Among 75 randomized patients, mean (SD) age for iron therapy (n = 37) versus placebo (n = 38) was 54 (16) versus 61 (12) years; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (34 [12] vs. 35 [11] ml/min per 1.73 m2], TSAT (23 [12] vs. 21 [6])%; SF (57 [64] vs. 62 [33]) µg/l; Hb (122.4 [9.2] vs. 127 [13.2] g/l); 6MWT (384 [95] vs. 469 [142] meters) at baseline, respectively. No significant mean between-group difference was observed in 6MWT distance at 4 weeks. There were significant increases in SF and TSAT at 4 and 12 weeks (P < 0.02), and Hb at 12 weeks (P = 0.009). There were no between-group differences in other secondary outcomes and no adverse events attributable to iron therapy. Conclusion: This trial did not demonstrate beneficial effects of IV iron therapy on exercise capacity at 4 weeks. A larger study is needed to confirm if IV iron is beneficial in nondialysis patients with CKD who are iron-deficient.

The effect of intravenous iron supplementation on exercise capacity in iron-deficient but not anaemic patients with chronic kidney disease: study design and baseline data for a multicentre prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many people living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are iron deficient, even though they may not be anaemic. The Iron and Muscle study aims to evaluate whether iron supplementation reduces symptoms of fatigue, improves muscle metabolism, and leads to enhanced exercise capacity and physical function. We report here the trial design and baseline characteristics. METHODS: This is a prospective, double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) including 75 non-dialysis stage 3-4 CKD patients with iron deficiency but without anaemia. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to either: i) intravenous iron therapy, or ii) placebo, with concurrent recruitment of eight CKD non-iron deficient participants and six healthy volunteers. The primary outcome of the study is the six-minute walk test (6MWT) distance between baseline and four-weeks. An additional exercise training programme for patients in both groups was initiated and completed between 4 and 12 weeks, to determine the effect of iron repletion compared to placebo treatment in the context of patients undertaking an exercise programme. Additional secondary outcomes include fatigue, physical function, muscle strength, muscle metabolism, quality of life, resting blood pressure, clinical chemistry, safety and harms associated with the iron therapy intervention and the exercise training intervention, and hospitalisations. All outcomes were conducted at baseline, 4, and 12 weeks, with a nested qualitative study, to investigate the experience of living with iron deficiency and intervention acceptability. The cohort have been recruited and baseline assessments undertaken. RESULTS: Seventy-five individuals were recruited. 44% of the randomised cohort were male, the mean (SD) age was 58 (14) years, and 56% were White. Body mass index was 31 (7) kg/m2; serum ferritin was 59 (45) µg/L, transferrin saturation was 22 (10) %, and haemoglobin was 125 (12) g/L at randomisation for the whole group. Estimated glomerular filtration rate was 35 (12) mL/min/1.73 m2 and the baseline 6MWT distance was 429 (174) m. CONCLUSION: The results from this study will address a substantial knowledge gap in the effects of intravenous iron therapy, and offer potential clinical treatment options, to improve exercise capacity, physical function, fatigue, and muscle metabolism, for non-dialysis patients with CKD who are iron-deficient but not anaemic. It will also offer insight into the potential novel effects of an 8-week exercise training programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2018-000,144-25 Registered 28/01/2019.

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.

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 PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life in patients with chronic kidney disease trial: study design and baseline data for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise interventions designed to improve physical function and reduce sedentary behaviour in haemodialysis (HD) patients might improve exercise capacity, reduce fatigue and lead to improved quality of life (QOL). The PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-month intradialytic exercise programme on QOL and physical function, compared with usual care for patients on HD in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial in 335 HD patients and randomly (1:1) assigned them to either (i) intradialytic exercise training plus usual care maintenance HD or (ii) usual care maintenance HD. The primary outcome of the study was the change in Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form (KDQOL-SF 1.3) Physical Component Score between baseline and 6 months. Additional secondary outcomes included changes in peak aerobic capacity, physical fitness, habitual physical activity levels and falls (International Physical Activity Questionnaire, Duke's Activity Status Index and Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale), QOL and symptom burden assessments (EQ5D), arterial stiffness (pulse wave velocity), anthropometric measures, resting blood pressure, clinical chemistry, safety and harms associated with the intervention, hospitalizations and cost-effectiveness. A nested qualitative study investigated the experience and acceptability of the intervention for both participants and members of the renal health care team. RESULTS: At baseline assessment, 62.4% of the randomized cohort were male, the median age was 59.3 years and 50.4% were white. Prior cerebrovascular events and myocardial infarction were present in 8 and 12% of the cohort, respectively, 77.9% of patients had hypertension and 39.4% had diabetes. Baseline clinical characteristics and laboratory data for the randomized cohort were generally concordant with data from the UK Renal Registry. CONCLUSION: The results from this study will address a significant knowledge gap in the prescription of exercise interventions for patients receiving maintenance HD therapy and inform the development of intradialytic exercise programmes both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN N83508514; registered on 17 December 2014.

Intravenous Iron Dosing and Infection Risk in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PIVOTAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and observational studies have raised concerns that giving intravenous (IV) iron to patients, such as individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis, might increase the risk of infections. The Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) trial randomized 2141 patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis for ESKD to a high-dose or a low-dose IV iron regimen, with a primary composite outcome of all-cause death, heart attack, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Comparison of infection rates between the two groups was a prespecified secondary analysis. METHODS: Secondary end points included any infection, hospitalization for infection, and death from infection; we calculated cumulative event rates for these end points. We also interrogated the interaction between iron dose and vascular access (fistula versus catheter). RESULTS: We found no significant difference between the high-dose IV iron group compared with the lose-dose group in event rates for all infections (46.5% versus 45.5%, respectively, which represented incidences of 63.3 versus 69.4 per 100 patient years, respectively); rates of hospitalization for infection (29.6% versus 29.3%, respectively) also did not differ. We did find a significant association between risk of a first cardiovascular event and any infection in the previous 30 days. Compared with patients undergoing dialysis with an arteriovenous fistula, those doing so via a catheter had a higher incidence of having any infection, hospitalization for infection, or fatal infection, but IV iron dosing had no effect on these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The high-dose and low-dose IV iron groups exhibited identical infection rates. Risk of a first cardiovascular event strongly associated with a recent infection.