Scope and Consistency of Outcomes Reported in Randomized Trials Conducted in Adults Receiving Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review

Heart failure events in randomized controlled trials for adults receiving maintenance dialysis: a meta-epidemiologic study

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Heart failure is characterized as cardiac dysfunction resulting in elevated cardiac filling pressures with symptoms and signs of congestion. Distinguishing heart failure from other causes of similar presentations in patients with kidney failure is challenging but necessary, and is needed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to accurately estimate treatment effects. The objective of this study was to review heart failure events, their diagnostic criteria, and adjudication in RCTs of patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis. We hypothesized that heart failure events, diagnostic criteria, and adjudication were infrequently reported in RCTs in dialysis.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-epidemiologic systematic review of RCTs from high-impact medical, nephrology, and cardiology journals from 2000 to 2020. RCTs were eligible if they enrolled adults receiving maintenance dialysis for kidney failure and evaluated any intervention.

RESULTS

Of 561 RCTs in patients receiving dialysis, 36 (6.4%) reported heart failure events as primary (10, 27.8%) or secondary (31, 86.1%) outcomes. Ten of the 36 (27.8%) RCTs provided heart failure event diagnostic criteria and five of these (50%) adjudicated heart failure events. These 10 RCTs included event diagnostic criteria for heart failure or heart failure hospitalizations, and their criteria included dyspnoea (5/10), oedema (2/10), rales/crackles (4/10), chest X-ray pulmonary oedema or vascular redistribution (4/10), treatment in an acute setting (6/10), and ultrafiltration or dialysis (4/10). No study explicitly distinguished heart failure from volume overload secondary to non-adherence or underdialysis.

CONCLUSION

Overall, we found that heart failure events are infrequently reported in RCTs in dialysis and are heterogeneously defined. Further research is required to develop standardized diagnostic criteria that are practical and meaningful to patients and clinicians.

Outcomes for clinical trials involving adults with chronic kidney disease: a multinational Delphi survey involving patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND

Many outcomes of high priority to patients and clinicians are infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in chronic kidney disease (CKD), which generates research waste and limits evidence-informed decision making. We aimed to generate consensus among patients/caregivers and health professionals on critically important outcomes for trials in CKD prior to kidney failure and the need for kidney replacement therapy, and to describe the reasons for their choices.

METHODS

This was an online two-round international Delphi survey. Adult patients with CKD (all stages and diagnoses), caregivers and health professionals who could read English, Spanish or French were eligible. Participants rated the importance of outcomes using a Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and a Best-Worst Scale. The scores for the two groups were assessed to determine absolute and relative importance. Comments were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In total, 1399 participants from 73 countries completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, including 628 (45%) patients/caregivers and 771 (55%) health professionals. In Round 2, 790 participants (56% response rate) from 63 countries completed the survey including 383 (48%) patients/caregivers and 407 (52%) health professionals. The overall top five outcomes were: kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease and death. In the final round, patients/caregivers indicated higher scores for most outcomes (17/22 outcomes), and health professionals gave higher priority to mortality, hospitalization and cardiovascular disease (mean difference >0.3). Consensus was based upon the two groups yielding median scores of ≥7 and mean scores >7, and the proportions of both groups rating the outcome as 'critically important' being >50%. Four themes reflected the reasons for their priorities: imminent threat of a health catastrophe, signifying diminishing capacities, ability to self-manage and cope, and tangible and direct consequences.

CONCLUSION

Across trials in CKD, the outcomes of highest priority to patients, caregivers and health professionals were kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease and death.

Core Patient-Reported Outcomes for Trials in Nephrology

The outcomes reported in trials across all stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are highly variable and often do not include outcomes that are directly relevant to patients and caregivers. Frequently, the outcomes reported in trials are often unvalidated surrogate biochemical end points. The omission of outcomes that are meaningful and important to patients can diminish the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions. In response, there have been increasing efforts across many health and medical disciplines to develop core outcome sets, defined as the minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a specific health area to improve the relevance and consistency of reporting trial outcomes. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative was established in 2014 and has since developed seven core outcome sets for different diagnosis and treatment stages of CKD. The core outcomes were based on consensus among patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Each core outcome set includes at least one patient-reported outcome, including fatigue (hemodialysis), life participation (kidney transplantation, peritoneal dialysis, early CKD not yet requiring kidney replacement therapy, children and adolescents, and glomerular disease), and pain (polycystic kidney disease). This article outlines how patient-reported outcomes are currently reported in trials, discusses core patient-reported outcomes that have been established for trials in kidney disease, and outlines strategies for implementing core patient-reported outcomes in trials.

Estimating a Minimal Important Difference for the EQ-5D-5L Utility Index in Dialysis Patients

OBJECTIVES

The EQ-5D-5L is a commonly used health-related quality of life instrument for evaluating interventions in patients receiving dialysis; however, the minimal important difference (MID) that constitutes a meaningful treatment effect for this population has not been established. This study aims to estimate the MID for the EQ-5D-5L utility index in dialysis patients.

