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

The trajectory of a range of commonly captured symptoms with standard care in people with kidney failure receiving haemodialysis: consideration for clinical trial design

BACKGROUND

Despite the recognized high symptom prevalence in haemodialysis population, how these symptoms change over time and its implications for clinical practice and research is poorly understood.

METHODS

Prevalent haemodialysis patients in the SHAREHD trial reported 17 POS-S Renal symptoms (none, mild, moderate, severe and overwhelming) at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. To assess the prevalence change at population level in people reporting moderate or worse symptoms at baseline, the absolute change in prevalence was estimated using multi-level mixed effects probit regression adjusting for age, sex, time on haemodialysis and Charlson Comorbidity Score. To assess changes at individual level, the proportion of people changing their symptom score every 6 months was estimated.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifty-two participants completed 1725 questionnaires at four timepoints. Across all 17 symptoms with moderate or worse symptom severity at baseline, the majority of the change in symptom prevalence at population level occurred in the 'severe' category. The absolute improvement in prevalence of the 'severe' category was ≤ 20% over 18 months in eleven of the seventeen symptoms despite a large degree of relatively balanced movement of individuals in and out of severe category every six months. Examples include depression, skin changes and drowsiness, which had larger proportion (75-80%) moving in and out of severe category each 6 months period but < 5% difference between movement in and out of severe category resulting in relatively static prevalence over time. Meanwhile, larger changes in prevalence of > 20% were observed in six symptoms, driven by a 9 to 18% difference between movement in and movement out of severe category. All symptoms had > 50% of people in severe group changing severity within 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in the severity of existing symptoms under standard care were frequent, often occurring within six months. Certain symptoms exhibited clinically meaningful shifts at both the population and individual levels. This highlighted the need to consider improvements in symptom severity when determining sample size and statistical power for trials. By accounting for potential symptom improvements with routine care, researchers can design trials capable of robustly detecting genuine treatment effects, distinguishing them from spontaneous changes associated with standard haemodialysis.

The Personalized Priority and Progress Questionnaire (PPPQ): A personalized instrument for quality of life and self-management for use in clinical trials and practice

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a brief personalized instrument that (1) defines patients' priorities for improvement, (2) measures progress in prioritized quality of life (QoL) and self-management outcomes, and (3) is applicable in both clinical practice and clinical trials.

METHODS

The instrument was developed based on the literature on personalized assessment and patient priorities, feedback by clinicians, and six cognitive interviews with patients with chronic kidney disease. The resulting questionnaire, the Personalized Priority and Progress Questionnaire (PPPQ), contains a baseline and follow-op measurement. The baseline measurement assesses functioning on QoL (8 items) and self-management (5 items). The final item evaluates patients' priorities for improvement. The follow-up measurement assesses progress in QoL and self-management. A personalized progress score can be calculated indicating the amount of progress on the QoL or self-management domain that is prioritized by the individual patient. Psychometric properties of the PPPQ were evaluated among patients with chronic kidney disease (n = 121) and patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis (n = 22).

RESULTS

The PPPQ showed to be a feasible instrument that is easy and quick to complete. Regarding the construct validity, small to large correlations were found between the items and existing validated questionnaires measuring related constructs.

CONCLUSION

The PPPQ proved to be a feasible and valid instrument. The PPPQ can be adapted to match diverse populations and could be a useful tool both in clinical practice (e.g., to identify priorities and tailor treatment) and clinical trials (e.g., to evaluate the effectiveness of personalized interventions).

Global use of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in nephrology: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems to support the management of patients with chronic kidney disease is increasing. This mixed-methods study aimed to comprehensively identify existing and developing ePRO systems, used in nephrology settings globally, ascertaining key characteristics and factors for successful implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

ePRO systems and developers were identified through a scoping review of the literature and contact with field experts. Developers were invited to participate in a structured survey, to summarise key system characteristics including: (1) system objectives, (2) population, (3) PRO measures used, (4) level of automation, (5) reporting, (6) integration into workflow and (7) links to electronic health records/national registries. Subsequent semistructured interviews were conducted to explore responses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Eligible systems included those being developed or used in nephrology settings to assess ePROs and summarise results to care providers. System developers included those with a key responsibility for aspects of the design, development or implementation of an eligible system.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Structured survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Interview transcripts were analysed using Codebook Thematic Analysis using domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Fifteen unique ePRO systems were identified across seven countries; 10 system developers completed the structured survey and 7 participated in semistructured interviews. Despite system heterogeneity, reported features required for effective implementation included early and sustained patient involvement, clinician champions and expanding existing electronic platforms to integrate ePROs. Systems demonstrated several common features, with the majority being implemented within research settings, thereby affecting system implementation readiness for real-world application.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been considerable research investment in ePRO systems. The findings of this study outline key system features and factors to support the successful implementation of ePROs in routine kidney care.Cite Now.

