The TiME Trial: A Fully Embedded, Cluster-Randomized, Pragmatic Trial of Hemodialysis Session Duration

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.

Capacity for the management of kidney failure in the International Society of Nephrology North America and the Caribbean region: report from the 2023 ISN Global Kidney Health Atlas (ISN-GKHA)

The International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas charts the availability and capacity of kidney care globally. In the North America and the Caribbean region, the Atlas can identify opportunities for kidney care improvement, particularly in Caribbean countries where structures for systematic data collection are lacking. In this third iteration, respondents from 12 of 18 countries from the region reported a 2-fold higher than global median prevalence of dialysis and transplantation, and a 3-fold higher than global median prevalence of dialysis centers. The peritoneal dialysis prevalence was lower than the global median, and transplantation data were missing from 6 of the 10 Caribbean countries. Government-funded payments predominated for dialysis modalities, with greater heterogeneity in transplantation payor mix. Services for chronic kidney disease, such as monitoring of anemia and blood pressure, and diagnostic capability relying on serum creatinine and urinalyses were universally available. Notable exceptions in Caribbean countries included non-calcium-based phosphate binders and kidney biopsy services. Personnel shortages were reported across the region. Kidney failure was identified as a governmental priority more commonly than was chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury. In this generally affluent region, patients have better access to kidney replacement therapy and chronic kidney disease-related services than in much of the world. Yet clear heterogeneity exists, especially among the Caribbean countries struggling with dialysis and personnel capacity. Important steps to improve kidney care in the region include increased emphasis on preventive care, a focus on home-based modalities and transplantation, and solutions to train and retain specialized allied health professionals.

Patient-Centered Home Hemodialysis: Approaches and Prescription

Writing a home hemodialysis (HD) prescription is a complex, multifactorial process that requires the incorporation of patient values, preferences, and lifestyle. Knowledge of the different options available for home HD modality (conventional, nocturnal, short daily, and alternate nightly) is also important when customizing a prescription. Finally, an understanding of the different home HD machines currently approved for use at home and their different attributes and limitations helps guide providers when formulating their prescriptions. In this review article, we set out to address these different aspects to help guide providers in providing a patient-centered home HD approach.

Design, implementation, and inferential issues associated with clinical trials that rely on data in electronic medical records: a narrative review

Real world evidence is now accepted by authorities charged with assessing the benefits and harms of new therapies. Clinical trials based on real world evidence are much less expensive than randomized clinical trials that do not rely on "real world evidence" such as contained in electronic health records (EHR). Consequently, we can expect an increase in the number of reports of these types of trials, which we identify here as 'EHR-sourced trials.' 'In this selected literature review, we discuss the various designs and the ethical issues they raise. EHR-sourced trials have the potential to improve/increase common data elements and other aspects of the EHR and related systems. Caution is advised, however, in drawing causal inferences about the relationships among EHR variables. Nevertheless, we anticipate that EHR-CTs will play a central role in answering research and regulatory questions.

Do Clinicians Have a Duty to Participate in Pragmatic Clinical Trials?

Clinicians have good moral and professional reasons to contribute to pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs). We argue that clinicians have a defeasible duty to participate in this research that takes place in usual care settings and does not involve substantive deviation from their ordinary care practices. However, a variety of countervailing reasons may excuse clinicians from this duty in particular cases. Yet because there is a moral default in favor of participating, clinicians who wish to opt out of this research must justify their refusal. Reasons to refuse include that the trial is badly designed in some way, that the trial activities will violate the clinician's conscience, or that the trial will impose excessive burdens on the clinician.

Ultrafiltration Rate Levels in Hemodialysis Patients Associated with Weight-Specific Mortality Risks

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that the association of ultrafiltration rate with mortality in hemodialysis patients was differentially affected by weight and sex and sought to derive a sex- and weight-indexed ultrafiltration rate measure that captures the differential effects of these parameters on the association of ultrafiltration rate with mortality.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from the US Fresenius Kidney Care (FKC) database for 1 year after patient entry into a FKC dialysis unit (baseline) and over 2 years of follow-up for patients receiving thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis. To investigate the joint effect of baseline-year ultrafiltration rate and postdialysis weight on survival, we fit Cox proportional hazards models using bivariate tensor product spline functions and constructed contour plots of weight-specific mortality hazard ratios over the entire range of ultrafiltration rate values and postdialysis weights (W).

RESULTS

In the studied 396,358 patients, the average ultrafiltration rate in ml/h was related to postdialysis weight (W) in kg: 3W+330. Ultrafiltration rates associated with 20% or 40% higher weight-specific mortality risk were 3W+500 and 3W+630 ml/h, respectively, and were 70 ml/h higher in men than in women. Nineteen percent or 7.5% of patients exceeded ultrafiltration rates associated with a 20% or 40% higher mortality risk, respectively. Low ultrafiltration rates were associated with subsequent weight loss. Ultrafiltration rates associated with a given mortality risk were lower in high-body weight older patients and higher in patients on dialysis for more than 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrafiltration rates associated with various levels of higher mortality risk depend on body weight, but not in a 1:1 ratio, and are different in men versus women, in high-body weight older patients, and in high-vintage patients.

