Shared Decision Making in Health Care Visits for CKD:Patients’ Decisional Role Preferences and Experiences

Rationale &amp; Objective: Research on shared decision making (SDM) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has focused almost exclusively on the modality of kidney replacement treatment. We explored what other CKD decisions are recognized by patients, what their preferences and experiences are regarding these decisions, and how decisions are made during their interactions with medical care professionals. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting &amp; Participants: Patients with CKD receiving (outpatient) care in 1 of 2 Dutch hospitals. Exposure: Patients’ preferred decisional roles for treatment decisions were measured using the Control Preferences Scale survey administered after a health care visit with medical professionals. Outcome: Number of decisions for which patients experienced a decisional role that did or did not match their preferred role. Observed levels of SDM and motivational interviewing in audio recordings of health care visits, measured using the 4-step SDM instrument (4SDM) and Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding tools.Analytical Approach: The results were characterized using descriptive statistics, including differences in scores between the patients’ experienced and preferred decisional roles. Results: According to the survey (n = 122) patients with CKD frequently reported decisions regarding planning (112 of 122), medication changes (82 of 122), or lifestyle changes (59 of 122). Of the 357 reported decisions in total, patients preferred that clinicians mostly (125 of 357) or fully (101 of 357) make the decisions. For 116 decisions, they preferred a shared decisional role. For 151 of 357 decisions, the patients’ preferences did not match their experiences. Decisions were experienced as “less shared/patient-directed” (76 of 357) or “more shared/patient-directed” (75 of 357) than preferred. Observed SDM in 118 coded decisions was low (median 4; range, 0 – 22). Motivational interviewing techniques were rarely used. Limitations: Potential recall and selection bias, and limited generalizability. Conclusions: We identified multiple discrepancies between preferred, experienced, and observed SDM in health care visits for CKD. Although patients varied in their preferred decisional role, a large minority of patients expressed a preference for shared decision making for many decisions. However, SDM behavior during the health care visits was observed infrequently. Plain-Language Summary: Shared decision making (SDM) may be a valuable approach for common chronic kidney disease (CKD) decisions, but our knowledge is limited. We collected patient surveys after health care visits for CKD. Patients most frequently experienced decisions regarding planning, medication, and lifestyle. Three decisional roles were preferred by comparable numbers of patients: let the clinician alone decide, let the clinician decide for the most part, or “equally share” the decision. Patients’ experiences of who made the decision did not always match their preferences. In audio recordings of the health care visits, we observed low levels of SDM behavior. These findings suggest that the preference for “sharing decisions” is often unmet for a large number of patients.</p

Predicting outcomes in chronic kidney disease:needs and preferences of patients and nephrologists

Introduction: Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients’ and nephrologists’ needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. Results: A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10–15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) integration as standard of care, 3) the clinical relevance. Conclusion: Even though the majority of patients in Dutch CKD practice reported discussing predictions with their nephrologists, CPMs are infrequently used for this purpose. Both patients and nephrologists considered a CPM predicting CKD progression most important to discuss. Increasing awareness about existing CPMs that predict CKD progression may result in increased adoption in clinical practice. When using CPMs regarding CKD progression, nephrologists should ask whether patients want to hear predictions beforehand, since individual patients’ preferences vary.</p

Resistance to erythropoiesis stimulating agents in patients treated with online hemodiafiltration and ultrapure low-flux hemodialysis: Results from a randomized controlled trial (CONTRAST)

Resistance to erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) is common in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis (HD) treatment. ESA responsiveness might be improved by enhanced clearance of uremic toxins of middle molecular weight, as can be obtained by hemodiafiltration (HDF). In this analysis of the randomized controlled CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST; NCT00205556), the effect of online HDF on ESA resistance and iron parameters was studied. This was a prespecified secondary endpoint of the main trial. A 12 months' analysis of 714 patients randomized to either treatment with online post-dilution HDF or continuation of low-flux HD was performed. Both groups were treated with ultrapure dialysis fluids. ESA resistance, measured every three months, was expressed as the ESA index (weight adjusted weekly ESA dose in daily defined doses [DDD]/hematocrit). The mean ESA index during 12 months was not different between patients treated with HDF or HD (mean difference HDF versus HD over time 0.029 DDD/kg/Hct/week [20.024 to 0.081]; P = 0.29). Mean transferrin saturation ratio and ferritin levels during the study tended to be lower in patients treated with HDF (22.52% [24.72 to 20.31]; P = 0.02 and 249 ng/mL [2103 to 4]; P = 0.06 respectively), although there was a trend for those patients to receive slightly more iron supplementation (7.1 mg/week [20.4 to 14.5]; P = 0.06). In conclusion, compared to low-flux HD with ultrapure dialysis fluid, treatment with online HDF did not result in a decrease in ESA resistance

Recurrent FXYD2 p.Gly41Arg mutation in patients with isolated dominant hypomagnesaemia

