A prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label trial comparing survival in subjects receiving peritoneal dialysis or conventional in-center hemodialysis

Medicine Advances Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1002/med4.56
Li Fan, Xiao Yang, Huaying Shen, Menghua Chen, Hao Zhang, Zhaohui Ni, Hongli Lin, Hongtao Yang, Qinkai Chen, Hongyu Chen, Gengru Jiang, Jianqin Wang, Jiuyang Zhao, Zhuxing Sun, Aiping Yin, Aili Jiang, Yun Li, Hui Peng, Nan Chen, Chuanming Hao, Yaozhong Kong, Rong Rong, Jie Li, Xia Zou, Haotian Luo, Jiaqi Qian, Xueqing Yu
{"title":"A prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label trial comparing survival in subjects receiving peritoneal dialysis or conventional in-center hemodialysis","authors":"Li Fan,&nbsp;Xiao Yang,&nbsp;Huaying Shen,&nbsp;Menghua Chen,&nbsp;Hao Zhang,&nbsp;Zhaohui Ni,&nbsp;Hongli Lin,&nbsp;Hongtao Yang,&nbsp;Qinkai Chen,&nbsp;Hongyu Chen,&nbsp;Gengru Jiang,&nbsp;Jianqin Wang,&nbsp;Jiuyang Zhao,&nbsp;Zhuxing Sun,&nbsp;Aiping Yin,&nbsp;Aili Jiang,&nbsp;Yun Li,&nbsp;Hui Peng,&nbsp;Nan Chen,&nbsp;Chuanming Hao,&nbsp;Yaozhong Kong,&nbsp;Rong Rong,&nbsp;Jie Li,&nbsp;Xia Zou,&nbsp;Haotian Luo,&nbsp;Jiaqi Qian,&nbsp;Xueqing Yu","doi":"10.1002/med4.56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and conventional in-center hemodialysis (HD) are treatment options for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, their impact on all-cause mortality is unclear.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial to determine the effect of dialysis modality on mortality in patients with ESKD. Eligible patients were recruited from 30 sites across China and assigned to receive either PD or HD in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Non-inferiority was defined as the upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) being ≤1.25.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 414 patients with incident ESKD were randomly assigned to PD (<i>n</i> = 213) or HD (<i>n</i> = 201). During a median follow-up of 1.7 years, 37 patients in the PD group and 31 in the HD group died, giving respective event rates per patient-year of 0.061 and 0.071. The HR for mortality on PD in comparison with HD was 0.76 (95% CI 0.47–1.24) after adjustment for age, sex, and diabetes status, achieving the limit for non-inferiority. There were more adverse events (<i>p = </i>0.003), serious adverse events (<i>p = </i>0.009), and adverse events leading to hospitalization (<i>p = </i>0.003) in the PD group than in the HD group; however, there was no significant between-group difference in adverse events leading to death or discontinuation of treatment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>PD was non-inferior to conventional in-center HD in terms of survival in patients with ESKD. Our findings underscore the need for shared decision-making between physicians and patients regarding the selection of dialysis modality.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial registration</h3>\n \n <p>Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01413074).</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100913,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/med4.56","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/med4.56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and conventional in-center hemodialysis (HD) are treatment options for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, their impact on all-cause mortality is unclear.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial to determine the effect of dialysis modality on mortality in patients with ESKD. Eligible patients were recruited from 30 sites across China and assigned to receive either PD or HD in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Non-inferiority was defined as the upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) being ≤1.25.

Results

A total of 414 patients with incident ESKD were randomly assigned to PD (n = 213) or HD (n = 201). During a median follow-up of 1.7 years, 37 patients in the PD group and 31 in the HD group died, giving respective event rates per patient-year of 0.061 and 0.071. The HR for mortality on PD in comparison with HD was 0.76 (95% CI 0.47–1.24) after adjustment for age, sex, and diabetes status, achieving the limit for non-inferiority. There were more adverse events (p = 0.003), serious adverse events (p = 0.009), and adverse events leading to hospitalization (p = 0.003) in the PD group than in the HD group; however, there was no significant between-group difference in adverse events leading to death or discontinuation of treatment.

Conclusions

PD was non-inferior to conventional in-center HD in terms of survival in patients with ESKD. Our findings underscore the need for shared decision-making between physicians and patients regarding the selection of dialysis modality.

Trial registration

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01413074).

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项前瞻性、随机、多中心、开放标签试验,比较接受腹膜透析或传统中心内血液透析的受试者的存活率
腹膜透析(PD)和传统的中心内血液透析(HD)是终末期肾病(ESKD)患者的治疗选择。我们开展了一项多中心、开放标签、随机、非劣效试验,以确定透析方式对终末期肾病患者死亡率的影响。符合条件的患者从全国 30 个地点招募,按照 1:1 的比例分配接受透析或 HD 治疗。主要结果是全因死亡率。共有414名ESKD患者被随机分配接受PD(213人)或HD(201人)治疗。在中位 1.7 年的随访期间,PD 组有 37 名患者死亡,HD 组有 31 名患者死亡,每名患者每年的死亡率分别为 0.061 和 0.071。在对年龄、性别和糖尿病状况进行调整后,与 HD 相比,PD 的死亡率 HR 为 0.76(95% CI 0.47-1.24),达到了非劣效性的极限。与 HD 组相比,PD 组的不良事件(p = 0.003)、严重不良事件(p = 0.009)和导致住院的不良事件(p = 0.003)更多;然而,导致死亡或中断治疗的不良事件在组间无显著差异。我们的研究结果强调了医生和患者在选择透析方式时共同决策的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Prognostic significance of ratio of positive lymph nodes in patients with operable major salivary ductal carcinoma Artificial intelligence in orthopaedic education: A comparative analysis of ChatGPT and Bing AI's Orthopaedic In-Training Examination performance Anti-synthetase syndrome complicated by multifocal tuberculosis: A thought-provoking differential diagnosis with tumors Toward bridging gaps in patient navigation: A study on the adoption of artificial intelligence technologies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1