Search

BackgroundPatients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD) endure an ongoing regimen of daily fluid exchanges and are at risk of potentially life-threatening complications and debilitating symptoms that can limit their ability to participate in life activities. The aim of the study was to identify the characteristics, content and psychometric properties of measures for life participation used in research in PD.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to May 2020 for all studies that reported life participation in patients on PD. The characteristics, dimensions of life participation and psychometric properties of these measures were extracted and analyzed.ResultsOf the 301 studies included, 17 (6%) were randomized studies and 284 (94%) were nonrandomized studies. Forty-two different measures were used to assess life participation. Of these, 23 (55%) were used in only one study. Fifteen (36%) measures were specifically designed to assess life participation, while 27 (64%) measures assessed broader constructs, such as quality of life, but included questions on life participation. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form were the most frequently used measures [122 (41%) and 86 (29%) studies, respectively]. Eight (19%) measures had validation data to support their use in patients on PD.ConclusionsThe many measures currently used to assess life participation in patients receiving PD vary in their characteristics, content and validation. Further work to pilot and validate potential measures is required to establish a core patient-reported outcome measure to assess life participation in patients receiving PD.

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle-income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.

Background: Australia's clinical trials sector is highly productive with continued sector investment needed to enhance research impact. Generating economic evidence alongside trials has the potential to facilitate the implementation of trial results into practice. Ascertaining the use of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials can assist in determining whether clinical trials fully realize and operationalize their potential to change policy and practice. The aims of this study were to ascertain the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials and explore associations between uptake and trial characteristics. Methods: This observational study comprised a descriptive analysis of clinical trials registries, a cross-sectional survey of Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) networks, and a subgroup analysis of completed acute care trials. Descriptive analyses of trial registrations were conducted, with logistic regressions used to identify predictors of proposing and subsequently publishing a health economic evaluation alongside acute care trials. Results: Few randomized Australian-led clinical trials (11% of 9251) and ACTA network trials (43% of 227) proposed a health economic evaluation. In the subgroup analysis, 22% of the 324 acute care trials and 53% of the 38 ACTA network acute care trials proposed a health economic evaluation. Acute care trials funded by government bodies were significantly more likely to propose and publish a health economic evaluation than those funded by hospitals, universities, and other funders, after adjusting for phase, registration year, primary sponsor type, and comparator. Conclusions: Current uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials is low, with uptake higher among the subset of ACTA network trials. This is despite economic evidence playing an increasingly prominent role in health system management, as well as rising health expenditure, limited budgets, and competing demands. There is significant opportunity to embed health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, to increase research outputs and optimize research translation. Investing in clinical trial networks that support funding for a health economist or a health economic evaluation may be an effective strategy to increase the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advances in targeted therapy development and tumor sequencing technology are reclassifying cancers into smaller biomarker-defined diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often impractical in rare diseases, leading to calls for single-arm studies to be sufficient to inform clinical practice based on a strong biological rationale. However, without RCTs, favorable outcomes are often attributed to therapy but may be due to a more indolent disease course or other biases. When the clinical benefit of targeted therapy in a common cancer is established in RCTs, this benefit may extend to rarer cancers sharing the same biomarker. However, careful consideration of the appropriateness of extending the existing trial evidence beyond specific cancer types is required. A framework for extrapolating evidence for biomarker-targeted therapies to rare cancers is needed to support transparent decision-making. Objectives: To construct a framework outlining the breadth of criteria essential for extrapolating evidence for a biomarker-targeted therapy generated from RCTs in common cancers to different rare cancers sharing the same biomarker. Design: A series of questions articulating essential criteria for extrapolation. Methods: The framework was developed from the core topics for extrapolation identified from a previous scoping review of methodological guidance. Principles for extrapolation outlined in guidance documents from the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, and Australia's Medical Services Advisory Committee were incorporated. Results: We propose a framework for assessing key assumptions of similarity of the disease and treatment outcomes between the common and rare cancer for five essential components: prognosis of the biomarker-defined cancer, biomarker test analytical validity, biomarker actionability, treatment efficacy, and safety. Knowledge gaps identified can be used to prioritize future studies. Conclusion: This framework will allow systematic assessment, standardize regulatory, reimbursement and clinical decision-making, and facilitate transparent discussions between key stakeholders in drug assessment for rare biomarker-defined cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: The demand for simplified data collection within trials to increase efficiency and reduce costs has led to broader interest in repurposing routinely collected administrative data for use in clinical trials research. The aim of this scoping review is to describe how and why administrative data have been used in Australian randomised controlled trial conduct and analyses, specifically the advantages and limitations of their use as well as barriers and enablers to accessing administrative data for use alongside randomised controlled trials. Methods: Databases were searched to November 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they accessed one or more Australian administrative data sets, where some or all trial participants were enrolled in Australia, and where the article was published between January 2000 and November 2022. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, and the full texts of selected studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles by two reviewers using a data extraction tool. Results: Forty-one articles from 36 randomised controlled trials were included. Trial characteristics, including the sample size, disease area, population, and intervention, were varied; however, randomised controlled trials most commonly linked to government reimbursed claims data sets, hospital admissions data sets and birth/death registries, and the most common reason for linkage was to ascertain disease outcomes or survival status, and to track health service use. The majority of randomised controlled trials were able to achieve linkage in over 90% of trial participants; however, consent and participant withdrawals were common limitations to participant linkage. Reported advantages were the reliability and accuracy of the data, the ease of long term follow-up, and the use of established data linkage units. Common reported limitations were locating participants who had moved outside the jurisdictional area, missing data where consent was not provided, and unavailability of certain healthcare data. Conclusions: As linked administrative data are not intended for research purposes, detailed knowledge of the data sets is required by researchers, and the time delay in receiving the data is viewed as a barrier to its use. The lack of access to primary care data sets is viewed as a barrier to administrative data use; however, work to expand the number of healthcare data sets that can be linked has made it easier for researchers to access and use these data, which may have implications on how randomised controlled trials will be run in future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background People on the kidney waitlist are less informed about potential suspensions. Disparities may exist among those who are suspended and who return to the waitlist. We evaluated the patient journey after entering the waitlist, including suspensions and outcomes, and factors associated with these transitions. Methods We included all incident patients waitlisted for their first transplant from deceased donors in Australia from 2006 to 2019. We described all clinical transitions after entering the waitlist. We predicted the restricted mean survival time (unadjusted and adjusted) until first transplant by the number of prior suspensions. We evaluated factors associated with transitions using flexible survival models and clinical endpoints using Cox models. Results Of 8466 patients waitlisted and followed over 45 757.4 person-years (median 4.8 years), 6741 (80%) were transplanted, 381 (5%) died waiting and 1344 (16%) were still waiting. A total of 3127 (37%) people were suspended at least once. Predicted mean time from waitlist to transplant was 3.0 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8–3.2] when suspended versus 1.9 years (95% CI 1.8–1.9) when never suspended. Prior suspension increased the likelihood of further suspensions 4.2-fold (95% CI 3.8–4.6) and returning to the waitlist by 50% (95% CI 36–65) but decreased the likelihood of transplantation by 29% (95% CI 62–82). Death risk while waiting was increased 12-fold (95% CI 8.0–18.3) when currently suspended. Australian non-Indigenous males were 13% [hazard ratio (HR) 1.13 (95% CI 1.04–1.23)] and Asian males 23% [HR 1.23 (95% CI 1.06–1.42)] more likely to return to the waitlist compared with females of the same ethnicity. Conclusion The waitlist journey was not straightforward. Suspension was common, impacted the chance of transplantation and meant waiting an average of 1 year longer until transplant. We have provided estimates for and factors associated with suspension, relisting and outcomes after waitlisting to support more informed discussions. This evidence is critical to further understand drivers of inequitable access to transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]