Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease

Background The anaemia seen in chronic kidney disease (CKD) may be exacerbated by iron deficiency. Iron can be provided through different routes, with advantages and drawbacks of each route. It remains unclear whether the potential harms and additional costs of intravenous (IV) compared with oral iron are justified. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. Objectives To determine the benefits and harms of IV iron supplementation compared with oral iron for anaemia in adults and children with CKD, including participants on dialysis, with kidney transplants and CKD not requiring dialysis. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 December 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs in which IV and oral routes of iron administration were compared in adults and children with CKD. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes the mean difference (MD) was used or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales had been used. Statistical analyses were performed using the random‐effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta‐regression were performed to investigate between study differences. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Main results We included 39 studies (3852 participants), 11 of which were added in this update. A low risk of bias was attributed to 20 (51%) studies for sequence generation, 14 (36%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for attrition bias and 20 (51%) for selective outcome reporting. All studies were at a high risk of performance bias. However, all studies were considered at low risk of detection bias because the primary outcome in all studies was laboratory‐based and unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IV iron compared with oral iron makes any difference to death (all causes) (11 studies, 1952 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64, 1.94) (absolute effect: 33 participants per 1000 with IV iron versus 31 per 1000 with oral iron), the number of participants needing to start dialysis (4 studies, 743 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41, 1.61) or the number needing blood transfusions (5 studies, 774 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55, 1.34) (absolute effect: 87 per 1,000 with IV iron versus 101 per 1,000 with oral iron). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether IV iron compared with oral iron reduces cardiovascular death because the certainty of this evidence was very low (3 studies, 206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.18). Quality of life was reported in five studies with four reporting no difference between treatment groups and one reporting improvement in participants treated with IV iron. IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the numbers of participants, who experience allergic reactions or hypotension (15 studies, 2607 participants: RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.74) (absolute harm: 24 per 1000 with IV iron versus 7 per 1000) but may reduce the number of participants with all gastrointestinal adverse effects (14 studies, 1986 participants: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.66) (absolute benefit: 150 per 1000 with IV iron versus 319 per 1000). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin (13 studies, 2206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.04) (absolute benefit: 542 participants per 1,000 with IV iron versus 317 per 1000 with oral iron), increased haemoglobin (31 studies, 3373 participants: MD 0.72 g/dL, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.05); ferritin (33 studies, 3389 participants: MD 224.84 µg/L, 95% CI 165.85 to 283.83) and transferrin saturation (27 studies, 3089 participants: MD 7.69%, 95% CI 5.10 to 10.28), and may reduce the dose required of erythropoietin‐stimulating agents (ESAs) (11 studies, 522 participants: SMD ‐0.72, 95% CI ‐1.12 to ‐0.31) while making little or no difference to glomerular filtration rate (8 studies, 1052 participants: 0.83 mL/min, 95% CI ‐0.79 to 2.44). All analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. There were moderate to high degrees of heterogeneity in these analyses but in meta‐regression, definite reasons for this could not be determined. Authors' conclusions The included studies provide low certainty evidence that IV iron compared with oral iron increases haemoglobin, ferritin and transferrin levels in CKD participants, increases the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin and reduces ESA requirements. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether IV iron compared with oral iron influences death (all causes), cardiovascular death and quality of life though most studies reported only short periods of follow‐up. Adverse effects were reported in only 50% of included studies. We therefore suggest that further studies that focus on patient‐centred outcomes with longer follow‐up periods are needed to determine if the use of IV iron is justified on the basis of reductions in ESA dose and cost, improvements in patient quality of life, and with few serious adverse effects

Implementing core outcomes in kidney disease: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) implementation workshop.