METHODS

6-monthly EQ-5D-5L measurements were collected from adult dialysis patients between April 2017 and November 2020 at a renal network in Sydney, Australia. EQ-VAS and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale Renal symptom burden scores were collected simultaneously and used as anchors. MID estimates for the EQ-5D-5L utility index were derived using anchor-based and distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

A total of 352 patients with ≥1 EQ-5D-5L observation were included, constituting 1127 observations. Mean EQ-5D-5L utility index at baseline was 0.719 (SD ± 0.267), and mean EQ-5D-5L utility decreased over time by -0.017 per year (95% CI -0.029 to -0.006, P = .004). Using cross-sectional anchor-based methods, MID estimates ranged from 0.073 to 0.107. Using longitudinal anchor-based methods, MID for improvement and deterioration ranged from 0.046 to 0.079 and -0.111 to -0.048, respectively. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, MID for improvement and deterioration ranged from 0.037 to 0.122 and -0.074 to -0.063, respectively. MID estimates from distribution-based methods were consistent with anchor-based estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Anchor-based and distribution-based approaches provided EQ-5D-5L utility index MID estimates ranging from 0.034 to 0.134. These estimates can inform the target difference or "effect size" for clinical trial design among dialysis populations.

Training healthcare professionals to administer Goal Attainment Scaling as an outcome measure

BACKGROUND

Goals generated by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) can be used as an outcome measure to promote person-centred research and care. There are no training packages which support its use outside of the rehabilitation discipline. This paper describes the development and evaluation of a training package to support the implementation of GAS as an outcome measure in healthcare research. The training package consisted of classroom teaching, a training manual for self-directed learning, one-on-one simulation and hot reviews. It was developed for the GOAL Trial, a randomised controlled trial assessing a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment's effectiveness in enabling frail older people living with chronic kidney disease to attain their goals. Training participants were invited to complete pre- and post-training online evaluation surveys.

RESULTS

Forty-two healthcare professionals attended an initial online classroom teaching, with 27 proceeding to administer GAS to GOAL Trial patients. Response rates for the online pre- and post-training surveys were 95% and 72%, respectively. Prior to training, only 15% of participants reported being able to appropriately scale and troubleshoot GAS goals. Post-training this was 92%. There was 100% participant satisfaction for the training manual, one-on-one simulation, and hot reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

This training package helps ensure healthcare professionals administering GAS have adequate knowledge and skills. It has the potential for adoption as a guide to support the implementation of GAS by other researchers seeking to embrace persont-centred principles in their work.

Self-Management Interventions for Facilitating Life Participation for Persons with Kidney Failure: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

For persons with kidney failure, life participation is a critically important outcome, strongly linked to quality of life and mortality. To support patients' self-management abilities, three domains are typically emphasized: medical management, emotional management, and management of everyday life ( i.e. , role management). Although role management is strongly linked to life participation, there is currently limited research on interventions designed to support it. We explored existing self-management interventions that aim to support everyday life functioning, rather than only medical management.

METHODS

In this systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CENTRAL up to April 2022 for interventional studies involving self-management interventions designed, at least partly, to support management of everyday life. The guidelines by Sandelowski and Barosso were used to analyze and synthesize the results. A taxonomy of everyday self-management strategies was used to further explore intervention content. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tools. Evidence of effectiveness was summarized, and a meta-analysis of eligible outcomes was conducted.

RESULTS

Of 22,667 records, 53 studies were included in the meta-synthesis. Most self-management interventions focused on medical management. Included interventions involved strategies to support eight domains: Activities of daily living, Work and school life, Meaningful occupations, Leisure activities, Mobility and travel, Interpersonal relationships, Role functioning, and Social participation. Major interventions focused on providing education, skill training, counseling, and cognitive behavioral therapy. Evidence of effectiveness was reported across a wide range of patient-reported outcomes, including (health-related) quality of life, depression, and self-efficacy. Studies were geographically concentrated and were of moderate to low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its well-recognized importance, research on interventions to improve life participation mostly consisted of pilot and feasibility studies and studies of low quality. Interventions were reported heterogeneously, limiting comparability, and were restricted to specific regions and cultures, limiting generalizability.

Patient-Centered Research and Innovation in Nephrology

Patient involvement in research can improve the relevance of research, consequently enhancing the recruitment, retention, and uptake of interventions and policies impacting patient outcomes. Despite this, patients are not often involved in the design and conduct of research. The research agenda and innovations are frequently determined by the interest of health and industry professionals rather than proactively aligning with the priorities of patients. It is now being encouraged and recommended to engage patients in research priority setting to ensure interventions and trials report outcomes valuable to patients, moving away from a history of overlooking the outcomes that reflect the feel and function of patients. Involving patients ensures constant innovative research in nephrology, as this broader depth of evidence fortifies reliability and validity through knowledge gained from lived experience. Findings from such research can enhance clinical practice and strengthen decision-making and policy to support better outcomes. We aim to outline principles and strategies for patient involvement in research, including setting research priorities, identifying and designing interventions, selecting outcomes, and disseminating and translating research. Principles and strategies including engagement, education and training, empowerment, and connection and community provide guidance in patient involvement. There are increasing efforts to involve patients across all stages of research including setting research priorities. Efforts are rising to involve patients across all stages of research including priority setting, identifying and designing interventions, selecting outcomes, and dissemination and translation. Patient involvement throughout the research cycle drives innovative investigations ensuring funding, efforts, and resources are directed toward priorities of patients, contributing to catalyst advancements in care and outcomes.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

The hemoglobin, albumin, lymphocyte, and platelet (HALP) is a potent indicator for the prognosis in hemodialysis patients