Hyperhydration to Improve Kidney Outcomes in Children with Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli Infection: a multinational embedded cluster crossover randomized trial (the HIKO STEC trial)

BACKGROUND

Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) infections affect children and adults worldwide, and treatment remain solely supportive. Up to 15-20% of children infected by high-risk STEC (i.e., E. coli that produce Shiga toxin 2) develop hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and kidney failure (i.e., hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS)), over half of whom require acute dialysis and 3% die. Although no therapy is widely accepted as being able to prevent the development of HUS and its complications, several observational studies suggest that intravascular volume expansion (hyperhydration) may prevent end organ damage. A randomized trial is needed to confirm or refute this hypothesis.

METHODS

We will conduct a pragmatic, embedded, cluster-randomized, crossover trial in 26 pediatric institutions to determine if hyperhydration, compared to conservative fluid management, improves outcomes in 1040 children with high-risk STEC infections. The primary outcome is major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE30), a composite measure that includes death, initiation of new renal replacement therapy, or persistent kidney dysfunction. Secondary outcomes include life-threatening, extrarenal complications, and development of HUS. Pathway eligible children will be treated per institutional allocation to each pathway. In the hyperhydration pathway, all eligible children are hospitalized and administered 200% maintenance balanced crystalloid fluids up to targets of 10% weight gain and 20% reduction in hematocrit. Sites in the conservative fluid management pathway manage children as in- or outpatients, based on clinician preference, with the pathway focused on close laboratory monitoring, and maintenance of euvolemia. Based on historical data, we estimate that 10% of children in our conservative fluid management pathway will experience the primary outcome. With 26 clusters enrolling a mean of 40 patients each with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.11, we will have 90% power to detect a 5% absolute risk reduction.

DISCUSSION

HUS is a devastating illness with no treatment options. This pragmatic study will determine if hyperhydration can reduce morbidity associated with HUS in children with high-risk STEC infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05219110 . Registered on February 1, 2022.

Impact of haemodialysis hours on outcomes in older patients

AIM

Previous studies report an association between longer haemodialysis treatment sessions and improved survival. Worldwide, there is a trend to increasing age among prevalent patients receiving haemodialysis. This analysis aimed to determine whether the mortality benefit of longer haemodialysis treatment sessions diminishes with increasing age.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of people who first commenced thrice-weekly haemodialysis aged ≥65 years, reported to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) Registry from 2005 to 2015, included from 90 days after dialysis start. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox regression analysis was performed with haemodialysis session duration the exposure of interest.

RESULTS

Of 8224 people who commenced haemodialysis as their first treatment for kidney failure aged ≥65 years during this period, 4727 patients died. Longer dialysis hours per session was associated with a decreased risk of death in unadjusted analyses [hazard ratio, HR, for ≥5 h versus 4 to <4.5 h: 0.81 (0.75-0.88, p < .001)]. Patients having longer dialysis sessions were younger but had greater co-morbidity. In an adjusted model including age and other variables, the survival benefit of longer hours was only partially attenuated [HR for previous comparison: 0.75 (0.69-0.82, p < .001)], and no interaction between age and hours was demonstrated (p = .89).

CONCLUSION

The apparent survival benefit associated with longer haemodialysis session length appears to be preserved in patients 65 years or older. In practice, the benefit of longer dialysis hours should be carefully weighed against other factors in this patient group.

Comparing Pharmacist-Led Telehealth Care and Clinic-Based Care for Uncontrolled High Blood Pressure: The Hyperlink 3 Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

A team approach is one of the most effective ways to lower blood pressure (BP) in uncontrolled hypertension, but different models for organizing team-based care have not been compared directly.

METHODS

A pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial compared 2 interventions in adult patients with moderately severe hypertension (BP≥150/95 mm Hg): (1) clinic-based care using best practices and face-to-face visits with physicians and medical assistants; and (2) telehealth care using best practices and adding home BP telemonitoring with home-based care coordinated by a clinical pharmacist or nurse practitioner. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were change in patient-reported outcomes over 6 months.

RESULTS

Participants (N=3071 in 21 primary care clinics) were on average 60 years old, 47% male, and 19% Black. Protocol-specified follow-up within 6 weeks was 32% in clinic-based care and 27% in telehealth care. BP decreased significantly during 12 months of follow-up in both groups, from 157/92 to 139/82 mm Hg in clinic-based care patients (adjusted mean difference -18/-10 mm Hg) and 157/91 to 139/81 mm Hg in telehealth care patients (adjusted mean difference -19/-10 mm Hg), with no significant difference in systolic BP change between groups (-0.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.84 to 1.32]). Telehealth care patients were significantly more likely than clinic-based care patients to report frequent home BP measurement, rate their BP care highly, and report that BP care visits were convenient.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth care that includes extended team care is an effective and safe alternative to clinic-based care for improving patient-centered care for hypertension.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02996565.

Fitness of real-world data for clinical trial data collection: Results and lessons from a HARMONY Outcomes ancillary study

BACKGROUND

Despite the extensive use of real-world data for retrospective, observational clinical research, our understanding of how real-world data might increase the efficiency of data collection in patient-level randomized clinical trials is largely unknown. The structure of real-world data is inherently heterogeneous, with each source electronic health record and claims database different from the next. Their fitness-for-use as data sources for multisite trials in the United States has not been established.

