Knowledge Translation Interventions to Improve the Timing of Dialysis Initiation: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Home dialysis therapies (peritoneal and home hemodialysis) are less expensive and provide similar outcomes to in-center hemodialysis, but they are underutilized in most health systems. Given this, we designed a multifaceted intervention to increase the use of home dialysis. In this study, our objective was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on home dialysis use in CKD clinics across Canada.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial in 55 CKD clinic clusters in nine provinces in Canada between October 2014 and November 2015. Participants included all adult patients who initiated dialysis in the year following the intervention. We evaluated the implementation of a four-component intervention, which included phone surveys from a knowledge translation broker, a 1-year center-specific audit/feedback on home dialysis use, delivery of an educational package (including tools aimed at both providers and patients), and an academic detailing visit. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients using home dialysis at 180 days after dialysis initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 55 clinics were randomized (27 in the intervention and 28 in the control), with 5312 patients initiating dialysis in the 1-year follow-up period. In the primary analysis, there was no difference in the use of home dialysis at 180 days in the intervention and control clusters (absolute risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 10%). Using a difference-in-difference comparison, the use of home dialysis at 180 days was similar before and after implementation of the intervention (difference of 0% in intervention clinics; 95% confidence interval, -2% to 3%; difference of 0.8% in control clinics; 95% confidence interval, -1% to 3%; P=0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted intervention did not increase the use of home dialysis in adults initiating dialysis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

A Cluster Randomized Trial to Assess the Impact of Patient and Provider Education on Use of Home Dialysis, NCT02202018.

Timing of dialysis initiation to reduce mortality and cardiovascular events in advanced chronic kidney disease: nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To identify the optimal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at which to initiate dialysis in people with advanced chronic kidney disease.

DESIGN

Nationwide observational cohort study.

SETTING

National Swedish Renal Registry of patients referred to nephrologists.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients had a baseline eGFR between 10 and 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 and were included between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016, with follow-up until 1 June 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The strict design criteria of a clinical trial were mimicked by using the cloning, censoring, and weighting method to eliminate immortal time bias, lead time bias, and survivor bias. A dynamic marginal structural model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios and absolute risks for five year all cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke) for 15 dialysis initiation strategies with eGFR values between 4 and 19 mL/min/1.73 m2 in increments of 1 mL/min/1.73 m2. An eGFR between 6 and 7 mL/min/1.73 m2 (eGFR6-7) was taken as the reference.

RESULTS

Among 10 290 incident patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (median age 73 years; 3739 (36%) women; median eGFR 16.8 mL/min/1.73 m2), 3822 started dialysis, 4160 died, and 2446 had a major adverse cardiovascular event. A parabolic relation was observed for mortality, with the lowest risk for eGFR15-16. Compared with dialysis initiation at eGFR6-7, initiation at eGFR15-16 was associated with a 5.1% (95% confidence interval 2.5% to 6.9%) lower absolute five year mortality risk and 2.9% (0.2% to 5.5%) lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, corresponding to hazard ratios of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.92) and 0.94 (0.91 to 0.98), respectively. This 5.1% absolute risk difference corresponded to a mean postponement of death of 1.6 months over five years of follow-up. However, dialysis would need to be started four years earlier. When emulating the intended strategies of the Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) trial (eGFR10-14 v eGFR5-7) and the achieved eGFRs in IDEAL (eGFR7-10 v eGFR5-7), hazard ratios for all cause mortality were 0.96 (0.94 to 0.99) and 0.97 (0.94 to 1.00), respectively, which are congruent with the findings of the randomised IDEAL trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Very early initiation of dialysis was associated with a modest reduction in mortality and cardiovascular events. For most patients, such a reduction may not outweigh the burden of a substantially longer period spent on dialysis.

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

BACKGROUND

The Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) trial, published in 2009, found no clinically measurable benefit with respect to risk of mortality or early complications with early dialysis initiation versus deferred dialysis start. After these findings, guidelines recommended an intent-to-defer approach to dialysis initiation, with the goal of deferring it until clinical symptoms arise.

