Patient Preferences for Longer or More Frequent In-Center Hemodialysis Regimens: A Multicenter Discrete Choice Study

Patients, healthcare providers, and general population preferences for hemodialysis vascular access: a discrete choice experiment

Background

A patient-centered dialysis treatment option requires an understanding of patient preferences for alternative vascular accesses and nephrologists often face difficulties when recommending vascular access to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of various vascular access characteristics to patients, healthcare providers and general population, and how they affect acceptability for patients and healthcare providers.

Methods

In a discrete choice experiment, patients with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), healthcare providers, and individuals from the general population were invited to respond to a series of hypothetical vascular access scenarios that differed in five attributes: cumulative patency, infection rate, thrombosis rate, cost, and time to maturation. We estimated the respondents' preference heterogeneity and relative importance of the attributes with a mixed logit model (MXL) and predicted the willingness to pay (WTP) of respondents via a multinomial logit model (MNL).

Results

Healthcare providers (n = 316) and the general population (n = 268) exhibited a favorable inclination toward longer cumulative patency, lower access infection rate and lower access thrombosis rate. In contrast, the patients (n = 253) showed a preference for a 3-year cumulative patency, 8% access infection rate, 35% access thrombosis rate and 1.5 access maturity time, with only the 3-year cumulative patency reaching statistical significance. Among the three respondent groups, the general population found cumulative patency less important than healthcare providers and patients did. Patients demonstrated the highest WTP for cumulative patency, indicating a willingness to pay an extra RMB$24,720(US$3,708) for each additional year of patency time.

Conclusion

Patients and healthcare providers had a strong preference for vascular access with superior patency. While the general population preferred vascular access with lower thrombosis rates. These results indicate that most patients prefer autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) as an appropriate choice for vascular access due to its superior patency and lower complications than other vascular access types.

Effects of Kt/Vurea on outcomes according to age in patients on maintenance hemodialysis

Background

The guidelines recommended target and minimum single-pool Kt/Vurea are 1.4 and 1.2, respectively, in hemodialysis patients. However, the optimal hemodialysis dose remains controversial. We investigated the effects of Kt/Vurea on patient outcomes according to age, with a focus on older patients.

Methods

This study used the hemodialysis quality assessment program and claims datasets. Patients were divided into four subgroups according to age (<65, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years). Each group was divided into three subgroups according to Kt/Vurea : reference (ref) (1.2 ≤ Kt/Vurea ≤ 1.4), low (< 1.2), and high (> 1.4).

Results

The low, ref, and high Kt/Vurea groups included 1668, 8156, and 16 546 (< 65 years); 474, 3058, and 7646 (65-74 years); 225, 1362, and 4194 (75-84 years); and 14, 126, and 455 (≥85 years) patients, respectively. The low Kt/Vurea group had higher mortality rates than the ref Kt/Vurea group irrespective of age [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23, 1.11-1.36; 1.14, 1.00-1.30; 1.28, 1.09-1.52; and 2.10, 1.16-3.98, in patients aged <65, 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years, respectively]. The high Kt/Vurea group had lower mortality rates than the ref Kt/Vurea group in patients aged <65 and 65-74 years (aHR, 95% Cl: 0.87, 0.82-0.92 and 0.93, 0.87-0.99 in patients aged <65 and 65-74 years, respectively).

Conclusions

These results support the current recommendations of a minimum Kt/Vurea of 1.2 even in patients age ≥85 years. In young patients, Kt/Vurea above the recommended threshold can be beneficial for survival.

Development of a Patient Preference Survey for Wearable Kidney Replacement Therapy Devices

Background

Recent innovations have the potential to disrupt the current paradigm for kidney failure treatment. The US Food and Drug Administration is committed to incorporating valid scientific evidence about how patients weigh the benefits and risks of new devices into their decision making, but to date, premarket submission of patient preference information (PPI) has been limited for kidney devices. With input from stakeholders, we developed a survey intended to yield valid PPI, capturing how patients trade off the potential benefits and risks of wearable dialysis devices and in-center hemodialysis.

Methods

We conducted concept elicitation interviews with individuals receiving dialysis to inform instrument content. After instrument drafting, we conducted two rounds of pretest interviews to evaluate survey face validity, comprehensibility, and perceived relevance. We pilot tested the survey with in-center hemodialysis patients to assess comprehensibility and usability further. Throughout, we used participant input to guide survey refinements.

Results

Thirty-six individuals receiving in-center or home dialysis participated in concept elicitation (N=20) and pretest (N=16) interviews. Participants identified reduced fatigue, lower treatment burden, and enhanced freedom as important benefits of a wearable device, and many expressed concerns about risks related to device disconnection-specifically bleeding and infection. We drafted a survey that included descriptions of the risks of serious bleeding and serious infection and an assessment of respondent willingness to wait for a safer device. Input from pretest interviewees led to various instrument modifications, including treatment descriptions, item wording, and risk-level explanations. Pilot testing of the updated survey among 24 in-center hemodialysis patients demonstrated acceptable survey comprehensibility and usability, although 50% of patients required some assistance.

Conclusions

The final survey is a 54-item web-based instrument that will yield estimates of the maximal acceptable risk for the described wearable device and willingness to wait for wearable devices with lower risk.

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Nephrology: Focus on Hemodialysis

The success of hemodialysis (HD) treatments has been evaluated using objective measures of analytical parameters, or machine-measured parameters, despite having available validated instruments that assess patient perspective. There is an emerging interest regarding the use and relevance of patient-related outcomes (PROs). Electronic PROs (ePROs) involve the use of electronic technology, provide rapid access to this information, and are becoming more widely used in clinical trials and studies to evaluate efficacy and safety. Despite the scarce literature, this review suggests that ePROs are useful in providing a more customized and multidimensional approach to patient management and in making better clinical decisions in relevant aspects such as vascular access, duration and frequency of dialysis sessions, treatment of anemia, mental health, fatigue, and quality of life. The purpose of this review is to raise interest in the systematic use of ePROs in HD and to promote the development of studies in this field, which can respond to the gaps in knowledge and contribute to the implementation of the use of ePROs through new technologies, helping to improve the quality of health care.