The hemoglobin, albumin, lymphocyte, and platelet (HALP) values were marked as a original index of general nutritional and inflammatory conditions. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the potential relationship between HALP and prognosis in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Patients with maintenance HD from multiple dialysis centers in China were retrospectively analyzed. The primary poor outcome were cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause death. The computational equation of HALP values as the follows: hemoglobin (g/L) × albumin (g/L) × lymphocytes (/L)/ platelets (/L). All participants were divided into Tertile 1, Tertile 2, and Tertile 3 according to the tertiles of baseline HALP values. The Kaplan-Meier curve and the Cox regression was done to figure out the relationship about HALP and adverse outcomes. The restricted cubic splines further identified the possible associations. The time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve and C-index were implemented for evaluate the predictive values of the HALP composite model. There were 4796 patients incorporate into ultimate study. Compared with patients in Tertile 1, patients in Tertile 3 had an lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratios = 0.66, 95% confidence intervals: 0.49-0.86, P = .007] and CVD mortality [sub-distribution hazard ratio = 0.51, 95% confidence intervals: 0.34-0.80, P = .005]. The composite model with the supplement of HALP outperformed the traditional factor model in the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve. High HALP values at baseline are related to a diminished risk of CVD death and all-cause death in HD patients. HALP is a novel and potent index for the prognosis of HD patients.

Study protocol for Vascular Access outcome measure for function: a vaLidation study In hemoDialysis (VALID)

Background

A functioning vascular access (VA) is crucial to providing adequate hemodialysis (HD) and considered a critically important outcome by patients and healthcare professionals. A validated, patient-important outcome measure for VA function that can be easily measured in research and practice to harvest reliable and relevant evidence for informing patient-centered HD care is lacking. Vascular Access outcome measure for function: a vaLidation study In hemoDialysis (VALID) aims to assess the accuracy and feasibility of measuring a core outcome for VA function established by the international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative.

Methods

VALID is a prospective, multi-center, multinational validation study that will assess the accuracy and feasibility of measuring VA function, defined as the need for interventions to enable and maintain the use of a VA for HD.

The primary objective is to determine whether VA function can be measured accurately by clinical staff as part of routine clinical practice (Assessor 1) compared to the reference standard of documented VA procedures collected by a VA expert (Assessor 2) during a 6-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include feasibility and acceptability of measuring VA function and the time to, rate of, and type of VA interventions.

An estimated 612 participants will be recruited from approximately 10 dialysis units of different size, type (home-, in-center and satellite), governance (private versus public), and location (rural versus urban) across Australia, Canada, Europe, and Malaysia.

Validity will be measured by the sensitivity and specificity of the data acquisition process. The sensitivity corresponds to the proportion of correctly identified interventions by Assessor 1, among the interventions identified by Assessor 2 (reference standard). The feasibility of measuring VA function will be assessed by the average data collection time, data completeness, feasibility questionnaires and semi-structured interviews on key feasibility aspects with the assessors.

Discussion

Accuracy, acceptability, and feasibility of measuring VA function as part of routine clinical practice are required to facilitate global implementation of this core outcome across all HD trials. Global use of a standardized, patient-centered outcome measure for VA function in HD research will enhance the consistency and relevance of trial evidence to guide patient-centered care.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03969225. Registered on 31st May 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02987-1.

A Systematic Review of Reported Outcomes in ADPKD Studies

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Perspectives of Patients, Nurses, and Nephrologists About Electronic Symptom Monitoring With Feedback in Hemodialysis Care

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Patients receiving hemodialysis experience high symptom burden and low quality of life (QOL). Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) monitoring with feedback to clinicians may be an acceptable intervention to improve health-related QOL for patients receiving hemodialysis. This study explored patient and clinician perspectives on e-PROMs monitoring with feedback to clinicians.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

41 participants (12 patients, 13 nephrologists, 16 dialysis nurses) who participated in a 6-month feasibility pilot study of adults receiving facility-based hemodialysis across 4 Australian units. The intervention consisted of electronic symptom monitoring with feedback to clinicians, who also received evidence-based symptom management recommendations to improve health-related QOL.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Semistructured interviews and focus group discussions explored the feasibility and acceptability of e-PROMs monitoring with feedback to clinicians. We conducted a thematic analysis of transcripts.

RESULTS

We identified 4 themes: enabling efficient, systematic, and multidisciplinary patient-centered care; experiencing limited data and options for symptom management; requiring familiarity with technology and processes; and identifying barriers and competing priorities. While insufficient patient engagement, logistic/technical challenges, and delayed symptom feedback emerged as barriers to implementation, active engagement by nurses in encouraging and supporting patients during survey completion and clinicians' prompt action after symptom feedback were considered to be facilitators to implementation.

LIMITATIONS

Limited generalizability due to inclusion of English-speaking participants only.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients, nurses, and nephrologists considered e-PROMs monitoring with feedback to clinicians feasible for symptom management in hemodialysis. Clinician engagement, patient support, reliable technology, timely symptom feedback, and interventions to address symptom burden are likely to improve its implementation within research and clinical settings.

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes

Haemodialysis (HD) is the commonest form of kidney replacement therapy in the world, accounting for approximately 69% of all kidney replacement therapy and 89% of all dialysis. Over the last six decades since the inception of HD, dialysis technology and patient access to the therapy have advanced considerably, particularly in high-income countries. However, HD availability, accessibility, cost and outcomes vary widely across the world and, overall, the rates of impaired quality of life, morbidity and mortality are high. Cardiovascular disease affects more than two-thirds of people receiving HD, is the major cause of morbidity and accounts for almost 50% of mortality. In addition, patients on HD have high symptom loads and are often under considerable financial strain. Despite the many advances in HD technology and delivery systems that have been achieved since the treatment was first developed, poor outcomes among patients receiving HD remain a major public health concern. Understanding the epidemiology of HD outcomes, why they might vary across different populations and how they might be improved is therefore crucial, although this goal is hampered by the considerable heterogeneity in the monitoring and reporting of these outcomes across settings.

