Effect of a Novel Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Patient Access to Kidney Transplant and Living Kidney Donation: The EnAKT LKD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have the best chance for a longer and healthier life if they receive a kidney transplant. However, many barriers prevent patients from receiving a transplant. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent intervention designed to target several barriers that prevent eligible patients from completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, superiority, cluster randomized clinical trial included all 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. These programs provide care for patients with advanced CKD (patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis). Interventions: Using stratified, covariate-constrained randomization, allocation of the CKD programs at a 1:1 ratio was used to compare the multicomponent intervention vs usual care for 4.2 years. The intervention had 4 main components, (1) administrative support to establish local quality improvement teams; (2) transplant educational resources; (3) an initiative for transplant recipients and living donors to share stories and experiences; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by administrative leaders. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant. Each patient could complete up to 4 steps: step 1, referred to a transplant center for evaluation; step 2, had a potential living donor contact a transplant center for evaluation; step 3, added to the deceased donor waitlist; and step 4, received a transplant from a living or deceased donor. Results: The 26 CKD programs (13 intervention, 13 usual care) during the trial period included 20 375 potentially transplant-eligible patients with advanced CKD (intervention group [n = 9780 patients], usual-care group [n = 10 595 patients]). Despite evidence of intervention uptake, the step completion rate did not significantly differ between the intervention vs usual-care groups: 5334 vs 5638 steps; 24.8 vs 24.1 steps per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.15). Conclusions and Relevance: This novel multicomponent intervention did not significantly increase the rate of completed steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Improving access to transplantation remains a global priority that requires substantial effort. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03329521.

Andreas Pierratos Tribute: Personal Reflections.

Since the passing of Andreas Pierratos on November 15, 2022, we have had many occasions to reflect on what our relationship with a friend and colleague has meant. We have done this in solitude, with colleagues while at work and more recently, in a tribute organized at Humber River Hospital on March 26, 2023. We also had the opportunity to expand, in the February 2023 issue of the Nephrology News & Issues, on his many contributions to nephrology and to the betterment of patients' lives. For this collaboration, we thought we would share our personal reflections of this unique individual, with the hope that this effort would provide a deeper appreciation of his unique humanity.

Psychosocial Distress in Patients With Advanced CKD by Racial Group and Immigrant Status: A Canadian Cross-sectional Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been reported to experience profound psychosocial distress. Other work has established that patients with CKD from marginalized populations (including individuals who on the basis of race often face racism and related discrimination, termed "racialization") experience health care inequities. Given limited information on the intersection of these 2 phenomena, we assessed the association of psychosocial distress with racialized status and immigrant status in Canadians with advanced CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional data. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 536 patients with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate<30mL/min/1.73m2, with or without kidney replacement therapy) from multiple clinical centers in Toronto. EXPOSURE: Racialized status (individuals who identify as Asian or as African, Caribbean, or Black Canadian), immigrant status, and combined immigrant-racialized status. OUTCOME: Psychosocial distress, defined as the presence of depression, anxiety, or social difficulties (ie, a score of≥10 points on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7, or Social Distress 16 scales, respectively). ANALYTICAL APPROACH: The independent associations of racialized status and immigrant status with psychosocial distress, depression, anxiety, and social difficulties were examined using univariable- and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: Mean age of the 536 participants was 57±16 (SD) years, 62% were male, and 45% were immigrants. Of the sample, 58% were White, 22% were African, Caribbean, or Black Canadian, and 20% were Asian. Psychosocial distress was present in 36% of participants (depression in 19%, anxiety in 12%, and social difficulties in 31%). To assess the combined impact of racialized and immigrant status, we created a variable with mutually exclusive categories: White nonimmigrant, racialized nonimmigrant, White immigrant, and racialized immigrant participants. In our final multivariable-adjusted model, compared with White nonimmigrant participants, racialized immigrant participants were more likely to have psychosocial distress (OR, 2.96 [95% CI, 1.81-4.81]), depression (OR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.05-3.34]), and social difficulties (OR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.03-5.57]). Overall similar associations were seen for racialized nonimmigrants and for White immigrants. LIMITATIONS: Convenience sample; small subgroups; combined exposure variable grouping Asian and African, Caribbean, and Black participants together; lack of data about mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Both racialized and immigrant status based on self-report of demographic characteristics were associated with psychosocial distress among patients with advanced CKD. These patients may benefit from culturally competent psychosocial support. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Psychosocial distress is frequent in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and impacts quality of life and clinical outcomes. Psychosocial distress may be especially scarring in people who are racialized (marginalized on account of their membership in a particular racial group) and/or who are immigrants. We assessed the association of psychosocial distress with racialized and immigrant status in Canadians with advanced chronic kidney disease. Among 536 participants from multiple medical centers in Toronto, we found that racialized and immigrant participants were more likely to have psychosocial distress, depression, and social difficulties compared with White nonimmigrant participants. This is likely related to the multiple intersectional challenges, including experience with racism and discrimination that racialized immigrant patients may face. Further studies are needed to elucidate the specific factors that contribute to more distress. The potential impact of culturally competent and safe support for these patients will also need to be studied.

Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD): Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) is a quality improvement intervention designed to enhance access to kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. We conducted a cluster-randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of the intervention versus usual care on completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Objective: To prespecify the statistical analysis plan for the EnAKT LKD trial. Design: The EnAKT LKD trial is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized, superiority, clinical trial. Randomization was performed at the level of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (the "clusters"). Setting: Twenty-six CKD programs in Ontario, Canada. Participants: More than 10 000 patients with advanced CKD (ie, patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis) with no recorded contraindication to receiving a kidney transplant. Methods: The trial data (including patient characteristics and outcomes) will be obtained from linked administrative health care databases (the "registry"). Stratified covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 26 CKD programs (1:1) to provide the intervention or usual care from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021 (4.17 years). CKD programs in the intervention arm received the following: (1) support for local quality improvement teams and administrative needs; (2) tailored education and resources for staff, patients, and living kidney donor candidates; (3) support from kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by program leaders. Outcomes: The primary outcome is completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant, where up to 4 unique steps per patient will be considered: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) a potential living kidney donor begins their evaluation at a transplant center to donate a kidney to the patient, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant waitlist, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor. Analysis plan: Using an intent-to-treat approach, the primary outcome will be analyzed using a patient-level constrained multistate model adjusting for the clustering in CKD programs. Trial Status: The EnAKT LKD trial period is November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report the results once the data for the trial period is available in linked administrative health care databases. Trial Registration: The EnAKT LKD trial is registered with the U.S. National Institute of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT03329521 available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03329521). Statistical Analytic Plan: Version 1.0 August 26, 2022.

