Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of home dialysis therapies: a matched cohort study.

ABSTRACT: 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.To determine whether patients receiving home daily hemodialysis have reduced mortality risk compared with matched patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis.This study is an observational, propensity-matched, new-user cohort study.Linked electronic data were from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) and a large dialysis provider's database.The patients were adults receiving in-center hemodialysis in the USA between 2004 and 2011 and registered in the USRDS.Baseline comorbidities, demographics, and outcomes for both groups were ascertained from the United States Renal Data System.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.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?

SUBMITTER: Nesrallah GE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4802626 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of home dialysis therapies: a matched cohort study.

Nesrallah Gihad E GE Li Lihua L Suri Rita S RS

Canadian journal of kidney health and disease 20160320

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether patients receiving home daily hemodialysis have reduced mortality risk compared with matched patients receiving home peritoneal dialysis.<h4>Design</h4>This study is an observational, propensity-matched, new-user cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>Linked electronic da ...[more]

PMID: 27006781

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesThe benefit of the initiation of dialysis for AKI may differ depending on patient factors, but, because of a lack of robust evidence, the decision to initiate dialysis for AKI remains subjective in many cases. Prior studies examining dialysis initiation for AKI have examined outcomes of dialyzed patients compared with other dialyzed patients with different characteristics. Without an adequate nondialyzed control group, these studies cannot provide information on the benefit of dialysis initiation. To determine which patients would benefit from initiation of dialysis for AKI, a propensity-matched cohort study was performed among a large population of patients with severe AKI.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsAdults admitted to one of three acute care hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System from January 1, 2004, to August 31, 2010, who subsequently developed severe AKI were included (n=6119). Of these, 602 received dialysis. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were used to generate a time-varying propensity score representing the daily probability of initiation of dialysis for AKI. Not-yet-dialyzed patients were matched to each dialyzed patient according to day of AKI and propensity score. Proportional hazards analysis was used to compare time to all-cause mortality among dialyzed versus nondialyzed patients across a spectrum of prespecified variables.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, covariates were well balanced between the groups, and the overall hazard ratio for death in dialyzed versus nondialyzed patients was 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.21; P=0.89). Serum creatinine concentration modified the association between dialysis and survival, with a 20% (95% confidence interval, 9% to 30%) greater survival benefit from dialysis for each 1-mg/dl increase in serum creatinine concentration (P=0.001). This finding persisted after adjustment for markers of disease severity. Dialysis initiation was associated with more benefit than harm at a creatinine concentration ? 3.8 mg/dl.ConclusionsDialysis was associated with increased survival when initiated in patients with AKI who have a more elevated creatinine level but was associated with increased mortality when initiated in patients with lower creatinine concentrations.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) covid-19 vaccines during the booster programme in England.DesignMatched cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial.SettingLinked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants were dominant.Participants3 237 918 adults who received a booster dose of either vaccine between 29 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 as part of the national booster programme in England and who received a primary course of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1.InterventionVaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster vaccine dose.Main outcome measuresRecorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and non-covid-19 related death at 20 weeks after receipt of the booster dose.Results1 618 959 people were matched in each vaccine group, contributing a total 64 546 391 person weeks of follow-up. The 20 week risks per 1000 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 164.2 (95% confidence interval 163.3 to 165.1) for BNT162b2 and 159.9 (159.0 to 160.8) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.96). The 20 week risks per 1000 for hospital admission with covid-19 were 0.75 (0.71 to 0.79) for BNT162b2 and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.69) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.82 to 0.95). Covid-19 related deaths were rare: the 20 week risks per 1000 were 0.028 (0.021 to 0.037) for BNT162b2 and 0.024 (0.018 to 0.033) for mRNA-1273; hazard ratio 0.83 (0.58 to 1.19). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical vulnerability. Relative benefit was similar when vaccines were compared separately in the delta and omicron variant eras.ConclusionsThis matched observational study of adults estimated a modest benefit of booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 in preventing positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and hospital admission with covid-19 20 weeks after vaccination, during a period of delta followed by omicron variant dominance.

Project description:BackgroundResearch comparing direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin has excluded nursing home residents, a vulnerable and high-risk population.ObjectiveTo compare the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus warfarin.DesignNew-user cohort study (2011-2016).PatientsUS nursing home residents aged > 65 years with non-valvular atrial fibrillation enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for > 6 months.ExposuresInitiators of DOACs (2881 apixaban, 1289 dabigatran, 3735 rivaroxaban) were 1:1 propensity matched to warfarin initiators.Main measuresOutcomes included ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (i.e., ischemic cerebrovascular event), bleeding (extracranial or intracranial), other vascular events, death, and a composite of all outcomes. Absolute rate differences (RD) and cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. Subgroup analyses were performed by alignment of DOAC dosing with labeling.Key resultsMedian age (84 years), CHA2DS2-Vasc (5), and ATRIA risk scores (3) were similar across medications. Clinical outcome rates were similar for dabigatran and rivaroxaban users versus warfarin users. However, ischemic cerebrovascular event rates were higher among dabigatran and rivaroxaban users that received reduced dosages without an indication. Overall, apixaban users had higher ischemic cerebrovascular event rates (HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.00-3.45) and lower bleeding rates (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.49-0.88), but outcome rates varied by dosing alignment. Mortality rates (per 100 person-years) were lower for apixaban (RDs - 9.30; 95% CI - 13.18 to - 5.42), dabigatran (RDs - 10.79; 95% CI - 14.98 to - 6.60), and rivaroxaban (RDs - 8.92; 95% CI - 12.01 to - 5.83) versus warfarin; composite outcome findings were similar.ConclusionsAmong US nursing home residents, the DOACs were each associated with lower mortality versus warfarin. Misaligned DOAC dosing was common in nursing homes and was associated with clinical and mortality outcomes. Overall, DOAC users had lower rates of adverse outcomes including mortality compared with warfarin users.