Facing the challenges of PROM implementation in Dutch dialysis care: Patients' and professionals' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in routine clinical practice to facilitate patients in sharing and discussing health-related topics with their clinician. This study focuses on the implementation experiences of healthcare professionals and patients during the early implementation phase of the newly developed Dutch set of dialysis PROMs and aims to understand the process of early implementation of PROMs from the users' perspectives.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study among healthcare professionals (physicians and nursing staff: n = 13) and patients (n = 14) of which 12 were receiving haemodialysis and 2 peritoneal dialysis. Semi-structured interviews were used to understand the barriers and facilitators that both professionals and patients encounter when starting to implement PROMs.

RESULTS

The early PROM implementation process is influenced by a variety of factors that we divided into barriers and facilitators. We identified four barriers: patient´s indifference to PROMs, scepticism on the benefits of aggregated PROM data, the limited treatment options open to doctors and organizational issues such as mergers, organizational problems and renovations. We also describe four facilitators: professional involvement and patient support, a growing understanding of the use of PROMs during the implementation, quick gains from using PROMs such as receiving instant feedback and a clear ambition on patient care such as a shared view on patient involvement and management support.

CONCLUSIONS

In this qualitative study carried out during the early implementation phase of the Dutch dialysis PROM set, we found that patients did not yet consider the PROM set to be a useful additional tool to share information with their doctor. This was despite the professionals' primary reason for using PROMs being to improve patient-doctor communication. Furthermore, the perceived lack of intervention options was frustrating for some of the professionals. We found that nurses could be important enablers of further implementation because of their intensive relationship with dialysis patients.

"What matters to you?": The relevance of patient priorities in dialysis care for assessment and clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Dialysis patients are confronted with numerous, complex problems, which make it difficult to identify individual patient's most prominent problems. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify dialysis patients' most prominent problems from a patient perspective and (2) to calculate disease-specific norms for questionnaires measuring these problems.

METHODS

One hundred seventy-five patients treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis completed a priority list on several domains of functioning (e.g., physical health, mental health, social functioning, and daily activities) and a set of matching questionnaires assessing patient functioning on these domains. Patient priorities were assessed by calculating the importance ranking of each domain on the priority list. Subsequently, disease-specific norm scores were calculated for all questionnaires, both for the overall sample and stratified by patient characteristics.

RESULTS

Fatigue was listed as patients' most prominent problem. Priorities differed between male and female patients, younger and older patients, and home and center dialysis patients, which was also reflected in their scores on the corresponding domains of functioning. Therefore, next to general norm scores, we calculated corrections to the general norms to take account of patient characteristics (i.e., sex, age, and dialysis type).

CONCLUSIONS

Results highlight the importance of having attention for the specific priorities and needs of each individual patient. Adequate disease-specific, norm-based assessment is not only necessary for diagnostic procedures but is an essential element of patient-centered care: It will help to better understand and respect individual patient needs and tailor treatment accordingly.

E-HEalth treatment in Long-term Dialysis (E-HELD): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating personalized Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy in dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Kidney failure and dialysis treatment have a large impact on a patient's life. Patients experience numerous, complex symptoms and usually have multiple comorbid conditions. Despite the multitude of problems, patients often have priorities for improvement of specific aspects of their functioning, which would be helpful for clinicians to become informed of. This highlights a clear need for patient-centered care in this particular patient group, with routine screening as a vital element to timely recognize symptoms and tailored treatment to match individual patients' needs and priorities. By also providing feedback on patient's screening results to the patient itself, the patient is empowered to actively take control in one's mostly uncontrollable disease process. The current paper describes the study design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the "E-HEealth treatment in Long-term Dialysis" (E-HELD) intervention. This therapist-guided Internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (ICBT) intervention is focused on and personalized to the myriad of problems that dialysis patients experience and prioritize.