This Review examines the epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes — clinical, patient-reported and surrogate outcomes — across world regions and populations, including vulnerable individuals. The authors also discuss the current status of monitoring and reporting of haemodialysis outcomes and potential strategies for improvement.

Nearly 4 million people in the world are living on kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and haemodialysis (HD) remains the commonest form of KRT, accounting for approximately 69% of all KRT and 89% of all dialysis.

Dialysis technology and patient access to KRT have advanced substantially since the 1960s, particularly in high-income countries. However, HD availability, accessibility, cost and outcomes continue to vary widely across countries, particularly among disadvantaged populations (including Indigenous peoples, women and people at the extremes of age).

Cardiovascular disease affects over two-thirds of people receiving HD, is the major cause of morbidity and accounts for almost 50% of mortality; mortality among patients on HD is significantly higher than that of their counterparts in the general population, and treated kidney failure has a higher mortality than many types of cancer. Patients on HD also experience high burdens of symptoms, poor quality of life and financial difficulties.

Careful monitoring of the outcomes of patients on HD is essential to develop effective strategies for risk reduction. Outcome measures are highly variable across regions, countries, centres and segments of the population. Establishing kidney registries that collect a variety of clinical and patient-reported outcomes using harmonized definitions is therefore crucial.

Evaluation of HD outcomes should include the impact on family and friends, and personal finances, and should examine inequities in disadvantaged populations, who comprise a large proportion of the HD population.

A Core Outcome Set for Trials in Glomerular Disease: A Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Glomerular Disease (SONG-GD) Stakeholder Workshops

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Outcomes reported in trials in adults with glomerular disease are often selected with minimal patient input, are heterogeneous, and may not be relevant for clinical decision making. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Glomerular Disease (SONG-GD) initiative aimed to establish a core outcome set to help ensure that outcomes of critical importance to patients, care partners, and clinicians are consistently reported.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

We convened two 1.5-hour workshops in Melbourne, Australia, and Washington, DC, United States. Attendees were identified purposively with 50 patients/care partners and 88 health professionals from 19 countries; 51% were female. Patients and care partners were from the United States, Australia, and Canada, and had experience of a glomerular disease with systemic features (n=9), kidney-limited nephrotic disease (n=9), or other kidney-limited glomerular disease (n=8). Attendees reviewed the results of the SONG-GD Delphi survey and aims of the workshop and then discussed potential core outcomes and their implementation in trials among moderated breakout groups of eight to 12 people from diverse backgrounds. Transcripts of discussions were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified that supported the proposed core outcomes: limiting disease progression, stability and control, and ensuring universal relevance (i.e., applicable across diverse populations and settings). The fourth theme, preparedness for implementation, included engaging with funders and regulators, establishing reliable and validated measures, and leveraging existing endorsements for patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Workshop themes demonstrated support for kidney function, disease activity, death, life participation, and cardiovascular disease, and these were established as the core outcomes for trials in adults with glomerular disease. Future work is needed to establish the core measures for each domain, with funders and regulators central to the uptake of the core outcome set in trials.

Standardised Outcome Reporting for the Nutrition Management of Complex Chronic Disease: A Rapid Review

Individuals with coexisting chronic diseases or with complex chronic disease are among the most challenging and costly patients to treat, placing a growing demand on healthcare systems. Recommending effective treatments, including nutrition interventions, relies on standardised outcome reporting from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to enable data synthesis. This rapid review sought to determine how the scope and consistency of the outcomes reported by RCTs investigating nutrition interventions for the management of complex chronic disease compared to what is recommended by the core outcome sets (COS) for individual disease states. Peer-reviewed RCTs published between January 2010 and July 2020 were systematically sourced from PubMed, CINAHL and Embase, and COS were sourced from the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database. A total of 45 RCTs (43 studies) and 7 COS were identified. Outcomes were extracted from both the RCTs and COS and were organised using COMET Taxonomy Core Areas. A total of 66 outcomes and 439 outcome measures were reported by the RCTs. The RCTs demonstrated extensive outcome heterogeneity, with only five outcomes (5/66, 8%) being reported with relative consistency (cited by ≥50% of publications). Furthermore, the scope of the outcomes reported by studies was limited, with a notable paucity of patient-reported outcomes. Poor agreement (25%) was observed between the outcomes reported in the RCTs and those recommended by the COS. This review urges greater uptake of the existing COS and the development of a COS for complex chronic disease to be considered so that evidence can be better synthesised regarding effective nutrition interventions.

Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology - Chronic Kidney Disease (SONG-CKD): a protocol for establishing a core outcome set for adults with chronic kidney disease who do not require kidney replacement therapy

BACKGROUND

Globally, over 1.2 million people die from chronic kidney disease (CKD) every year. Patients with CKD are up to 10 times more likely to die prematurely than progress to kidney failure requiring kidney replacement therapy. The burden of symptoms and impaired quality of life in CKD may be compounded by comorbidities and treatment side effects. However, patient-important outcomes remain inconsistently and infrequently reported in trials in patients with CKD, which can limit evidence-informed decision-making. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology - Chronic Kidney Disease (SONG-CKD) aims to establish a consensus-based core outcome set for trials in patients with CKD not yet requiring kidney replacement therapy to ensure outcomes of relevance to patients, caregivers and health professionals are consistently reported in trials.