Project description:BackgroundThe transition from choosing to initiating home dialysis therapies (HDTs) is not clearly standardized for patients and staff, causing increased anxiety and suboptimal self-management for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. At BC Renal, a "Transition to HDTs" guidebook (the Guide) was designed, outlining a step-wise approach to transitioning to HDTs for patients, to help address some of these concerns.ObjectiveWe used the Logic Model evaluation framework to assess the value of the Guide to improve patient and staff experience with transitioning to HDTs.DesignThis is a prospective cohort quality improvement study.SettingThis study took place at home dialysis programs in British Columbia, Canada, with 2 pilot sites and 2 control sites.PatientsPatients above age 18 who attended kidney care clinics and identified HDT as their renal replacement treatment of choice were included in this study.MeasurementsPatient demographics were obtained from British Columbia Renal Patient Records and Outcomes Management Information System, with differences analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test where applicable. Patient surveys were based on Likert rating scales, analyzed using Cochran-Armitage trend test. All tests were 2-sided, with P < .05 considered significant.MethodsThe study enrolled patients from December 2018 to April 2019 at 2 pilot and 2 control sites. Patients were followed up for 8 months. The intervention strategies included (1) training of front-line staff to use the Guide and (2) dissemination of the guide to patients. Evaluation tools measuring data at baseline and at the 8-month point included (1) qualitative and quantitative patient surveys, (2) qualitative staff surveys, (3) structured feedback session with renal care staff, and (4) transition rate and time between choosing and starting a HDT.ResultsIn total, 108 patients were enrolled: 43 patients at pilot sites and 65 in control sites. Twenty-three of 65 in control vs 18 of 43 in pilot transitioned to a HDT by 8-month follow-up. Transition time was 80 vs 89 days in pilot vs control group, but it was not statistically different (P = .37). The proportion of patients that transitioned to a HDT was 42% vs 35% in pilot vs control group (P = .497). Patients' anxiety, illness knowledge, and activation of resources were not significantly different between patients who successfully transitioned at control and pilot sites. During interviews, patients confirmed that the Guide was effective and helped retain knowledge. The staff felt that the intervention did not increase their workload and that the Guide was a good communication tool, but was used inconsistently.LimitationsWe had a small sample size and limited number of patients enrolled who chose home hemodialysis, with none in the control group. The results are therefore more applicable to peritoneal dialysis.ConclusionsThe Logic Model was useful to evaluate our multi-intervention strategy. While there were no statistically significant differences in transition time, rate, and patient anxiety with or without the Guide, qualitative opinions from patients indicate that the Guide was a useful supplement. In addition, feedback from renal care staff suggested that the Guide served as a framework for communicating the transition process with patients, and was perceived as a useful tool. Future work is required to standardize the Guide's utilization.Trial registrationAs this is a quality improvement evaluation study, trial registration is not applicable.

Project description:Background and objectivesHome dialysis is often recognized as a first-choice therapy for patients initiating dialysis. However, studies comparing clinical outcomes between peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis have been very limited.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry study assessed all Australian and New Zealand adult patients receiving home dialysis on day 90 after initiation of RRT between 2000 and 2012. The primary outcome was overall survival. The secondary outcomes were on-treatment survival, patient and technique survival, and death-censored technique survival. All results were adjusted with three prespecified models: multivariable Cox proportional hazards model (main model), propensity score quintile-stratified model, and propensity score-matched model.ResultsThe study included 10,710 patients on incident peritoneal dialysis and 706 patients on incident home hemodialysis. Treatment with home hemodialysis was associated with better patient survival than treatment with peritoneal dialysis (5-year survival: 85% versus 44%, respectively; log-rank P<0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, home hemodialysis was associated with superior patient survival (hazard ratio for overall death, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.59) as well as better on-treatment survival (hazard ratio for on-treatment death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.45), composite patient and technique survival (hazard ratio for death or technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 0.40), and death-censored technique survival (hazard ratio for technique failure, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.41). Similar results were obtained with the propensity score models as well as sensitivity analyses using competing risks models and different definitions for technique failure and lag period after modality switch, during which events were attributed to the initial modality.ConclusionsHome hemodialysis was associated with superior patient and technique survival compared with peritoneal dialysis.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of home dialysis therapies: a matched cohort study.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of home dialysis therapies: a matched cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets