Identifying critically important vascular access outcomes for trials in haemodialysis : an international survey with patients, caregivers and health professionals

BACKGROUND: Vascular access outcomes reported across haemodialysis (HD) trials are numerous, heterogeneous and not always relevant to patients and clinicians. This study aimed to identify critically important vascular access outcomes. METHOD: Outcomes derived from a systematic review, multi-disciplinary expert panel and patient input were included in a multilanguage online survey. Participants rated the absolute importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 being critically important). The relative importance was determined by a best-worst scale using multinomial logistic regression. Open text responses were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 873 participants [224 (26%) patients/caregivers and 649 (74%) health professionals] from 58 countries. Vascular access function was considered the most important outcome (mean score 7.8 for patients and caregivers/8.5 for health professionals, with 85%/95% rating it critically important, and top ranked on best-worst scale), followed by infection (mean 7.4/8.2, 79%/92% rating it critically important, second rank on best-worst scale). Health professionals rated all outcomes of equal or higher importance than patients/caregivers, except for aneurysms. We identified six themes: necessity for HD, applicability across vascular access types, frequency and severity of debilitation, minimizing the risk of hospitalization and death, optimizing technical competence and adherence to best practice and direct impact on appearance and lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular access function was the most critically important outcome among patients/caregivers and health professionals. Consistent reporting of this outcome across trials in HD will strengthen their value in supporting vascular access practice and shared decision making in patients requiring HD

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

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 <100 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

Fish oil and aspirin effects on arteriovenous fistula function: Secondary outcomes of the randomised omega-3 fatty acids (Fish oils) and Aspirin in Vascular access OUtcomes in REnal Disease (FAVOURED) trial

Background Arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) for haemodialysis often experience early thrombosis and maturation failure requiring intervention and/or central venous catheter (CVC) placement. This secondary and exploratory analysis of the FAVOURED study determined whether omega-3 fatty acids (fish oils) or aspirin affected AVF usability, intervention rates and CVC requirements. Methods In 567 adult participants planned for AVF creation, all were randomised to fish oil (4g/d) or placebo, and 406 to aspirin (100mg/d) or placebo, starting one day pre-surgery and continued for three months. Outcomes evaluated within 12 months included AVF intervention rates, CVC exposure, late dialysis suitability failure, and times to primary patency loss, abandonment and successful cannulation. Results Final analyses included 536 participants randomised to fish oil or placebo (mean age 55 years, 64% male, 45% diabetic) and 388 randomised to aspirin or placebo. Compared with placebo, fish oil reduced intervention rates (0.82 vs 1.14/1000 patient-days, incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.97), particularly interventions for acute thrombosis (0.09 vs 0.17/1000 patient-days, IRR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34–0.84). Aspirin significantly reduced rescue intervention rates (IRR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27–0.78). Neither agent significantly affected CVC exposure, late dialysis suitability failure or time to primary patency loss, AVF abandonment or successful cannulation. Conclusion Although fish oil and low-dose aspirin given for 3 months reduced intervention rates in newly created AVF, they had no significant effects on CVC exposure, AVF usability and time to primary patency loss or access abandonment. Reduction in access interventions benefits patients, reduces costs and warrants further study

Gene therapy for monogenic liver diseases: clinical successes, current challenges and future prospects

Over the last decade, pioneering liver-directed gene therapy trials for haemophilia B have achieved sustained clinical improvement after a single systemic injection of adeno-associated virus (AAV) derived vectors encoding the human factor IX cDNA. These trials demonstrate the potential of AAV technology to provide long-lasting clinical benefit in the treatment of monogenic liver disorders. Indeed, with more than ten ongoing or planned clinical trials for haemophilia A and B and dozens of trials planned for other inherited genetic/metabolic liver diseases, clinical translation is expanding rapidly. Gene therapy is likely to become an option for routine care of a subset of severe inherited genetic/metabolic liver diseases in the relatively near term. In this review, we aim to summarise the milestones in the development of gene therapy, present the different vector tools and their clinical applications for liver-directed gene therapy. AAV-derived vectors are emerging as the leading candidates for clinical translation of gene delivery to the liver. Therefore, we focus on clinical applications of AAV vectors in providing the most recent update on clinical outcomes of completed and ongoing gene therapy trials and comment on the current challenges that the field is facing for large-scale clinical translation. There is clearly an urgent need for more efficient therapies in many severe monogenic liver disorders, which will require careful risk-benefit analysis for each indication, especially in paediatrics

