Cultivating Innovative Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Registry Trials Embedded in Hemodialysis Care: Workshop Proceedings From 2018

Cultivating Innovative, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Registry Trials Embedded in Hemodialysis Care: Conference Proceeding From Gardener's Grove 2023

Purpose of the Conference

Hemodialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for patients with end-stage kidney disease. However, patients on dialysis continue to face poor quality of life and short life expectancies. Despite this, the nephrology community conducts the fewest randomized controlled trials of any medical discipline, relying instead on expert opinion to guide many aspects of hemodialysis care. There is a need to conduct high-quality pragmatic randomized controlled trials in hemodialysis to drive evidence-based practice. To this end, the Innovative Clinical Trials in Hemodialysis Centers initiative, with the support of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and its Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, funded the development of 6 pragmatic trial protocols. Gardener's Grove 2023 created a space to support the development of these trials and increase awareness and knowledge of past, ongoing, and future innovative, pragmatic, randomized controlled registry trials embedded in routine hemodialysis care. This report summarizes the proceedings of this conference.

Sources of information

The conference included 6 panel presentations, each featuring an overview of a new pragmatic trial followed by expert panel feedback from patient partners, nephrologists, researchers, and health care providers. The conference also included 10 educational sessions led by clinicians and researchers with experience in the fields of kidney medicine and clinical trials.

Methods

Gardener's Grove 2023 was a 4-day virtual conference held in March of 2023. Recordings of all the conference presentations were later published on the Gardener's Grove website and are summarized in the Supplemental Appendix of this report.

Key Findings

The conference brought together 118 Canadian and international researchers, patients, and health care providers to collaborate on 6 pragmatic trials intended to test interventions to improve hemodialysis care. The proposed trials included (1) PREventing FracturEs in REnal Disease (PREFERRED), (2) DIALysis with EXpanded solute removal (DIALEX), (3) Sodium fOr diaLysis oUTcome rEduction (SOLUTE), (4) Finding the right blood pressure target for patients on dialysis, (5) DIuretic Use in patients with Residual renal function on hemodialysis (DIURESED), and (6) Lower vs higher dialysate bicarbonate concentration in patients receiving hemodialysis (Dial-Bicarb). All of these interventions were widely supported and received valuable feedback from panelists and conference attendees. The education sessions focused on various design and execution elements of pragmatic, randomized controlled registry trials embedded in routine care.

Limitations

The conference could have been improved by streamlining session topics and pacing, allowing additional time for discussions, strengthening online network opportunities, and improving survey response rates. A follow-up conference is planned to take place in a few years, and the coordinators will aim to implement these changes.

Implications

Gardener's Grove 2023 successfully created a space for patients, researchers, and health care providers to support the development of 6 new pragmatic trials in hemodialysis care. Since Gardener's Grove 2023, several of these trials have secured CIHR funding, obtained ethics approval, and are actively preparing to launch their interventions.

The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Representation of Real-World Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease in Clinical Trials Supporting Blood Pressure Treatment Targets

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how well trial participants with chronic kidney disease (CKD) represent real-world adults with CKD. We assessed the population representativeness of clinical trials supporting the 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes blood pressure (BP) guidelines in real-world adults with CKD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using a cross-sectional analysis, we identified patients with CKD who met the guideline definition of hypertension based on use of antihypertensive medications or sustained systolic BP ≥120 mm Hg in 2019 in the Veterans Affairs and Kaiser Permanente of Southern California. We applied the eligibility criteria from 3 BP target trials, SPRINT (Systolic Pressure Intervention Trial), ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes), and AASK (African American Study of Kidney Disease), to estimate the proportion of adults with a systolic BP above the guideline-recommended target and the proportion who met eligibility criteria for ≥1 trial. We identified 503 480 adults in the Veterans Affairs and 73 412 adults in Kaiser Permanente of Southern California with CKD and hypertension in 2019. We estimated 79.7% in the Veterans Affairs and 87.3% in the Kaiser Permanente of Southern California populations had a systolic BP ≥120 mm Hg; only 23.8% [23.7%-24.0%] in the Veterans Affairs and 20.8% [20.5%-21.1%] in Kaiser Permanente of Southern California were trial-eligible. Among trial-ineligible patients, >50% met >1 exclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Major BP target trials were representative of fewer than 1 in 4 real-world adults with CKD and hypertension. A large proportion of adults who are at risk for cardiovascular morbidity from hypertension and susceptible to adverse treatment effects lack relevant treatment information.