METHODS

For a subset of participants in the HARMONY Outcomes Trial, we obtained electronic health record data from recruiting sites or Medicare claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. For baseline characteristics and follow-up events, we assessed the level of agreement between these real-world data and data documented in the trial database.

RESULTS

Real-world data-derived demographic information tended to agree with trial-reported demographic information, although real-world data were less accurate in identifying medical history. The ability of real-world data to identify baseline medication usage differed by real-world data source, with claims data demonstrating substantially better performance than electronic health record data. The limited number of lab results in the collected electronic health record data matched closely with values in the trial database. There were not enough follow-up events in the ancillary study population to draw meaningful conclusions about the performance of real-world data for identification of events. Based on the conduct of this ancillary study, the challenges and opportunities of using real-world data within clinical trials are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Based on a subset of participants from the HARMONY Outcomes Trial, our results suggest that electronic health record or claims data, as currently available, are unlikely to be a complete substitute for trial data collection of medical history or baseline lab results, but that Medicare claims were able to identify most medications. The limited size of the study population prevents us from drawing strong conclusions based on these results, and other studies are clearly needed to confirm or refute these findings.

Heterogeneity in pragmatic randomised trials: sources and management

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials aim to generate evidence to directly inform patient, caregiver and health-system manager policies and decisions. Heterogeneity in patient characteristics contributes to heterogeneity in their response to the intervention. However, there are many other sources of heterogeneity in outcomes. Based on the expertise and judgements of the authors, we identify different sources of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, which translate into heterogeneity in patient responses-some we consider as desirable and some as undesirable. For each of them, we discuss and, using real-world trial examples, illustrate how heterogeneity should be managed over the whole course of the trial.

MAIN TEXT

Heterogeneity in centres and patients should be welcomed rather than limited. Interventions can be flexible or tailored and control interventions are expected to reflect usual care, avoiding use of a placebo. Co-interventions should be allowed; adherence should not be enforced. All these elements introduce heterogeneity in interventions (experimental or control), which has to be welcomed because it mimics reality. Outcomes should be objective and possibly routinely collected; standardised assessment, blinding and adjudication should be avoided as much as possible because this is not how assessment would be done outside a trial setting. The statistical analysis strategy must be guided by the objective to inform decision-making, thus favouring the intention-to-treat principle. Pragmatic trials should consider including process analyses to inform an understanding of the trial results. Needed data to conduct these analyses should be collected unobtrusively. Finally, ethical principles must be respected, even though this may seem to conflict with goals of pragmatism; consent procedures could be incorporated in the flow of care.

Comparison of explanatory and pragmatic design choices in a cluster-randomized hypertension trial: effects on enrollment, participant characteristics, and adherence

Background

Explanatory trials are designed to assess intervention efficacy under ideal conditions, while pragmatic trials are designed to assess whether research-proven interventions are effective in “real-world” settings without substantial research support.

Methods

We compared two trials (Hyperlink 1 and 3) that tested a pharmacist-led telehealth intervention in adults with uncontrolled hypertension. We applied PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) scores to describe differences in the way these studies were designed and enrolled study-eligible participants, and the effect of these differences on participant characteristics and adherence to study interventions.

Results

PRECIS-2 scores demonstrated that Hyperlink 1 was more explanatory and Hyperlink 3 more pragmatic. Recruitment for Hyperlink 1 was conducted by study staff, and 2.9% of potentially eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were older, and more likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff scheduled the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was 98%. Conversely for Hyperlink 3, recruitment was conducted by clinic staff at routine encounters and 81% of eligible patients enrolled. Enrollees were younger, and less likely to be male and White than non-enrollees. Study staff did not assist with scheduling the initial pharmacist visit and adherence to attending this visit was only 27%. Compared to Hyperlink 1, patients in Hyperlink 3 were more likely to be female, and Asian or Black, had lower socioeconomic indicators, and were more likely to have comorbidities. Owing to a lower BP for eligibility in Hyperlink 1 (>140/90 mm Hg) than in Hyperlink 3 (>150/95 mm Hg), mean baseline BP was 148/85 mm Hg in Hyperlink 1 and 158/92 mm Hg in Hyperlink 3.

Conclusion

The pragmatic design features of Hyperlink 3 substantially increased enrollment of study-eligible patients and of those traditionally under-represented in clinical trials (women, minorities, and patients with less education and lower income), and demonstrated that identification and enrollment of a high proportion of study-eligible subjects could be done by usual primary care clinic staff. However, the trade-off was much lower adherence to the telehealth intervention than in Hyperlink 1, which is likely to reflect uptake under real-word conditions and substantially dilute intervention effect on BP.

Trial registration

The Hyperlink 1 study (NCT00781365) and the Hyperlink 3 study (NCT02996565) are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Executive summary of the Korean Society of Nephrology 2021 clinical practice guideline for optimal hemodialysis treatment

The Korean Society of Nephrology (KSN) has published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) document for maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The document, 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline on Optimal HD Treatment, is based on an extensive evidence-oriented review of the benefits of preparation, initiation, and maintenance therapy for HD, with the participation of representative experts from the KSN under the methodologists' support for guideline development. It was intended to help clinicians participating in HD treatment make safer and more effective clinical decisions by providing user-friendly guidelines. We hope that this CPG will be meaningful as a recommendation in practice, but not on a regulatory rule basis, as different approaches and treatments may be used by health care providers depending on the individual patient's condition. This CPG consists of eight sections and 15 key questions. Each begins with statements that are graded by the strength of recommendations and quality of the evidence. Each statement is followed by a summary of the evidence supporting the recommendations. There are also a link to full-text documents and lists of the most important reports so that the readers can read further (most of this is available online).