Contexte: EnAKT LKD est une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité visant à améliorer l'accès à la transplantation rénale et au don vivant de rein. Nous avons mené un essai clinique randomisé par grappes afin d'évaluer l'effet de l'intervention, par rapport aux soins habituels, sur le taux d'étapes clés réalisées dans le processus de réception d'une greffe de rein. Objectif: Exposer les grandes lignes du plan d'analyse statistique de l'essai EAKT LKD. Conception: EAKT LKD est un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, basé sur un registre, et randomisé en grappes. La randomisation a été réalisée au niveau des programmes d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) (les « grappes ¼). Cadre: 26 programmes d'IRC en Ontario (Canada). Sujets: Plus de 10 000 patients atteints d'IRC de stade avancé (des patients approchant le besoin de dialyse ou recevant une hémodialyse d'entretien) sans contre-indication documentée à la greffe rénale. Méthodologie: Les données de l'essai (y compris les caractéristiques et les résultats des patients) seront obtenues à partir de bases de données administratives en santé (le « registre ¼). La randomisation stratifiée avec contraintes de covariables a servi à répartir les 26 programmes d'IRC (1:1) selon qu'ils allaient fournir l'intervention ou les soins habituels entre le 1er novembre 2017 et le 31 décembre 2021 (4,17 ans). Les programmes d'IRC du bras d'intervention ont eu droit au soutien suivant: (1) des équipes locales d'amélioration de la qualité et du soutien administratif; (2) de l'information et des ressources sur mesure pour le personnel, les patients et les donneurs vivants; (3) du soutien de la part de receveurs et de donneurs vivants; et (4) des rapports sur le rendement au niveau du programme et une surveillance assurée par les chefs de programme. Résultats: Le principal critère d'évaluation est le taux d'étapes clés accomplies vers la réception d'une greffe de rein, où jusqu'à quatre étapes uniques par patient seront comptabilisées: (1) le patient est aiguillé vers un centre de transplantation pour évaluation; (2) un possible donneur vivant de rein contacte un centre de transplantation pour un receveur en particulier et amorce son évaluation; (3) le patient est ajouté à la liste d'attente pour une transplantation d'un donneur décédé, et (4) le patient reçoit une greffe de rein d'un donneur vivant ou décédé. Plan d'analyse: Selon une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter, le critère d'évaluation principal sera analysé au niveau du patient en utilisant un modèle multiétats contraint, corrigé dans les programmes d'IRC en fonction du regroupement. Statut de l'essai: L'essai EnAKT LKD s'est tenu du 1er novembre 2017 au 31 décembre 2021. Nous analyserons les résultats et en rendrons compte dès que les données seront disponibles dans les bases de données administratives couplées du système de santé.

2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guideline for Use of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and SGLT2 Inhibitors for Cardiorenal Risk Reduction in Adults.

This guideline synthesizes clinical trial data supporting the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for treatment of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, and for optimizing prevention of cardiorenal morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is on the basis of a companion systematic review and meta-analysis guided by a focused set of population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) questions that address priority cardiorenal end points. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a modified Delphi process were used. We encourage comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular (CV) patients with routine measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), and documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when evaluating symptoms of HF. For patients with HF, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy for the reduction of hospitalization for HF when LVEF is > 40% and for the reduction of all-cause and CV mortality, hospitalization for HF, and renal protection when LVEF is ≤ 40%. In patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for HF. We provide recommendations and algorithms for the selection of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2i for patients with type 2 diabetes and either established atherosclerotic CV disease or risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal stroke, and for the prevention of hospitalization for HF and decline in renal function. We offer practical advice for safe use of these diabetes-associated agents with profound cardiorenal benefits.

Serious reporting deficiencies exist in minimal important difference studies: current state and suggestions for improvement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reporting of minimal important difference (MID) estimates using anchor-based methods for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the association with reporting deficiencies on their credibility. METHODS: Systematic survey of primary studies empirically estimating MIDs. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database until October 2018. We evaluated study reporting, focusing on participants' demographics, intervention(s), characteristics of PROMs and anchors, and MID estimation method(s). We assessed the impact of reporting issues on credibility of MID estimates. RESULTS: In 585 studies reporting on 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs, authors frequently failed to adequately report key characteristics of PROMs and MIDs, including minimum and maximum values of PROM scale, measure of variability accompanying the MID estimate and number of participants included in the MID calculation. Across MID estimates (n = 5,324), the most serious reporting issues impacting credibility included infrequent reporting of the correlation between the anchor and PROM (66%), inadequate details to judge precision of MID point estimate (13%), and insufficient information about the threshold used to ascertain MIDs (16%). CONCLUSION: Serious issues of incomplete reporting in the MID literature threaten the optimal use of MID estimates to inform the magnitude of effects of interventions on PROMs.

Multifaceted Intervention to Increase the Use of Home Dialysis: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Home dialysis therapies (peritoneal and home hemodialysis) are less expensive and provide similar outcomes to in-center hemodialysis, but they are underutilized in most health systems. Given this, we designed a multifaceted intervention to increase the use of home dialysis. In this study, our objective was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on home dialysis use in CKD clinics across Canada. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in 55 CKD clinic clusters in nine provinces in Canada between October 2014 and November 2015. Participants included all adult patients who initiated dialysis in the year following the intervention. We evaluated the implementation of a four-component intervention, which included phone surveys from a knowledge translation broker, a 1-year center-specific audit/feedback on home dialysis use, delivery of an educational package (including tools aimed at both providers and patients), and an academic detailing visit. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients using home dialysis at 180 days after dialysis initiation. RESULTS: A total of 55 clinics were randomized (27 in the intervention and 28 in the control), with 5312 patients initiating dialysis in the 1-year follow-up period. In the primary analysis, there was no difference in the use of home dialysis at 180 days in the intervention and control clusters (absolute risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 10%). Using a difference-in-difference comparison, the use of home dialysis at 180 days was similar before and after implementation of the intervention (difference of 0% in intervention clinics; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 3%; difference of 0.8% in control clinics; 95% confidence interval, -1% to 3%; P=0.84). CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted intervention did not increase the use of home dialysis in adults initiating dialysis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Assess the Impact of Patient and Provider Education on Use of Home Dialysis, NCT02202018.