The Feasibility of a Transitional Care Unit for Patients Newly Started on In-Center Hemodialysis: A Research Letter

Background:

Patients with end-stage kidney disease face high mortality and morbidity after dialysis initiation. Transitional care units (TCUs) are typically 4- to 8-week structured multidisciplinary programs targeted toward patients starting hemodialysis during this high-risk time in their care. The goals of such programs are to provide psychosocial support, provide dialysis modality education, and reduce risks of complications. Despite apparent benefits, the TCU model may be challenging to implement, and the effect on patient outcomes is unclear.

Objective:

To assess a newly created multidisciplinary TCUs’ feasibility for patients newly started on hemodialysis.

Design:

Before-and-after study.

Setting:

Kingston Health Sciences Centre hemodialysis unit in Ontario, Canada.

Patients:

We considered all adult patients (age 18+) who initiated in-center maintenance hemodialysis eligible for the TCU program, although patients on infection control precautions and evening shifts were not able to receive TCU care due to staffing limitations.

Measurements:

We defined feasibility as eligible patients completing the TCU program in a timely fashion without additional need for space, no signal of harm, and without explicit concerns from TCU staff or patients at weekly meetings. Key outcomes at 6 months included mortality, proportion hospitalized, dialysis modality, vascular access, initiation of transplant workup, and code status.

Methods:

The TCU care consisted of 1:1 nursing and education until predefined clinical stability and dialysis decisions were satisfied. We compared outcomes among the pre-TCU cohort who initiated hemodialysis between June 2017 and May 2018, and TCU patients who initiated dialysis between June 2018 and March 2019. We summarized outcomes descriptively, along with unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results:

We included 115 pre-TCU patients and 109 post-TCU patients, of whom 49/109 (45%) entered and completed the TCU. The most common reasons for not participating in the TCU included evening hemodialysis shifts (18/60, 30%) or contact precautions (18/60, 30%). The TCU patients completed the program in a median of 35 (25-47) days. We observed no differences in mortality (9% vs 8%; OR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.28-3.13) or proportion hospitalized (38% vs 39%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.51-2.03) between the pre-TCU cohort and TCU patients. There was also no difference in use of home dialysis (16% vs 10%; OR = 1.67, 95% CI = 0.64-4.39), non-catheter access (32% vs 25%; OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.69-2.98), initiation of transplant workup (14% vs 12%; OR 1.67; 95% CI = 0.64-4.39), and choosing “do not resuscitate” (DNR) orders (22% vs 19%; OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.54-2.77). There was no negative patient or staff feedback on the program.

Limitations:

Small sample size and potential for selection bias given inability to provide TCU care for patients on infection control precautions or evening shifts.

Conclusions:

The TCU accommodated a large number of patients, who completed the program in a timely fashion. The TCU model was determined to be feasible at our center. There was no difference in outcomes due to the small sample size. Future work at our center is required to expand the number of TCU dialysis chairs to evening shifts and evaluate the TCU model in prospective, controlled studies.

Methodological challenges in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: Opportunities for improvement

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We need more pragmatic trials of interventions to improve care and outcomes for people living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. However, these trials present unique methodological challenges in their design, analysis, and reporting-often, due to the presence of one or more sources of clustering. Failure to account for clustering in the design and analysis can lead to increased risks of Type I and Type II errors. We conducted a review to describe key methodological characteristics and obtain a "baseline assessment" of methodological quality of pragmatic trials in dementia research, with a view to developing new methods and practical guidance to support investigators and methodologists conducting pragmatic trials in this field.

METHODS

We used a published search filter in MEDLINE to identify trials more likely to be pragmatic and identified a subset that focused on people living with Alzheimer's disease or other dementias or included them as a defined subgroup. Pairs of reviewers extracted descriptive information and key methodological quality indicators from each trial.