METHODS

To evaluate a four-component knowledge translation intervention aimed at promoting an intent-to-defer strategy for dialysis initiation, we conducted a cluster randomized trial in Canada between October 2014 and November 2015. We randomized 55 clinics, 27 to the intervention group and 28 to the control group. The educational intervention, using knowledge-translation tools, included telephone surveys from a knowledge-translation broker, a 1-year center-specific audit with feedback, delivery of a guidelines package, and an academic detailing visit. Participants included adults who had at least 3 months of predialysis care and who started dialysis in the first year after the intervention. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients who initiated dialysis early (at eGFR >10.5 ml/min per 1.73 m²). The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who initiated in the acute inpatient setting.

RESULTS

The analysis included 3424 patients initiating dialysis in the 1-year follow-up period. Of these, 509 of 1592 (32.0%) in the intervention arm and 605 of 1832 (33.0%) in the control arm started dialysis early. There was no difference in the proportion of individuals initiating dialysis early or in the proportion of individuals initiating dialysis as an acute inpatient.

CONCLUSIONS

A multifaceted knowledge translation intervention failed to reduce the proportion of early dialysis starts in patients with CKD followed in multidisciplinary clinics.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02183987. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02183987.

Evidence-Based Decision Making 5: Knowledge Translation and the Knowledge to Action Cycle

There is a significant gap between what is known and what is implemented by key stakeholders in practice (the evidence to practice gap). The primary purpose of knowledge translation is to address this gap, bridging evidence to clinical practice. The knowledge to action cycle is one framework for knowledge translation that integrates policy makers throughout the research cycle. The knowledge to action cycle begins with the identification of a problem (usually a gap in care provision). After identification of the problem, knowledge creation is undertaken, depicted at the center of the cycle as a funnel. Knowledge inquiry is at the wide end of the funnel, and moving down the funnel, the primary data is synthesized into knowledge products in the form of educational materials, guidelines, decision aids, or clinical pathways. The remaining components of the knowledge to action cycle refer to the action of applying the knowledge that has been created. This includes adapting knowledge to local context, assessing barriers to knowledge use, selecting, tailoring implementing interventions, monitoring knowledge use, evaluating outcomes, and sustaining knowledge use. Each of these steps is connected by bidirectional arrows and ideally involves health-care decision makers and key stakeholders at each transition.

Protocol for a prospective, cluster randomized trial to evaluate routine and deferred dialysis initiation (RADDI) in Chinese population

BACKGROUND

The timing of when to initiate dialysis for progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients has not been well established. There has been a strong trend for early dialysis initiation for these patients over the past decades. However, the perceived survival advantage of early dialysis has been questioned by a series of recent observational studies. The only randomized controlled trial (RCT) research on this issue found the all-cause mortality, comorbidities, and quality of life showed no difference between early and late dialysis starters. To better understand optimal timing for dialysis initiation, our research will evaluate the efficacy and safety of deferred dialysis initiation in a large Chinese population.

METHODS

The trial adopts a multicenter, cluster randomized, single-blind (outcomes assessor), and endpoint-driven design. Eligible participants are 18-80 years old, in stable CKD stages 4-5 (eGFR > 7 ml/min /1.73 m2), and with good heart function (NYHA grade I or II). Participants will be randomized into a routine or deferred dialysis group. The reference eGFR at initiating dialysis for asymptomatic patients is 7 ml/min /1.73 m2 (routine dialysis group) and 5 ml/min/1.73 m2 or less (deferred dialysis group) in each group. The primary endpoint will be the difference of all-cause mortality and acute nonfatal cerebro-cardiovascular events between the two groups. The secondary outcomes include hospitalization rate and other safety indices. The primary and secondary outcomes will be analyzed by appropriate statistical methods.

DISCUSSION

This study protocol represents a large, cluster randomized study evaluating deferred and routine dialysis intervention for an advanced CKD population. The reference eGFR to initiate dialysis for both treatment groups is targeted at less than 7 ml/min/1.73m2. With this design, we aim to eliminate lead-time and survivor bias and avoid selection bias and confounding factors. We acknowledge that the study has limitations. Even so, given the low-targeted eGFR values of both arms, this study still has potential economic, health, and scientific implications. This research is unique in that such a low targeted eGFR value has never been studied in a clinical trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been approved by ClinicalTrials.gov (Trial registration ID NCT02423655). The date of registration was April 22, 2015.

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

IMPORTANCE

Published in 2010, the Initiating Dialysis Early and Late (IDEAL) randomized clinical trial, which randomized patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 10 and 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 to planned initiation of dialysis with an estimated GFR between 10 and 14 mL/min/1.73 m2 (early start) or an estimated GFR between 5 and 7 mL/min/1.73 m2 (late start), concluded that early initiation was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between the IDEAL trial results and the proportion of early dialysis starts over time.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This interrupted time series analysis used data from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register to study adult (≥18 years of age) patients with incident chronic dialysis between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015, in Canada, which has a universal health care system. Patients from the province of Quebec were excluded because its privacy laws preclude submission of deidentified data without first-person consent. The patients included in the study (n = 28 468) had at least 90 days of nephrologist care before starting dialysis and a recorded estimated GFR at dialysis initiation. Data analyses were performed from November 2016 to January 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of early dialysis starts (estimated GFR >10.5 mL/min/1.73 m2), and the secondary outcomes included the proportions of acute inpatient dialysis starts, patients who started dialysis using a home modality, and patients receiving hemodialysis who started with an arteriovenous access. Measures included the trend prior to the IDEAL trial publication, the change in this trend after publication, and the immediate consequence of publication.

RESULTS

The final cohort comprised 28 468 patients, of whom 17 342 (60.9%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 64.8 (14.6) years. Before the IDEAL trial, a statistically significant increasing trend was observed in the monthly proportion of early dialysis starts (adjusted rate ratio, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.004; P = .004). After the IDEAL trial, an immediate decrease was observed in the proportion of early dialysis starts (rate ratio, 0.874; 95% CI, 0.818-0.933; P < .001), along with a statistically significant change in trend between the pretrial and posttrial periods (rate ratio, 0.994; 95% CI, 0.992-0.996; P < .001). No statistically significant differences were found in acute inpatient dialysis initiations, the proportion of patients receiving home dialysis as the initial modality, or the proportion of arteriovenous access creation at hemodialysis initiation after the IDEAL trial publication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The publication of the IDEAL trial appeared to be associated with an immediate and meaningful change in the timing of dialysis initiation in Canada.

Infectious Disease Risk in Dialysis Patients: A Transdisciplinary Approach

Purpose of review:

Infections are a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. A better understanding of the interplay between infectious processes and ESRD may eventually lead to the development of targeted treatment strategies aimed at lowering overall disease morbidity and mortality. Monogenic causes are a major contributor to the development of adult chronic kidney disease (CKD). Recent studies identified a genetic cause in 10% to 20% of adults with CKD. With the introduction of whole-exome sequencing (WES) into clinical mainstay, this proportion is expected to increase in the future. Once patients develop CKD/ESRD due to a genetic cause, secondary changes, such as a compromised immune status, affect overall disease progression and clinical outcomes. Stratification according to genotype may enable us to study its effects on secondary disease outcomes, such as infectious risk. Moreover, this knowledge will enable us to better understand the molecular interplay between primary disease and secondary disease outcomes.

Sources of information:

We conducted a literature review using search engines such as PubMed, PubMed central, and Medline, as well as cumulative knowledge from our respective areas of expertise.

Methods:

This is a transdisciplinary perspective on infectious complications in ESRD due to monogenic causes, such as autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), combining expertise in genomics and immunology.

Key findings:

In ADPKD, infection is a frequent complication manifesting primarily as lower urinary tract infection and less frequently as renal infection. Infectious episodes may be a direct consequence of a specific underlying structural abnormality, for example the characteristic cysts, among others. However, evidence suggests that infectious disease risk is also increased in ESRD due to secondary not-well-understood disease mechanisms. These disease mechanisms may vary depending on the underlying nature of the primary disease. While the infectious disease risk is well documented in ADPKD, there are currently insufficient data on the risk in other monogenic causes of ESRD. WES in combination with novel technologies, such as RNA sequencing and single-cell RNA sequencing, can provide insight into the molecular mechanisms of disease progression in different monogenic causes of CKD/ESRD and may lead to the development of novel risk-stratification profiles in the future.

Limitations:

This is not a systematic review of the literature and the proposed perspective is tainted by the authors’ point of view on the topic.

Implications:

WES in combination with novel technologies such as RNA sequencing may enable us to fully unravel underlying disease mechanisms and secondary disease outcomes in monogenic causes of CKD and better characterize individual risk profiles. This understanding will hopefully facilitate the development of novel targeted therapies.