Effects of Medium Cut-Off Versus High-Flux Hemodialysis Membranes on Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medium cut-off (MCO) membranes enhance large middle-molecule clearance while selectively retaining molecules >45 000 Da. OBJECTIVES: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effects of MCO versus high-flux membranes on biomarkers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2015 to July 2020, and gray literature sources from 2017. We included randomized (RS) and nonrandomized studies (NRS) comparing MCO and high-flux membranes in adults (>18 years) receiving maintenance hemodialysis. We performed study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisals in duplicate and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Outcomes included solute removal (plasma clearance or dialysate quantitation), reduction ratios, and predialysis serum concentrations for a range of prespecified large middle molecules. RESULTS: We identified 26 eligible studies (10 RS and 16 NRS; N = 1883 patients; patient-years = 1366.3). The mean difference (MD) for albumin removal was 2.31 g per session (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.79 to 1.83; high certainty), with a reduction in predialysis albumin of -0.12 g/dl (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.07; I 2 = 0%; high certainty) in the first 24 weeks, returning to normal (MD = -0.02 g/dl, 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.03; I 2 = 56%; high certainty) after 24 weeks. We also found with high certainty that MCO dialysis resulted in a large increase (standardized mean difference [SMD]> 2.0 for all) in ß2-microglobulin, κ- and λ-free light chains, and myoglobin removal, resulting in moderate (SMD > 0.5) to large (SMD > 0.8) reductions in predialysis concentrations for all of these solutes. Medium cut-off dialysis increased the reduction ratio for tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) by 7.7% (95% CI, 4.7 to 10.6; moderate certainty), and reduced predialysis TNF-α by SMD -0.48 (95% CI, -0.91 to -0.04; moderate certainty). We found with moderate certainty that MCO dialysis had little to no effect on predialysis interleukin-6 (IL-6) plasma concentrations. Medium cut-off dialysis reduced mRNA expression of TNF-α and IL-6 in peripheral leukocytes by MD -15% (95% CI, -19.6 to -10.4; moderate certainty) and -8.8% (95% CI, -10.2 to -7.4; moderate certainty), respectively. CONCLUSION: Medium cut-off dialysis increases the clearance of a wide range of large middle molecules and likely reduces inflammatory mediators with a concomitant transient reduction in serum albumin concentration. The net effect of MCO dialysis on large middle molecules could translate into important clinical effects.

CONTEXTE: Les membranes MCO (Medium cut-off) améliorent la clairance des moyennes molécules de masse moléculaire élevée tout en retenant sélectivement les molécules de plus de 45 000 Da. OBJECTIFS: Nous avons entrepris une revue systématique et une méta-analyse comparant les effets des membranes MCO et des membranes à perméabilité élevée sur certains biomarqueurs. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library et Web of Science entre janvier 2015 et juillet 2020, et dans des sources de littérature grise de 2017. Nous avons inclus les études randomisées (ÉR) et non randomisées (ÉNR) comparant les membranes MCO et les membranes à perméabilité élevée chez les adultes recevant une hémodialyse d'entretien. Nous avons procédé à la sélection des études, à l'extraction des données et à l'évaluation de la qualité en duplicata, puis nous avons utilisé la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Les résultats comprenaient l'élimination du soluté (clairance plasmatique ou quantification du dialysat), les rapports de réduction et les concentrations sériques prédialyse pour une gamme de moyennes molécules à masse moléculaire élevée prédéterminées. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons répertorié 26 études admissibles (10 ÉR, 16 ÉNR; n = 1 883 patients; 1 366,3 années-patients). La différence moyenne (DM) pour l'élimination de l'albumine était de 2,31 g par séance (IC 95 % : 2,79 à 1,83; haute certitude), avec une réduction de l'albumine prédialyse de -0,12 g/dl (IC 95 % : -0,16 à -0,07; I 2 = 0 %; haute certitude) au cours des 24 premières semaines, et un retour à la normale (DM = -0,02 g/dl; IC 95 % : -0,07 à -0,03; I 2 = 56 %; haute certitude) après 24 semaines. Nous avons constaté, avec une grande certitude, que la dialyse MCO entraînait une élimination importante de ß2-microglobuline, chaînes légères κ- et λ- et de myoglobine (différence moyenne standardisée [DMS] > 2,0 pour toutes), ce qui s'est traduit par des réductions modérées (DMS > 0,5) à importantes (DMS > 0,8) des concentrations prédialyse pour tous ces solutés. La dialyse MCO a haussé le taux de réduction du TNF-α de 7,7 % (IC 95 % : 4,7 à 10,6; certitude modérée) et réduit le TNF-α prédialyse (DMS = -0,48; IC 95 % : -0,91 à -0,04; certitude modérée). Nous avons constaté, avec une certitude modérée, que la dialyse MCO n'a que peu ou pas d'effet sur les concentrations plasmatiques d'IL-6 prédialyse. La dialyse MCO a réduit l'expression de l'ARNm du TNF-α et d'IL-6 dans les leucocytes périphériques avec une DM de -15 % (IC 95 % : -19,6 à -10,4; certitude modérée) et de -8,8 % (IC 95 % : -10,2 à -7,4; certitude modérée) respectivement. CONCLUSION: La dialyse MCO augmente la clairance d'une vaste gamme de moyennes molécules de haute masse moléculaire et semble réduire les médiateurs inflammatoires avec une réduction transitoire concomitante de la concentration en albumine sérique. L'effet net de la dialyse MCO sur les moyennes molécules de haute masse moléculaire pourrait se traduire par des effets cliniques importants.

