Explore the vast range of titles available.

Several studies have suggested that patients with kidney failure may benefit from high-dose hemodiafiltration as compared with standard hemodialysis. However, given the limitations of the various published studies, additional data are needed. We conducted a pragmatic, multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with kidney failure who had received high-flux hemodialysis for at least 3 months. All the patients were deemed to be candidates for a convection volume of at least 23 liters per session (as required for high-dose hemodiafiltration) and were able to complete patient-reported outcome assessments. The patients were assigned to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration or continuation of conventional high-flux hemodialysis. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific death, a composite of fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events, kidney transplantation, and recurrent all-cause or infection-related hospitalizations. A total of 1360 patients underwent randomization: 683 to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration and 677 to receive high-flux hemodialysis. The median follow-up was 30 months (interquartile range, 27 to 38). The mean convection volume during the trial in the hemodiafiltration group was 25.3 liters per session. Death from any cause occurred in 118 patients (17.3%) in the hemodiafiltration group and in 148 patients (21.9%) in the hemodialysis group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.93). In patients with kidney failure resulting in kidney-replacement therapy, the use of high-dose hemodiafiltration resulted in a lower risk of death from any cause than conventional high-flux hemodialysis. (Funded by the European Commission Research and Innovation; CONVINCE Dutch Trial Register number, NTR7138.).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309773.].

Integrated service delivery is considered to be an essential condition for improving the management and health outcomes of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, research on the assessment of integrated care by patients and care providers is hindered by the absence of brief, reliable, and valid measurement tools. The aim of this study was to develop survey instruments for healthcare professionals and patients based on the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC), and to evaluate their psychometric properties. The development process was based on the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines. This included item generation from systematic reviews of existing tools and expert opinion on clarity and content validity, involving renal care providers and chronic kidney patients. A cross-sectional, multi-centre design was used to test for internal consistency and construct validity. Outpatient clinics in a large renal network. A sample of 30.788 CKD patients, and 8.914 renal care providers. Both survey instruments were developed using previous qualitative work and published literature. A multidisciplinary expert panel assessed the face and content validity of both instruments and following a pilot study, the psychometric properties of both instruments were explored. Exploratory factor analysis with principal axis factoring and with promax rotation was used to assess the underlying dimensions of both instruments; Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal constancy reliability. 17.512 patients (response rate: 56.9%) and 8.849 care providers (response rate: 69.5%) responded to the questionnaires. Factor analysis of the patient questionnaire yielded three internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.7) factors: person-centeredness, clinical coordination, and professional coordination. Factor analysis of the provider questionnaire produced eight internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.7) factors: person-centeredness, community centeredness, clinical coordination, professional coordination, organisational coordination, system coordination, technical and cultural competence. As hypothesised, care coordination patient and providers scores significantly correlated with questions about quality of care, treatment involvement, reported health, clinics' organisational readiness, and external care coordination capacity. This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the RMIC patient and provider questionnaires as generic tools to assess the experience with or perception of integrated renal care delivery. The instruments are recommended in future applications testing test-retest reliability, convergent and predictive validity, and responsiveness.

Background Carry Life UF is a novel peritoneal dialysis (PD) technology for improved fluid management using steady concentration PD (SCPD). The Carry Life UF treatment starts with a manual peritoneal fill of 1.36% glucose PD fluid, followed by a 5-hour treatment where small amounts of glucose are continuously added to maintain a stable intraperitoneal glucose concentration. A recent in-center clinical study using the Carry Life UF system demonstrated higher ultrafiltration (UF) rates, more efficient use of glucose (increased UF volume/gram of glucose absorbed), and greater sodium removal with the Carry Life UF treatments compared with a 2.27% glucose continuous ambulatory PD (CAPD) dwell. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety of the Carry Life UF system with a standard CAPD prescription in the home setting. Methods A prospective, multicenter, randomized, crossover study of 19 adult subjects at up to 12 sites in Italy, Sweden and the UK will complete the investigation. End-stage kidney disease patients with a CAPD prescription of 2–4 exchanges per day, including at least one 2.27% glucose dwell, will be included. After a Carry Life UF glucose dose determination phase performed in-clinic, subjects will be randomized to start the home treatment part of the study with either the control arm (2.27% glucose CAPD dwell) or the Carry Life UF arm (11 or 15 g/h glucose dose), each for four weeks. The primary endpoint is UF volume comparing the control CAPD 2.27% glucose dwell with the Carry Life UF treatment. Secondary endpoints include adverse event rates, peritoneal sodium removal, glucose UF efficiency, and peak dialysate glucose concentration. Discussion This study will evaluate a novel PD technology in the home environment. Challenging aspects include the need to accurately measure UF volumes at home and to support subjects in using a novel technology. The study design considers important parameters for precise UF volume measurements and provides detailed weighing instructions to the study team to ensure consistency between study centers. Research nursing support will be provided for training of subjects and to support endpoint data collection in the subjects’ home. Due to the significant burden associated with the study, subjects will be offered a fair compensation, in accordance with local regulations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05874804 Registration date: 18th of April 2023.

