Purpose: To collate best practice recommendations on the management of patients receiving in-center hemodialysis during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on published reports and current public health advice, while considering ethical principles and the unique circumstances of Canadian hemodialysis units across the country. Sources of information: The workgroup members used Internet search engines to retrieve documents from provincial and local hemodialysis programs; provincial public health agencies; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; webinars and slides from other kidney agencies; and nonreviewed preprints. PubMed was used to search for peer-reviewed published articles. Informal input was sought from knowledge users during a webinar. Methods: Challenges in the care of hemodialysis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted within the Canadian Senior Renal Leaders Forum discussion group. The Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) developed the COVID-19 rapid response team (RRT) to address these challenges. They identified a pan-Canadian team of clinicians and administrators with expertise in hemodialysis to form the workgroup. One lead was chosen who drafted the initial document. Members of the workgroup reviewed and discussed all recommendations in detail during 2 virtual meetings on April 7 and April 9. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The document was reviewed by the CSN COVID-19 RRT, an ethicist, an infection control expert, a community nephrologist, and a patient partner. Content was presented during an interactive webinar on April 11, 2020 attended by 269 kidney health professionals, and the webinar and first draft of the document were posted online. Final revisions were made based on feedback received until April 13, 2020. CJKHD editors reviewed the parallel process peer review and edited the manuscript for clarity. Key findings: Recommendations were made under the following themes: (1) Identification of patients with COVID-19 in the dialysis unit, (2) hemodialysis of patients with confirmed COVID-19, (3) hemodialysis of patients not yet known to have COVID-19, (4) visitors; (5) testing for COVID-19 in the dialysis unit; (6) resuscitation, (6) routine hemodialysis care, (7) hemodialysis care under fixed dialysis resources. Limitations: Because of limitations of time and resources, and the large number of questions, formal systematic review was not undertaken. The recommendations are based on expert opinion and subject to bias. The parallel review process that was created may not be as robust as the standard peer review process. Implications: We hope that these recommendations provide guidance for dialysis unit directors, clinicians, and administrators on how to limit risk from infection and adverse outcomes, while providing necessary dialysis care in a setting of finite resources. We also identify a number of resource allocation priorities, which we hope will inform decisions at provincial funding agencies.

Life participation requiring physical activity and physical function is a key patient-reported outcome for people receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Clinician guidance is required from multidisciplinary sources regarding exercise and activity advice to address the specific needs of this group. From August 2020 through to June 2021, the Global Renal Exercise Network and the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis reviewed the published literature and international clinical experience to develop a set of clinical practice points. A set of questions relevant to physical activity and exercise were developed from the perspective of a person receiving PD and were the basis for the practice point development. The GRADE framework was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and to guide clinical practice points. The review of the literature found sparse quality evidence, and thus the clinical practice points are generally based on the expert consensus of people receiving PD, PD exercise expert clinicians and experienced PD exercise researchers. Clinical practice points address timing of exercise and activity (post-catheter insertion, peritoneal space empty or full), the uptake of specific activities (work, sex, swimming, core exercise), potential adverse outcomes related to activity and exercise (exit site care, perspiration, cardiovascular compromise, fatigue, intra-abdominal pressure), the effect of exercise and activity on conditions of interest (mental health, obesity, frailty, low fitness) and exercise nutrition.

No abstract

Introduction Defining the role of exercise in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a top research priority for people with CKD. We aimed to achieve consensus on specific research priorities in exercise and CKD among an international panel of stakeholders. Methods Using the Delphi method, patients/caregivers, researchers, clinicians, and policymakers submitted their top research priorities in round 1 and ranked their importance in rounds 2 and 3 using a 9-point Likert scale. The mean, median, and proportion of scores ranked 7 to 9 were calculated. Consensus was defined as priorities that scored above the overall mean and median score within each stakeholder panel. Qualitative description was used to understand participants’ rankings. Results Seventy participants (78% response) completed round 1: 15 (21.4%) clinicians, 33 (47.1%) researchers, 13 (18.6%) policymakers, and 9 (12.9%) patients; (85.7%) completed round 3. The top research priorities were defining exercise-related outcomes meaningful to patients, identifying patients’ motivation and perspective towards exercise, understanding the effect of exercise on the risk of institutionalization, mortality, and mobility, and understanding the effect of pre- and post-transplant exercise on postoperative recovery. Themes from the qualitative analysis were individualization, personal experience, and holistic approach to exercise (patients), the need to address common clinical problems (clinicians), developing targeted interventions (researchers), and the importance of evidence-based development versus implementation (policymakers). Conclusions Preventing physical disability was a common priority. Policymakers emphasized that more efficacy studies were needed. Other panels expressed the need for holistic and targeted exercise interventions and for outcomes that address common clinical problems.