Clinical Outcomes With Medium Cut-Off Versus High-Flux Hemodialysis Membranes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A novel medium cut-off (MCO) dialyzer (Theranova, Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL, USA) enhances large middle molecule clearance while retaining selectivity for molecules >45 000 Da. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating clinical outcomes with MCO vs high-flux membranes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through July 2020, and gray literature sources from 2017. We included randomized (RS) and nonrandomized studies (NRS) comparing MCO and high-flux membranes in adults receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Pairs of reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analyses to pool results across studies and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess evidence certainty. RESULTS: We identified 22 eligible studies (6 RS, 16 NRS; N = 1811 patients; patient-years = 1546). The MCO dialyzer improved (estimate; 95% confidence interval [CI]; certainty rating) quality of life (mean difference [MD] = 16.7/100 points; 6.9 to 26.4; moderate), Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument (KDQOL) subscales-burden (MD = 4.0; 1.1 to 6.9; moderate) and effects (MD = 5.4; 3.2 to 7.6; moderate), pruritus (MD = -4.4; -7.1 to -1.7; moderate), recovery time (MD = -420 minutes; -541 to -299; high), and restless legs syndrome (odds ratio = 0.39; 0.29 to 0.53; moderate). There was little to no difference in all-cause mortality (risk difference = -0.4%; -2.8 to 2.1; moderate) and serious adverse events (rate ratio = 0.63; 0.38 to 1.04; low). MCO dialysis reduced hospitalization (rate ratio = 0.48; 0.27 to 0.84; low), infection (rate ratio = 0.38; 0.17 to 0.85; moderate), hospitalization days (MD = -1.5 days; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.78; moderate), erythropoiesis resistance index (MD = -2.92 U/kg/week/g/L; 95% CI, -4.25 to -1.6; moderate) and cumulative iron use over 12 weeks (MD = -293 mg; 95% CI, -368 to -218; moderate). We found with low certainty that MCO dialysis had little to no effect on KDQOL symptoms/problem list, pain, and physical health and moderate certainty that MCO dialysis likely has no effect on the KDQOL mental health composite. CONCLUSIONS: We found with predominantly moderate certainty that the MCO dialyzer improves several patient-important outcomes with no apparent risks or harms. More definitive studies are needed to better quantify the effects of MCO membranes on mortality, hospitalization, and other rare events.

CONTEXTE: Un nouveau dialyseur MCO (Medium cut-off) (Theranova, Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL, É.-U.) améliore la clairance des molécules importantes de taille moyenne tout en maintenant la sélectivité des molécules de plus de 45 000 Da. OBJECTIFS: Nous avons entrepris une revue systématique et une méta-analyse évaluant les résultats cliniques des membranes MCO par rapport aux membranes à perméabilité élevée. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans MEDLINE, embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library et Web of Science jusqu'en juillet 2020, et dans des sources de littérature grise de 2017. Nous avons inclus les études randomisées (ÉR) et non randomisées (ÉNR) comparant les membranes MCO et les membranes à perméabilité élevée chez les adultes recevant une hémodialyse d'entretien. Des paires de réviseurs ont procédé à la sélection des études, à l'extraction des données et à l'évaluation du risque de biais en duplicata. Nous avons effectué des méta-analyses à effets aléatoires par paires pour regrouper les résultats des différentes études, puis nous avons employé la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) pour évaluer la certitude des preuves. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons répertorié 22 études admissibles (6 ÉR, 16 ÉNR ; n=1811 patients; 1 546 années-patients). Le dialyseur MCO a amélioré (estimation; IC à 95 %; évaluation de la certitude) la qualité de vie (différence moyenne [DM] = 16,7/100 points; 6,9 à 26,4; modérée), les sous-échelles KDQOL ­ le fardeau de la maladie (DM = 4,0; 1,1 à 6,9; modérée), les effets (DM = 5,4; 3,2 à 7,6; modérée), le prurit (DM = -4,4; -7,1 à -1,7; modérée), le temps de récupération (DM = -420 minutes; -541 à -299; élevée) et le syndrome des jambes sans repos (rapport de cotes = 0,39; 0,29 à 0,53; modéré). On a noté peu ou pas de différence pour la mortalité toutes causes confondues (risque différentiel = -0,4 %; -2,8 à 2,1; modérée) et les événements indésirables graves (rapport des taux = 0,63; 0,38 à 1,04; faible). La dialyse par MCO a réduit les hospitalisations (rapport des taux = 0,48; 0,27 à 0,84; faible), les infections (rapport des taux = 0,38; 0,17 à 0,85; modérée), la durée des hospitalisations (DM = -1,5 jour; -2,22 à -0,78; modérée), l'indice de résistance à l'érythropoïèse (DM = -2,92 U/kg/semaine/g/L; -4,25 à -1,6; modérée) et l'utilisation cumulative de fer sur 12 semaines (DM = -293 mg; -368 à -218; modérée). Nous avons constaté, avec peu de certitude, que la dialyse MCO n'avait que peu ou pas d'effet sur les symptômes/problèmes liés à la KDQOL, de même que sur la douleur et la santé physique. Et nous avons constaté, avec une certitude modérée, que la dialyse MCO n'avait probablement aucun effet sur le composite de santé mentale de la KDQOL. CONCLUSION: Nous avons constaté avec une certitude principalement modérée que le dialyseur MCO améliorait plusieurs résultats importants pour le patient sans risques ou préjudices apparents. Des études plus définitives sont nécessaires afin de mieux quantifier les effets des membranes MCO sur le taux de mortalité, les hospitalisations et les autres événements rares.

MyTEMP: Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP) is a 4-year cluster-randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of using a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol versus a dialysate temperature of 36.5°C on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalization. Randomization was performed at the level of the dialysis center ("the cluster"). OBJECTIVE: The objective is to outline the statistical analysis plan for the MyTEMP trial. DESIGN: MyTEMP is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized trial. SETTING: A total of 84 dialysis centers in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Approximately 13 500 patients will have received in-center hemodialysis at the 84 participating dialysis centers during the trial period (April 3, 2017, to March 1, 2021, with a maximum follow-up to March 31, 2021). METHODS: Patient identification, baseline characteristics, and study outcomes will be obtained primarily through Ontario administrative health care databases held at ICES. Covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 84 dialysis centers (1:1) to the intervention group or the control group. Centers in the intervention group used a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol, and centers in the control group used a fixed dialysate temperature of 36.5°C. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (defined as a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) recorded in administrative health care databases. The key secondary outcome is the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure, defined as the patients' predialysis systolic blood pressure minus their nadir systolic blood pressure during the dialysis treatment. Anonymized data on patients' predialysis and intradialytic systolic blood pressure were collected at monthly intervals from each dialysis center. ANALYSIS PLAN: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The primary outcome will be analyzed at the patient level as the hazard ratio of time-to-first event, estimated from a subdistribution hazards model. Within-center correlation will be accounted for using a robust sandwich estimator. In the primary analysis, patients' observation time will end if they experience the primary outcome, emigrate from Ontario, or die of a noncardiovascular cause (which will be treated as a competing risk event). The between-group difference in the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure obtained during the dialysis sessions throughout the trial period will be analyzed at the center level using an unadjusted random-effects linear mixed model. TRIAL STATUS: The MyTEMP trial period is April 3, 2017, to March 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report results by 2023 once the updated data are available at ICES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MyTEMP is registered with the US National Institutes of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366). STATISTICAL ANALYTIC PLAN: Version 1.1 June 15, 2021.