Published in &quot;International Journal of Obesity 30(S4): S58–S66, 2006&quot;

which should be cited to refer to this work. Weight cycling during growth and beyond as a risk factor for later cardiovascular diseases: the ‘repeated overshoot ’ theor

The Omega-3 fatty acids (Fish Oils) and Aspirin in Vascular access OUtcomes in REnal Disease (FAVOURED) study: the updated final trial protocol and rationale of post-initiation trial modifications

BACKGROUND: The FAVOURED study is an international multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial which commenced recruitment in 2008 and examines whether omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (omega-3 PUFAs) either alone or in combination with aspirin will effectively reduce primary access failure of de novo arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) in patients with stage 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease. Publication of new evidence derived from additional studies of clopidogrel and a high screen failure rate due to prevalent aspirin usage prompted an updated trial design. METHODS/DESIGN: The original trial protocol published in 2009 has undergone two major amendments, which were implemented in 2011. Firstly, the primary outcome 'early thrombosis' at 3 months following AVF creation was broadened to a more clinically relevant outcome of 'AVF access failure'; a composite of thrombosis, AVF abandonment and cannulation failure at 12 months. Secondly, participants unable to cease using aspirin were allowed to be enrolled and randomised to omega-3 PUFAs or placebo. The revised primary aim of the FAVOURED study is to test the hypothesis that omega-3 PUFAs will reduce rates of AVF access failure within 12 months following AVF surgery. The secondary aims are to examine the effect of omega-3 PUFAs and aspirin on the individual components of the primary end-point, to examine the safety of study interventions and assess central venous catheter requirement as a result of access failure. DISCUSSION: This multicentre international clinical trial was amended to address the clinically relevant question of whether the usability of de novo AVF at 12 months can be improved by the early use of omega-3 PUFAs and to a lesser extent aspirin. This study protocol amendment was made in response to a large trial demonstrating that clopidogrel is effective in safely preventing primary AVF thrombosis, but ineffective at increasing functional patency. Secondly, including patients taking aspirin will enroll a more representative cohort of haemodialysis patients, who are significantly older with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and diabetes which may increase event rates and the power of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia & New Zealand Clinical Trial Register (ACTRN12607000569404)

Establishing a core outcome measure for life participation in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis: a standardised outcomes in Nephrology–Peritoneal dialysis consensus workshop report

Background: Life participation is an outcome of critical importance to patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, there is no widely accepted or validated tool for measuring life participation in patients receiving PD. Methods: Online consensus workshop to identify the essential characteristics of life participation as a core outcome, with the goal of establishing a patient-reported outcome measure for use in all trials in patients receiving PD. Thematic analysis of transcripts was performed. Results: Fifty-six participants, including 17 patients and caregivers, from 15 countries convened via online videoconference. Four themes were identified: reconfiguring expectations of daily living (accepting day-to-day fluctuation as the norm, shifting thresholds of acceptability, preserving gains in flexibility and freedom), ensuring broad applicability and interpretability (establishing cross-cultural relevance, incorporating valued activities, distinguishing unmodifiable barriers to life participation), capturing transitions between modalities and how they affect life participation (responsive to trajectory towards stable, reflecting changes with dialysis transitions) and maximising feasibility of implementation (reducing completion burden, administrable with ease and flexibility). Conclusions: There is a need for a validated, generalisable outcome measure for life participation in patients receiving PD. Feasibility, including length of time to complete and flexible mode of delivery, are important to allow implementation in all trials that include patients receiving PD