Word count (abstract): words Word count (body -excludes figures, tables and references):3,492 words Short title:Core outcomes in hemodialysis 4 ABSTRACT Background: Survival and quality of life for patients on hemodialysis remain poor despite

Evidence-informed decision-making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient-centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology−Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis. Key stakeholders including eight patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policy makers, industry, researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations; flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time; deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity; understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes; and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality ndicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials), and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment, and improved patient outcomes.

Background and objectivesThrombotic microangiopathies constitute a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Secondary thrombotic microangiopathies are less characterized than primary thrombotic microangiopathies (thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and atypical hemolytic and uremic syndrome). The relative frequencies and outcomes of secondary and primary thrombotic microangiopathies are unknown.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe conducted a retrospective study in a four-hospital institution in 564 consecutive patients with adjudicated thrombotic microangiopathies during the 2009–2016 period. We estimated the incidence of primary and secondary thrombotic microangiopathies, thrombotic microangiopathy causes, and major outcomes during hospitalization (death, dialysis, major cardiovascular events [acute coronary syndrome and/or acute heart failure], and neurologic complications [stroke, cognitive impairment, or epilepsy]).ResultsWe identified primary thrombotic microangiopathies in 33 of 564 patients (6%; thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura: 18 of 564 [3%]; atypical hemolytic and uremic syndrome: 18 of 564 [3%]). Secondary thrombotic microangiopathies were found in 531 of 564 patients (94%). A cause was identified in 500 of 564 (94%): pregnancy (35%; 11 of 1000 pregnancies), malignancies (19%), infections (33%), drugs (26%), transplantations (17%), autoimmune diseases (9%), shiga toxin due to Escherichia coli (6%), and malignant hypertension (4%). In the 31 of 531 patients (6%) with other secondary thrombotic microangiopathies, 23% of patients had sickle cell disease, 10% had glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, and 44% had folate deficiency. Multiple causes of thrombotic microangiopathies were more frequent in secondary than primary thrombotic microangiopathies (57% versus 19%; P<0.001), and they were mostly infections, drugs, transplantation, and malignancies. Significant differences in clinical and biologic differences were observed among thrombotic microangiopathy causes. During the hospitalization, 84 of 564 patients (15%) were treated with dialysis, 64 of 564 patients (11%) experienced major cardiovascular events, and 25 of 564 patients (4%) had neurologic complications; 58 of 564 patients (10%) died, but the rates of complications and death varied widely by the cause of thrombotic microangiopathies.ConclusionsSecondary thrombotic microangiopathies represent the majority of thrombotic microangiopathies. Multiple thrombotic microangiopathies causes are present in one half of secondary thrombotic microangiopathies. The risks of dialysis, neurologic and cardiac complications, and death vary by the cause of thrombotic microangiopathies.

There are an estimated 14,000 randomized trials published in chronic kidney disease. The most frequently reported outcomes are biochemical endpoints, rather than clinical and patient-reported outcomes including cardiovascular disease, mortality, and quality of life. While many trials have focused on optimizing kidney health, the heterogeneity and uncertain relevance of outcomes reported across trials may limit their policy and practice impact. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) Initiative was formed to identify core outcomes that are critically important to patients and health professionals, to be reported consistently across trials. We convened a SONG Implementation Workshop to discuss the implementation of core outcomes. Eighty-two patients/caregivers and health professionals participated in plenary and breakout discussions. In this report, we summarize the findings of the workshop in two main themes: socializing the concept of core outcomes, and demonstrating feasibility and usability. We outline implementation strategies and pathways to be established through partnership with stakeholders, which may bolster acceptance and reporting of core outcomes in trials, and encourage their use by end-users such as guideline producers and policymakers to help improve patient-important outcomes.

No abstract

After 1 year of follow-up, we observed no additional effect of rituximab in patients receiving PE, IVIg, and CS for AMR. Nevertheless, our study was underpowered and important differences between groups may have been missed. Complementary trials with long-term follow-up are needed.

No abstract

D may be a preferred modality for some patients as it can offer more autonomy and flexibility compared with center-based hemodialysis (HD). 1 However, patients and clinicians face major challenges including technique