Search

Purpose of review: Lung ultrasound is a noninvasive bedside technique that can accurately assess pulmonary congestion by evaluating extravascular lung water. This technique is expanding and is easily available. Our primary outcome was to compare the efficacy of volume status assessment by lung ultrasound with clinical evaluation, echocardiography, bioimpedance, or biomarkers. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. Sources of information: We conducted a MEDLINE literature search for observational and randomized studies with lung ultrasound in patients on maintenance dialysis. Methods: From a total of 2363 articles, we included 28 studies (25 observational and 3 randomized). The correlation coefficients were pooled for each variable of interest using the generic inverse variance method with a random effects model. Among the clinical parameters, New York Heart Association Functional Classification of Heart Failure status and lung auscultation showed the highest correlation with the number of B-lines on ultrasound, with a pooled r correlation coefficient of .57 and .36, respectively. Among echocardiographic parameters, left ventricular ejection fraction and inferior vena cava index had the strongest correlation with the number of B-lines, with a pooled r coefficient of .35 and .31, respectively. Three randomized studies compared a lung ultrasound-guided approach with standard of care on hard clinical endpoints. Although patients in the lung ultrasound group achieved better decongestion and blood pressure control, there was no difference between the 2 management strategies with respect to death from any cause or major adverse cardiovascular events. Key findings: Lung ultrasound may be considered for the identification of patients with subclinical volume overload. Trials did not show differences in clinically important outcomes. The number of studies was small and many were of suboptimal quality. Limitations: The included studies were heterogeneous and of relatively limited quality.

Background: Most patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) appreciate the importance of exercise and would like to increase their physical activity; however, they report a few key barriers, including (1) lack of physician advice to do so, (2) lack of safe and convenient programs (ie, appropriate for home or neighborhood), and (3) cost. Importantly, patients indicated in a previous survey that they would prefer an exercise program that improves muscle strength and symptoms, and are less interested in cardiovascular disease prevention. Objective: To test the feasibility of a simple, prescribed exercise program using Nordic walking poles in patients with ESKD treated with dialysis. Design: Randomized multicenter pilot trial of an exercise intervention that includes Nordic walking poles, personalized physician exercise prescriptions, pedometers, and access to exercise videos, compared with standard of care, in patients being treated with maintenance dialysis. Setting: Multicenter tertiary care centers in Canada. Patients: Ambulatory adult patients with ESKD treated with peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis (HD) for at least 6 months at participating sites are potentially eligible. Inclusion criteria include ability to use Nordic walking poles (either de novo or in place of mobility aid) and to provide informed consent in English or in French. Exclusion criteria include (1) any absolute contraindication to exercise, (2) baseline step count >8000 steps/day, (3) planned living donor kidney transplant, and (4) participation in another interventional trial that may affect the results of this study. Methods: This is a randomized multicenter pilot trial of an exercise intervention that consists of a prescription to exercise using Nordic walking poles, a pedometer to track activity, and access to exercise videos, with the comparator of standard of care (dialysis unit staff encouragement to exercise) in patients being treated with maintenance dialysis. Randomization is concealed and uses a 1:1 ratio for group assignment. Our specific aims are to determine the feasibility of patient recruitment, adherence to the exercise program (verified by step counts), and efficacy of the intervention on patient-important outcomes that were assessed as a priority by patients in a prior survey—specifically strength, fatigue, and sleep. We record days spent in hospital and loss of independent living to inform sample size calculations for a definitive trial of exercise in patient with ESKD treated with dialysis. Adverse events are closely monitored. Outcomes: Primary: Our recruitment goal is 90 to 150 patients over 27 months; adherence success will be defined if >75% of randomized patients, excluding those who are transplanted or deceased, achieve >80% of their prescribed steps at 6 and 12 months. Secondary Efficacy Outcomes: (1) strength—hand grip strength and 5 times sit to stand, (2) energy—Short Form (SF)-36 vitality subscale, and (3) sleep—Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index will be assessed at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Results: Trial recruitment started before the COVID-19 pandemic and the pandemic led to many interruptions and delays. Online exercise Web sites and a tailored video were added to the protocol to encourage activity when participants were unable or reluctant to walk in public places. Limitations: This trial was designed to include ambulatory patients with ESKD and does not address the burden of disease in patients with very restricted mobility. Trial Registration: NCT03787589.

