The importance of considering competing treatment affecting prognosis in the evaluation of therapy in trials: the example of renal transplantation in hemodialysis trials

Long-term peridialytic blood pressure changes are related to mortality

BACKGROUND

In chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients, the relationship between long-term peridialytic blood pressure (BP) changes and mortality has not been investigated.

METHODS

To evaluate whether long-term changes in peridialytic BP are related to mortality and whether treatment with HD or haemodiafiltration (HDF) differs in this respect, the combined individual participant data of three randomized controlled trials comparing HD with HDF were used. Time-varying Cox regression and joint models were applied.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 2.94 years, 609 of 2011 patients died. As for pre-dialytic systolic BP (pre-SBP), a severe decline (≥21 mmHg) in the preceding 6 months was independently related to increased mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.61, P = .01] when compared with a moderate increase. Likewise, a severe decline in post-dialytic diastolic BP (DBP) was associated with increased mortality (adjusted HR 1.96, P < .0005). In contrast, joint models showed that every 5-mmHg increase in pre-SBP and post-DBP during total follow-up was related to reduced mortality (adjusted HR 0.97, P = .01 and 0.94, P = .03, respectively). No interaction was observed between BP changes and treatment modality.

CONCLUSION

Severe declines in pre-SBP and post-DBP in the preceding 6 months were independently related to mortality. Therefore peridialytic BP values should be interpreted in the context of their changes and not solely as an absolute value.

Effect of Hemodiafiltration or Hemodialysis on Mortality in Kidney Failure

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that patients with kidney failure may benefit from high-dose hemodiafiltration as compared with standard hemodialysis. However, given the limitations of the various published studies, additional data are needed.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with kidney failure who had received high-flux hemodialysis for at least 3 months. All the patients were deemed to be candidates for a convection volume of at least 23 liters per session (as required for high-dose hemodiafiltration) and were able to complete patient-reported outcome assessments. The patients were assigned to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration or continuation of conventional high-flux hemodialysis. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific death, a composite of fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events, kidney transplantation, and recurrent all-cause or infection-related hospitalizations.

RESULTS

A total of 1360 patients underwent randomization: 683 to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration and 677 to receive high-flux hemodialysis. The median follow-up was 30 months (interquartile range, 27 to 38). The mean convection volume during the trial in the hemodiafiltration group was 25.3 liters per session. Death from any cause occurred in 118 patients (17.3%) in the hemodiafiltration group and in 148 patients (21.9%) in the hemodialysis group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with kidney failure resulting in kidney-replacement therapy, the use of high-dose hemodiafiltration resulted in a lower risk of death from any cause than conventional high-flux hemodialysis. (Funded by the European Commission Research and Innovation; CONVINCE Dutch Trial Register number, NTR7138.).

Inadequate Reporting of Cointerventions, Other Methodological Factors, and Treatment Estimates in Cardiovascular Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Objective

To assess how inadequate reporting of cointerventions influences estimated treatment effects in recent cardiovascular trials.

Methods

Medline/Embase were systematically searched from January 1, 2011 to July 1, 2021 for trials evaluating pharmacologic interventions on clinical cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high-impact journals. Information on adequate vs inadequate reporting of cointerventions, blinding, risk of bias due to deviations of intended interventions (low vs high/some concerns), funding (nonindustry vs industry), design (superiority vs noninferiority), and results were assessed by 2 reviewers. The association with effect sizes was assessed using meta-regression random-effect analysis, expressed as ratios of odds ratios (ROR). RORs of >1.0 indicated that trials with the methodological factor pointing to lower quality report larger treatment estimates.

Results

In total, 164 trials were included. Of the 164 trials, 124 (74%) did not adequately report cointerventions; 89 of the 164 trials (54%) provided no information regarding cointerventions, and 70 of the 164 (43%) were at risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Moreover, 86 of the 164 (53%) were at risk of bias due to deviation of intended interventions. Of the 164 trials, 144 (88%) were funded by the industries. Trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions had larger treatment estimates for the primary end point (ROR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15; I²=0%). No significant association with results for blinding (ROR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03; I²=66%), deviation of intended interventions (ROR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04; I²=0%), or funding (ROR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.09; I²=0%) was found.

Conclusion

We conclude that trials with inadequate reporting of cointerventions showed larger treatment effect estimates, potentially indicating overestimation of therapeutic benefit.

Trial Registration

Prospero Identifier: CRD42017072522.

CONVINCE in the context of existing evidence on haemodiafiltration

Haemodiafiltration (HDF) provides a greater removal of larger solutes and protein-bound compounds than conventional high-flux haemodialysis (HD). There are indications that the patients receiving the highest convection volumes of HDF result in an improved survival compared with HD. However, the comparative efficacy of HDF vs HD remains unproven. Here we provide a comparative account of the methodology and aims of ‘the comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD’ (CONVINCE) study in the context of the totality of evidence and how this study will contribute to reaching a higher level of certainty regarding the comparative efficacy of HDF vs HD in people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD).

Low Reporting of Cointerventions in Recent Cardiovascular Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

Background

A cointervention in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) is medical care given in addition to the tested intervention. If cointerventions are unbalanced between trial arms, the results may be biased. We hypothesized that cointerventions would be more adequately reported in RCTs without full blinding or at risk of bias.