METHODS

SONG-CKD involves four phases: a systematic review to identify outcomes (domains and measures) that have been reported in randomised controlled trials involving adults with CKD who do not require kidney replacement therapy; stakeholder key informant interviews with health professionals involved in the care of adults with CKD to ascertain their views on establishing core outcomes in CKD; an international two-round online Delphi survey with patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers and industry representatives to obtain consensus on critically important outcome domains; and stakeholder consensus workshops to review and finalise the set of core outcome domains for trials in CKD.

DISCUSSION

Establishing a core outcome set to be reported in trials in patients with CKD will enhance the relevance, transparency and impact of research to improve the lives of people with CKD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable. This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1653 .

Scope and heterogeneity of outcomes reported in randomized trials in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials can provide evidence to inform decision-making but this may be limited if the outcomes of importance to patients and clinicians are omitted or reported inconsistently. We aimed to assess the scope and heterogeneity of outcomes reported in trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register for randomized trials in PD. We extracted all reported outcome domains and measurements and analyzed their frequency and characteristics.

RESULTS

From 128 reports of 120 included trials, 80 different outcome domains were reported. Overall, 39 (49%) domains were surrogate, 23 (29%) patient-reported and 18 (22%) clinical. The five most commonly reported domains were PD-related infection [59 (49%) trials], dialysis solute clearance [51 (42%)], kidney function [45 (38%)], protein metabolism [44 (37%)] and inflammatory markers/oxidative stress [42 (35%)]. Quality of life was reported infrequently (4% of trials). Only 14 (12%) trials included a patient-reported outcome as a primary outcome. The median number of outcome measures (defined as a different measurement, aggregation and metric) was 22 (interquartile range 13-37) per trial. PD-related infection was the most frequently reported clinical outcome as well as the most frequently stated primary outcome. A total of 383 different measures for infection were used, with 66 used more than once.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials in PD include important clinical outcomes such as infection, but these are measured and reported inconsistently. Patient-reported outcomes are infrequently reported and nearly half of the domains were surrogate. Standardized outcomes for PD trials are required to improve efficiency and relevance.

Overcoming barriers to maintain hemodialysis adequacy amongst hemodialysis patients in hospital: a best practice implementation project

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this evidence implementation project was to identify the barriers and omissions affecting adequacy of hemodialysis and to develop implementable strategies to maintain hemodialysis adequacy among hemodialysis patients with end-stage renal disease.

INTRODUCTION

Assessing adequacy of hemodialysis and improving quality of life are important issues for patients with end-stage renal disease. However, they are often inadequately addressed, and evidence-based practices are not always followed.

METHODS

A clinical audit was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and Getting Research into Practice approaches. Seven audit criteria that represent best practice recommendations for maintaining hemodialysis adequacy among hemodialysis patients were used. A baseline audit was performed, which was followed by the implementation of multiple improvement strategies over 20 weeks and the outcomes finalized using a follow-up audit to determine the change to be implemented in practice.

RESULTS

The baseline audit results showed that most audit criteria were less than 77% in practice. The compliance rates for nurses who had received education regarding hemodialysis, checking the prescription order for each patient at each session, and using the prescribed dialyzer for every session were determined to have reached 100% at the follow-up audit. The compliance rates for completion prehemodialysis checks, using a sterile technique when inserting an arteriovenous catheter, matching a blood flow rate with the prescription, and maintaining a blood flow rate throughout the treatment session were found to be 73-95% at the follow-up audit. The most significant finding was the proportion of hemodialysis patients with inadequate urea reduction ratio was reduced from 4.6 to 3.2% after implementation of the best practice approaches.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of institution-specific evidence-based resources brought about immediate improvements in hemodialysis adequacy management and practice. A variety of strategies contributed to the success of this implementation project, such as scenario simulation education, Objective Structured Clinical Examination, the interrelation response system Kahoot, the use of hemodialysis International Organization for Standardization job descriptions, regular weekly audits, and collaboration with physicians when caring for patients during clinical practice.

Principles and strategies for involving patients in research in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops

BACKGROUND

There is widespread recognition that research will be more impactful if it arises from partnerships between patients and researchers, but evidence on best practice for achieving this remains limited.

METHODS

We convened workshops in three Australian cities involving 105 patients/caregivers and 43 clinicians/researchers. In facilitated breakout groups, participants discussed principles and strategies for effective patient involvement in chronic kidney disease research. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Five major themes emerged. 'Respecting consumer expertise and commitment' involved valuing unique and diverse experiential knowledge, clarifying expectations and responsibilities, equipping for meaningful involvement and keeping patients 'in the loop'. 'Attuning to individual context' required a preference-based multipronged approach to engagement, reducing the burden of involvement and being sensitive to the patient journey. 'Harnessing existing relationships and infrastructure' meant partnering with trusted clinicians, increasing research exposure in clinical settings, mentoring patient to patient and extending reach through established networks. 'Developing a coordinated approach' enabled power in the collective and united voice, a systematic approach for equitable inclusion and streamlining access to opportunities and trustworthy information. 'Fostering a patient-centred culture' encompassed building a community, facilitating knowledge exchange and translation, empowering health ownership, providing an opportunity to give back and cultivating trust through transparency.

CONCLUSIONS

Partnering with patients in research requires respect and recognition of their unique, diverse and complementary experiential expertise. Establishing a supportive, respectful research culture, responding to their individual context, coordinating existing infrastructure and centralizing the flow of information may facilitate patient involvement as active partners in research.