Purpose of program: Adolescents and young adults with chronic disease face many personal and systemic barriers that may impede their successful transition from pediatric to adult care, putting them at risk for treatment nonadherence, loss to follow-up, and poor health outcomes. Such barriers include impaired socioemotional functioning, overreliance on adult caregivers, lack of disease-specific knowledge, and poor coordination between pediatric and adult health care services. In 2007, we established a specialized youth to adult nephrology transition clinic at a tertiary care center to address these barriers and provide adolescents and young adults with renal disease followed at the affiliated children’s hospital with a seamless transition to adult care. Sources of information: The attending clinic nephrologist collected data prospectively for this quality improvement report. Methods: The features of this specialized clinic included (1) single point of entry and single triage adult nephrologist, (2) ongoing follow-up with a single adult nephrologist who communicated with the pediatric nephrologists, and (3) a single specialized clinic nurse who provided disease-specific education and helped to ensure ongoing patient engagement and follow-up. Importantly, the transition patients were booked into regular appointment slots in the adult nephrologist’s general clinic, which facilitated regular follow-up without additional resources. The salary of the transition clinic nurse was covered by an unrestricted grant. Patient visits were in-person, except between 2020 and 2021 when visits were by telephone due to the pandemic. Key findings: A total of 213 patients were referred and assessed in the transition clinic from February 2007 until October 2022. Most referrals were from pediatric nephrologists. Among the patients, 29% had a hereditary kidney disease; in 71%, the disease was acquired. The most common disease was glomerulonephritis and ~30% of the patients suffered from a “rare” disease. Of the 213 patients, 123 (58%) continue to be followed up (mean follow-up: 4.8 years), 27 (13%) were transferred to other physicians, in part to accommodate treatment closer to patients’ homes, and 29 (14%) without ongoing care needs were discharged. Only 33 (15%) were lost to follow-up. There were several advantages to the clinic, including the maintenance of accurate records, a process to minimize loss to follow-up, and a “critical mass” of patients with rare diseases, which facilitated development of special expertise in rare disease pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, and management of complications. Patients with glomerulonephritis demonstrated a stable serum creatinine over 3 to 15 years, and morbidity (as reflected by emergency room visits and hospitalizations) was low. Limitations: Due to the relatively small numbers of patients in the disease categories, it was not possible to determine conclusively whether attendance of patients in the transition clinic reduced the rate of progression of kidney disease or morbidity. Implications: A dedicated referral, triage, and follow-up process post-transition with only modest financial resources and personnel can result in accurate tracking of clinic data, as well as consistent and reliable follow-up and expert patient care.

Background: Emerging data favor central blood pressure (BP) over brachial cuff BP to predict cardiovascular and kidney events, as central BP more closely relates to the true aortic BP. Considering that patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high cardiovascular risk and can have unreliable brachial cuff BP measurements (due to high arterial stiffness), this population could benefit the most from hypertension management using central BP measurements. Objective: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of targeting central BP as opposed to brachial BP in patients with CKD G4-5. Design: Pragmatic multicentre double-blinded randomized controlled pilot trial. Setting: Seven large academic advanced kidney care clinics across Canada. Patients: A total of 116 adults with CKD G4-5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 30 mL/min) and brachial cuff systolic BP between 120 and 160 mm Hg. The key exclusion criteria are 1) ≥ 5 BP drugs, 2) recent acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or injurious fall, 3) previous kidney replacement therapy. Methods: Double-blind randomization to a central or a brachial cuff systolic BP target (both < 130 mm Hg) as measured by a validated central BP device. The study duration is 12 months with follow-up visits every 2 to 4 months, based on local practice. All other aspects of CKD management are at the discretion of the attending nephrologist. Outcomes: Primary Feasibility : Feasibility of a large-scale trial based on predefined components. Primary Efficacy : Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity at 12 months. Others : Efficacy (eGFR decline, albuminuria, BP drugs, and quality of life); Events (major adverse cardiovascular events, CKD progression, hospitalization, mortality); Safety (low BP events and acute kidney injury). Limitations: May be challenging to distinguish whether central BP is truly different from brachial BP to the point of significantly influencing treatment decisions. Therapeutic inertia may be a barrier to successfully completing a randomized trial in a population of CKD G4-5. These 2 aspects will be evaluated in the feasibility assessment of the trial. Conclusion: This is the first trial to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of using central BP to manage hypertension in advanced CKD, paving the way to a future large-scale trial. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05163158)

As the worst global pandemic of the past century, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a disproportionate effect on maintenance dialysis patients and their health care providers. At a virtual roundtable on June 12, 2020, Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) investigators from 15 countries in Asia, Europe, and the Americas described and compared the effects of COVID-19 on dialysis care, with recent updates added. Most striking is the huge difference in risk to dialysis patients and staff across the world. Per-population cases and deaths among dialysis patients vary more than 100-fold across participating countries, mirroring burden in the general population. International data indicate that the case-fatality ratio remains at 10% to 30% among dialysis patients, confirming the gravity of infection, and that cases are much more common among in-center than home dialysis patients. This latter finding merits urgent study because in-center patients often have greater community exposure, and in-center transmission may be uncommon under optimal protocols. Greater telemedicine use is a welcome change here to stay, and our community needs to improve emergency planning and protect dialysis staff from the next pandemic. Finally, the pandemic’s challenges have prompted widespread partnering and innovation in kidney care and research that must be sustained after this global health crisis.

Transportation is a key element of access to healthcare. The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique and unforeseen challenges to patients receiving hemodialysis who rely on three times weekly transportation to receive their life-saving treatments, but there is little data on the problems they faced. This study explores the attitudes, fears, and concerns of hemodialysis patients during the pandemic with a focus on their travel to/from dialysis treatments. A mixed methods travel survey was distributed to hemodialysis patients from three urban centers in Montréal, Canada, during the pandemic (n = 43). The survey included closed questions that were analysed through descriptive statistics as well as open-ended questions that were assessed through thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics show that hemodialysis patients are more fearful of contracting COVID-19 in transit than they are at the treatment center. Patients taking paratransit, public transportation, and taxis are more fearful of COVID-19 while traveling than those who drive, who are driven, or who walk to the clinic. In the open-ended questions, patients reported struggling with confusing COVID-19 protocols in public transport, including conflicting information on whether paratransit taxis allowed one or multiple passengers. Paratransit was the most used travel mode to access treatment (n = 30), with problems identified in the open-ended questions, such as long and unreliable pickup windows, and extended travel times. To limit COVID-19 exposure and stress for paratransit users, agencies should consider sitting one patient per paratransit taxi, clearly communicating COVID-19 protocols online and in the vehicles, and tracking vehicles for more efficient pickups.

