Cardiovascular outcomes reported in hemodialysis trials

Patients on long-term hemodialysis are at very high risk for cardiovascular disease but are usually excluded from clinical trials conducted in the general population or in at-risk populations. There are no universally agreed cardiovascular outcomes for trials conducted specifically in the hemodialysis population. In this review, we highlight that trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes in hemodialysis patients are usually of short duration (median 3 to 6 months) and are small (59% of trials have \u3c100 participants). Overall, the cardiovascular outcomes are very heterogeneous and may not reflect outcomes that are meaningful to patients and clinicians in supporting decision making, as they are often surrogates of uncertain clinical importance. Composite outcomes used in different trials rarely share the same components. In a field in which a single trial is often insufficiently powered to fully assess the clinical and economic impact of interventions, differences in outcome reporting across trials make the task of meta-analysis and interpretation of all the available evidence challenging. Core outcome sets are now being established across many specialties in health care to prevent these problems. Through the global Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis initiative, cardiovascular disease was identified as a critically important core domain to be reported in all trials in hemodialysis. Informed by the current state of reporting of cardiovascular outcomes, a core outcome measure for cardiovascular disease is currently being established with involvement of patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Consistent reporting of cardiovascular outcomes that are critically important to hemodialysis patients and clinicians will strengthen the evidence base to inform care in this very high-risk population

Identifying critically important cardiovascular outcomes for trials in hemodialysis: an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in people on hemodialysis (HD). Cardiovascular outcomes are reported infrequently and inconsistently across trials in HD. This study aimed to identify the priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals (HPs) for CVD outcomes to be incorporated into a core outcome set reported in all HD trials. METHODS: In an international online survey, participants rated the absolute importance of 10 cardiovascular outcomes (derived from a systematic review) on a 9-point Likert scale, with 7-9 being critically important. The relative importance was determined using a best-worst scale. Likert means, medians and proportions and best-worst preference scores were calculated for each outcome. Comments were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Participants included 127 (19%) patients/caregivers and 549 (81%) HPs from 53 countries, of whom 530 (78%) completed the survey in English and 146 (22%) in Chinese. All but one cardiovascular outcome ('valve replacement') was rated as critically important (Likert 7-9) by all participants; 'sudden cardiac death', 'heart attack', 'stroke' and 'heart failure' were all rated at the top by patients/caregivers (median Likert score 9). Patients/caregivers ranked the same four outcomes as the most important outcomes with mean preference scores of 6.2 (95% confidence interval 4.8-7.5), 5.9 (4.6-7.2), 5.3 (4.0-6.6) and 4.9 (3.6-6.3), respectively. The same four outcomes were ranked most highly by HPs. We identified five themes underpinning the prioritization of outcomes: 'clinical equipoise and potential for intervention', 'specific or attributable to HD', 'severity or impact on the quality of life', 'strengthen knowledge and education', and 'inextricably linked burden and risk'. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and HPs believe that all cardiovascular outcomes are of critical importance but consistently identify sudden cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure as the most important outcomes to be measured in all HD trials

‘A sword of Damocles’ : patient and caregiver beliefs, attitudes and perspectives on presymptomatic testing for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: a focus group study

Background and objectives: Presymptomatic testing is available for early diagnosis of hereditary autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). However, the complex ethical and psychosocial implications can make decision-making challenging and require an understanding of patients’ values, goals and priorities. This study aims to describe patient and caregiver beliefs and expectations regarding presymptomatic testing for ADPKD. Design, setting and participants: 154 participants (120 patients and 34 caregivers) aged 18 years and over from eight centres in Australia, France and Korea participated in 17 focus groups. Transcripts were analysed thematically. Results: We identified five themes: avoiding financial disadvantage (insecurity in the inability to obtain life insurance, limited work opportunities, financial burden); futility in uncertainty (erratic and diverse manifestations of disease limiting utility, taking preventive actions in vain, daunted by perplexity of results, unaware of risk of inheriting ADPKD); lacking autonomy and support in decisions (overwhelmed by ambiguous information, medicalising family planning, family pressures); seizing control of well-being (gaining confidence in early detection, allowing preparation for the future, reassurance in family resilience); and anticipating impact on quality of life (reassured by lack of symptoms, judging value of life with ADPKD). Conclusions: For patients with ADPKD, presymptomatic testing provides an opportunity to take ownership of their health through family planning and preventive measures. However, these decisions can be wrought with tensions and uncertainty about prognostic implications, and the psychosocial and financial burden of testing. Healthcare professionals should focus on genetic counselling, mental health and providing education to patients’ families to support informed decision-making. Policymakers should consider the cost burden and risk of discrimination when informing government policies. Finally, patients are recommended to focus on self-care from an early age