Identifying critically important cardiovascular outcomes for trials in hemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in people on hemodialysis (HD). Cardiovascular outcomes are reported infrequently and inconsistently across trials in HD. This study aimed to identify the priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals (HPs) for CVD outcomes to be incorporated into a core outcome set reported in all HD trials.

METHODS

In an international online survey, participants rated the absolute importance of 10 cardiovascular outcomes (derived from a systematic review) on a 9-point Likert scale, with 7-9 being critically important. The relative importance was determined using a best-worst scale. Likert means, medians and proportions and best-worst preference scores were calculated for each outcome. Comments were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Participants included 127 (19%) patients/caregivers and 549 (81%) HPs from 53 countries, of whom 530 (78%) completed the survey in English and 146 (22%) in Chinese. All but one cardiovascular outcome ('valve replacement') was rated as critically important (Likert 7-9) by all participants; 'sudden cardiac death', 'heart attack', 'stroke' and 'heart failure' were all rated at the top by patients/caregivers (median Likert score 9). Patients/caregivers ranked the same four outcomes as the most important outcomes with mean preference scores of 6.2 (95% confidence interval 4.8-7.5), 5.9 (4.6-7.2), 5.3 (4.0-6.6) and 4.9 (3.6-6.3), respectively. The same four outcomes were ranked most highly by HPs. We identified five themes underpinning the prioritization of outcomes: 'clinical equipoise and potential for intervention', 'specific or attributable to HD', 'severity or impact on the quality of life', 'strengthen knowledge and education', and 'inextricably linked burden and risk'.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and HPs believe that all cardiovascular outcomes are of critical importance but consistently identify sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure as the most important outcomes to be measured in all HD trials.

Feasibility and acceptability of e-PROMs data capture and feedback among patients receiving haemodialysis in the Symptom monitoring WIth Feedback Trial (SWIFT) pilot: protocol for a qualitative study in Australia

INTRODUCTION

People receiving haemodialysis experience a high symptom burden and impaired quality of life. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is increasing in nephrology care, however their acceptability, utility and impacts are not well understood.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We describe a protocol for a qualitative study to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of electronic-PROMs (e-PROMs) data capture and feedback in haemodialysis following the pilot Symptom monitoring WIth Feedback Trial (SWIFT). SWIFT involves linkage of e-PROMs data, including symptoms and health-related quality of life, to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry with feedback to patients' treating nephrologists and nurse unit managers. Focus groups and semistructured interviews will be conducted with nephrologists (n=15), dialysis nurses (n=24) and patients receiving haemodialysis (n=24) from six dialysis units in Australia. Question topics will include the technical and clinical feasibility and acceptability of e-PROMs reporting and feedback (including the barriers and enablers to uptake) and perceived impact on patient care and outcomes. Transcripts will be analysed thematically and guided by Normalisation Process Theory.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the relevant hospital Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC/18/CALHN/481; HREC/MML/54599). The findings from the SWIFT pilot and qualitative evaluation will inform the implementation of the SWIFT main trial, and more broadly, the use of e-PROMs in clinical settings and registries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ANZCTRN12618001976279.

[Routine collection of perceived health data in the era of payment for quality: Recommendations by the Epidemiology and public health commission of the SFNDT]

In France, the method of financing is mainly based on the quantity of care produced. The fixed-rate financing of patients with chronic kidney disease at stage IV or V introduces the notion of payment to quality. Part of the quality assessment will focus on the patients' feelings about their care. The objective of this paper is to assess these indicators used in nephrology, markers in their own right of the quality of care. The patients reported outcomes measures considering the impact of illness or care and the Patient Reported Experience Measures considering their perception of their experience with the health care system or care pathway, are broader than quality of life. These PROs are measured using standardized and validated questionnaires, generic or specific. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology initiative has shown that PROs, too often neglected in favor of biological criteria, are instead favored by patients. In the context of a broad deployment of monitoring the quality of life for the purpose of evaluation of care, outside research protocol, the Commission recommends one of the following 2 tools: EuroQol 5D and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, a compromise between feasibility and relevance and e-SATIS given its great use in health facilities, with an annual follow-up.

Novel trial strategies to enhance the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of nephrology research

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, criticisms of traditional designs are that they can be inefficient, inflexible, expensive, and conducted in a manner disconnected from real-life clinical practice. Novel strategies and approaches are being utilized to overcome these limitations, including comprehensive consumer engagement, core outcome sets, novel trial designs, streamlined data collection, cost-effectiveness and return on investment evaluations, knowledge dissemination plans, and impact evaluation. These strategies can be implemented at the design, conduct, implementation, and dissemination stages of the trial process. This review aims to provide an overview of these strategies and approaches to improve the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of nephrology research.

Identifying Outcomes Important to Patients with Glomerular Disease and Their Caregivers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making in patients with glomerular disease remains challenging because outcomes important to patients remain largely unknown. We aimed to identify and prioritize outcomes important to patients and caregivers and to describe reasons for their choices.

DESIGN

, setting, participants, & measurementsWe purposively sampled adult patients with glomerular disease and their caregivers from Australia, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Participants identified, discussed, and ranked outcomes in focus groups using the nominal group technique; a relative importance score (between zero and one) was calculated. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Across 16 focus groups, 134 participants (range, 19-85 years old; 51% women), including 101 patients and 33 caregivers, identified 58 outcomes. The ten highest-ranked outcomes were kidney function (importance score of 0.42), mortality (0.29), need for dialysis or transplant (0.22), life participation (0.18), fatigue (0.17), anxiety (0.13), family impact (0.12), infection and immunity (0.12), ability to work (0.11), and BP (0.11). Three themes explained the reasons for these rankings: constraining day-to-day experience, impaired agency and control over health, and threats to future health and family.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with glomerular disease and their caregivers highly prioritize kidney health and survival, but they also prioritize life participation, fatigue, anxiety, and family impact.