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

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Longer and more frequent hemodialysis sessions are associated with both benefits and harms. However, their relative importance to patients and how they influence acceptability for patients have not been quantified.

STUDY DESIGN

Discrete-choice experiment in which a scenario followed by 12 treatment choice sets were presented to patients in conjunction with varying information about the clinical impact of the treatments offered.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients with kidney failure treated with maintenance dialysis for≥1 year in 5 UK kidney centers.

PREDICTORS

Length and frequency of hemodialysis sessions and their prior reported associations with survival, quality of life, need for fluid restriction, hospitalization, and vascular access complications.

OUTCOME

Selection of longer (4.5 hours) or more frequent (4 sessions per week) hemodialysis regimens versus remaining on 3 sessions per week with session lengths of 4 hours.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Multinomial mixed effects logistic regression estimating the relative influence of different levels of the predictors on the selection of longer and more frequent dialysis, controlling for patient demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 183 prevalent in-center hemodialysis patients (mean age of 63.7 years, mean dialysis vintage of 4.7 years), 38.3% (70 of 183) always chose to remain on regimens of 3 sessions per week with session duration of 4 hours. Depicted associations of increasing survival and quality of life, reduced need for fluid restriction, and avoiding additional access complications were all significantly associated with choosing longer or more frequent treatment regimens. Younger age, fatigue, previous experience of vascular access complications, absence of heart failure, and shorter travel time to dialysis centers were associated with preference for 4 sessions per week. Patients expressed willingness to trade up to 2 years of life to avoid regimens of 4 sessions per week or access complications. After applying estimated treatment benefits and harms from existing literature, the fully adjusted model revealed that 27.1% would choose longer regimens delivered 3 times per week and 34.3% would choose 4 hours 4 times per week. Analogous estimates for younger fatigued patients living near their unit were 23.5% and 62.5%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Estimates were based on stated preferences rather than observed behaviors. Predicted acceptance of regimens was derived from data on treatment benefits and harms largely sourced from observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Predicted acceptance of longer and more frequent hemodialysis regimens substantially exceeds their use in current clinical practice. These findings underscore the need for robust data on clinical effectiveness of these more intensive regimens and more extensive consideration of patient choice in the selection of dialysis regimens.

Does delivering more dialysis improve clinical outcomes? What randomized controlled trials have shown

Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have sought to determine whether different dialysis techniques, dialysis doses and frequencies of treatment are able to improve clinical outcomes in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Virtually all of these RCTs were enacted on the premise that 'more' haemodialysis might improve clinical outcomes compared to 'conventional' haemodialysis. Aim of the present narrative review was to analyse these landmark RCTs by posing the following question: were their intervention strategies (i.e., earlier dialysis start, higher haemodialysis dose, intensive haemodialysis, increase in convective transport, starting haemodialysis with three sessions per week) able to improve clinical outcomes? The answer is no. There are at least two main reasons why many RCTs have failed to demonstrate the expected benefits thus far: (1) in general, RCTs included relatively small cohorts and short follow-ups, thus producing low event rates and limited statistical power; (2) the designs of these studies did not take into account that ESKD does not result from a single disease entity: it is a collection of different diseases and subtypes of kidney dysfunction. Patients with advanced kidney failure requiring dialysis treatment differ on a multitude of levels including residual kidney function, biochemical parameters (e.g., acid base balance, serum electrolytes, mineral and bone disorder), and volume overload. In conclusion, the different intervention strategies of the RCTs herein reviewed were not able to improve clinical outcomes of ESKD patients. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process. Future RCTs should account for the heterogeneity of patients when considering inclusion/exclusion criteria and study design, and should a priori consider subgroup analyses to highlight specific subgroups that can benefit most from a particular intervention.

Executive Summary of the Korean Society of Nephrology 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline for Optimal Hemodialysis Treatment

The Korean Society of Nephrology (KSN) has published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) document for maintenance hemodialysis (HD). The document, 2021 Clinical Practice Guideline on Optimal HD Treatment, is based on an extensive evidence-oriented review of the benefits of preparation, initiation, and maintenance therapy for HD, with the participation of representative experts from the KSN under the methodologists’ support for guideline development. It was intended to help clinicians participating in HD treatment make safer and more effective clinical decisions by providing user-friendly guidelines. We hope that this CPG will be meaningful as a recommendation in practice, but not on a regulatory rule basis, as different approaches and treatments may be used by health care providers depending on the individual patient’s condition. This CPG consists of eight sections and 15 key questions. Each begins with statements that are graded by the strength of recommendations and quality of the evidence. Each statement is followed by a summary of the evidence supporting the recommendations. There is also a link to full-text documents and lists of the most important reports so that the readers can read further (most of this is available online).

Incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials: Scientific, ethical, and policy considerations

Pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly used to generate knowledge about real-world clinical interventions. However, they involve some distinctive ethical and regulatory challenges. In this article, we examine a set of issues related to incentives and other payments to patients in pragmatic clinical trials. Although many of the ethical concerns related to incentives and payments in explanatory trials pertain to pragmatic clinical trials, the pragmatic features may introduce additional challenges. These include those related to the risk of incentives and payments undermining the scientific validity and social value of pragmatic clinical trials, the sources of data used in pragmatic clinical trials, and when the pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under waivers of consent. Based on our examination of these matters, we offer some preliminary recommendations regarding incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials, recognizing that additional data and experiences are needed to refine them.

Enhancing the use of EHR systems for pragmatic embedded research: lessons from the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory

OBJECTIVE

We identified challenges and solutions to using electronic health record (EHR) systems for the design and conduct of pragmatic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since 2012, the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory has served as the resource coordinating center for 21 pragmatic clinical trial demonstration projects. The EHR Core working group invited these demonstration projects to complete a written semistructured survey and used an inductive approach to review responses and identify EHR-related challenges and suggested EHR enhancements.

RESULTS

We received survey responses from 20 projects and identified 21 challenges that fell into 6 broad themes: (1) inadequate collection of patient-reported outcome data, (2) lack of structured data collection, (3) data standardization, (4) resources to support customization of EHRs, (5) difficulties aggregating data across sites, and (6) accessing EHR data.

DISCUSSION

Based on these findings, we formulated 6 prerequisites for PCTs that would enable the conduct of pragmatic research: (1) integrate the collection of patient-centered data into EHR systems, (2) facilitate structured research data collection by leveraging standard EHR functions, usable interfaces, and standard workflows, (3) support the creation of high-quality research data by using standards, (4) ensure adequate IT staff to support embedded research, (5) create aggregate, multidata type resources for multisite trials, and (6) create re-usable and automated queries.

CONCLUSION

We are hopeful our collection of specific EHR challenges and research needs will drive health system leaders, policymakers, and EHR designers to support these suggestions to improve our national capacity for generating real-world evidence.

Pilot and feasibility studies for pragmatic trials have unique considerations and areas of uncertainty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Feasibility studies are increasingly being used to support the development of, and investigate uncertainties around, future large-scale trials. The future trial can be designed with either a pragmatic or explanatory mindset. Whereas pragmatic trials aim to inform the choice between different care options and thus, are designed to resemble conditions outside of a clinical trial environment, explanatory trials examine the benefit of a treatment under more controlled conditions. There is existing guidance for designing feasibility studies, but none that explicitly considers the goals of pragmatic designs. We aimed to identify unique areas of uncertainty that are relevant to planning a pragmatic trial.

RESULTS

We identified ten relevant domains, partly based on the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-2 (PRECIS-2) framework, and describe potential questions of uncertainty within each: intervention development, research ethics, participant identification and eligibility, recruitment of individuals, setting, organization, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, follow-up, and importance of primary outcome to patients and decision-makers. We present examples to illustrate how uncertainty in these domains might be addressed within a feasibility study.

CONCLUSION

Researchers planning a feasibility study in advance of a pragmatic trial should consider feasibility objectives specifically relevant to areas of uncertainty for pragmatic trials.

Accounting for quality improvement during the conduct of embedded pragmatic clinical trials within healthcare systems: NIH Collaboratory case studies

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and quality improvement (QI) activities often occur simultaneously within healthcare systems (HCSs). Embedded PCTs within HCSs are conducted to test interventions and provide evidence that may impact public health, health system operations, and quality of care. They are larger and more broadly generalizable than QI initiatives, and may generate what is considered high-quality evidence for potential use in care and clinical practice guidelines. QI initiatives often co-occur with ePCTs and address the same high-impact health questions, and this co-occurrence may dilute or confound the ability to detect change as a result of the ePCT intervention.

During the design, pilot, and conduct phases of the large-scale NIH Collaboratory Demonstration ePCTs, many QI initiatives occurred at the same time within the HCSs. Although the challenges varied across the projects, some common, generalizable strategies and solutions emerged, and we share these as case studies.

Design and Rationale of HiLo: A Pragmatic, Randomized Trial of Phosphate Management for Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Hyperphosphatemia is a risk factor for poor clinical outcomes in patients with kidney failure receiving maintenance dialysis. Opinion-based clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of phosphate binders and dietary phosphate restriction to lower serum phosphate levels toward the normal range in patients receiving maintenance dialysis, but the benefits of these approaches and the optimal serum phosphate target have not been tested in randomized trials. It is also unknown if aggressive treatment that achieves unnecessarily low serum phosphate levels worsens outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter, pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

HiLo will randomize 80-120 dialysis facilities operated by DaVita Inc and the University of Utah to enroll 4,400 patients undergoing 3-times-weekly, in-center hemodialysis.

INTERVENTION

Phosphate binder prescriptions and dietary recommendations to achieve the "Hi" serum phosphate target (≥6.5 mg/dL) or the "Lo" serum phosphate target (<5.5 mg/dL).

OUTCOMES

Primary outcome: Hierarchical composite outcome of all-cause mortality and all-cause hospitalization. Main secondary outcomes: Individual components of the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The trial is currently enrolling.

LIMITATIONS

HiLo will not adjudicate causes of hospitalizations or mortality and does not protocolize use of specific phosphate binder classes.