Methods and Results

To describe the reporting of cointerventions and to evaluate the factors associated with their reporting, we did a systematic search of all RCTs evaluating pharmacological interventions on cardiovascular outcomes published in 5 high‐impact journals. The reporting of cointerventions, blinding, and risk of bias were extracted and evaluated independently by 2 reviewers (E.M., L.A.). Cointerventions were inadequately reported in 87 of 123 RCTs (70.7%), with 56 (45.5%) providing no information on cointerventions and 31 (25.2%) providing only partial information. Of the RCTs, 52 (42.3%) had inadequate blinding of participants and/or personnel and 63 (51.2%) of the RCTs were judged at risk of bias. In univariable analysis, the reporting of cointerventions was not associated with blinding of participants and/or personnel (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.47–2.27 for adequately versus inadequately blinded trials) or with risk of bias (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.67–3.21 for at low risk of bias versus trials at risk of bias). In multivariable analysis, only a follow‐up of <1 month was associated with the adequate reporting of cointerventions (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.21–10.91).

Conclusions

More than two‐thirds of recent major cardiovascular trials did not adequately report cointerventions. The quality of reporting was not better among trials that were not fully blinded or at risk for bias.

Registration

URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSP​ERO/. Unique identifier: CRD42018106771.

Change in FGF23 concentration over time and its association with all-cause mortality in patients treated with haemodialysis or haemodiafiltration

Background

Previous studies in patients on haemodialysis (HD) have shown an association of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) with all-cause mortality. As of yet, the result of FGF23 lowering on mortality is unknown in this population.

Methods

FGF23 was measured in a subset of 404 patients from the Dutch CONvective TRansport STudy (CONTRAST study) [a randomized trial in prevalent dialysis patients comparing HD and haemodiafiltration (HDF) with clinical outcome] at baseline and Months 6 and 12. A substantial decline of FGF23 change over time was anticipated in patients randomized to HDF since HDF induces higher dialytic clearance of FGF23. The associations of both baseline FGF23 and 6-months change in FGF23 with all-cause mortality were analysed. In addition, the difference in FGF23 change between HD and HDF was explored. Furthermore, the role of dialysis modality in the association between FGF23 change and outcome was analysed.

Results

No association was observed between quartiles of baseline FGF23 and all-cause mortality. Over 6 months, FGF23 declined in patients on HDF, whereas FGF23 remained stable in patients on HD. A decrease in FGF23 was not associated with improved survival compared with a stable FGF23 concentration. However, increasing FGF23 was associated with a significantly higher mortality risk, both in crude and fully adjusted models [hazard ratio 2.01 (95% confidence interval 1.30–3.09)].

Conclusion

Whereas no association between a single value of FGF23 and all-cause mortality was found, increasing FGF23 concentrations did identify patients at risk for mortality. Since lowering FGF23 did not improve outcome, this study found no argument for therapeutically lowering FGF23.

Long-Term Peridialytic Blood Pressure Patterns in Patients Treated by Hemodialysis and Hemodiafiltration

Introduction

Online postdilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) is associated with a lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality than hemodialysis (HD). This may depend on a superior peridialytic (pre- and postdialysis, and the difference between these 2 parameters) hemodynamic profile.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort analysis of individual participant data (IPD) from 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2011), the effect of HDF and HD on 2-year peridialytic blood pressure (BP) patterns was assessed. Long-term peridialytic systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulse pressure (PP), as well as the deltas (post- minus predialytic) were assessed in the total group of patients. Thereafter, these variables were compared between patients on HD and HDF, and in the latter group between quartiles of convection volume.

Results

Mean pre- and postdialysis SBP, DBP, and MAP declined significantly during follow-up (predialytic: SBP −2.16 mm Hg, DBP −2.88 mm Hg, MAP −2.64 mm Hg), PP increased (predialytic 0.96 mm Hg). Peridialytic deltas remained unaltered. Differences between the 2 modalities, or between quartiles of convection volume were not observed. BP changes were independent of various baseline characteristics, including the decline in body weight over time.

Conclusion

We speculate that the combination of a decreasing SBP and an increasing PP may be the clinical sequelae of a worsening cardiovascular system. Because especially HDF with a high convection volume has been associated with a beneficial effect on survival, our study does not support the view that superior peridialytic BP control contributes to this effect.

Haemodiafiltration does not lower protein-bound uraemic toxin levels compared with haemodialysis in a paediatric population

Background

Haemodiafiltration (HDF) is accepted to effectively lower plasma levels of middle molecules in the long term, while data are conflicting with respect to the additive effect of convection on lowering protein-bound uraemic toxins (PBUTs). Here we compared pre-dialysis β2-microglobulin (β2M) and PBUT levels and the percentage of protein binding (%PB) in children on post-dilution HDF versus conventional high- (hf) or low-flux (lf) haemodialysis (HD) over 12 months of treatment.

Methods

In a prospective multicentre, non-randomized parallel-arm intervention study, pre-dialysis levels of six PBUTs and β2M were measured in children (5–20 years) on post-HDF (n = 37), hf-HD (n = 42) and lf-HD (n = 18) at baseline and after 12 months. Analysis of variance was used to compare levels and %PB in post-HDF versus conventional hf-HD and lf-HD cross-sectionally at 12 months and longitudinal from baseline to 12 months.

Results

For none of the PBUTs, no difference was found in either total and free plasma levels or %PB between post-HDF versus the hf-HD and lf-HD groups. Children treated with post-HDF had lower pre-dialysis β2M levels [median 23.2 (21.5; 26.6) mg/dL] after 12 months versus children on hf-HD [P&lt;0.01; 35.2 (29.3; 41.2) mg/dL] and children on lf-HD [P&lt;0.001; 47.2 (34.3; 53.0) mg/dL]. While β2M levels remained steady in the hf-HD and lf-HD group, a decrease in β2M was demonstrated for children on post-HDF (P&lt;0.01).

Conclusions

While post-HDF successfully decreased β2M, no additive effect on PBUT over 12 months of treatment was found. PBUT removal is complex and hampered by several factors. In children, these factors might be different from adults and should be explored in future research.