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation: A Global Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Trials in Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Although advances in treatment have dramatically improved short-term graft survival and acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients, long-term graft outcomes have not substantially improved. Transplant recipients also have a considerably increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and infection, which all contribute to appreciable morbidity and premature mortality. Many trials in kidney transplantation are short-term, frequently use unvalidated surrogate endpoints, outcomes of uncertain relevance to patients and clinicians, and do not consistently measure and report key outcomes like death, graft loss, graft function, and adverse effects of therapy. This diminishes the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions that require individual-level multiple tradeoffs between graft survival and the risk of side effects, adverse events, and mortality. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation initiative aims to develop a core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation that is based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders. METHODS: This will include a systematic review to identify outcomes reported in randomized trials, a Delphi survey with an international multistakeholder panel (patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, members from industry) to develop a consensus-based prioritized list of outcome domains and a consensus workshop to review and finalize the core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Developing and implementing a core outcome set to be reported, at a minimum, in all kidney transplantation trials will improve the transparency, quality, and relevance of research; to enable kidney transplant recipients and their clinicians to make better-informed treatment decisions for improved patient outcomes

Identifying patient-important outcomes in polycystic kidney disease: An international nominal group technique study

AIM: Patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) are at increased risk of premature mortality, morbidities and complications, which severely impair quality of life. However, patient-centered outcomes are not consistently reported in trials in ADPKD, which can limit shared decision-making. We aimed to identify outcomes important to patients and caregivers and the reasons for their priorities. METHODS: Nominal group technique was adopted involving patients with ADPKD and caregivers who were purposively selected from eight centres across Australia, France and the Republic of Korea. Participants identified, ranked and discussed outcomes for trials in ADPKD. We calculated an importance score (0-1) for each outcome and conducted thematic analyses. RESULTS: Across 17 groups, 154 participants (121 patients, 33 caregivers) aged 19 to 78 (mean 54.5 years) identified 55 outcomes. The 10 highest ranked outcomes were: kidney function (importance score 0.36), end-stage kidney disease (0.32), survival (0.21), cyst size/growth (0.20), cyst pain/bleeding (0.18), blood pressure (0.17), ability to work (0.16), cerebral aneurysm/stroke (0.14), mobility/physical function (0.12), and fatigue (0.12). Three themes were identified: threatening semblance of normality, inability to control and making sense of diverse risks. CONCLUSION: For patients with ADPKD and their caregivers, kidney function, delayed progression to end-stage kidney disease and survival were the highest priorities, and were focused on achieving normality, and maintaining control over health and lifestyle. Implementing these patient-important outcomes may improve the meaning and relevance of trials to inform clinical care in ADPKD

Developing Consensus-Based Outcome Domains for Trials in Children and Adolescents With CKD: An International Delphi Survey

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The inconsistency in outcomes reported and lack of patient-reported outcomes across trials in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) limits shared decision making. As part of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG)-Kids initiative, we aimed to generate a consensus-based prioritized list of critically important outcomes to be reported in all trials in children with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: An online 2-round Delphi survey in English, French, and Hindi languages. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Patients (aged 8-21 years), caregivers/family, and health care professionals (HCPs) rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: We assessed the absolute and relative importance of outcomes. Comments were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: 557 participants (72 [13%] patients, 132 [24%] caregivers, and 353 [63%] HCPs) from 48 countries completed round 1 and 312 (56%) participants (28 [40%] patients, 64 [46%] caregivers, and 220 [56%] HCPs) completed round 2. Five outcomes were common in the top 10 for each group: mortality, kidney function, life participation, blood pressure, and infection. Caregivers and HCPs rated cardiovascular disease higher than patients. Patients gave lower ratings to all outcomes compared with caregivers/HCPs except they rated life participation (round 2 mean difference, 0.1), academic performance (0.1), mobility (0.4), and ability to travel (0.4) higher than caregivers and rated ability to travel (0.4) higher than HCPs. We identified 3 themes: alleviating disease and treatment burden, focusing on the whole child, and resolving fluctuating and conflicting goals. LIMITATIONS: Most participants completed the survey in English. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, life participation, kidney function, and blood pressure were consistently highly prioritized by patients, caregivers, and HCPs. Patients gave higher priority to some lifestyle-related outcomes compared with caregivers/HCPs. Establishing critically important outcomes for all trials in children with CKD may improve consistent reporting of survival, kidney health, and clinical and life impact outcomes that are meaningful for decision making

Developing a Set of Core Outcomes for Trials in Haemodialysis: An International Delphi Survey