Background: Depression and anxiety affect approximately 50% of patients with kidney failure receiving hemodialysis and are associated with decreased quality of life and increased risk of hospitalization and mortality. A Brief Mindfulness Intervention (BMI) may be promising in treating depressive and anxiety symptoms in this population, but the long-term sustainability of the intervention’s effects is unknown. Objective: We previously conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 55) comparing an 8-week BMI with an active control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) for patients receiving dialysis, with depression and/or anxiety. Here, we examine the 6-month follow-up data to determine the long-term sustainability of BMI versus HEP in reducing (1) depressive symptoms, (2) anxiety symptoms, and (3) the efficacy of BMI versus HEP in reducing the likelihood of hospitalization. Design: In this study, we analyzed 6-month follow-up data from an 8-week assessor-blinded parallel RCT, which evaluated the efficacy of a BMI against an active control, HEP, in patients receiving hemodialysis with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. Setting: The study took place at hemodialysis centers in 4 tertiary-care hospitals in Montreal, Canada. Participants: Participants included adults aged ≥18 years who were receiving in-center hemodialysis 3 times per week and had symptoms of depression and/or anxiety as indicated by a score ≥6 on the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9) and/or the General Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7). Methods: Participants were randomized to the treatment arm (BMI) or the active control arm (HEP) and completed assessments at baseline, 8 weeks, and 6-month follow-up. Depression was assessed using the PHQ-9, and anxiety was assessed by the GAD-7. Hospitalization rates were assessed using medical chart information. Results: We observed significant decrease in depression scores over 6 months in both BMI and HEP groups, with no significant difference between groups. Anxiety scores significantly decreased over 6 months, but only in the BMI group. Brief Mindfulness Intervention and Health Enhancement Program were comparable in terms of hospitalization rates. Limitations: The limitations of our study include the modest sample size and lack of a third arm such as a waitlist control. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the beneficial effects of BMI and HEP for improving mood disorder symptoms in patients receiving dialysis persist at 6-month follow-up. Both interventions showed sustained effects for depressive symptoms, but BMI may be more useful in this population given its efficacy in reducing anxiety symptoms as well. Trial registration: Prior to recruitment, the trial had been registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03406845).

Background: Recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated beneficial effects of hemodiafiltration (HDF) compared with hemodialysis (HD) on mortality and hemodynamic stability. Data on quality of life in HDF compared with HD is limited. Objective: This study aimed to determine whether patients receiving HD experience improvements in quality of life, hemodynamic and laboratory parameters after switching to HDF. Design: Observational controlled cohort study. Setting & Patients: Adult patients receiving maintenance dialysis were followed for 3 months both before and after transfer to a new unit, where they received HDF. Prior to transfer, control patients were already treated by HDF. Methods: Quality of life at baseline and follow-up was measured using the validated minutes to recovery (MR) question. Dialysis data were collected for 3 consecutive sessions monthly; laboratory values were collected monthly. Wilcoxon signed rank test and repeated measures analysis of covariance were used to evaluate pre/post transfer changes and quantile regression to identify predictors of change in recovery time. Results: Of 227 patients, 82 died, were transplanted, were hospitalized or did not transfer, leaving 123 subjects and 22 controls for analysis. MR did not improve with switching to HDF, although patients with MR > 60 min before transfer experienced a significant decrease in their MR, compared with controls. There was no improvement in intradialytic hypotension with HDF. There were no differences in laboratory values before vs after switch. Limitations: Nonrandomized single-center study, including only small numbers of patients and covering a short follow-up period; hemodynamic values only evaluated over 1 week per month; residual kidney function not recorded. Conclusions: In this Canadian experience of HDF, patients remained stable with respect to several laboratory and dialysis related parameters. Switch to HDF was associated with substantially reduced recovery time in patients with MR > 60 minutes at baseline.