METHODS

After a screening procedure on adjustment problems, 130 eligible dialysis patients will be randomized to care as usual or the E-HELD intervention. Patients will complete questionnaires on distress (primary outcome measure), several domains of functioning (e.g., physical, psychological, social), potential predictors and mediators of treatment success, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention, at baseline, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. In addition, to take account of the personalized character of the intervention, the Personalized Priority and Progress Questionnaire (PPPQ) will be administered which is a personalized instrument to identify, prioritize, and monitor individual problems over time.

DISCUSSION

The present study design will provide insight in the effectiveness of tailored ICBT in patients with kidney failure who are treated with dialysis. When proven effective, the screening procedure and the subsequent ICBT intervention could be implemented in routine care to detect, support, and treat patients struggling with adjustment problems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NL63422.058.17 [Registry ID: METC-LDD] NL7160 [Netherlands Trial Register; registered on 16 July 2018].

Classification of Uremic Toxins and Their Role in Kidney Failure

Advances in our understanding of uremic retention solutes, and improvements in hemodialysis membranes and other techniques designed to remove uremic retention solutes, offer opportunities to readdress the definition and classification of uremic toxins. A consensus conference was held to develop recommendations for an updated definition and classification scheme on the basis of a holistic approach that incorporates physicochemical characteristics and dialytic removal patterns of uremic retention solutes and their linkage to clinical symptoms and outcomes. The major focus is on the removal of uremic retention solutes by hemodialysis. The identification of representative biomarkers for different classes of uremic retention solutes and their correlation to clinical symptoms and outcomes may facilitate personalized and targeted dialysis prescriptions to improve quality of life, morbidity, and mortality. Recommendations for areas of future research were also formulated, aimed at improving understanding of uremic solutes and improving outcomes in patients with CKD.

Patient-reported outcome measures in hemodialysis patients: results of the first multicenter cross-sectional ePROMs study in France

Background

Kidney failure with replacement therapy and hemodialysis are associated with a decrease in quality of life (QOL). Self-reported QOL symptoms are not always prioritized by the medical team, potentially leading to conflicting priorities with patients. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) allow physicians to better identify these symptoms. The objective was to describe the prevalence of symptoms self-reported by hemodialysis (HD) patients.

Methods

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in three HD centers. Patients were included if they were 18 years old or over treated with HD for at least 3 months in a center. Data were collected by the patient via a self-administered ePROMs questionnaire. Data included patient characteristics, post-dialysis fatigue and intensity, recovery time after a session, perceived stress, impaired sleep the day before the dialysis session, current state of health and the change from the past year. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify relations between symptoms.

Results

In total, we included 173 patients with a mean age of 66.2 years, a mean ± SD hemodialysis duration of 48.9 ± 58.02 months. The prevalence of fatigue was 72%. 66% had a high level of stress (level B or C). Recovery time was more than 6 h after a HD session for 25% of patients and 78% declared they had a better or unchanged health status than the previous year. Sleep disturbance was associated with cardiovascular comorbidities (OR 5.08 [95% CI, 1.56 to 16.59], p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Fatigue and stress were the main symptoms reported by HD patients. The patient’s care teams should better consider these symptoms.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02551-3.

Person centred care provision and care planning in chronic kidney disease: which outcomes matter? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies : Care planning in CKD: which outcomes matter?

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Explore priorities related to outcomes and barriers of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) regarding person centred care and care planning.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of qualitative studies.

SEARCH STRATEGY & SOURCES

In July 2018 six bibliographic databases, and reference lists of included articles were searched for qualitative studies that included adults with CKD stages 1-5, not on dialysis or conservative management, without a previous kidney transplantation.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Three independent reviewers extracted and inductively coded data using thematic synthesis. Reporting quality was assessed using the COREQ and the review reported according to PRISMA and ENTREQ statements.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies involving 1493 participants were eligible. The period after diagnosis of CKD is characterized by feelings of uncertainty, social isolation, financial burden, resentment and fear of the unknown. Patients show interest in ways to return to normality and remain in control of their health in order to avoid further deterioration of kidney function. However, necessary information is often unavailable or incomprehensible. Although patients and healthcare professionals share the predominant interest of whether or not dialysis or transplantation is necessary, patients value many more outcomes that are often unrecognized by their healthcare professionals. We identified 4 themes with 6 subthemes that summarize these findings: 'pursuing normality and control' ('pursuing normality'; 'a search for knowledge'); 'prioritizing outcomes' ('reaching kidney failure'; 'experienced health'; 'social life'; 'work and economic productivity'); 'predicting the future'; and 'realising what matters'. Reporting quality was moderate for most included studies.