RESULTS

We identified N = 62 eligible primary trial reports published across 36 different journals. There were 15 (24%) individually randomized, 38 (61%) cluster randomized, and 9 (15%) individually randomized group treatment designs; 54 (87%) trials used repeated measures on the same individual and/or cluster over time and 17 (27%) had a multivariate primary outcome (e.g. due to measuring an outcome on both the patient and their caregiver). Of the 38 cluster randomized trials, 16 (42%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for the intracluster correlation and 13 (34%) did not account for intracluster correlation in the analysis. Of the 9 individually randomized group treatment trials, 6 (67%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for intracluster correlation and 8 (89%) did not account for it in the analysis. Of the 54 trials with repeated measurements, 45 (83%) did not report sample size calculations accounting for repeated measurements and 19 (35%) did not utilize at least some of the repeated measures in the analysis. No trials accounted for the multivariate nature of their primary outcomes in sample size calculation; only one did so in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

There is a need and opportunity to improve the design, analysis, and reporting of pragmatic trials in dementia research. Investigators should pay attention to the potential presence of one or more sources of clustering. While methods for longitudinal and cluster randomized trials are well developed, accessible resources and new methods for dealing with multiple sources of clustering are required. Involvement of a statistician with expertise in longitudinal and clustered designs is recommended.

Patient Partner Perspectives Regarding Ethically and Clinically Important Aspects of Trial Design in Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials for Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are trials in which intact groups such as hemodialysis centers or shifts are randomized to treatment or control arms. Pragmatic CRTs have been promoted as a promising trial design for nephrology research yet may also pose ethical challenges. While randomization occurs at the cluster level, the intervention and data collection may vary in a CRT, challenging the identification of research participants. Moreover, when a waiver of patient consent is granted by a research ethics committee, there is an open question as to whether and to what degree patients should be notified about ongoing research or be provided with a debrief regarding the nature and results of the trial upon completion. While empirical and conceptual research exploring ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs has begun to emerge, there has been limited discussion with patients, families, or caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE

To explore with patients and families with experience of hemodialysis research the challenges raised by different approaches to designing pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis. Specifically, their perceptions of (1) the use of a waiver of consent, (2) notification processes and information provided to participants, and (3) any other concerns about cluster randomized designs in hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Focus group and interview discussions of hypothetical clinical trial designs.

SETTING

Focus groups and interviews were conducted in-person or via videoconference or telephone.

PARTICIPANTS

Patient partners in hemodialysis research, defined as patients with personal experience of dialysis or a family member who had experience supporting a patient receiving hemodialysis, who have been actively involved in discussions to advise a research team on the design, conduct, or implementation of a hemodialysis trial.

METHODS

Participants were invited to participate in focus groups or individual discussions that were audio recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Two focus groups, three individual interviews, and one interview involving a patient and family member were conducted with 17 individuals between February 2019 and May 2020. Participants expressed support for approaches that emphasized patient choice. Disclosure of patient-relevant risks and information were key themes. Both consent and notification processes served to generate trust, but bypassing patient choice was perceived as undermining this trust. Participants did not dismiss the option of a waiver of consent. They were, however, more restrictive in their views about when a waiver of consent may be acceptable. Patient partners were skeptical of claims to impracticability based on costs or the time commitments for staff.

LIMITATIONS

All participants were from Canada and had been involved in the design or conduct of a trial, limiting the degree to which results may be extrapolated.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the preferences of participants to be afforded the opportunity to decide about trial participation, we argue that investigators should thoroughly investigate approaches that allow participants to make an informed choice regarding trial participation. In keeping with the preference for autonomous choice, there remains a need to further explore how consent approaches can be designed to facilitate clinical trial conduct while meeting their ethical requirements. Finally, further work is needed to define the limited circumstances in which waivers of consent are appropriate.

β-blockers in hemodialysis: simple questions, complicated answers

In this issue of the Clinical Kidney Journal, Wu et al. present the results of a nationwide population-based study using Taiwanese administrative data to compare safety and efficacy outcomes with initiation of bisoprolol versus carvedilol among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis for >90 days. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events over 2 years of follow-up. The study found that bisoprolol was associated with a lower risk for both major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality compared with carvedilol. While the bulk of the existing evidence favors a cardioprotective and survival benefit with β-blockers as a medication class among dialysis patients, there is wide heterogeneity among specific β-blockers in regard to pharmacologic properties and dialyzability. While acknowledging the constraints of observational data, these findings may serve to inform clinicians about the preferred β-blocker agent for dialysis patients to help mitigate cardiovascular risk and improve long-term survival for this high-risk population.

Providing diabetes education to patients with chronic kidney disease: A survey of diabetes educators in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) have complex diabetes care needs. Diabetes educators can play an important role in their clinical care.