Purpose of the program: This article provides guidance on optimizing the management of pediatric patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who will be or are being treated with any form of home or in-center dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goals are to provide the best possible care for pediatric patients with ESKD during the pandemic and ensure the health care team’s safety. Sources of information: The core of these rapid guidelines is derived from the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) consensus recommendations for adult patients recently published in the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease ( CJKHD ). We also consulted specific documents from other national and international agencies focused on pediatric kidney health. Additional information was obtained by formal review of the published academic literature relevant to pediatric home or in-center hemodialysis. Methods: The Leadership of the Canadian Association of Paediatric Nephrologists (CAPN), which is affiliated with the CSN, solicited a team of clinicians and researchers with expertise in pediatric home and in-center dialysis. The goal was to adapt the guidelines recently adopted for Canadian adult dialysis patients for pediatric-specific settings. These included specific COVID-19-related themes that apply to dialysis in a Canadian environment, as determined by a group of senior renal leaders. Expert clinicians and nurses with deep expertise in pediatric home and in-center dialysis reviewed the revised pediatric guidelines. Key findings: We identified 7 broad areas of home dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) peritoneal dialysis catheter placement, (2) home dialysis training, (3) home dialysis management, (4) personal protective equipment, (5) product delivery, (6) minimizing direct health care providers and patient contact, and (7) caregivers support in the community. In addition, we identified 8 broad areas of in-center dialysis practice management that may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) identification of patients with COVID-19, (2) hemodialysis of patients with confirmed COVID-19, (3) hemodialysis of patients not yet known to have COVID-19, (4) management of visitors to the dialysis unit, (5) handling COVID-19 testing of patients and staff, (6) safe practices during resuscitation procedures in a pandemic, (7) routine hemodialysis care, and (8) hemodialysis care under fixed dialysis resources. We make specific suggestions and recommendations for each of these areas. Limitations: At the time when we started this work, we knew that evidence on the topic of pediatric dialysis and COVID-19 would be severely limited, and our resources were also limited. We did not, therefore, do formal systematic review or meta-analysis. We did not evaluate our specific suggestions in the clinical environment. Thus, this article’s advice and recommendations are primarily expert opinions and subject to the biases associated with this level of evidence. To expedite the publication of this work, we created a parallel review process that may not be as robust as standard arms’ length peer-review processes. Implications: We intend these recommendations to help provide the best care possible for pediatric patients prescribed in-center or home dialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time of altered priorities and reduced resources.

Purpose: The Canadian Nephrology Trials Network (CNTN) was formed in 2014 to support Canadian researchers in developing, designing, and conducting prospective studies in nephrology. In response to the changing landscape and needs within the Canadian nephrology research community, an interest in further growth and development of the network was identified. In the following report, we describe the process undertaken to re-envision the network through the creation of 3 new committees and how the committees are facilitating change and growth within the CNTN for future sustainability. Sources of information: To understand areas for improvement and capacity building, the organization charged with overseeing the CNTN, Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD), began by conducting an environmental scan. As well, 2 informal surveys were sent to nephrology professionals (who were members of the CNTN and the Canadian Society of Nephrology) and patient partners (from Can-SOLVE CKD). Methods: In September 2018, 44 CNTN members and other stakeholders from across Canada (including patient partners and representatives from research funding agencies) convened for a 2-day visioning workshop in Mississauga, Ontario. The agenda for this workshop was largely based on the results from the informal surveys. CNTN leadership participated and chose other workshop participants through informal stakeholder mapping and purposeful recruitment. Patient partners were recruited to participate in the workshop through advertisement within the Can-SOLVE-CKD patient council. The survey results and discussion questions were presented to participants at the workshop who, in turn, discussed in large- and small-group session ways in which the CNTN might be expanded. Results: Surveys of patient partners indicated that they would like to see greater involvement of patients in the research process. Surveys of researchers indicated that they wanted more support and resources for coordinating prospective trials. The themes which emerged from the workshop discussions were peer review, engagement, and training. These themes were broadened and formally re-named to Scientific Operations, Communications and Engagement, and Capacity Building. A working committee, each co-led by a nephrologist with research experience and a patient partner, was created to advance each of these identified themes. An executive committee was created to provide overall strategic leadership and governance to the network. The Scientific Operations Committee conducts peer reviews; provides letters of endorsement after peer review; and holds semi-annual in-person meetings where researchers can present their proposals and obtain feedback from multiple stakeholders, including patients. The Communications and Engagement Committee publishes a quarterly newsletter, engages the community on Twitter, and reaches out to community sites and new nephrologists to engage them in research. The Capacity Building Committee conducts webinars to encourage patient partners to develop their own research questions and is developing a hub-and-spoke model to improve research collaboration. Limitations: We did not conduct formal stakeholder mapping. Only attendees of the visioning workshop provided input, and not everyone’s comment or opinion was included in the workshop report. Perspectives were limited to the sample of people who attended the workshop or were surveyed and may not reflect perspectives of all stakeholders in nephrology research in Canada. We did not use formal qualitative methodology to summarize the workshops. Implications: Renewed areas of focus and related committees within the CNTN could lead to an increased capacity for nephrology research, increased engagement and collaboration with researchers, a higher likelihood of funding with rigorous peer review, and more clinical trials and multicenter collaborative prospective research being conducted in Canada.