Background Magnesium (Mg2+) is an essential ion for cell growth, neuroplasticity and muscle contraction. Blood Mg2+ levels <0.7 mmol/L may cause a heterogeneous clinical phenotype, including muscle cramps and epilepsy and disturbances in K+ and Ca2+ homeostasis. Over the last decade, the genetic origin of several familial forms of hypomagnesaemia has been found. In 2000, mutations in FXYD2, encoding the γ-subunit of the Na+-K+-ATPase, were identified to cause isolated dominant hypomagnesaemia (IDH) in a large Dutch family suffering from hypomagnesaemia, hypocalciuria and chondrocalcinosis. However, no additional patients have been identified since then. Methods Here, two families with hypomagnesaemia and hypocalciuria were screened for mutations in the FXYD2 gene. Moreover, the patients were clinically and genetically characterized. Results We report a p.Gly41Arg FXYD2 mutation in two families with hypomagnesaemia and hypocalciuria. Interestingly, this is the same mutation as was described in the original study. As in the initial family, several patients suffered from muscle cramps, chondrocalcinosis and epilepsy. Haplotype analysis revealed an overlapping haplotype in all families, suggesting a founder effect. Conclusions The recurrent p.Gly41Arg FXYD2 mutation in two new families with IDH confirms that FXYD2 mutation causes hypomagnesaemia. Until now, no other FXYD2 mutations have been reported which could indicate that other FXYD2 mutations will not cause hypomagnesaemia or are embryonically letha

The cost-utility of haemodiafiltration versus haemodialysis in the Convective Transport Study

Background. Despite the growing interest in haemodiafiltration (HDF), there is no information on the costs and cost-utility of this dialysis modality yet. It was therefore our objective to study the cost-utility of HDF versus haemodialysis (HD). Methods. A cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model. It included data from the Convective Transport Study (CONTRAST), a randomized controlled trial that compared online HDF with low-flux HD. Costs were estimated using a societal perspective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to study uncertainty. Results. Total annual costs for HDF and HD were (sic)88 622 +/- 19 272 and (sic)86 086 +/- 15 945, respectively (in 2009 euros). When modelled over a 5-year period, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of HDF versus HD was (sic)287 679. Sensitivity analyses revealed that this amount will not fall below (sic)140 000, even under the most favourable assumptions like a high-convection volume (>20.3 L). Conclusions. Based on accepted societal willingness-to-pay thresholds, HDF cannot be considered a cost-effective treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease at present. Apparently, minor additional costs of HDF are not counterbalanced by a relevant QALY gain

Effect of increased convective clearance by on-line hemodiafiltration on all cause and cardiovascular mortality in chronic hemodialysis patients – the Dutch CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST): rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN38365125]

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of cardiovascular disease in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) is related to the accumulation of uremic toxins in the middle and large-middle molecular weight range. As online hemodiafiltration (HDF) removes these molecules more effectively than standard hemodialysis (HD), it has been suggested that online HDF improves survival and cardiovascular outcome. Thus far, no conclusive data of HDF on target organ damage and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are available. Therefore, the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST) has been initiated. METHODS: CONTRAST is a Dutch multi-center randomised controlled trial. In this trial, approximately 800 chronic hemodialysis patients will be randomised between online HDF and low-flux HD, and followed for three years. The primary endpoint is all cause mortality. The main secondary outcome variables are fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: The study is designed to provide conclusive evidence whether online HDF leads to a lower mortality and less cardiovascular events as compared to standard HD

Hepcidin-25 in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients Is Related to Residual Kidney Function and Not to Treatment with Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents

Hepcidin-25, the bioactive form of hepcidin, is a key regulator of iron homeostasis as it induces internalization and degradation of ferroportin, a cellular iron exporter on enterocytes, macrophages and hepatocytes. Hepcidin levels are increased in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients, but as of yet, limited information on factors associated with hepcidin-25 in these patients is available. In the current cross-sectional study, potential patient-, laboratory- and treatment-related determinants of serum hepcidin-20 and -25, were assessed in a large cohort of stable, prevalent HD patients. Baseline data from 405 patients (62% male; age 63.7±13.9 [mean SD]) enrolled in the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST; NCT00205556) were studied. Predialysis hepcidin concentrations were measured centrally with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Patient-, laboratory- and treatment related characteristics were entered in a backward multivariable linear regression model. Hepcidin-25 levels were independently and positively associated with ferritin (p<0.001), hsCRP (p<0.001) and the presence of diabetes (p = 0.02) and inversely with the estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.01), absolute reticulocyte count (p = 0.02) and soluble transferrin receptor (p<0.001). Men had lower hepcidin-25 levels as compared to women (p = 0.03). Hepcidin-25 was not associated with the maintenance dose of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) or iron therapy. In conclusion, in the currently studied cohort of chronic HD patients, hepcidin-25 was a marker for iron stores and erythropoiesis and was associated with inflammation. Furthermore, hepcidin-25 levels were influenced by residual kidney function. Hepcidin-25 did not reflect ESA or iron dose in chronic stable HD patients on maintenance therapy. These results suggest that hepcidin is involved in the pathophysiological pathway of renal anemia and iron availability in these patients, but challenges its function as a clinical parameter for ESA resistance

High-flow Nasal Cannula therapy: A feasible treatment for vulnerable elderly COVID-19 patients in the wards

Background: Invasive mechanical ventilation is the treatment of choice in COVID-19 patients when hypoxemia persists, despite maximum conventional oxygen administration. Some frail patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure are deemed not eligible for invasive mechanical ventilation. Objectives: To investigate whether High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in the wards could serve as a rescue therapy in these frail patients. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included frail COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital between March 9th and May 1st 2020. HFNC therapy was started in the wards. The primary endpoint was the survival rate at hospital discharge. Results: Thirty-two patients with a median age of 79.0 years (74.5–83.0) and a Clinical Frailty Score of 4 out of 9 (3–6) were included. Only 6% reported HFNC tolerability issues. The overall survival rate was 25% at hospital discharge. Conclusions: This study suggests that, when preferred, HFNC in the wards could be a potential rescue therapy for respiratory failure in vulnerable COVID-19 patients