CONTEXTE: L'essai MyTEMP (Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate Temperature) est un essai clinique randomisé en grappes d'une durée de 4 ans comparant l'effet d'un protocole de dialysat personnalisé à température réduite par rapport au dialysat à 36,5 °C sur les hospitalisations et les décès dus à des problèmes cardiovasculaires. La répartition aléatoire des sujets a été effectuée au niveau du centre de dialyse (ci-après appelé « groupe ¼). OBJECTIFS: Exposer les grandes lignes du plan d'analyse statistique de l'essai MyTEMP. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: MyTEMP est un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, basé sur un registre, et randomisé en grappes. CADRE: L'essai est mené dans 84 centres de dialyse en Ontario (Canada). SUJETS: On estime qu'environ 13 500 patients auront reçu des soins d'hémodialyse dans les 84 centres de dialyse participants au cours de la période de l'essai (3 avril 2017 au 1er mars 2021; suivi maximal jusqu'au 31 mars 2021). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les résultats et les données concernant l'identification des patients et leurs caractéristiques initiales seront principalement tirés des bases de données administratives du système de santé ontarien tenues par l'ICES. Une répartition aléatoire restreinte par les covariables a été employée pour classer les 84 centres de dialyse (1:1) dans le groupe d'intervention ou le groupe témoin. Le groupe d'intervention a utilisé un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à température réduite et le groupe témoin un dialysat à température fixe (36,5 °C). RÉSULTATS: Le principal critère d'évaluation est la combinaison d'un décès d'origine cardiovasculaire ou d'une hospitalisation majeure liée à la santé cardiovasculaire (définie comme une hospitalisation pour un infarctus du myocarde, une insuffisance cardiaque congestive ou un AVC ischémique) enregistrée dans les bases de données administratives du système de santé. Le principal critère d'évaluation secondaire est la baisse moyenne de la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique, laquelle est définie comme la tension artérielle systolique du patient avant la dialyse moins la tension artérielle systolique minimale pendant la dialyse. Les données anonymisées sur la tension artérielle systolique initiale et la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique des patients ont été colligées à intervalles mensuels dans chaque centre de dialyse. PLAN D'ANALYSE: L'analyse primaire adoptera une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter. Le principal critère d'évaluation sera analysé au niveau du patient comme le risque relatif de survenue d'un premier événement, estimé à partir d'un modèle de risques de sous-distribution. La corrélation intracentre sera prise en compte à l'aide d'un robuste estimateur sandwich. Dans l'analyse primaire, le temps d'observation des patients prendra fin s'ils présentent le principal critère d'évaluation, s'ils déménagent hors de l'Ontario ou s'ils décèdent d'une cause non cardiovasculaire (qui sera traitée comme un événement à risque concurrentiel). La différence entre les groupes quant à la baisse moyenne de la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique, obtenue pendant les séances de dialyse tout au long de l'essai, sera analysée au niveau du centre avec un modèle linéaire mixte à effets aléatoires non corrigé. STATUT DE L'ESSAI: L'essai MyTEMP couvre la période du 3 avril 2017 au 31 mars 2021. Nous comptons analyser et rendre compte des résultats d'ici 2023, dès que les données mises à jour seront disponibles à l'ICES. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: MyTEMP est enregistré auprès du National Institute of Health des États-Unis sur clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366).

A Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Clinical Research Protocol of a Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with kidney failure will live longer and healthier lives if they receive a kidney transplant rather than dialysis. However, multiple barriers prevent patients from accessing this treatment option. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a quality improvement intervention provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care) enables more patients with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant to complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. DESIGN: This protocol describes a pragmatic 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, cluster-randomized clinical trial-the Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) trial. SETTING: All 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, with a trial start date of November 1, 2017. The original end date of March 31, 2021 (3.4 years) has been extended to December 31, 2021 (4.1 years) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: During the trial, the 26 CKD programs are expected to care for more than 10 000 adult patients with CKD (including patients approaching the need for dialysis and patients receiving dialysis) with no recorded contraindications to a kidney transplant. INTERVENTION: Programs were randomly allocated to provide a quality improvement intervention or usual care. The intervention has 4 main components: (1) local quality improvement teams and administrative support; (2) tailored education and resources for staff, patients, and living kidney donor candidates; (3) support from kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by program leaders. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome is the number of key steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant analyzed at the cluster level (CKD program). The following 4 unique steps per patient will be counted: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) at least one living kidney donor candidate contacts a transplant center for an intended recipient and completes a health history questionnaire to begin their evaluation, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant wait list, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor. PLANNED PRIMARY ANALYSIS: Study data will be obtained from Ontario's linked administrative healthcare databases. An intent-to-treat analysis will be conducted comparing the primary outcome between randomized groups using a 2-stage approach. First stage: residuals are obtained from fitting a regression model to individual-level variables ignoring intervention and clustering effects. Second stage: residuals from the first stage are aggregated at the cluster level as the outcome. LIMITATIONS: It may not be possible to isolate independent effects of each intervention component, the usual care group could adopt intervention components leading to contamination bias, and the relatively small number of clusters could mean the 2 arms are not balanced on all baseline prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: The EnAKT LKD trial will provide high-quality evidence on whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention helps patients complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.