CONCLUSIONS

HiLo aims to address an important clinical question while more generally advancing methods for pragmatic clinical trials in nephrology by introducing multiple innovative features including stakeholder engagement in the study design, liberal eligibility criteria, use of electronic informed consent, engagement of dietitians to implement the interventions in real-world practice, leveraging electronic health records to eliminate dedicated study visits, remote monitoring of serum phosphate separation between trial arms, and use of a novel hierarchical composite outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT04095039.

Global Epidemiology of End-Stage Kidney Disease and Disparities in Kidney Replacement Therapy

BACKGROUND

The global epidemiology of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) reflects each nation's unique genetic, environmental, lifestyle, and sociodemographic characteristics. The response to ESKD, particularly regarding kidney replacement therapy (KRT), depends on local disease burden, culture, and socioeconomics. Here, we explore geographic variation and global trends in ESKD incidence and prevalence and examine variations in KRT modality, practice patterns, and mortality. We conclude with a discussion on disparities in access to KRT and strategies to reduce ESKD global burden and to improve access to treatment in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

SUMMARY

From 2003 to 2016, incidence rates of treated ESKD were relatively stable in many higher income countries but rose substantially predominantly in East and Southeast Asia. The prevalence of treated ESKD has increased worldwide, likely due to improving ESKD survival, population demographic shifts, higher prevalence of ESKD risk factors, and increasing KRT access in countries with growing economies. Unadjusted 5-year survival of ESKD patients on KRT was 41% in the USA, 48% in Europe, and 60% in Japan. Dialysis is the predominant KRT in most countries, with hemodialysis being the most common modality. Variations in dialysis practice patterns account for some of the differences in survival outcomes globally. Worldwide, there is a greater prevalence of KRT at higher income levels, and the number of people who die prematurely because of lack of KRT access is estimated at up to 3 times higher than the number who receive treatment. Key Messages: Many people worldwide in need of KRT as a life-sustaining treatment do not receive it, mostly in LMICs where health care resources are severely limited. This large treatment gap demands a focus on population-based prevention strategies and development of affordable and cost-effective KRT. Achieving global equity in KRT access will require concerted efforts in advocating effective public policy, health care delivery, workforce capacity, education, research, and support from the government, private sector, nongovernmental, and professional organizations.

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.

Survival on four compared with three times per week haemodialysis in high ultrafiltration patients: an observational study

Background

The harm caused by the long interdialytic interval in three-times-per-week haemodialysis regimens (3×WHD) may relate to fluid accumulation and associated high ultrafiltration rate (UFR). Four-times-per-week haemodialysis (4×WHD) may offer a solution, but its impact on mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications is unknown.

Methods

From the AROii cohort of incident in-centre haemodialysis patients, 3×WHD patients with a UFR >10 mL/kg/h were identified. The hazard for the outcomes of mortality, hospitalization and vascular access complications in those who switched to 4×WHD compared with staying on 3×WHD was estimated using a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Adjustment included baseline patient and treatment characteristics with inverse probability weighting used to adjust for time-varying UFR and cardiovascular comorbidities.

Results

From 10 637 European 3×WHD patients, 3842 (36%) exceeded a UFR >10 mL/kg/h. Of these, 288 (7.5%) started 4×WHD and at baseline were more comorbid. Event rates while receiving 4×WHD compared with 3×WHD were 12.6 compared with 10.8 per 100 patient years for mortality, 0.96 compared with 0.65 per year for hospitalization and 14.7 compared with 8.0 per 100 patient years for vascular access complications. Compared with 3×WHD, the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality on 4×WHD was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.42]. Following adjustment for baseline demographics, time-varying treatment probability and censoring risks, this HR was 0.73 (95% CI 0.50–1.05; P = 0.095). Despite these adjustments on 4×WHD, the HR for hospitalization remained elevated and vascular access complications were similar to 3×WHD.

Conclusions

This observational study was not able to demonstrate a mortality benefit in patients switched to 4×WHD. To demonstrate the true benefits of 4×WHD requires a large, well-designed clinical trial. Our data may help in the design of such a study.

Ethical Issues in the Design and Conduct of Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trials in Hemodialysis Care: An Interview Study With Key Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic cluster randomized trials (CRTs) offer an opportunity to improve health care by answering important questions about the comparative effectiveness of treatments using a trial design that can be embedded in routine care. There is a lack of empirical research that addresses ethical issues generated by pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE

To identify stakeholder perceptions of ethical issues in pragmatic CRTs conducted in hemodialysis.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

In-person or telephone interviews with an international group of stakeholders.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders (clinical investigators, methodologists, ethicists and research ethics committee members, and other knowledge users) who had been involved in the design or conduct of a pragmatic individual patient or cluster randomized trial in hemodialysis, or their role would require them to review and evaluate pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted in-person or over the telephone and were audio-recorded with consent. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Transcripts and field notes were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Sixteen interviews were conducted with 19 individuals. Interviewees were largely drawn from North America (84%) and were predominantly clinical investigators (42%). Six themes were identified in which pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis raise ethical issues: (1) patients treated with hemodialysis as a vulnerable population, (2) appropriate approaches to informed consent, (3) research burdens, (4) roles and responsibilities of gatekeepers, (5) inequities in access to research, and (6) advocacy for patient-centered research and outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Participants were largely from North America and did not include research staff, who may have differing perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

The six themes reflect concerns relating to individual rights, but also the need to consider population-level issues. To date, concerns regarding inequity of access to research and the need for patient-centered research have received less coverage than other, well-known, issues such as consent. Pragmatic CRTs offer a potential approach to address equity concerns and we suggest future ethical analyses and guidance for pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis embed equity considerations within them. We further note the potential for the co-creation of health data infrastructure with patients which would aid care but also facilitate patient-centered research. These present results will inform planned future guidance in relation to the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in hemodialysis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration is not applicable as this is a qualitative study.