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes

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

Changes in left ventricular ejection time and pulse transit time derived from finger photoplethysmogram and electrocardiogram during moderate haemorrhage

OBJECTIVES: Early identification of haemorrhage is difficult when a bleeding site is not apparent. This study explored the potential use of the finger photoplethysmographic (PPG) waveform derived left ventricular ejection time (LVET(p)) and pulse transit time (PTT) for detecting blood loss, by using blood donation as a model of controlled mild to moderate haemorrhage. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study carried out in a convenience sample of blood donors. LVET(p), PTT and R-R interval (RRi) were computed from simultaneous measurement of the electrocardiogram (ECG) and the finger infrared photoplethysmogram obtained from 43 healthy volunteers during blood donation. The blood donation process was divided into four stages: (i) Pre-donation (PRE), (ii) first half of donation (FIRST), (iii) second half of donation (SECOND), (iv) post-donation (POST). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Shortening of LVET(p) from 303+/-2 to 293+/-3 ms (mean+/-SEM; P<0.01) and prolongation of PTT from 177+/-3 to 186+/-4 ms (P<0.01) were observed in 81% and 91% of subjects respectively when comparing PRE and POST. During blood donation, progressive blood loss produced falling trends in LVET(p) (P<0.01) and rising trends in PTT (P<0.01) in FIRST and SECOND, but a falling trend in RRi (P<0.01) was only observed in SECOND. Monitoring trends in timing variables derived from non-invasive ECG and finger PPG signals may facilitate detection of blood loss in the early phase

Perspectives on blood pressure by patients on haemo- and peritoneal dialysis

Aim: The management of blood pressure in patients requiring dialysis remains challenging and controversial. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients treated with peritoneal or haemodialysis regarding blood pressure, to inform patient-centred management. Methods: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of qualitative data from multiple data sets derived from the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative. We extracted and analysed the responses of adult patients (aged 18 years or over) on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and their caregivers. Qualitative data were extracted from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys and two consensus workshops completed as part of the SONG-Haemodialysis and SONG-Peritoneal dialysis projects. Results: Collectively, the studies involved 644 patients and caregivers from 86 countries. We identified four themes: helpless and incapacitated (including the subthemes of disabling and debilitating symptoms, limiting ability to work, fear of “crashes” – a sudden drop in blood pressure – forced to depend on others); dismissed and ignored (disregarded as a problem, lacking information, education and reassurance); escalating medication burden; and taking control for improved self-management (determining thresholds in fluid management, establishing a routine for proactive monitoring). Conclusion: Blood pressure symptoms are debilitating for patients on dialysis and exacerbated by a perceived lack of information about how to understand and manage these symptoms. More patient-centred management of blood pressure, particularly symptom-causing blood pressure, in patients on dialysis is likely to substantially improve patient satisfaction and outcomes

Perspectives on blood pressure by patients on haemo‐ and peritoneal dialysis

Aim: The management of blood pressure in patients requiring dialysis remains challenging and controversial. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients treated with peritoneal or haemodialysis regarding blood pressure, to inform patient‐centred management. Methods: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of qualitative data from multiple data sets derived from the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative. We extracted and analysed the responses of adult patients (aged 18 years or over) on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and their caregivers. Qualitative data were extracted from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys and two consensus workshops completed as part of the SONG‐Haemodialysis and SONG‐Peritoneal dialysis projects. Results: Collectively, the studies involved 644 patients and caregivers from 86 countries. We identified four themes: helpless and incapacitated (including the subthemes of disabling and debilitating symptoms, limiting ability to work, fear of “crashes” – a sudden drop in blood pressure – forced to depend on others); dismissed and ignored (disregarded as a problem, lacking information, education and reassurance); escalating medication burden; and taking control for improved self‐management (determining thresholds in fluid management, establishing a routine for proactive monitoring). Conclusion: Blood pressure symptoms are debilitating for patients on dialysis and exacerbated by a perceived lack of information about how to understand and manage these symptoms. More patient‐centred management of blood pressure, particularly symptom‐causing blood pressure, in patients on dialysis is likely to substantially improve patient satisfaction and outcomes

Clinicians' and Researchers' Perspectives on Establishing and Implementing Core Outcomes in Haemodialysis: Semistructured Interview Study