AIM

To understand diabetes educators' experience providing diabetes support to patients with CKD and elicit their view on the additional care needs of this population.

METHODS

We conducted a quantitative online survey of diabetes educators between May 2019 and May 2020. We surveyed English-speaking educators actively practicing in Ontario, Canada for at least 1 year. We recruited them through provincial Diabetes Education Programs and Diabetes Education Section Chairs of Diabetes Canada.

RESULTS

We made email contact with 219/233 (94%) Diabetes Education Programs and 11/12 (92%) provincial Diabetes Canada Section Chairs. 122 unique diabetes educators submitted complete surveys (survey participation rate ∼79%). Most worked in community education programs (91%). Almost half were registered nurses (48%), and 39% had practiced for more than 15 years. Respondents noted difficulty helping patients balance complex medical conditions (19%), faced socioeconomic barriers (17%), and struggled to provide dietary advice (16%). One-third were uncertain of how to support those receiving dialysis. Eighty-five percent felt they needed more training and education to care for this high-risk group. When asked about the care needs of patients with CKD, almost all (90%) felt that patients needed more diabetes support in general. Improvement in care coordination was most commonly suggested (38%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of the diabetes educators' experience treating patients with diabetes and CKD, respondents noted numerous challenges. There may be opportunities to better support both diabetes care professionals, and patients who live with multiple medical comorbidities.

Characteristics and Effectiveness of Dedicated Care Programs for Patients Starting Dialysis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Dedicated care programs that provide increased support to patients starting dialysis are increasingly being used to reduce the risk of complications. The objectives of this systematic review were to determine the characteristics of existing programs and their effect on patient outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL from database inception to November 20, 2019 for English-language studies that evaluated dedicated care programs for adults starting maintenance dialysis in the inpatient or outpatient setting. Any study design was eligible, but we required the presence of a control group and prespecified patient outcomes. We extracted data describing the nature of the interventions, their components, and the reported benefits.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 12,681 studies. We evaluated 66 full texts and included 11 studies (n=6812 intervention patients); eight of the studies evaluated hemodialysis programs. All studies were observational, and there were no randomized controlled trials. The most common interventions included patient education (n=11) and case management (n=5), with nurses involved in nine programs. The most common outcomes were mortality (n=8) and vascular access (n=4), with only three studies reporting on the uptake of home dialysis and none on transplantation. We identified four high-quality studies that combined patient education and case management; in these programs, the relative reduction in 90-day mortality ranged from 22% (95% CI, -3% to 41%) to 49% (95% CI, 33% to 61%). Pooled analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have evaluated dedicated care programs for patients starting dialysis, especially their effect on home dialysis and transplantation. Whereas multidisciplinary care models that combine patient education with case management appear to be promising, additional prospective studies that involve patients in their design and execution are needed before widespread implementation of these resource-intensive programs.

Improving Sexual Function in People With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review of an Unmet Need in Nephrology Research

Purpose of review:

Sexual dysfunction occurs commonly in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and has been recognized as a research priority. We sought to evaluate the current state of the literature addressing sexual dysfunction in people with CKD and identify barriers and strategies to improve our management of this important symptom.

Sources of information:

OVID Medline and Google Scholar were searched for English, peer-reviewed studies using keywords and terms related to “Chronic Kidney Disease,” “sexuality,” and “sexual dysfunction OR function.”

Methods:

In this narrative review, we describe definitions of sexual dysfunction and contributors exacerbated by CKD, barriers to researching sexual dysfunction in people with CKD, and possible avenues for future research.

Key findings:

Sexual dysfunction is common in people with CKD and results from a combination of kidney disease itself, as well as its associated physical (ie, comorbidities) and nonphysical factors. Barriers to the study of sexual dysfunction in CKD include inconsistent disease definitions, stigma, variable efficacy and safety of established therapies, and evolving gender roles in sexual function. Potential avenues for future research to improve the sexual function in people with CKD may include evaluating the safety and efficacy of established therapies in people with CKD using a variety of observational and interventional study designs, engaging people with CKD and multidisciplinary team members in research, and using implementation science methods to translate what is known about sexual function into clinical practice. Concerted efforts are required to break down barriers and improve sexual function in people with CKD. Patients have identified this as an important research priority, and national networks need to direct efforts to reduce symptom burden.

Limitations:

This narrative review was limited by a paucity of high-quality studies examining sexual dysfunction specifically in people with kidney disease.