The Effect of Including Benchmark Prevalence Data of Common Imaging Findings in Spine Image Reports on Health Care Utilization Among Adults Undergoing Spine Imaging: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, -0.7%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, -29.3%; 95% CI, -42.1% to -13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, -3.4%; 95% CI, -8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455.

Reporting of key methodological and ethical aspects of cluster trials in hemodialysis require improvement: a systematic review

Background

The hemodialysis setting is suitable for trials that use cluster randomization, where intact groups of individuals are randomized. However, cluster randomized trials (CRTs) are complicated in their design, analysis, and reporting and can pose ethical challenges. We reviewed CRTs in the hemodialysis setting with respect to reporting of key methodological and ethical issues.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, published in English, between 2000 and 2019, and indexed in MEDLINE or Embase. Two reviewers extracted data, and study results were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

We identified 26 completed CRTs and five study protocols of CRTs. These studies randomized hemodialysis centers (n = 17, 55%), hemodialysis shifts (n = 12, 39%), healthcare providers (n = 1, 3%), and nephrology units (n = 1, 3%). Trials included a median of 28 clusters with a median cluster size of 20 patients. Justification for using a clustered design was provided by 15 trials (48%). Methods that accounted for clustering were used during sample size calculation in 14 (45%), during analyses in 22 (71%), and during both sample size calculation and analyses in 13 trials (42%). Among all CRTs, 26 (84%) reported receiving research ethics committee approval; patient consent was reported in 22 trials: 10 (32%) reported the method of consent for trial participation and 12 (39%) reported no details about how consent was obtained or its purpose. Four trials (13%) reported receiving waivers of consent, and the remaining 5 (16%) provided no or unclear information about the consent process.

Conclusion

There is an opportunity to improve the conduct and reporting of essential methodological and ethical issues in future CRTs in hemodialysis.

Review Registration

We conducted this systematic review using a pre-specified protocol that was not registered.

Novel trial strategies to enhance the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of nephrology research

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. However, criticisms of traditional designs are that they can be inefficient, inflexible, expensive, and conducted in a manner disconnected from real-life clinical practice. Novel strategies and approaches are being utilized to overcome these limitations, including comprehensive consumer engagement, core outcome sets, novel trial designs, streamlined data collection, cost-effectiveness and return on investment evaluations, knowledge dissemination plans, and impact evaluation. These strategies can be implemented at the design, conduct, implementation, and dissemination stages of the trial process. This review aims to provide an overview of these strategies and approaches to improve the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of nephrology research.

Benefits and risks of frequent or longer haemodialysis: weighing the evidence

Although the ability of individuals with end-stage renal disease to maintain body homoeostasis is equally impaired during all weekdays, conventional haemodialysis (HD) treatment is scheduled thrice weekly, containing two short and one long interdialytic interval. This intermittent nature of HD and the consequent fluctuations in volume, metabolic parameters and electrolytes have long been hypothesized to predispose to complications. Large observational studies link the first weekday with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Several schemes of frequent and/or longer, home or in-centre HD have been introduced, aiming to alleviate the above risks by both increasing total dialysis duration and reducing the duration of interdialytic intervals. Observational studies in this field have non-uniform results, showing that enhanced frequency in home (but not in-centre) HD is associated with reduced mortality. Evidence from the randomized Daily and Nocturnal Trials of the Frequent HD Network suggest the opposite, showing mortality benefits with in-centre daily but not with home nocturnal dialysis. Secondary analyses of these trials indicate that daily and nocturnal schedules do not have equal effects on intermediate outcomes. Alternative schemes, such as thrice weekly in-centre nocturnal HD or every-other-day HD, seem to also offer improvements in several intermediate endpoints, but need further testing with randomized trials. This review summarizes the effects of frequent and/or longer HD methods on hard and intermediate outcomes, attempting to provide a balanced overview of the field.

Screening for CKD To Improve Processes of Care among Nondiabetic Veterans with Hypertension: A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We conducted a pilot, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to evaluate feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of screening for CKD using a triple-marker approach (creatinine, cystatin C, and albumin/creatinine ratio), followed by education and guidance, to improve care of hypertensive veterans in primary care. We used the electronic health record for identification, enrollment, intervention delivery, and outcome ascertainment.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We randomized 1819 veterans without diabetes but with hypertension (41 clusters) into three arms: (1) CKD screening followed by patient and provider education; (2) screening, education, plus pharmacist comanagement; or (3) usual care. The primary clinical outcome was BP change over 1 year. Implementation and process measures included proportion screened; CKD detection rate; and total and new use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and diuretics.

