Search

IntroductionMost patients with kidney failure commence and continue hemodialysis (HD) thrice weekly. Incremental initiation (defined as HD less than thrice weekly) is increasingly considered to be safe and less burdensome, but little is known about patients' perspectives. We aimed to describe patients' priorities and concerns regarding incremental HD.MethodsPatients currently, previously, or soon to be receiving HD in Australia participated in two 90-minute online workshops to discuss views about HD focusing on incremental start and priorities for trial outcomes. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Outcomes were ranked on the basis of the sum of participants' priority scores (i.e., single allocation of 3 points for most important, 2 for second, and 1 for third most important outcome).ResultsAll 26 participants (1 caregiver and 25 patients) preferred an incremental HD approach. The top prioritized outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (56 points), residual kidney function (RKF) (27 points), and mortality (16 points). The following 4 themes underpinning outcome priorities, experience, and safety concerns were identified: (i) unpreparedness and pressure to adapt, (ii) disruption to daily living, (iii) threats to safety, and (iv) hope and future planning.ConclusionPatients with kidney failure preferred an incremental start to HD to minimize disruption to daily living and reduce the negative impacts on their education, ability to work, and family life. QOL was the most critically important outcome, followed by RKF and survival.

IntroductionPeritoneal dialysis (PD)-related peritonitis is one of the leading causes of discontinuation of PD and is considered a critically important outcome for patients on PD. However, there is no universally accepted method of measuring this outcome in clinical trials.MethodsWe convened an online consensus workshop to establish a core outcome measure for PD-related peritonitis in clinical trials.ResultsA total of 53 participants, including 18 patients and caregivers, from 12 countries engaged in breakout discussions in this workshop. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. We identified the following 3 themes: (i) feasibility and applicability across diverse settings, which reflected the difficulty with implementing laboratory-based measures in resource-limited environments; (ii) ensuring validity, which included minimizing false positives and considering the specificity of symptoms; and (iii) being meaningful and tangible to patients, which meant that the measure should be easy to interpret, reflect the impact that symptoms have on patients, and promote transparency by standardizing the reporting of peritonitis among dialysis units.ConclusionA core outcome measure for PD-related peritonitis should include both symptom-based and laboratory-based criteria. Thus, the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) definition of peritonitis is acceptable. However, there should be consideration of reporting suspected peritonitis in cases where laboratory confirmation is not possible. The measure should include all infections from the time of catheter insertion and capture both the rate of infection and the number of patients who remain peritonitis free. Acore outcome measure with these features would increase the impact of clinical trials on the care and decision-making of patients receiving PD.

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-ptd-10.1177_08968608221096560 for Establishing a core outcome measure for life participation in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis: A Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology–Peritoneal Dialysis consensus workshop report by Melissa S Cheetham, Martin Wilkie, Fiona Loud, Karine E Manera, Angela Ju, Ana Figueiredo, Janine Farragher, Helen Hurst, Sarbjit V Jassal, Rajnish Mehrotra, Rachael L Morton, Daniel Schwartz, Jenny I Shen, Rachael Walker, Yeoungjee Cho, David W Johnson, Jonathan C Craig, Samaya Anumudu, Amanda Baumgart, Andrea Matus Gonzalez, Nicole Scholes-Robertson, Andrea K Viecelli, Allison Tong and On behalf of the SONG-PD Life Participation Workshop Investigators in Peritoneal Dialysis International

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Supplemental Material, PTD880101_supp_mat for “Can I go to Glasgow?” Learnings from patient involvement at the 17th Congress of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) by Talia Gutman, Karine E Manera, Amanda Baumgart, David W Johnson, Martin Wilkie, Neil Boudville, Jonathan C Craig, Jie Dong, Shilpa Jesudason, Rajnish Mehrotra, Alicia Neu, Jenny I Shen, Wim Van Biesen, Peter G Blake, Gillian Brunier, Yeoungjee Cho, Nichole Jefferson, Ilan Lenga, Neelem Mann, Asher A Mendelson, Jeffrey Perl, Rafael Mauricio Sanabria, Nicole Scholes-Roberston, Daniel Schwartz, Isaac Teitelbaum and Allison Tong in Peritoneal Dialysis International

Additional file 4. Preliminary REPRISE guideline.

Additional file 2. Search results.

Additional file 6. Results of the pilot test.

Additional file 5. Sources contributing to the reporting items.

Additional file 2. Search results.

Additional file 1. Search strategies.

Additional file 6. Results of the pilot test.

Additional file 3. Research priority setting: frameworks and reviews.

Additional file 5. Sources contributing to the reporting items.

Additional file 3. Research priority setting: frameworks and reviews.

Objective: The outcomes reported in trials in COVID-19 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Design: Four international online multi-stakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, informed by a survey involving 9289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set Setting: International Participants: Adults aged 18 years and over with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). Main Results: Six themes were identified. Responding to the critical and acute health crisis reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiorgan failure. Capturing different settings of care highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease was addressing longer-term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value, and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). Recognizing adverse events refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing reflected the pervasive impacts of COVID-19. Conclusions: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiorgan failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in COVID-19 trials., The project is funded by the Flinders University and the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, convened by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, hosted by Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University supported by the Australian Government, Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Ian Potter Foundation, Walter Cottman Endowment Fund (managed by Equity Trustees) and the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation). AT is supported by The University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. ACM is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z)

Additional file 1. Search strategies.

Additional file 4. Preliminary REPRISE guideline.