Background: Restless legs syndrome (RLS) affects approximately 30% of patients with end-stage kidney disease and is associated with impaired sleep and health-related quality of life. Medications used to treat RLS in patients receiving dialysis may have an increased risk of adverse events with dose titration, and residual RLS symptoms are common despite the use of effective treatments. Randomized controlled trials of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic therapy for RLS in hemodialysis are needed. Objective: To perform a randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled blinded trial of pharmacologic therapy for RLS in hemodialysis. Design/setting: The DIalysis Symptom COntrol-Restless Legs Syndrome (DISCO-RLS) trial is a randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled blinded trial of fixed low-dose pharmacologic therapy in patients receiving hemodialysis in 10 centers across Canada. It uses patient partners in its design, conduct, and reporting. Participants: Adults receiving thrice-weekly hemodialysis for at least 3 months with RLS of at least mild symptoms defined International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group Rating Scale (IRLS) of 10 or more will enter a double placebo run-in period to exclude nonadherent participants and those unable to tolerate double placebo. Seventy-two participants who completed the run-in period will be randomized to 1 of 8 treatment sequences based on modeling with 4 treatment periods. Methods: Each treatment period lasts 4 weeks and consists of ropinirole 0.5 mg daily and gabapentin 100 mg daily, both together or neither with a double dummy placebo control for each treatment. The primary outcome is the difference in change scores of the IRLS between study treatments. Secondary outcomes are the differences in change scores of the Restless Legs Syndrome-6 Scale, patient global impression, 5-level EQ-5D version, and safety outcomes. Results: This randomized, crossover, placebo-controlled blinded trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed low-dose combination of ropinirole and gabapentin in patients receiving hemodialysis with RLS. Limitations: Patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis, kidney transplant recipients and those receiving peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis are not included. The intervention’s long term safety and efficacy including the risk of augmentation is not captured. Conclusion: This randomized crossover placebo controlled blinded trial will evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed low-dose combination ropinirole and gabapentin in patients receiving hemodialysis with RLS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03806530)

Background: Routine testing of hemodialysis patients for COVID-19 (outside of those identified as “at risk” based on regional practice) is not universally recommended. However, there is variability in the clinical presentation of COVID-19; patients may experience symptoms that do not meet regional criteria for testing and some patients with active infection may be asymptomatic. To avoid missing individuals who are infected, consideration could be made for regular screening, particularly among those residing in areas with evidence of community spread. Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics, symptom burden, and COVID-19 status in a cross-section of hemodialysis patients residing in areas with evidence of community spread. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Three hemodialysis units in a large tertiary care facility in Nova Scotia, Canada. Patients: In-center hemodialysis patients who resided in areas with evidence of community transmission at the time of the study. Methods: All dialysis patients (irrespective of whether or not they resided in areas with community spread) completed a standard “at-risk” questionnaire for COVID-19 based on (1) 2 or more of new or worsening cough, fever greater than 38°C, sore throat, headache, runny nose/new or acute respiratory illness consistent with infection or (2) any one of close contact with a known/suspected case, travel outside of the province or residence in a facility with an outbreak prior to entry into the dialysis unit at each treatment. Patients residing in areas with evidence of community spread were swabbed for SARS-CoV-2 over a 1-week period (May 1-7, 2020) using a combined oropharyngeal/nares swab irrespective of whether or not they were identified as “at-risk.” Measurements: Baseline characteristics of patients were acquired using electronic records. In addition to the “at-risk” questionnaire, patients answered “yes” or “no” to any of the following symptoms at the time of the swab (sneeze, fatigue, myalgia, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, malaise, abdominal pain, loss of taste, and loss of smell). Results: Of the 334 patients receiving dialysis at the time of the study, 133 resided in areas with evidence of community transmission and 104 consented for the study. No patients met our regional criteria for being “at-risk” and no patients reported cough, sore throat or fever at the time of swab. Many other symptoms were noted, including sneezing (24%), fatigue (16%), myalgias (11%), nausea/vomiting (11%), loss of taste (4%), and loss of smell (4%). Overall, 100% of swabs performed for this study were negative for SARS-CoV-2. Limitations: Single-center study, and the daily new case rate was exceedingly low (4-14) at the time of the study, emphasizing that the findings are not generalizable to areas of higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: In this study of hemodialysis patients residing in areas with community spread who otherwise did not meet symptom criteria for being “at-risk,” we did not identify any individual who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Future studies are needed to examine the utility of routine testing for COVID-19 (outside of those who are “at-risk”) in areas of higher disease prevalence. Trial Registration: Not applicable as this is not a clinical trial.