LIMITATIONS

Exclusion of non-English articles.

CONCLUSIONS

The realisation that patients' priorities do not match those of the healthcare professionals, in combination with the prognostic ambiguity, confirms fatalistic perceptions of not being in control when living with CKD. These insights may contribute to greater understanding of patients' perspectives and a more person-centred approach in healthcare prioritization and care planning within CKD care.

Epidemiology of end-stage kidney disease

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a common and morbid disease that affects patients' quality and length of life, representing a large portion of health care expenditure in the United States. These patients commonly have associated diabetes and cardiovascular disease, with high rates of cardiovascular-related death. Management of ESKD requires renal replacement therapy via dialysis or transplantation. While transplantation provides the greatest improvement in survival and quality of life, the vast majority of patients are treated initially with hemodialysis. However, outcomes differ significantly among patient populations. Barriers in access to care have particularly affected at-risk populations, such as Black and Hispanic patients. These patients receive less pre-ESKD nephrology care, are less likely to initiate dialysis with a fistula, and wait longer for transplants-even in pediatric populations. Priorities for ESKD care moving into the future include increasing access to nephrology care in underprivileged populations, providing patient-centered care based on each patient's "life plan," and focusing on team-based approaches to ESKD care. This review explores ESKD from the perspective of epidemiology, costs, vascular access, patient-reported outcomes, racial disparities, and the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

Can Patient-Reported Outcomes Predict the Need for Secondary Surgeries After Hip Arthroscopy?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture the postoperative period and reflect the patient's perspective of one's own recovery. However, it is unknown if PROs can reflect and predict the need for secondary surgeries after a primary hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To examine if PROs at 3 months and 1 year after primary hip arthroscopy were correlated with future reoperations and determine the critical thresholds for significant PROs utilizing a multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and August 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included for analysis if they had the following PROs preoperatively and at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients were split into 2 groups: those who underwent secondary surgery and those who did not. Patient variables, intraoperative labral treatment, preoperative PROs, and postoperative PROs were compared between the 2 groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis and ROC analysis were deployed to evaluate the correlation between PROs and the need for future surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 911 primary arthroscopy cases were included in this study. While age, body mass index, labral treatment, and 3-month and 1-year follow-up mHHS, NAHS, and VAS were significant in the bivariate analysis, the multivariate logistic regression analysis only found 1-year mHHS to be significant in the final model (P < .05). The ROC curve for 1-year mHHS demonstrated acceptable discrimination between patients requiring secondary surgery and patients not requiring secondary surgery with an area under the curve of 0.73. Using the Youden index, a threshold of 80.5 was determined for the 1-year mHHS.

CONCLUSION

The risk for secondary procedures may be evaluated with mHHS at 1 year after primary hip arthroscopy. Surpassing a score of 80.5 may be associated with a 74.4% reduction in risk for either a revision hip arthroscopy or a conversion to hip replacement.

An Exercise Program for Peritoneal Dialysis Patients in the United States: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

People with end-stage kidney disease receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD) are generally physically inactive and frail. Exercise studies in PD are scarce and currently there are no PD exercise programs in the United States. The primary objective of this study was to test the feasibility of a combined resistance and cardiovascular exercise program for PD patients under the care of a dedicated home dialysis center in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Parallel randomized controlled feasibility study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

PD patients were recruited from a single center and randomly assigned to the intervention (exercise; n = 18) or control (nonexercise; n = 18) group.