CONTEXTE: Plusieurs patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale vivront plus longtemps et en meilleure santé s'ils reçoivent une greffe de rein plutôt que des traitements de dialyze. De nombreux obstacles empêchent cependant les patients d'accéder à la transplantation. OBJECTIF: Déterminer si une intervention visant l'amélioration de la qualité menée dans les programs d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) permettrait à davantage de patients sans contre-indications à une greffe d'aller plus loin (comparativement aux soins habituels) dans le processus menant à la transplantation. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Ce protocole décrit un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, à répartition aléatoire en grappes et fondé sur un registre ­ l'essai Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD). CADRE: Les 26 programs d'IRC de l'Ontario (Canada). L'essai a débuté le 1er novembre 2017 et devait initialement se terminer le 31 mars 2021 (3,4 ans); cette date a été reportée au 31 décembre 2021 (4,1 ans) en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19. SUJETS: Au cours de l'essai, on estime que les 26 programs d'IRC prendront en charge plus de 10 000 adultes atteints d'IRC (y compris des patients approchant le besoin de dialyze et des patients dialysés) sans contre-indications à une greffe. INTERVENTIONS: Les programs ont été répartis aléatoirement pour intégrer une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité ou pour prodiguer les soins habituels. L'intervention consiste en quatre composantes principales: (1) des équipes locales d'amélioration de la qualité et de soutien administratif; (2) de l'information et des ressources sur mesure pour le personnel, les patients et les donneurs vivants; (3) du soutien pour les receveurs et les donneurs vivants; et (4) des rapports sur le rendement au niveau du program et une surveillance assurée par les chefs de program. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Le principal critère d'évaluation est le nombre d'étapes clés complétées en vue de la réception d'une greffe de rein tel qu'analysé au niveau de la grappe (program d'IRC). Pour chaque patient, quatre étapes spécifiques seront comptabilisées: (I) le patient est aiguillé vers un center de transplantation pour évaluation; (II) au moins un donneur vivant de rein contacte un center de transplantation pour un receveur en particulier et amorce son évaluation en remplissant un questionnaire sur ses antécédents médicaux; (III) le patient est ajouté à la liste d'attente pour une transplantation d'un donneur décédé, et (IV) le patient reçoit une greffe de rein d'un donneur vivant ou décédé. PRINCIPALE ANALYZE ENVISAGÉE: Les données sont tirées des bases de données administratives du système de santé ontarien. Une analyze en intention de traiter sera effectuée en comparant le principal critère d'évaluation entre les groupes répartis aléatoirement à l'aide d'une approche en deux étapes. Première étape: obtention de valeurs résiduelles en adaptant un modèle de régression aux variables de niveau individuel et en ignorant les effets de l'intervention et du regroupement. Deuxième étape: les valeurs résiduelles de la première étape agrégées au niveau du groupe constitueront le résultat. LIMITES: Il pourrait ne pas être possible d'isoler les effets indépendants de chaque composante de l'intervention. L'équipe prodiguant les soins habituels pourrait adopter des composantes de l'intervention menant à un biais de contamination. Le nombre relativement faible de groupes pourrait signifier que les deux bras ne sont pas équilibrés sur tous les facteurs pronostiques de base. CONCLUSION: L'essai EnAKT LKD fournira des données de haute qualité sur la question de savoir si une intervention à composantes multiples visant l'amélioration de la qualité aide effectivement les patients à franchir davantage d'étapes vers une transplantation rénale.

Effects of a Knowledge-Translation Intervention on Early Dialysis Initiation: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) trial, published in 2009, found no clinically measurable benefit with respect to risk of mortality or early complications with early dialysis initiation versus deferred dialysis start. After these findings, guidelines recommended an intent-to-defer approach to dialysis initiation, with the goal of deferring it until clinical symptoms arise. METHODS: To evaluate a four-component knowledge translation intervention aimed at promoting an intent-to-defer strategy for dialysis initiation, we conducted a cluster randomized trial in Canada between October 2014 and November 2015. We randomized 55 clinics, 27 to the intervention group and 28 to the control group. The educational intervention, using knowledge-translation tools, included telephone surveys from a knowledge-translation broker, a 1-year center-specific audit with feedback, delivery of a guidelines package, and an academic detailing visit. Participants included adults who had at least 3 months of predialysis care and who started dialysis in the first year after the intervention. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients who initiated dialysis early (at eGFR >10.5 ml/min per 1.73 m2). The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who initiated in the acute inpatient setting. RESULTS: The analysis included 3424 patients initiating dialysis in the 1-year follow-up period. Of these, 509 of 1592 (32.0%) in the intervention arm and 605 of 1832 (33.0%) in the control arm started dialysis early. There was no difference in the proportion of individuals initiating dialysis early or in the proportion of individuals initiating dialysis as an acute inpatient. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted knowledge translation intervention failed to reduce the proportion of early dialysis starts in patients with CKD followed in multidisciplinary clinics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02183987. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02183987.

Fit for Dialysis: a prospective 2-site parallel intervention trial of a filmed research-based drama to increase exercise amongst older hemodialysis patients.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of a filmed research-based drama-Fit for Dialysis-and an exercise program on patients' physical activity and fitness outcomes. METHODS: Nineteen (10 at the intervention site, 9 at the control site) older patients with a medical diagnosis of hemodialysis-dependent end-stage renal disease were recruited from two acute care hospitals in urban central Canada where they were receiving out-patient hemodialysis care. Participants at the intervention site viewed Fit for Dialysis prior to participating in a 16-week exercise program. Participants at the control site participated only in the 16-week exercise program. Physical activity, measured by total intradialytic exercise time (TIDE), and physical fitness, measured by the Two-Minute Walk Test (2MWT). Secondary measures included: Timed Up and Go (TUG), Grip Strength, Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), Godin Leisure-Time Exerciser Questionnaire (GLTEQ), and pedometer step count. RESULTS: TIDE, TUG, and GLTEQ were better at the intervention site compared to the control site at all time points measured. However, the change over time was not different between the sites. The 2MWT improved over time at the intervention site for those who exercised consistently. No significant differences between sites, or over time were found for any of the other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of this intervention to facilitate the incorporation of exercise into the care and treatment of HD patients.

Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs. RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%). CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

Kidney Function and Potassium Monitoring After Initiation of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade Therapy and Outcomes in 2 North American Populations.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine kidney function and serum potassium testing within 30 days of initiating ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy. However, evidence is lacking about whether follow-up testing reduces therapy-related adverse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted 2 population-based retrospective cohort studies in Kaiser Permanente Northern California and Ontario, Canada. Patients with outpatient serum creatinine and potassium tests in the 30 days after starting ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy were matched 1:1 to patients without follow-up tests. We evaluated the association of follow-up testing with 30-day all-cause mortality and hospitalization with acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia using Cox regression. We also developed and externally validated a risk score to identify patients at risk of having abnormally high serum creatinine and potassium values in follow-up. We identified 75 251 matched pairs initiating ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Follow-up testing was not significantly associated with 30-day all-cause mortality in Kaiser Permanente Northern California (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.54-1.06]) and was associated with higher mortality in 84 905 matched pairs in Ontario (hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.07-1.62]). In Kaiser Permanente Northern California, follow-up testing was significantly associated with higher rates of hospitalization with acute kidney injury (hazard ratio, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.10-2.22]) and hyperkalemia (hazard ratio, 3.36 [95% CI, 1.08-10.41]), as was observed in Ontario. The risk score for abnormal potassium provided good discrimination (area under the curve [AUC], 0.75) and excellent calibration of predicted risks, while the risk score for abnormal serum creatinine provided moderate discrimination (AUC, 0.62) but excellent calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Routine laboratory monitoring after ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker initiation was not associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality. We identified patient subgroups in which targeted testing may be effective in identifying therapy-related changes in serum potassium or kidney function.

Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument. DESIGN: Instrument development and reliability study. DATA SOURCES: Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument. PARTICIPANTS: With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined. RESULTS: The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

Major Outcomes With Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP): Rationale and Design of a Pragmatic, Registry-Based, Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Small randomized trials demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature reduced the average drop in intradialytic blood pressure. Some observational studies demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. There is now the need for a large randomized trial that compares the effect of a low vs high dialysate temperature on major cardiovascular outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to test the effect of outpatient hemodialysis centers randomized to (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol for 4 years on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalizations. DESIGN: The design of the study is a pragmatic, registry-based, open-label, cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Hemodialysis centers in Ontario, Canada, were randomized on February 1, 2017, for a trial start date of April 3, 2017, and end date of March 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 84 hemodialysis centers will care for approximately 15 500 patients and provide over 4 million dialysis sessions over a 4-year follow-up. INTERVENTION: Hemodialysis centers were randomized (1:1) to provide (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol of 36.5°C. For the personalized protocol, nurses set the dialysate temperature between 0.5°C and 0.9°C below the patient's predialysis body temperature for each dialysis session, to a minimum dialysate temperature of 35.5°C. PRIMARY OUTCOME: A composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) captured in Ontario health care administrative databases. PLANNED PRIMARY ANALYSIS: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The hazard ratio of time-to-first event will be estimated from a Cox model. Within-center correlation will be considered using a robust sandwich estimator. Observation time will be censored on the trial end date or when patients die from a noncardiovascular event. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT02628366.

CONTEXTE: De petits essais à répartition aléatoire ont montré que l'utilisation d'un dialysat à basse température réduisait le risque d'hypotension intra-dialytique. De même, certaines études observationnelles ont démontré qu'un dialysat à basse température était associé à un plus faible risque de mortalité toute cause ou d'origine cardiovasculaire. Le temps est venu de procéder à un vaste essai à répartition aléatoire comparant les effets d'un dialysat à basse température et à température standard sur les principaux résultats cardiovasculaires. OBJECTIF: Répartir aléatoirement des centres d'hémodialyse ambulatoire pour qu'ils suivent pendant quatre ans (i) un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à basse température ou (ii) un protocole de dialysat à température standard, et tester l'effet sur les hospitalisations et la mortalité attribuables à des événements cardiovasculaires. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Un essai clinique à répartition aléatoire en grappes. CADRE: Le 1er février 2017, des centres d'hémodialyse de l'Ontario (Canada) ont été répartis aléatoirement en vue d'un essai qui a débuté le 3 avril 2017 et qui se poursuivra jusqu'au 31 mars 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Quatre-vingt-quatre centres d'hémodialyse qui prendront en charge environ 15 500 patients pendant les quatre ans de suivi. INTERVENTION: Les centres d'hémodialyse ont été répartis aléatoirement (1:1) pour offrir (i) un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à température réduite ou (ii) un protocole de dialysat à 36,5°C. Pour le protocole personnalisé, les infirmières règlent la température du dialysat entre 0,5 et 0,9°C sous la température corporelle du patient mesurée avant la dialyse, jusqu'à une température minimale de 35,5°C. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Un ensemble d'hospitalisations attribuables à un événement cardiovasculaire majeur (accident ischémique cérébral non fatal, infarctus du myocarde ou insuffisance cardiaque congestive) et de décès d'origine cardiovasculaire consignés dans les bases de données de santé de l'Ontario. PRINCIPALE ANALYSE ENVISAGÉE: L'analyse primaire adoptera une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter. Un modèle de Cox servira à estimer le rapport de risque du temps écoulé jusqu'au premier événement. La corrélation intra-centre sera prise en compte à l'aide d'un estimateur sandwich robuste. Le temps d'observation sera censuré à la date de fin de l'essai ou au moment d'un décès non lié à un événement cardiovasculaire.

The CSN COVID-19 Rapid Response Program.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in caring for individuals living with kidney disease. In response to a growing call for up-to-date information and evidence-informed advice, the Canadian Society of Nephrology has established a COVID-19 Rapid Response Team that will leverage existing evidence and national expertise to inform kidney care practices in the COVID-19 era. Given limited published evidence and compressed timelines, formal clinical practice guidelines are not feasible, and we have adopted rapid review methods to instead provide interim guidance across identified priority areas. In this article, we describe the methodological approach that was applied in developing a first iteration of guidance documents addressing clinical and operational aspects of care for patients treated with in-center hemodialysis, home dialysis, those with advanced chronic kidney disease, those with glomerulonephritis, and those with acute kidney injury. We further describe strategies for maintaining ongoing engagement with the renal community to elicit emerging needs and perspectives as the situation unfolds.

Facility Variation and Predictors of Do Not Resuscitate Orders of Hemodialysis Patients in Canada: DOPPS.

BACKGROUND: Life expectancy in patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with hemodialysis (HD) is limited, and as such, the presence of an advanced care directive (ACD) may improve the quality of death as experienced for patients and families. Strategies to discuss and implement ACDs are limited with little being known about the status of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders in the Canadian HD population. OBJECTIVES: Using data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS), we set out to (1) examine the variability in DNR orders across Canada and its largest province, Ontario and (2) identify clinical and functional status measures associated with a DNR order. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the DOPPS Canada Phase 4 to 6 from 2009 to 2017. SETTING: DOPPS facilities in Canada. PATIENTS: All adults (>18 years) who initiated chronic HD with a documented ACD were included. MEASUREMENTS: ACD and DNR orders. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were compared for baseline characteristics (demographics, comorbidities, medications, facility characteristics, and patient functional status) and DNR status. The crude proportion of patients per facility with a DNR order was calculated across Canada and Ontario. Functional status was determined by activities of daily living and components of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL)-validated questionnaire. We used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to create sequential multivariable models (demographics, comorbidities, and functional status) of variables associated with DNR status. RESULTS: A total of 1556 (96% of total) patients treated with HD had a documented ACD and were included. A total of 10% of patients had a DNR order. The crude variation of DNR status differed considerably across facilities within Canada, between Ontario and non-Ontario, and within Ontario (interprovince variation = 6.3%-17.1%, Ontario vs non-Ontario = 8.2% vs 11.7%, intraprovincial variation [Ontario] = 1%-26%). Patients with a DNR order were more commonly older, white, with cardiac comorbidities, with less or shorter predialysis care compared with those without a DNR order. Patients with a DNR order reported lower energy, more difficulty with transfers, meal preparation, household tasks, and financial management. In a multivariate model, age, cardiac disease, stroke, dialysis duration, and intradialytic weight gain were associated with DNR status. LIMITATIONS: Relatively small number of events or measures in certain categories. CONCLUSIONS: A large inter- and intraprovincial (Ontario) variation was observed regarding DNR orders across Canada highlighting areas for potential quality improvement. While functional status did not appear to have a bearing on the presence of a DNR order, the presence of various comorbidities was associated with the presence of a DNR order.