Background: Current health systems do not effectively address all aspects of chronic care. For better self-management of disease, kidney patients have identified the need for improved health care information, interaction with health care providers, and individualization of care. Objective: The Triple I study examined challenges to exchange of information, interaction between patients and health care providers and individualization of care in in-center hemodialysis with the aim of identifying the top 10 challenges that individuals on in-center hemodialysis face in these 3 areas. Design: We employed a sequential mixed methods approach with 3 phases: 1. A qualitative study with focus groups and interviews (Apr 2017 to Aug 2018); 2. A cross-sectional national ranking survey (Jan 2019 to May 2019); 3. A prioritization workshop using a modified James Lind Alliance process (June 2019) Setting: In-center hemodialysis units in 7 academic centers across Canada: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax. Participants: Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis, their caregivers, and health care providers working in in-center hemodialysis participated in each of the 3 phases. Methods: In Phase 1, we collected qualitative data through (1) focus groups and interviews with hemodialysis patients and their caregivers and (2) individual interviews with health care providers and decision makers. Participants identified challenges to in-center hemodialysis care and potential solutions to these challenges. In Phase 2, we administered a pan-Canadian cross-sectional ranking survey. The survey asked respondents to prioritize the challenges to in-center hemodialysis care identified in Phase 1 by ranking their top 5 topics/challenges in each of the 3 “I” categories. In Phase 3, we undertook a face-to-face priority setting workshop which followed a modified version of the James Lind Alliance priority setting workshop process. The workshop employed an iterative process incorporating small and large group sessions during which participants identified, ranked, and voted on the top challenges and innovations to hemodialysis care. Four patient partners contributed to study design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation. Results: Across the 5 participating centers, we conducted 8 focus groups and 44 interviews, in which 113 participants identified 45 distinct challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. Subsequently, completion of a national ranking survey (n = 323) of these challenges resulted in a short-list of the top 30 challenges. Finally, using small and large group sessions to develop consensus during the prioritizing workshop, 38 stakeholders used this short-list to identify the top 10 challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. These included individualization of dialysis-related education; improved information in specific topic areas (transplant status, dialysis modalities, dialysis-related complications, and other health risks); more flexibility in hemodialysis scheduling; better communication and continuity of care within the health care team; and increased availability of transportation, financial, and social support programs. Limitations: Participants were from urban centers and were predominately English-speaking. Survey response rate of 31.5% in Phase 2 may have led to selection bias. We collected limited information on social determinants of health, which could confound our results. Conclusion: Overall, the challenges we identified demonstrate that individualized care and information that improves interaction with health care providers is important to patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. In future stages of this project, we will aim to address these challenges by trialing innovative patient-centered solutions. Trial Registration: Not applicable.

Purpose of conference: On January 18, 2020, the Nephrology is Back learning day forum was held in Toronto, ON, Canada. The objectives of the meeting were to describe recent advances in nephrology for community and academic nephrologists and patients, and to define challenges and opportunities for integration of new data into clinical practice. The intent was to test a unique forum for continuing medical education integrating physician and patient experiences with the goal of encouraging change in practice. Sources of information: Program content was based on current literature and clinical experience. Additional information was provided by patient partners who attended the meeting to provide their perspective on current issues in nephrology. Methods: A steering committee (A.L., A.S., and D.S.) developed goals and an outline for the content to be covered over the course of the meeting and led the recruitment of speakers. Speakers were asked to develop their presentations independently following direction by the committee, based on primary sources, including their own experiences. Presentations were followed by discussion including both physicians and patients, and participants had an opportunity to evaluate the conference and its outcomes. Key findings: We present a unique approach to providing continuing medical education by including both physicians and patients in the learning process. Patient perspectives accompanying presentations around data and other clinical topics provided a much different environment from other knowledge translation exercises. We believe this represents an innovative approach for knowledge translation that allows physicians to address clinical topics in a novel manner, including the integration of new findings into practice and the need to cascade this education to their peers. Limitations: Because the conference was a one-time event, it has been difficult to assess the actual clinical impact of the knowledge translation exercise and whether physician behaviors have changed as a result of the activity. The conference could also have included broader representation from across Canada. Implications: The success of this test forum among both physicians and patient partners suggests that the inclusion of patient partners in learning could have an important role in future educational initiatives.

Purpose: To collate best practice recommendations on the management of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on published reports and current public health advice, while considering ethical principles and the unique circumstances of Canadian hemodialysis units across the country. Sources of information: The workgroup members used Internet search engines to retrieve documents from provincial and local hemodialysis programs; provincial public health agencies; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; webinars and slides from other kidney agencies; and nonreviewed preprints. PubMed was used to search for peer-reviewed published articles. Informal input was sought from knowledge users during a webinar. Methods: Challenges in the care of hemodialysis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted within the Canadian Senior Renal Leaders Forum discussion group. The Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) developed the COVID-19 rapid response team (RRT) to address these challenges. They identified a pan-Canadian team of clinicians and administrators with expertise in hemodialysis to form the workgroup. One lead was chosen who drafted the initial document. Members of the workgroup reviewed and discussed all recommendations in detail during 2 virtual meetings on April 7 and April 9. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The document was reviewed by the CSN COVID-19 RRT, an ethicist, an infection control expert, a community nephrologist, and a patient partner. Content was presented during an interactive webinar on April 11, 2020 attended by 269 kidney health professionals, and the webinar and first draft of the document were posted online. Final revisions were made based on feedback received until April 13, 2020. CJKHD editors reviewed the parallel process peer review and edited the manuscript for clarity. Key findings: Recommendations were made under the following themes: (1) Identification of patients with COVID-19 in the dialysis unit, (2) hemodialysis of patients with confirmed COVID-19, (3) hemodialysis of patients not yet known to have COVID-19, (4) visitors; (5) testing for COVID-19 in the dialysis unit; (6) resuscitation, (6) routine hemodialysis care, (7) hemodialysis care under fixed dialysis resources. Limitations: Because of limitations of time and resources, and the large number of questions, formal systematic review was not undertaken. The recommendations are based on expert opinion and subject to bias. The parallel review process that was created may not be as robust as the standard peer review process. Implications: We hope that these recommendations provide guidance for dialysis unit directors, clinicians, and administrators on how to limit risk from infection and adverse outcomes, while providing necessary dialysis care in a setting of finite resources. We also identify a number of resource allocation priorities, which we hope will inform decisions at provincial funding agencies.