International audienceOBJECTIVES: To describe the perspectives of clinicians and researchers on identifying, establishing and implementing core outcomes in haemodialysis and their expected impact. DESIGN: Face-to-face, semistructured interviews; thematic analysis. STETTING: Twenty-seven centres across nine countries. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-eight nephrologists (42 (72%) who were also triallists). RESULTS: We identified six themes: reflecting direct patient relevance and impact (survival as the primary goal of dialysis, enabling well-being and functioning, severe consequences of comorbidities and complications, indicators of treatment success, universal relevance, stakeholder consensus); amenable and responsive to interventions (realistic and possible to intervene on, differentiating between treatments); reflective of economic burden on healthcare; feasibility of implementation (clarity and consistency in definition, easily measurable, requiring minimal resources, creating a cultural shift, aversion to intensifying bureaucracy, allowing justifiable exceptions); authoritative inducement and directive (endorsement for legitimacy, necessity of buy-in from dialysis providers, incentivising uptake); instituting patient-centredness (explicitly addressing patient-important outcomes, reciprocating trial participation, improving comparability of interventions for decision-making, driving quality improvement and compelling a focus on quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: Nephrologists emphasised that core outcomes should be relevant to patients, amenable to change, feasible to implement and supported by stakeholder organisations. They expected core outcomes would improve patient-centred care and outcomes

Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop Report

International audienceFatigue is one of the most highly prioritized outcomes for patients and clinicians, but remains infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in hemodialysis. We convened an international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop with stakeholders to discuss the development and implementation of a core outcome measure for fatigue. 15 patients/caregivers and 42 health professionals (clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and industry representatives) from 9 countries participated in breakout discussions. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. 4 themes for a core outcome measure emerged. Drawing attention to a distinct and all-encompassing symptom was explicitly recognizing fatigue as a multifaceted symptom unique to hemodialysis. Emphasizing the pervasive impact of fatigue on life participation justified the focus on how fatigue severely impaired the patient's ability to do usual activities. Ensuring relevance and accuracy in measuring fatigue would facilitate shared decision making about treatment. Minimizing burden of administration meant avoiding the cognitive burden, additional time, and resources required to use the measure. A core outcome measure that is simple, is short, and includes a focus on the severity of the impact of fatigue on life participation may facilitate consistent and meaningful measurement of fatigue in all trials to inform decision making and care of patients receiving hemodialysis

Vascular Access Outcomes Reported in Maintenance Hemodialysis Trials: A Systematic Review

International audienceBACKGROUND: Many randomized controlled trials have been performed with the goal of improving outcomes related to hemodialysis vascular access. If the reported outcomes are relevant and measured consistently to allow comparison of interventions across trials, such trials can inform decision making. This study aimed to assess the scope and consistency of vascular access outcomes reported in contemporary hemodialysis trials. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & POPULATION: Adults requiring maintenance hemodialysis. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials and trial protocols reporting vascular access outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register from January 2011 to June~2016. INTERVENTIONS: Any hemodialysis-related intervention. OUTCOMES: The frequency and characteristics of vascular access outcome measures were analyzed and classified. RESULTS: From 168 relevant trials, 1,426 access-related outcome measures were extracted and classified into 23 different outcomes. The 3 most common outcomes were function (136 [81%] trials), infection (63 [38%]), and maturation (31 [18%]). Function was measured in 489 different ways, but most frequently reported as "mean access blood flow (mL/min)" (37 [27%] trials) and "number of thromboses" (30 [22%]). Infection was assessed in 136 different ways, with "number of access-related infections" being the most common measure. Maturation was assessed in 44 different ways at 15 different time points and most commonly characterized by vein diameter and blood flow. Patient-reported outcomes, including pain (19 [11%]) and quality of life (5 [3%]), were reported infrequently. Only a minority of trials used previously standardized outcome definitions. LIMITATIONS: Restricted sampling frame for feasibility and focus on contemporary trials. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of access outcomes in hemodialysis trials is very heterogeneous, with limited patient-reported outcomes and infrequent use of standardized outcome measures. Efforts to standardize outcome reporting for vascular access are critical to optimizing the comparability, reliability, and value of trial evidence to improve outcomes for patients requiring hemodialysis