Self-care training using the Tablo hemodialysis system.

INTRODUCTION: Recently published results of the investigational device exemption (IDE) trial using the Tablo hemodialysis system confirmed its safety and efficacy for home dialysis. This manuscript reports additional data from the Tablo IDE study on the training time required to be competent in self-care, the degree of dependence on health care workers and caregivers after training was complete, and participants' assessment of the ease-of-use of Tablo. METHODS: We collected data on the time required to set up concentrates and the Tablo cartridge prior to treatment initiation. We asked participants to rate system setup, treatment, and takedown on a Likert scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very simple) and if they had required any assistance with any aspect of treatment over the prior 7 days. In a subgroup of 15 participants, we recorded the number of training sessions required to be deemed competent to do self-care dialysis. FINDINGS: Eighteen men and 10 women with a mean age of 52.6 years completed the study. Thirteen had previous self-care experience using a different dialysis system. Mean set up times for the concentrates and cartridge were 1.1 and 10.0 minutes, respectively. Participants with or without previous self-care experience had similar set-up times. The mean ease-of-use score was 4.5 or higher on a scale from 1 to 5 during the in-home phase. Sixty-five percent required no assistance at home and on average required fewer than four training sessions to be competent in managing their treatments. Results were similar for participants with or without previous self-care experience. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the Tablo IDE trial were able to quickly learn and manage hemodialysis treatments in the home, found Tablo easy to use, and were generally independent in performing hemodialysis.

Patient-reported outcomes from the investigational device exemption study of the Tablo hemodialysis system.

INTRODUCTION: We recently completed an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study in which 30 patients were enrolled (13 patients previously on home hemodialysis (HHD) and 17 patients new to HHD) and treated with the Tablo Hemodialysis System (Outset Medical, Inc., San Jose, CA) for 8 weeks in-center and 8 weeks in-home with an interim 2-4 week transition period for home training. METHODS: In addition to assessments of urea kinetics, events related to safety, and operational issues (e.g., alarm resolution), we obtained data on several parameters of health-related quality of life, including time to recovery (TTR), the EQ-5D-5L (a well-validated measure of general health status), and the quality of sleep and related symptoms, to further assess the safety of HHD with Tablo. We compared results obtained during the in-center and in-home phases of the trial. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 30 patients (93%) completed all trial periods. Adherence to the prescribed four treatments per week schedule was 96% in-center and 99% in-home. Median TTR was 1.5 hours (10th, 90th percentile range 0.17 to 12, mean TTR 3.68 ± 5.88 hours) during the in-center and 2 hours (10th, 90th percentile range 0 to 6.0, mean TTR 3.04 ± 5.14 hours) during the at-home phase (Wilcoxon signed rank p = 0.57). Median index values on the EQ-5D-5L were similar during the in-center (0.832, 10th, 90th percentile range 0.617 to 1, mean 0.817 ± 0.165) and in-home (0.826, 10th, 90th percentile range 0.603 to 1, mean 0.821 ± 0.163) trial phases (Wilcoxon signed rank p = 0.36). Patients reported feeling alert or well-rested with little difficulty falling or staying asleep or feeling tired and worn out when using Tablo in either environment. CONCLUSION: When using Tablo in-home, patients reported similar TTR, general health status, and sleep quality and related symptoms compared to using Tablo in-center. (294 words).

Safety and efficacy of the Tablo hemodialysis system for in-center and home hemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: Home hemodialysis remains underutilized despite observational data indicating more favorable outcomes with home compared with in-center hemodialysis. The Tablo Hemodialysis system is designed to be easy to learn and use and to facilitate adoption of home hemodialysis. The objective of the current investigational device exemption (IDE) study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Tablo managed in-center by health care professionals and in-home by patients and/or caregivers. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, open-label, crossover trial comparing in-center and in-home hemodialysis using Tablo. There were 4 treatment periods during which hemodialysis was prescribed 4 times per week: 1-week Run-In, 8-week In-Center, 4-week Transition, and 8-week In-Home. The primary efficacy endpoint was weekly standard Kt/Vurea ≥ 2.1. The secondary efficacy endpoint was delivery of ultrafiltration (UF) within 10% of prescribed UF. We collected safety and usability data. FINDINGS: Thirty participants enrolled and 28 completed all trial periods. Adherence to the protocol requirement of 4 treatments per week was 96% in-center and 99% in-home. The average prescribed and delivered session lengths were 3.4 hours for both the In-Center and the In-Home periods. The primary efficacy endpoint for the intention-to-treat cohort was achieved in 199/200 (99.5%) of measurements during the In-Center period and 168/171 (98.3%) In-Home. The average weekly standard Kt/Vurea was 2.8 in both periods. The secondary efficacy UF endpoint was achieved in the ITT cohort in 94% in both in-center and in-home. Two prespecified adverse events (AEs) occurred during the In-Center period and 6 in the In-Home period. None of the AEs were deemed by investigators as related to Tablo. The median resolution time of alarms was 8 seconds in-center and 5 seconds in-home. CONCLUSION: Primary and secondary efficacy and safety endpoints were achieved during both In-Center and In-Home trial periods. This study confirms that Tablo is safe and effective for home hemodialysis use.

Impact of dyslipidemia in end-stage renal disease.

Heart disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with renal failure. Premature atherosclerotic coronary heart disease is driven by multiple risk factors, including dyslipidemia and oxidative stress. In the nondialysis population, there is overwhelming evidence that treatment of dyslipidemia can significantly improve cardiovascular outcomes. Accumulating data indicate that dialysis patients have atherogenic lipid abnormalities. Although LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in patients who undergo hemodialysis are normal or near normal, increased oxidized LDL-C, triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)]; decreased HDL cholesterol (HDL-C); and triglyceride-rich VLDL have been noted. Patients who receive peritoneal dialysis have a more atherogenic lipid profile with increased LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, oxidized LDL-C, triglycerides, and Lp(a) and decreased HDL-C. Furthermore, the LDL particles of peritoneal dialysis patients are small and dense. However, there is a dearth of information regarding the goals, efficacy, and safety of dyslipidemia treatment among dialysis patients. Given the strong evidence of risk reduction and the benefits of lipid-lowering treatment in the nondialysis population, the emerging consensus is that dialysis patients should be treated aggressively for dyslipidemia to an LDL-C goal below 100 mg/dl. Although physicians and patients may be reluctant to add medications because of concerns about polypharmacy, potential decreased compliance, and increased cost, the use of agents such as sevelamer that can serve multiple functions, including phosphate control, lipid lowering (decreased LDL-C and total cholesterol), and anti-inflammatory effects (decreased high-sensitivity C-reactive protein), should be explored and considered for patients who would benefit from such treatment.