Background: Understanding how frailty affects patients listed for transplantation has been identified as a priority research need. Frailty may be associated with a high risk of death or wait-list withdrawal, but this has not been evaluated in a large multicenter cohort of Canadian wait-listed patients. Objective: The primary objective is to evaluate whether frailty is associated with death or permanent withdrawal from the transplant wait list. Secondary objectives include assessing whether frailty is associated with hospitalization, quality of life, and the probability of being accepted to the wait list. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Seven sites with established renal transplant programs that evaluate patients for the kidney transplant wait list. Patients: Individuals who are being considered for the kidney transplant wait list. Measurements: We will assess frailty using the Fried Phenotype, a frailty index, the Short Physical Performance Battery, and the Clinical Frailty Scale at the time of listing for transplantation. We will also assess frailty at the time of referral to the wait list and annually after listing in a subgroup of patients. Methods: The primary outcome of the composite of time to death or permanent wait-list withdrawal will be compared between patients who are frail and those who are not frail and will account for the competing risks of deceased and live donor transplantation. Secondary outcomes will include number of hospitalizations and length of stay, and in a subset, changes in frailty severity over time, change in quality of life, and the probability of being listed. Recruitment of 1165 patients will provide >80% power to identify a relative hazard of ≥1.7 comparing patients who are frail to those who are not frail for the primary outcome (2-sided α = .05), whereas a more conservative recruitment target of 624 patients will provide >80% power to identify a relative hazard of ≥2.0. Results: Through December 2019, 665 assessments of frailty (inclusive of those for the primary outcome and all secondary outcomes including repeated measures) have been completed. Limitations: There may be variation across sites in the processes of referral and listing for transplantation that will require consideration in the analysis and results. Conclusions: This study will provide a detailed understanding of the association between frailty and outcomes for wait-listed patients. Understanding this association is necessary before routinely measuring frailty as part of the wait-list eligibility assessment and prior to ascertaining the need for interventions that may modify frailty. Trial Registration: Not applicable as this is a protocol for a prospective observational study.

Background: Frailty is a clinical phenotype of decreased physiologic reserve that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The most meaningful way to assess frailty in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is unknown. Objective: To assess the prevalence of frailty in ESKD patients using the easy-to-administer FRAIL scale and, to determine its association with mortality, transplantation, and hospitalization. Design: A cohort study was used. Setting: The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, was the setting of this study. Patients: All eligible adult ESKD patients treated with dialysis from August to November 2017 at The Ottawa Hospital were invited to participate. Measurements: The FRAIL scale. Methods: Eligible patients completed an exercise survey with FRAIL questions embedded within the instrument. Number of comorbid illnesses was determined from the electronic medical record and weight loss was calculated from target weight in the patients’ dialysis prescription. Mortality, transplant status, and hospitalizations were ascertained from the electronic medical record 18 months later; differences by frailty status were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used to examine the association between frailty and transplant. Results: Of 476 ESKD patients screened, 261 participated; 101 receiving peritoneal dialysis, 135 intermittent hemodialysis, and 25 home hemodialysis. Thirty-nine, 145, and 77 were frail, pre-frail, and not frail, respectively. Employment status, ethnicity, and comorbid illnesses differed significantly by frailty status, but mortality did not. In univariate analysis, frail patients were less likely to be listed for ( P = .05) and to receive a kidney transplant ( P = .02). However, after adjusting for age and modality, frailty was not statistically associated with a decreased likelihood of transplant (Hazard Ratio: 0.15; confidence interval [CI], 0.02-1.15; P = .068). The results were similar when accounting for the competing risk of death ( P = .060). Frail patients were more likely to be hospitalized ( P = .01) and spend more time in the hospital ( P = .04). Limitations: Single-center design with a relatively short follow-up and small sample size limiting the number of variables that could be assessed in analysis. We also excluded patients who were unable to communicate in English or French and those patients with physical limitations such as amputations, potentially affecting generalizability. Conclusions: Frail ESKD patients as identified by the FRAIL scale are less likely to receive a renal transplant; this association diminished statistically after adjusting for age and modality and when accounting for the competing risk of death. Frail patients were at increased risk of hospitalization. Further study with larger patient numbers and longer follow-up is needed to determine the usefulness of the FRAIL scale in predicting adverse outcomes. Trial registration: Not required as this was an observational study.

Hemodialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for persons with kidney failure. However, those on hemodialysis still face a poor quality of life and a short life expectancy. High-quality research evidence from large randomized controlled trials is needed to identify interventions that improve the experiences, outcomes, and health care of persons receiving hemodialysis. With the support of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and its Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, the Innovative Clinical Trials in Hemodialysis Centers initiative brought together Canadian and international kidney researchers, patients, health care providers, and health administrators to participate in a workshop held in Toronto, Canada, on June 2 and 3, 2018. The workshop served to increase knowledge and awareness about the conduct of innovative, pragmatic, cluster-randomized registry trials embedded into routine hemodialysis care and provided an opportunity to discuss and build support for new trial ideas. The workshop content included structured presentations, facilitated group discussions, and expert panel feedback. Partnerships and promising trial ideas borne out of the workshop will continue to be developed to support the implementation of future large-scale trials.

(1) Objective: to determine if a brief mindfulness intervention (BMI) and a health education program (HEP) could improve measures of insomnia in patients undergoing hemodialysis. (2) Methods: this was a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of BMI vs. HEP for hemodialysis patients with depression and/or anxiety symptoms. The primary outcome for the analysis was the Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS). The secondary outcome was consolidation of daily inactivity (ConDI), an actigraphy measure that describes sleep continuity and is based on a sleep detection algorithm validated by polysomnography. We also explored whether changes in AIS and ConDI were associated with changes in depression, anxiety, and quality of life scores over 8-week follow-up. (3) Results: BMI and HEP groups did not differ significantly from one another. Exposure to BMI or HEP improved sleep quality (baseline AIS 9.9 (±5.0) vs. 8-week follow-up 6.4 (±3.9), (V = 155.5, p = 0.015)), but not ConDI. Improvements in AIS were associated with lower depression scores (Rho = 0.57, p = 0.01) and higher quality-of-life scores (Rho = 0.46, p = 0.04). (4) Conclusions: mindfulness and HEP may be helpful interventions to improve self-reported sleep quality in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Decreases in insomnia scores were associated with decreased depression symptoms and increased quality of life scores.

Background: Between 20–50% of patients undergoing maintenance dialysis for end-stage kidney disease experience symptoms of depression and/or anxiety, associated with increased mortality, greater health care utilization, and decreased quality of life. It is unknown whether mindfulness-based interventions can improve depression and anxiety symptoms in patients receiving this treatment. Methods: We conducted an 8-week multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing a brief mindfulness intervention (BMI) vs. an active control (Health Enhancement Program [HEP]) in 55 patients receiving dialysis with symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. The primary outcome was change in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) depression scores, with a primary analysis in participants with baseline PHQ-9 ≥ 10, and a secondary analysis including all participants. The secondary outcome was change in Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) anxiety scores with corresponding primary and secondary analyses. Results: Both BMI and HEP reduced depressive symptoms, with no difference between trial arms (PHQ-9 change = −7.0 vs. −6.1, p = 0.62). BMI was more effective than HEP in reducing anxiety (GAD-7 change = −8.7 vs. −1.4, p = 0.01). Secondary analyses revealed no differences between arms. Conclusions: For patients undergoing dialysis, both BMI and HEP may be helpful interventions for depression symptoms, and BMI may be superior to HEP for anxiety symptoms. Mindfulness-based and other psychosocial interventions may be further evaluated in those undergoing dialysis as treatment options for symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Background: Home dialysis is being increasingly promoted among patients with end-stage renal disease, but the comparative effectiveness of home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis is unknown. Objective: To determine whether patients receiving home daily hemodialysis have reduced mortality risk compared with matched patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis. Design: This study is an observational, propensity-matched, new-user cohort study. Setting: Linked electronic data were from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and a large dialysis provider's database. Patients: The patients were adults receiving in-center hemodialysis in the USA between 2004 and 2011 and registered in the USRDS. Measurements: Baseline comorbidities, demographics, and outcomes for both groups were ascertained from the United States Renal Data System. Methods: We identified 3142 consecutive adult patients initiating home daily hemodialysis (≥5 days/week for ≥1.5 h/day) and matched 2688 of them by propensity score to 2688 contemporaneous US patients initiating home peritoneal dialysis. We used Cox regression to compare all-cause mortality between groups. Results: After matching, the two groups were well balanced on all baseline characteristics. Mean age was 51 years, 66 % were male, 72 % were white, and 29 % had diabetes. During 10,221 patient-years of follow-up, 1493/5336 patients died. There were significantly fewer deaths among patients receiving home daily hemodialysis than those receiving peritoneal dialysis (12.7 vs 16.7 deaths per 100 patient-years, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.75; 95 % CI 0.68–0.82; p < 0.001). Similar results were noted with several different analytic methods and for all pre-specified subgroups. Limitations: We cannot exclude residual confounding in this observational study. Conclusions: Home daily hemodialysis was associated with lower mortality risk than home peritoneal dialysis.

Knowledge generation through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is critical to advance the medical evidence base, inform decision-making, and improve care and outcomes. Unfortunately, nephrology has typically lagged behind other medical specialties in this regard. The establishment of formal clinical trial networks can facilitate the successful conduct of RCTs and has significantly increased the number of RCTs performed worldwide in other medical specialties. No such formal network of nephrology trialists exists in Canada. On April 24, 2014, the Canadian Kidney Knowledge Translation and Generation Network (CANN-NET) Clinical Trials Committee held a stakeholder engagement meeting to address this gap and improve the nephrology clinical trial landscape in Canada. The meeting was held in Vancouver in association with the 2014 Canadian Society of Nephrology Annual General Meeting and was co-sponsored by the Kidney Foundation of Canada and CANN-NET. Attendees included nephrologists from university- and non-university-affiliated nephrology practices, administrators, and representatives from the Kidney Foundation of Canada. Through structured presentations and facilitated group discussions, the group explored the extent to which nephrology trials are currently happening in Canada, barriers to leading or participating in larger investigator-initiated trials, and strategies to improve clinical trial output in nephrology in Canada. The themes and action items arising from this meeting are discussed.