CONTEXTE: L'espérance de vie des patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale terminale (IRT) traités par hémodialyse (HD) est limitée et, de ce fait, la présence de directives médicales anticipées (DMA) peut améliorer la qualité du décès tel qu'il sera vécu par les patients et leurs proches. Les stratégies de discussion et de mise en œuvre de DMA sont limitées et on en sait peu sur le statut des ordonnances de non-réanimation (statut des ONR) dans la population des patients canadiens hémodialysés. OBJECTIFS: À partir des données de l'étude DOPPS (Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study), nous avons analysé la variabilité du statut des ONR à travers le Canada et au sein de sa plus grande province, l'Ontario, puis nous avons défini des mesures des états cliniques et fonctionnels associés à une ONR. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Étude de cohorte rétrospective. SOURCE: Les données canadiennes des phases 4 à 6 de l'étude DOPPS. PARTICIPANTS: Ont été inclus tous les adultes ayant amorcé un traitement d'HD chronique entre 2009 et 2017 et qui avaient rédigé des DMA. MESURES: La non-réanimation (statut de l'ONR) et le statut fonctionnel selon les activités de la vie quotidienne et les composantes du questionnaire validé KDQOL (Kidney Disease Quality of Life) sur la qualité de vie des personnes dialysées. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les statistiques descriptives ont été comparées sur la base des caractéristiques à l'inclusion (données démographiques, comorbidités, médicaments, caractéristiques de l'établissement de santé et statut fonctionnel du patient) et du statut de l'ONR. La proportion brute de patients par établissement avec une ONR a été calculée pour l'ensemble du Canada et pour l'Ontario seulement. Nous avons utilisé des équations d'estimation généralisées (EEG) pour créer des modèles multivariés séquentiels (données démographiques, comorbidités et statut fonctionnel) des variables associées au statut de l'ONR. RÉSULTATS: Au total, nous avons inclus 1 556 patients hémodialysés (96 % des patients répertoriés) qui avaient des DMA documentées, et 10 % d'entre elles contenaient une ONR. La variation brute du statut de l'ONR différait considérablement d'un établissement à l'autre au Canada, entre l'Ontario et les autres provinces et entre les établissements ontariens (variation entre provinces: 6,3 à 17,1 %; Ontario par rapport aux autres provinces: 8,2 contre 11,7 %; variation intraprovinciale [Ontario]: 1 à 26 %). Les patients avec une ONR étaient généralement de race blanche et plus âgés, présentaient des comorbidités cardiaques et avaient reçu moins de soins de prédialyse et sur une plus courte durée comparativement aux patients sans ONR. Les patients ayant une ONR ont signalé des pertes d'énergie et une plus grande difficulté avec les transferts, la préparation des repas, les tâches ménagères et la gestion financière. Dans un modèle multivarié, l'âge, la maladie cardiaque, les accidents vasculaires cérébraux, la durée de la dialyse et une perte de poids intradialyse ont été associés à l'existence d'une ONR. LIMITES: Un nombre limité d'événements dans certaines catégories; les mesures de l'état fonctionnel étaient transversales. CONCLUSIONS: Une importante variation inter et intraprovinciale (Ontario) a été observée quant au statut des ONR à travers le Canada, ce qui met en évidence les domaines d'amélioration potentielle de la qualité. Bien que l'état fonctionnel du patient n'ait pas semblé avoir d'incidence sur l'existence ou non d'une ONR, on a noté une association entre la présence de comorbidités et l'existence d'une ONR.

Association Between the Publication of the Initiating Dialysis Early and Late Trial and the Timing of Dialysis Initiation in Canada.

Importance: Published in 2010, the Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) randomized clinical trial, which randomized patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 10 and 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 to planned initiation of dialysis with an estimated GFR between 10 and 14 mL/min/1.73 m2 (early start) or an estimated GFR between 5 and 7 mL/min/1.73 m2 (late start), concluded that early initiation was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes. Objective: To assess the association between the IDEAL trial results and the proportion of early dialysis starts over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This interrupted time series analysis used data from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register to study adult (≥18 years of age) patients with incident chronic dialysis between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015, in Canada, which has a universal health care system. Patients from the province of Quebec were excluded because its privacy laws preclude submission of deidentified data without first-person consent. The patients included in the study (n = 28 468) had at least 90 days of nephrologist care before starting dialysis and a recorded estimated GFR at dialysis initiation. Data analyses were performed from November 2016 to January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of early dialysis starts (estimated GFR >10.5 mL/min/1.73 m2), and the secondary outcomes included the proportions of acute inpatient dialysis starts, patients who started dialysis using a home modality, and patients receiving hemodialysis who started with an arteriovenous access. Measures included the trend prior to the IDEAL trial publication, the change in this trend after publication, and the immediate consequence of publication. Results: The final cohort comprised 28 468 patients, of whom 17 342 (60.9%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 64.8 (14.6) years. Before the IDEAL trial, a statistically significant increasing trend was observed in the monthly proportion of early dialysis starts (adjusted rate ratio, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004; P = .004). After the IDEAL trial, an immediate decrease was observed in the proportion of early dialysis starts (rate ratio, 0.874; 95% CI, 0.818-0.933; P < .001), along with a statistically significant change in trend between the pretrial and posttrial periods (rate ratio, 0.994; 95% CI, 0.992-0.996; P < .001). No statistically significant differences were found in acute inpatient dialysis initiations, the proportion of patients receiving home dialysis as the initial modality, or the proportion of arteriovenous access creation at hemodialysis initiation after the IDEAL trial publication. Conclusions and Relevance: The publication of the IDEAL trial appeared to be associated with an immediate and meaningful change in the timing of dialysis initiation in Canada.