INTERVENTION

The intervention group received monthly exercise physiologist consultation, exercise prescription (resistance and aerobic exercise program using exercise bands), and 4 exercise support telephone calls over 12 weeks. The control group received standard care.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was study feasibility as measured by eligibility rates, recruitment rates, retention rates, adherence rates, adverse events, and sustained exercise rates. Secondary outcome measures were changes in physical function (sit-to-stand test, timed-up-and-go test, and pinch-strength tests) and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

From a single center with 75 PD patients, 57 (76%) were deemed eligible, resulting in a recruitment rate of 36 (63%) patients. Participants were randomly assigned into 2 groups of 18 (1:1). 10 patients discontinued the study (5 in each arm), resulting in 26 (72%) patients, 13 in each arm, completing the study. 10 of 13 (77%) intervention patients were adherent to the exercise program. A t test analysis of covariance found a difference between the treatment groups for the timed-up-and-go test (P = 0.04) and appetite (P = 0.04). No serious adverse events caused by the exercise program were reported.

LIMITATIONS

Single center, no blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS

A resistance and cardiovascular exercise program appears feasible and safe for PD patients. We recommend that providers of PD therapy consider including exercise programs coordinated by exercise professionals to reduce the physical deterioration of PD patients.

FUNDING

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03980795.

Routinely measuring symptom burden and health-related quality of life in dialysis patients: first results from the Dutch registry of patient-reported outcome measures

Background

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is becoming increasingly important in healthcare. However, incorporation of PROMs into routine nephrological care is challenging. This study describes the first experience with PROMs in Dutch routine dialysis care.

Methods

A pilot study was conducted in dialysis patients in 16 centres. Patients were invited to complete PROMs at baseline and 3 and 6 months. PROMs consisted of the 12-item short-form and Dialysis Symptom Index to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden. Response rates, HRQoL and symptom burden scores were analysed. Qualitative research methods were used to gain insight into patients’ views on using PROMs in clinical practice.

Results

In total, 512 patients (36%) completed 908 PROMs (24%) across three time points. Response rates varied from 6 to 70% among centres. Mean scores for physical and mental HRQoL were 35.6 [standard deviation (SD) 10.2] and 47.7 (SD 10.6), respectively. Patients experienced on average 10.8 (SD 6.1) symptoms with a symptom burden score of 30.7 (SD 22.0). Only 1–3% of the variation in PROM scores can be explained by differences between centres. Patients perceived discussing their HRQoL and symptom scores as insightful and valuable. Individual feedback on results was considered crucial.

Conclusions

The first results show low average response rates with high variability among centres. Dialysis patients experienced a high symptom burden and poor HRQoL. Using PROMs at the individual patient level is suitable and may improve patient–professional communication and shared decision making. Further research is needed to investigate how the collection and the use of PROMs can be successfully integrated into routine care to improve healthcare quality and outcomes.

Patient-reported outcome measures: selection of a valid questionnaire for routine symptom assessment in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease - a four-phase mixed methods study

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming increasingly important in healthcare. In nephrology, there is no agreement on which chronic kidney disease (CKD) symptom questionnaire to use. Therefore, the aim of this study is to select a valid symptom questionnaire for routine assessment in patients with advanced CKD.

Methods

A four-phase mixed methods approach, using qualitative and quantitative research methods, was applied. First, a systematic literature search was conducted to retrieve existing symptom questionnaires. Second, a symptom list was created including all symptoms in existing questionnaires and symptoms mentioned in interviews with patients with CKD, from which symptom clusters were identified. Next, questionnaires were selected based on predefined criteria regarding content validity. Last, two online feedback panels of patients with CKD (n = 151) and experts (n = 6) reviewed the most promising questionnaires.

Results

The literature search identified 121 questionnaires, of which 28 were potentially suitable for symptom assessment in patients with advanced CKD. 101 unique symptoms and 10 symptom clusters were distinguished. Based on predefined criteria, the Dialysis Symptom Index (DSI) and Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Renal Version (IPOS-Renal) were selected and reviewed by feedback panels. Patients needed 5.4 and 7.5 min to complete the DSI and IPOS-Renal, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients experienced the DSI as more specific, complete and straightforward compared to the IPOS-Renal.

Conclusions

The DSI was found to be valid and reliable, the most relevant, complete, and comprehensible symptom questionnaire available for routine assessment in patients with advanced CKD. Routine PROMs collection could be of great value to healthcare, both at individual patient and national level. Feedback on scores and involvement of healthcare providers may promote adaptation and implementation in healthcare.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-019-1521-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.