Reducing the carbon footprint of research: experience from the NightLife study.

BACKGROUND: As set out in the Climate Change Act (2008), the UK National Health Service (NHS) has made a commitment to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and reach net zero by 2050. Research forms a core part of NHS activity and reducing the carbon footprint of clinical trials is a core element of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Carbon Reduction Strategy (2019). KEY ARGUMENTS: However, support from funding organisations on how to achieve these targets is lacking. This brief communication article reports the reduction in the carbon footprint of the NightLife study, an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis on quality of life. CONCLUSION: By using remote conferencing software and innovative data collection methods, we demonstrated a total saving of 136 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over three workstreams during the first 18 months of the study, following grant activation on 1 January 2020. In addition to the environmental impact, there were additional benefits seen to cost as well as increased participant diversity and inclusion. This work highlights ways in which trials could be made less carbon intensive, more environmentally sustainable and better value for money.

Humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in haemodialysis patients and a matched cohort.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is a crucial intervention for infection control; however, the immune response to vaccination in dialysis patients has been reported to be moderate compared with healthy adults. There are few studies available on humoral response in immunised dialysis patients compared with well-matched control group, we conducted a prospective cohort study measuring SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan since September 2021. PARTICIPANTS: We compared the titres of both anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG and neutralising antibodies of 65 haemodialysis patients (dialysis group) with 500 residents in Soma, Fukushima (control group). METHODS: Coarsened exact matching was used to balance sex, age and days from the second dose between dialysis and control groups. RESULTS: Significant differences in the titres of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG and neutralising antibodies were observed between the dialysis and control groups; anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG: 168.35 (4.48-1074.29) AU/mL and 269.81 (4.72-945.96) AU/mL in dialysis and control groups, p=0.02, neutralising antibodies: 35.77 (2.94-826.06) AU/mL and 62.22 (0.00-535.57) AU/mL, p=0.007, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We observed significantly reduced anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 antibody and neutralising antibodies in haemodialysis patients compared with cohorts matched for duration after vaccination. Patients receiving haemodialysis should be carefully monitored for immunological responses to the vaccination and COVID-19 infection.

Intervening to eliminate the centre-effect variation in home dialysis use: protocol for Inter-CEPt-a sequential mixed-methods study designing an intervention bundle.

INTRODUCTION: Use of home dialysis by centres in the UK varies considerably and is decreasing despite attempts to encourage greater use. Knowing what drives this unwarranted variation requires in-depth understanding of centre cultural and organisational factors and how these relate to quantifiable centre performance, accounting for competing treatment options. This knowledge will be used to identify components of a practical and feasible intervention bundle ensuring this is realistic and cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Underpinned by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework, our research will use an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach. Insights from multisited focused team ethnographic and qualitative research at four case study sites will inform development of a national survey of 52 centres. Survey results, linked to patient-level data from the UK Renal Registry, will populate a causal graph describing patient and centre-level factors, leading to uptake of home dialysis and multistate models incorporating patient-level treatment modality history and mortality. This will inform a contemporary economic evaluation of modality cost-effectiveness that will quantify how modification of factors facilitating home dialysis, identified from the ethnography and survey, might yield the greatest improvements in costs, quality of life and numbers on home therapies. Selected from these factors, using the capability, opportunity and motivation for behaviour change framework (COM-B) for intervention design, the optimal intervention bundle will be developed through workshops with patients and healthcare professionals to ensure acceptability and feasibility. Patient and public engagement and involvement is embedded throughout the project. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Health Research Authority reference 20-WA-0249. The intervention bundle will comprise components for all stake holder groups: commissioners, provider units, recipients of dialysis, their caregivers and families. To reache all these groups, a variety of knowledge exchange methods will be used: short guides, infographics, case studies, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, patient conferences, 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative, Clinical Reference Group (dialysis).

Should We Weigh More on Home Dialysis Methods During Pandemic Periods: One Center Experience

Objective: This study aims to determine the difference in the coronavirus disease 2019 incidence between our patient group performing home dialysis, including home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and our patient group performing in-center hemodialysis. Methods: The study consists of the patients followed up in our center: 58 scheduled hemodialysis, 9 home hemodialysis, and 54 peritoneal dialysis patients. All the patients were closely followed for the coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms between March 2020 and May 2020. The follow-up intervals of our patients who underwent peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis were increased from 1 month to 2 months;all of them were contacted over the phone at the beginning of the pandemic and 2 months later, and the patients were questioned in terms of the coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms. Relevant descriptive statistics were presented. Binary logistic regression model was applied to compare the development of coronavirus disease 2019 in the patient group who performed home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis) and in the patient group who performed in-center hemodialysis via the glm function in R that fits generalized linear models. Age and the number of critical comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive lung disease) were employed as the other independent variables in the model. Results: Three of the 58 patients who underwent dialysis in our center were followed up in our pandemic service with the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. Coronavirus disease 2019 positivity was not detected in any patient who applied dialysis methods at home. The number of critical comorbidities appeared as the only significant variable in explaining the development of COVID-19 (P =.0569<0.10). The non-reflection of the difference of the applied methods (in-center hemodialysis vs. home dialysis (home hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis)) in coronavirus disease 2019 development to the statistics may be due to the somewhat low number of total observations. Conclusion: In our study, we observed no peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis patient diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 in our center during the pandemic period. Home dialysis methods may prove to be the gold standard treatment, especially during the pandemic period.

Results of a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial exploring the use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in the management of UK patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVES: The use of routine remote follow-up of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing exponentially. It has been suggested that online electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could be used in parallel, to facilitate real-time symptom monitoring aimed at improving outcomes. We tested the feasibility of this approach in a pilot trial of ePROM symptom monitoring versus usual care in patients with advanced CKD not on dialysis. DESIGN: A 12-month, parallel, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) and qualitative substudy. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, UK. Adult patients with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥6 and ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m2, or a projected risk of progression to kidney failure within 2 years ≥20%). INTERVENTION: Monthly online ePROM symptom reporting, including automated feedback of tailored self-management advice and triggered clinical notifications in the advent of severe symptoms. Real-time ePROM data were made available to the clinical team via the electronic medical record. OUTCOMES: Feasibility (recruitment and retention rates, and acceptability/adherence to the ePROM intervention). Health-related quality of life, clinical data (eg, measures of kidney function, kidney failure, hospitalisation, death) and healthcare utilisation. RESULTS: 52 patients were randomised (31% of approached). Case report form returns were high (99.5%), as was retention (96%). Overall, 73% of expected ePROM questionnaires were received. Intervention adherence was high beyond 90 days (74%) and 180 days (65%); but dropped beyond 270 days (46%). Qualitative interviews supported proof of concept and intervention acceptability, but highlighted necessary changes aimed at enhancing overall functionality/scalability of the ePROM system. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial demonstrates that patients are willing to be randomised to a trial assessing ePROM symptom monitoring. The intervention was considered acceptable; though measures to improve longer-term engagement are needed. A full-scale RCT is considered feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12669006 and the UK NIHR Portfolio (CPMS ID: 36497).

Effectiveness of a brief positive skills intervention to improve psychological adjustment in patients with end-stage kidney disease newly initiated on haemodialysis: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (HED-Start).

INTRODUCTION: Initiation onto haemodialysis is a critical transition that entails multiple psychosocial and behavioural demands that can compound mental health burden. Interventions guided by self-management and cognitive-behavioural therapy to improve distress have been variably effective yet are resource-intensive or delivered reactively. Interventions with a focus on positive affect for patients with end-stage kidney disease are lacking. This study will seek (1) to develop a positive life skills intervention (HED-Start) combining evidence and stakeholder/user involvement and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of HED-Start to facilitate positive life skills acquisition and improve symptoms of distress and adjustment in incident haemodialysis patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single/assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare HED-Start to usual care. In designing HED-Start, semistructured interviews, a codesign workshop and an internal pilot will be undertaken, followed by a two-arm parallel RCT to evaluate the effectiveness of HED-Start. A total of 148 incident HD patients will be randomised using a 1:2 ratio into usual care versus HED-Start to be delivered in groups by trained facilitators between January 2021 and September 2022. Anxiety and depression will be the primary outcomes; secondary outcomes will be positive and negative affect, quality of life, illness perceptions, self-efficacy, self-management skills, benefit finding and resilience. Assessments will be taken at 2 weeks prerandomisation (baseline) and 3 months postrandomisation (2 weeks post-HED-Start completion). Primary analyses will use an intention-to-treat approach and compare changes in outcomes from baseline to follow-up relative to the control group using mixed-effect models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from Nanyang Technological University Institutional Review Board (IRB-2019-01-010). Written informed consent will be obtained before any research activities. Trial results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations and will inform revision(s) in renal health services to support the transition of new patients to haemodialysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04774770.

Renal replacement treatment initiation with twice-weekly versus thrice-weekly haemodialysis in patients with incident dialysis-dependent kidney disease: rationale and design of the TWOPLUS pilot clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal haemodialysis (HD) prescription-frequency and dose-for patients with incident dialysis-dependent kidney disease (DDKD) and substantial residual kidney function (RKF)-that is, renal urea clearance ≥2 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine volume ≥500 mL/day-is not known. The aim of the present study is to test the feasibility and safety of a simple, reliable prescription of incremental HD in patients with incident DDKD and RKF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This parallel-group, open-label randomised pilot trial will enrol 50 patients from 14 outpatient dialysis units. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to receive twice-weekly HD with adjuvant pharmacological therapy for 6 weeks followed by thrice-weekly HD (incremental HD group) or outright thrice-weekly HD (standard HD group). Age ≥18 years, chronic kidney disease progressing to DDKD and urine output ≥500 mL/day are key inclusion criteria; patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30% and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis will be excluded. Adjuvant pharmacological therapy (ie, effective diuretic regimen, patiromer and sodium bicarbonate) will complement twice-weekly HD. The primary feasibility end points are recruitment rate, adherence to the assigned HD regimen, adherence to serial timed urine collections and treatment contamination. Incidence rate of clinically significant volume overload and metabolic imbalances in the first 3 months after randomisation will be used to assess intervention safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina, USA. Patient recruitment began on 14 June 2019, was paused between 13 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic, resumed on 01 June 2020 and will last until the required sample size has been attained. Participants will be followed in usual care fashion for a minimum of 6 months from last individual enrolled. All regulations and measures of ethics and confidentiality are handled in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03740048; Pre-results.