AIM: To generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of core outcomes for trials in haemodialysis. BACKGROUND: Survival and quality of life for patients on haemodialysis remain poor despite substantial research efforts. Existing trials often report surrogate outcomes that may not be relevant to patients and clinicians. A core outcome set that reflects stakeholder priorities would improve the relevance, efficiency, and comparability of haemodialysis trials. METHODS: In an online Delphi survey, participants rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale. In Round 2 and 3, participants reviewed the scores and comments of other respondents and re-rated the outcomes. For each outcome, we calculated the median, mean, and proportion rating 7-9 (“critically important”). RESULTS: 1,181 participants (202 [17%] patients/caregivers, 979 health professionals) from 73 countries completed Round 1 and 838 (150 [18%] patients/caregivers) completed Round 3 (71% response rate). Outcomes achieving consensus as high priorities across both groups were: vascular access complications, cardiovascular disease, mortality, dialysis adequacy and fatigue. Patients/caregivers rated four outcomes higher than health professionals: ability to travel (mean difference 0.9), dialysis-free time (0.5), dialysis adequacy (0.3), and washed out after dialysis (0.2). Health professionals rated 11 outcomes higher: mortality (1.0), hospitalization (1.0), drop in blood pressure (1.0), vascular access complications (0.9), depression (0.9), cardiovascular disease (0.8), target weight (0.7), infection (0.4), potassium (0.4), ability to work (0.3), and pain (0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The top stakeholder prioritized outcomes were vascular access problems, cardiovascular disease, mortality, dialysis adequacy and fatigue. Patients/caregivers gave higher priority to lifestyle-related outcomes than health professionals. This prioritized set of outcomes can inform the establishment of a core outcome set, to improve the value of trial evidence to support decision-making for people on haemodialysis

Patient-reported outcome measures for pain in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: A systematic review.

Pain is a common symptom in people with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), but it is assessed and reported inconsistently in research, and the validity of the measures remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics, content, and psychometric properties of measures for pain used in ADPKD. We conducted a systematic review including all trials and observational studies that reported pain in people with ADPKD. Items from all measures were categorized into content and measurement dimensions of pain. We assessed the general characteristics and psychometric properties of all measures. 118 studies, we identified 26 measures: 12 (46%) measures were developed for a non-ADPKD population, 1 (4%) for chronic kidney disease, 2 (8%) for polycystic liver disease and 11 (42%) specifically for ADPKD. Ten anatomical sites were included, with the lower back the most common (10 measures [39%]), four measurement dimensions (intensity (23 [88%]), frequency (3 [12%]), temporality (2 [8%]), and sensory (21 [81%]), two pain types, nociceptive including visceral (15 [58%]) and somatic (5 [20%]), and neuropathic (2 [8%]), and twelve impact dimensions, where the most frequent was work (5 [31%]). The validation data for the measures were variable and only the ADPKD Impact Scale reported all psychometric domains. The measures for pain in ADPKD varied in terms of content and length, and most had not been validated in ADPKD. A standardized psychometrically robust measure that captures patient-important dimensions of pain is needed to evaluate and manage this debilitating complication of ADPKD

Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in polycystic kidney disease

BACKGROUND: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is the most common potentially life threatening inherited kidney disease and is responsible for 5-10% of cases of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cystic kidneys may enlarge up to 20 times the weight of a normal kidney due to the growth of renal cysts, and patients with ADPKD have an increased risk of morbidity, premature mortality, and other life-time complications including renal and hepatic cyst and urinary tract infection, intracranial aneurysm, diverticulosis, and kidney pain which impair quality of life. Despite some therapeutic advances and the growing number of clinical trials in ADPKD, the outcomes that are relevant to patients and clinicians, such as symptoms and quality of life, are infrequently and inconsistently reported. This potentially limits the contribution of trials to inform evidence-based decision-making. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Polycystic Kidney Disease (SONG-PKD) project aims to establish a consensus-based set of core outcomes for trials in PKD (with an initial focus on ADPKD but inclusive of all stages) that patients and health professionals identify as critically important. METHODS: The five phases of SONG-PKD are: a systematic review to identify outcomes that have been reported in existing PKD trials; focus groups with nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify, rank, and describe reasons for their choices; qualitative stakeholder interviews with health professionals to elicit individual values and perspectives on outcomes for trials involving patients with PKD; an international three-round Delphi survey with all stakeholder groups (including patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, policy makers, researchers, and industry) to gain consensus on critically important core outcome domains; and a consensus workshop to review and establish a set of core outcome domains and measures for trials in PKD. DISCUSSION: The SONG-PKD core outcome set is aimed at improving the consistency and completeness of outcome reporting across ADPKD trials, leading to improvements in the reliability and relevance of trial-based evidence to inform decisions about treatment and ultimately improve the care and outcomes for people with ADPKD

Establishing a core outcome set for peritoneal dialysis : report of the SONG-PD (standardized outcomes in nephrology-peritoneal dialysis) consensus workshop

Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD) are diverse, are measured inconsistently, and may not be important to patients, families, and clinicians. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD) initiative aims to establish a core outcome set for trials in PD based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders. We convened an international SONG-PD stakeholder consensus workshop in May 2018 in Vancouver, Canada. Nineteen patients/caregivers and 51 health professionals attended. Participants discussed core outcome domains and implementation in trials in PD. Four themes relating to the formation of core outcome domains were identified: life participation as a main goal of PD, impact of fatigue, empowerment for preparation and planning, and separation of contributing factors from core factors. Considerations for implementation were identified: standardizing patient-reported outcomes, requiring a validated and feasible measure, simplicity of binary outcomes, responsiveness to interventions, and using positive terminology. All stakeholders supported inclusion of PD-related infection, cardiovascular disease, mortality, technique survival, and life participation as the core outcome domains for PD