Reporting of Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Studies of Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To inform development of a core outcome set, we evaluated the scope and variability of outcomes, definitions, measures, and measurement time-points in published clinical trials of pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions, including quality improvement projects, to prevent and/or treat delirium in the critically ill.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic databases, systematic review repositories, and trial registries (1980 to March 2019).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

We included randomized, quasi-randomized, and nonrandomized intervention studies of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. We extracted data on study characteristics, verbatim descriptions of study outcomes, and measurement characteristics. We assessed quality of outcome reporting using the Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Children with Cleft Palate study scoring system; risk of bias and study quality using the Cochrane tool and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. We categorized reported outcomes using Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

From 195 studies (1/195 pediatric) recruiting 74,632 participants and reporting a mean (SD) of 10 (6.2) outcome domains, we identified 12 delirium-specific outcome domains. Delirium incidence (147, 75% of studies), duration (67, 34%), and antipsychotic use (42, 22%) were most commonly reported. We identified a further 94 non-delirium-specific outcome domains within 19 Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy categories. For both delirium-specific and nonspecific outcome domains, we found multiple outcomes in domains due to differing descriptions and time-points. The Confusion Assessment Method-ICU with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale to assess sedation was the most common measure used to ascertain delirium (51, 35%). Measurement generally began at randomization or ICU admission, and lasted from 1 to 30 days, ICU/hospital discharge. Frequency of measurement was highly variable with daily measurement and greater than daily measurement reported for 36% and 37% of studies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified substantial heterogeneity and multiplicity of outcome selection and measurement in published studies. These data will inform the consensus building stage of a core outcome set to inform delirium research in the critically ill.

Range and Variability of Outcomes Reported in Randomized Trials Conducted in Patients With Polycystic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Trials in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) have increased, but their impact on decision making has been limited. Because heterogeneity in reported outcomes may be responsible, we assessed their range and variability in ADPKD trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING & STUDY POPULATION

Adult participants in clinical trials in ADPKD.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

We included trials that studied adults and were published in English. For trials that enrolled patients without ADPKD, only those enrolling ≥50% of participants with ADPKD were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted information on all discrete outcome measures, grouped them into 97 domains, and classified them into clinical, surrogate, and patient-reported categories. For each category, we choose the 3 most frequently reported domains and performed a detailed analysis of outcome measures.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Frequencies and characteristics of outcome measures were described.

RESULTS

Among 68 trials, 1,413 different outcome measures were reported. 97 domains were identified; 41 (42%) were surrogate, 30 (31%) were clinical, and 26 (27%) were patient reported. The 3 most frequently reported domains were in the surrogate category: kidney function (54; 79% of trials; using 46 measures), kidney and cyst volumes (43; 63% of trials; 52 measures), and blood pressure (27; 40% of trials, 30 measures); in the clinical category: infection (10; 15%; 21 measures), cardiovascular events (9; 13%; 6 measures), and kidney failure requiring kidney replacement therapy (8; 12%; 5 measures); and in the patient-reported category: pain related to ADPKD (16; 24%; 26 measures), pain for other reasons (11; 16%; 11 measures), and diarrhea/constipation/gas (10; 15%; 9 measures).

LIMITATIONS

Outcome measures were assessed for only the top 3 domains in each category.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes in ADPKD trials are broad in scope and highly variable. Surrogate outcomes were most frequently reported. Patient-reported outcomes were uncommon. A consensus-based set of core outcomes meaningful to patients and clinicians is needed for future ADPKD trials.

Representativeness of Randomized Clinical Trial Cohorts in End-stage Kidney Disease: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Systematic differences between patients included in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the general patient population may influence the generalizability of RCT findings. Comprehensive national registries of patients with end-stage kidney disease who are undergoing dialysis provide a unique opportunity to compare trial and real-world patient cohorts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if participants in large, multicenter dialysis trials were similar to the general population undergoing dialysis in terms of age, comorbidities, and mortality rate.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched on January 6, 2017, for studies published from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Data sources were published manuscripts, supplementary material, and trial registration information. Data on the general population undergoing dialysis were derived from the US Renal Data System (USRDS). Data were analyzed from March 17 to July 22, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials enrolling only participants undergoing dialysis for end-stage kidney disease with 100 or more adult participants from 2 or more sites.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Abstract screening and data extraction were performed independently by 2 researchers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was difference in mean age between the RCT and USRDS populations. Secondary outcomes included differences in mortality rate and comorbidities.