Background Iron deficiency is frequent in haemodialysis (HD) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and intravenous iron is an established therapy for these patients. This study assessed treatment routine, effectiveness, and safety of iron isomaltoside (IIM) 5% (Diafer®) in a HD cohort. Methods This prospective observational study included 198 HD patients converted from iron sucrose (IS) and treated with IIM according to product label and clinical routine. Data for IIM were compared to historic data for IS in 3-month intervals. The primary endpoint was to show non-inferiority for IIM versus IS in haemoglobin (Hb) maintenance. Results Most patients (> 60%) followed a fixed low-dose iron treatment protocol. Three minutes were required for preparation and administration of IIM. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) was used in > 80% of patients during both IIM and IS phases. The maintenance of Hb was similar with both iron drugs; the mean Hb level was 11 g/dL, and the mean change of 0.3 g/dL (95% confidence interval: 0.1, 0.5) for IIM 0–3 months compared to IS demonstrated non-inferiority. Nine adverse drug reactions were reported in 2% of patients administered IIM. All patients had uneventful recoveries. The frequency of metallic taste was higher with IS compared to IIM (34% versus 0.5%, p  < 0.0001). Conclusions IIM is effective and well tolerated by CKD patients on HD. IIM was non-inferior to IS in maintenance of Hb, and had similar ESA requirements. The fast-push injection of IIM may enable logistical benefits in clinical practice, and the low frequency of metallic taste contributes to patient convenience. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02301026, study registered November 25, 2014.

Frequent hemodialysis provided more than three times per week may lower mortality and improve health-related quality of life. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive. We evaluated the benefits and harms of frequent hemodialysis in people with kidney failure compared with standard hemodialysis. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults on hemodialysis with highly sensitive searching in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar on 3 January 2024. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We adjudicated evidence certainty using GRADE. From 11,142 unique citations, only seven studies involving 518 participants proved eligible. The effects of frequent hemodialysis on physical and mental health were imprecise due to few data. Frequent hemodialysis probably had uncertain effect on death from all cause compared with standard hemodialysis (relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.33-1.91, low certainty evidence). Data were not reported for death from cardiovascular causes, major cardiovascular events, fatigue or vascular access. The evidentiary basis for frequent hemodialysis is incomplete due to clinical trials with few or no events reported for mortality and cardiovascular outcome measures and few participants in which patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life and symptoms were reported.

IntroductionEnd-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD.Methods and analysisThis international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThe CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness.Trial registration numberNetherlands National Trial Register (NTR 7138).