RESULTS

Median age was 68 years, 55% were white, 1658 (91%) had a prior creatinine measure, but only 172 (9%) had prior urine albumin/creatinine ratio, and 83 (5%) had a prior cystatin C measure. Among those in the intervention, 527 of 1215 (43%) were identified with upcoming appointments to have CKD screening. Of these, 367 (69%) completed testing. Among those tested, 77 (21%) persons had newly diagnosed CKD. After 1 year, change in systolic BP was -1 mm Hg (interquartile range, -11 to 11) in usual care, -2 mm Hg (-11 to 11) in the screen-educate arm, and -2 mm Hg (-13 to 10) in the screen-educate plus pharmacist arm; P=0.49. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes in intention-to-treat analyses. In as-treated analyses, higher proportions of participants in the intervention arms initiated a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (15% and 12% versus 7% in usual care, P=0.01) or diuretic (9% and 12% versus 4%, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The pragmatic design made identification, enrollment, and intervention delivery highly efficient. The limited ability to identify appointments resulted in inadequate between-arm differences in CKD testing rates to determine whether screening improves clinical outcomes.

Kidney disease trials for the 21st century: innovations in design and conduct

Compared to other specialties, nephrology has reported relatively few clinical trials, and most of these are too small to detect moderate treatment effects. Consequently, interventions that are commonly used by nephrologists have not been adequately tested and some may be ineffective or harmful. More randomized trials are urgently needed to address important clinical questions in patients with kidney disease. The use of robust surrogate markers may accelerate early-phase drug development. However, scientific innovations in trial conduct developed by other specialties should also be adopted to improve trial quality and enable more, larger trials in kidney disease to be completed in the current era of burdensome regulation and escalating research costs. Examples of such innovations include utilizing routinely collected health-care data and disease-specific registries to identify and invite potential trial participants, and for long-term follow-up; use of prescreening to facilitate rapid recruitment of participants; use of pre-randomization run-in periods to improve participant adherence and assess responses to study interventions prior to randomization; and appropriate use of statistics to monitor studies and analyse their results. Nephrology is well positioned to harness such innovations due to its advanced use of electronic health-care records and the development of disease-specific registries. Adopting a population approach and efficient trial conduct along with challenging unscientific regulation may increase the number of definitive clinical trials in nephrology and improve the care of current and future patients.

Representativeness of Randomized Clinical Trial Cohorts in End-stage Kidney Disease: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Systematic differences between patients included in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the general patient population may influence the generalizability of RCT findings. Comprehensive national registries of patients with end-stage kidney disease who are undergoing dialysis provide a unique opportunity to compare trial and real-world patient cohorts.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if participants in large, multicenter dialysis trials were similar to the general population undergoing dialysis in terms of age, comorbidities, and mortality rate.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched on January 6, 2017, for studies published from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Data sources were published manuscripts, supplementary material, and trial registration information. Data on the general population undergoing dialysis were derived from the US Renal Data System (USRDS). Data were analyzed from March 17 to July 22, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials enrolling only participants undergoing dialysis for end-stage kidney disease with 100 or more adult participants from 2 or more sites.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Abstract screening and data extraction were performed independently by 2 researchers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was difference in mean age between the RCT and USRDS populations. Secondary outcomes included differences in mortality rate and comorbidities.

RESULTS

The search identified 186 RCTs, enrolling 79 104 participants. Compared with the 2011 USRDS population, RCT participants were younger (mean age, 58.9 years; 95% CI, 58.3-59.5 years vs 61.2 years; P < .001), more likely to be male (58.9%; 95% CI, 57.6%-60.1% vs 55.7%; P < .001), and have coronary artery disease (26.9%; 95% CI, 22.2%-31.7% vs 17.7%; P < .001) and less likely to have diabetes (40.2%; 95% CI, 36.7%-43.6% vs 44.2%; P = .03) or heart failure (19.6%; 95% CI, 15.1%-24.0% vs 29.8%; P < .001). The mortality rate per 100 patient-years during trial participation was less than half that of the USRDS population (8.9; 95% CI, 7.8-10.0 vs 18.6; P < .001). The differences in age, mortality, and coronary artery disease remained when studies recruiting only from the United States were considered. Diabetes was more common in RCT participants from the United States than in the registry population.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Participants in large, multicenter RCTs of patients with end-stage kidney disease undergoing dialysis are younger, have a different pattern of comorbidities, and have a lower mortality rate than the general population of patients undergoing dialysis. This finding has implications for the generalization of trial results to the broader patient population and for future trial design.

Ethical Issues in Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trials in Dialysis Facilities

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial (CRT) is a research design that may be used to efficiently test promising interventions that directly inform dialysis care. While the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials provides general ethical guidance for CRTs, the dialysis setting raises additional considerations. In this article, we outline ethical issues raised by pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. These issues may be divided into 7 key domains: justifying the use of cluster randomization, adopting randomly allocated individual-level interventions as a facility standard of care, conducting benefit-harm analyses, gatekeepers and their responsibilities, obtaining informed consent from research participants, patient notification, and including vulnerable participants. We describe existing guidelines relevant to each domain, illustrate how they were considered in the Time to Reduce Mortality in End-Stage Renal Disease (TiME) trial (a prototypical pragmatic hemodialysis CRT), and highlight remaining areas of uncertainty. The following is the first step in an interdisciplinary mixed-methods research project to guide the design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. Subsequent work will expand on these concepts and when possible, argue for a preferred solution.