RESULTS

The search identified 186 RCTs, enrolling 79 104 participants. Compared with the 2011 USRDS population, RCT participants were younger (mean age, 58.9 years; 95% CI, 58.3-59.5 years vs 61.2 years; P < .001), more likely to be male (58.9%; 95% CI, 57.6%-60.1% vs 55.7%; P < .001), and have coronary artery disease (26.9%; 95% CI, 22.2%-31.7% vs 17.7%; P < .001) and less likely to have diabetes (40.2%; 95% CI, 36.7%-43.6% vs 44.2%; P = .03) or heart failure (19.6%; 95% CI, 15.1%-24.0% vs 29.8%; P < .001). The mortality rate per 100 patient-years during trial participation was less than half that of the USRDS population (8.9; 95% CI, 7.8-10.0 vs 18.6; P < .001). The differences in age, mortality, and coronary artery disease remained when studies recruiting only from the United States were considered. Diabetes was more common in RCT participants from the United States than in the registry population.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participants in large, multicenter RCTs of patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing dialysis are younger, have a different pattern of comorbidities, and have a lower mortality rate than the general population of patients undergoing dialysis. This finding has implications for the generalization of trial results to the broader patient population and for future trial design.

Identifying critically important vascular access outcomes for trials in haemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

Background

Vascular access outcomes reported across haemodialysis (HD) trials are numerous, heterogeneous and not always relevant to patients and clinicians. This study aimed to identify critically important vascular access outcomes.

Method

Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7–9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best–worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically.

Results

The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best–worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best–worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle.

Conclusions

Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD.

Clinical trials in end-stage renal disease-priorities and challenges

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) experience extremely high morbidity and mortality and there are virtually no therapeutic interventions besides dialysis treatment that are proven in properly designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve patients' outcomes. Historically, the number of RCTs performed in the ESRD population has been very low compared with other medical subspecialties, and several of the few large RCTs have yielded inconclusive or negative results, dampening enthusiasm for future investment in similar trials. Recent initiatives promoting a focus on patient-centered outcomes and more active patient and caregiver involvement in the planning and conduct of clinical trials may result in more clinically relevant RCTs and broader participation from patients representing the diversity of the ESRD population. The adoption of novel clinical trial design elements characteristic of pragmatic clinical trials and platform trials could help improve both the internal and external validity of RCTs in ESRD, ultimately resulting in the adoption of therapeutic interventions that can be rapidly translated to clinical practice.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Perspective

There is increasing interest in the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into health care research and clinical practice for the benefit of patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis. In a research setting, PROs can be used as a patient-centered primary or secondary outcome in clinical studies. In routine care, PRO data may be used to support service delivery through benchmarking and audit or inform and enhance the care of the individual patient by improving patient-clinician communication. Despite evidence demonstrating the potential benefits of PROs and prioritization of these outcomes by patients, their use in kidney disease remains limited. Although there are significant methodological and operational challenges for the widespread integration of PROs, there is now consensus that this area should be at the forefront of clinical research and implementation science. We discuss the current use of PROs for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis and identify a roadmap for increasing the evidence base and introducing PROs into mainstream clinical practice.

An international Delphi survey helped develop consensus-based core outcome domains for trials in peritoneal dialysis

Shared decision-making about clinical care options in end-stage kidney disease is limited by inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes and the omission of patient-important outcomes in trials. Here we generated a consensus-based prioritized list of outcomes to be reported during trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD). In an international, online, three-round Delphi survey, patients/caregivers and health professionals rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (with 7-9 indicating critical importance) and provided comments. Using a Best-Worst Scale (BWS), the relative importance of outcomes was estimated. Comments were analyzed thematically. In total, 873 participants (207 patients/caregivers and 666 health professionals) from 68 countries completed round one, 629 completed round two and 530 completed round three. The top outcomes were PD-related infection, membrane function, peritoneal dialysis failure, cardiovascular disease, death, catheter complications, and the ability to do usual activities. Compared with health professionals, patients/caregivers gave higher priority to six outcomes: blood pressure (mean difference, 0.4), fatigue (0.3), membrane function (0.3), impact on family/friends (0.1), peritoneal thickening (0.1) and usual activities (0.1). Four themes were identified that underpinned the reasons for ratings: contributing to treatment longevity, preserving quality of life, escalating morbidity, and irrelevant and futile information and treatment. Patients/caregivers and health professionals gave highest priority to clinical outcomes. In contrast to health professionals, patients/caregivers gave higher priority to lifestyle-related outcomes including the impact on family/friends and usual activities. Thus, prioritization will inform a core outcome set to improve the consistency and relevance of outcomes for trials in PD.

Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis: Multinational Nominal Group Technique Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The absence of accepted patient-centered outcomes in research can limit shared decision-making in peritoneal dialysis (PD), particularly because PD-related treatments can be associated with mortality, technique failure, and complications that can impair quality of life. We aimed to identify patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in PD, and to describe the reasons for their choices.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Patients on PD and their caregivers were purposively sampled from nine dialysis units across Australia, the United States, and Hong Kong. Using nominal group technique, participants identified and ranked outcomes, and discussed the reasons for their choices. An importance score (scale 0-1) was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Across 14 groups, 126 participants (81 patients, 45 caregivers), aged 18-84 (mean 54, SD 15) years, identified 56 outcomes. The ten highest ranked outcomes were PD infection (importance score, 0.27), mortality (0.25), fatigue (0.25), flexibility with time (0.18), BP (0.17), PD failure (0.16), ability to travel (0.15), sleep (0.14), ability to work (0.14), and effect on family (0.12). Mortality was ranked first in Australia, second in Hong Kong, and 15th in the United States. The five themes were serious and cascading consequences on health, current and impending relevance, maintaining role and social functioning, requiring constant vigilance, and beyond control and responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients on PD and their caregivers, PD-related infection, mortality, and fatigue were of highest priority, and were focused on health, maintaining lifestyle, and self-management. Reporting these patient-centered outcomes may enhance the relevance of research to inform shared decision-making.

Implementing core outcomes in kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) implementation workshop

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.