To investigate whether a multi-item performance outcome measure, the physical performance test (PPT), can be calibrated to a common scale with patient-reported outcome measures, using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) metric. We analyzed baseline data (N = 1,113) from the CONVINCE study, an international trial in end-stage kidney disease patients comparing high-dose hemodiafiltration with high-flux hemodialysis. Assumptions of item response theory (IRT) modelling were investigated for the combined set of the nine-item PPT and a four-item PROMIS PF short form (PROMIS-PF4a). We applied unidimensional IRT linking for calibrating the PPT to the PROMIS PF metric. Although some evidence for multidimensionality was found, classical test statistics (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.93), Mokken (Loevinger's H = 0.50), and bifactor analysis (explained common variance = 0.65) indicated that PPT and PROMIS-PF4a items can be used to assess a common PF construct. On the group level, the agreement between PROMIS-PF4a and linked PPT scores was stable across several subsamples. On the individual level, scores differed considerably. We found preliminary evidence that the PPT can be linked to the PROMIS PF metric in hemodialysis patients, enabling group comparisons across patient-reported outcome and performance outcome measures. Alternative linking methods should be applied in future studies using a more comprehensive PROMIS PF item set. •PRO and PerfO items formed a psychometrically sound physical function scale.•We found high potential for using a composite score of different assessment types.•PerfO items were found to be suitable for calibration to the PROMIS PF metric.•This study provides preliminary algorithms for linking PerfO items to PROMIS PF.

Sexual dysfunction may affect 80% of women in hemodialysis. However the specific patterns and clinical correlates of sexual functioning remain poorly described. The aim of this study was to assess prevalence and correlates of the individual domains of sexual functioning in women treated with hemodialysis. We recruited, into this multinational cross-sectional study, women treated with long-term hemodialysis (Collaborative Working Group on Depression and Sexual dysfunction in Hemodialysis study). Self-reported domains of sexual functioning were assessed by the Female Sexual Function Index, which is routinely administered within the network of dialysis patients followed by the working group. Lower scores represented lower sexual functioning. Socio-demographic and clinical correlates of each domain of sexual functioning were identified by stepwise multivariable linear regression. Sensitivity analyses were restricted to women who reported being sexually active. We found that of 1309 enrolled women, 659 (50.3%) provided complete responses to FSFI survey questions and 232 (35%) reported being sexually active. Overall, most respondents reported either no sexual activity or low sexual functioning in all measured domains (orgasm 75.1%; arousal 64.0%; lubrication 63.3%; pain 60.7%; satisfaction 60.1%; sexual desire 58.0%). Respondents who were waitlisted for a kidney transplant reported scores with higher sexual functioning, while older respondents reported scores with lower functioning. The presence of depression was associated with worse lubrication and pain scores [mean difference for depressed versus non-depressed women (95% CI) -0.42 (-0.73 to -0.11), -0.53 (-0.89 to -0.16), respectively] while women who had experienced a previous cardiovascular event reported higher pain scores [-0.77 (-1.40- to -0.13)]. In conclusion, women in hemodialysis reported scores consistent with marked low sexual functioning across a range of domains; the low functioning appeared to be associated with comorbidity.

High-dose haemodiafiltration has been shown, in a randomised clinical trial, to result in a 23% lower risk of mortality for patients with kidney failure when compared with conventional high-flux haemodialysis. Nevertheless, whether treatment effects differ across subgroups, whether a dose–response relationship with convection volume exists, and the effects on cause-specific mortality remain unclear. The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis was to compare the effects of haemodiafiltration and standard haemodialysis on all-cause and cause-specific mortality. On July 17, 2024, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials, published from database inception, comparing online haemodiafiltration versus haemodialysis designed to measure mortality outcomes. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios were generated using Cox proportional hazards regression models reporting hazard ratios and 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses based on predefined patient characteristics and dose–response analyses using natural splines for convection volume were performed. This analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024511514). Five trials (n=4153 patients; 2070 receiving haemodialysis and 2083 receiving haemodiafiltration) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 30 months (IQR 24–36), all-cause mortality occurred in 477 patients (23·3%) treated with haemodiafiltration compared with in 559 patients (27·0%) treated with haemodialysis (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74–0·95]). No evidence of a differential effect across subgroups was noted. A graded relationship between convection volume and mortality risk was apparent: as the volume increased, the mortality risk decreased. Compared with haemodialysis, online haemodiafiltration reduces all-cause mortality in people with kidney failure. Results do not differ across patient and treatment characteristics and the risk reduction appears to be dose-dependent. In conclusion, the present analysis strengthens the notion that haemodiafiltration can be considered as a superior alternative to the present standard (ie, haemodialysis). European Commission Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020.