Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peritoneal Dialysis Clinical Trials: A Critical Appraisal

  • Chapter
Informing Clinical Practice in Nephrology

  • 903 Accesses

Abstract

As is frequently pointed out, the record for clinical trials in patients treated with dialysis is poor, and this is especially the case for peritoneal dialysis. The reasons are complex and include a relatively small patient population, a lack of critical mass (with some exceptions) in trial methodology and infrastructure leading to an overreliance on industry support, the relatively complex outcomes and endpoints that affect patients treated with the modality, and a low repertoire of novel interventions. It would also be fair to say that the outcomes of patients treated with peritoneal dialysis over the last 30 years have improved considerably without these trials, largely because we have learned a lot about the therapy from a number of key observational studies and registry data analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bloembergen WE, Port FK, Mauger EA, Wolfe RA. A comparison of mortality between patients treated with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1995;6(2):177–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weinhandl ED, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Arneson TJ, Snyder JJ, Collins AJ. Propensity-matched mortality comparison of incident hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21(3):499–506.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mehrotra R, Chiu YW, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Vonesh E. The outcomes of continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis are similar. Kidney Int. 2009;76(1):97–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Perl J, Wald R, McFarlane P, Bargman JM, Vonesh E, Na Y, Jassal SV, Moist L. Hemodialysis vascular access modifies the association between dialysis modality and survival. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(6):1113–21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yeates K, Zhu N, Vonesh E, Trpeski L, Blake P, Fenton S. Hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are associated with similar outcomes for end-stage renal disease treatment in Canada. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(9):3568–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eknoyan G, Beck GJ, Cheung AK, Daugirdas JT, Greene T, Kusek JW, et al. Hemodialysis (HEMO) Study Group. Effect of dialysis dose and membrane flux in maintenance hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(25):2010–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lo WK, Ho YW, Li CS, Wong KS, Chan TM, Yu AW, Ng FS, Cheng IK. Effect of Kt/V on survival and clinical outcome in CAPD patients in a randomized prospective study. Kidney Int. 2003;64(2):649–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bargman JM, Thorpe KE, Churchill DN, CANUSA Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group. Relative contribution of residual renal function and peritoneal clearance to adequacy of dialysis: a reanalysis of the CANUSA study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12(10):2158–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown EA, Davies SJ, Rutherford P, Meeus F, Borras M, Riegel W et al. EAPOS Group. Survival of functionally anuric patients on automated peritoneal dialysis: the European APD Outcome Study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14(11):2948–57.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jansen MA, Termorshuizen F, Korevaar JC, Dekker FW, Boeschoten E, Krediet RT, NECOSAD Study Group. Predictors of survival in anuric peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2005;68(3):1199–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Davies SJ, Ogg CS, Cameron JS, Poston S, Noble WC. Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage, exit-site infection and catheter loss in patients treated with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). Perit Dial Int. 1989;9:61–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Piraino B, Bernardini J, Sorkin M. A five year study of the microbiologic results of exit site infections and peritonitis in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 1987;10:281–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bernardini J, Piraino B, Holley J, Johnston JR, Lutes R. A randomized trial of Staphylococcus aureus prophylaxis in peritoneal dialysis patients: mupirocin calcium ointment 2% applied to the exit site versus cyclic oral rifampin. Am J Kidney Dis. 1996;27:695–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schaefer F, Feneberg R, Aksu N, Donmez O, Sadikoglu B, Alexander SR, et al. Worldwide variation of dialysis-associated peritonitis in children. Kidney Int. 2007;72(11):1374–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson DW, Badve SV, Pascoe EM, Beller E, Cass A, Clark C, et al. HONEYPOT Study Collaborative Group. Antibacterial honey for the prevention of peritoneal-dialysis-related infections (HONEYPOT): a randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(1):23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mistry CD. The beginning of icodextrin. Perit Dial Int. 2011;31 Suppl 2:S49–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gokal R, Mistry CD, Peers EM. Peritonitis occurrence in a multicenter study of icodextrin and glucose in CAPD MIDAS Study Group. Multicenter Investigation of Icodextrin in Ambulatory Dialysis. Perit Dial Int. 1995;15(6):226–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Davies SJ. Mitigating peritoneal membrane characteristics in modern peritoneal dialysis therapy. Kidney Int Suppl. 2006;103:S76–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cho Y, Johnson DW, Craig JC, Strippoli GF, Badve SV, Wiggins KJ. Biocompatible dialysis fluids for peritoneal dialysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD007554.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Han SH, Ahn SV, Yun JY, Tranaeus A, Han DS. Effects of icodextrin on patient survival and technique success in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(5):2044–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Konings CJ, Kooman JP, Schonck M, Gladziwa U, Wirtz J, van den Wall Bake AW, et al. Effect of icodextrin on volume status, blood pressure and echocardiographic parameters: a randomized study. Kidney Int. 2003;63(4):1556–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cho Y, Johnson DW, Craig JC, Strippoli GF, Badve SV, Wiggins KJ. Biocompatible dialysis fluids for peritoneal dialysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD007554.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brimble KS, Walker M, Margetts PJ, Kundhal KK, Rabbat CG. Meta-analysis: peritoneal membrane transport, mortality, and technique failure in peritoneal dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(9):2591–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paniagua R, Ventura MD, Avila-Díaz M, Cisneros A, Vicenté-Martínez M, Furlong MD, et al. Icodextrin improves metabolic and fluid management in high and high-average transport diabetic patients. Perit Dial Int. 2009;29(4):422–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Li PK, Culleton BF, Ariza A, Do JY, Johnson DW, Sanabria M, Shockley TR, et al. IMPENDIA and EDEN Study Groups. Randomized, controlled trial of glucose-sparing peritoneal dialysis in diabetic patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;24(11):1889–900.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bargman JM, Thorpe KE, Churchill DN, CANUSA Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group. Relative contribution of residual renal function and peritoneal clearance to adequacy of dialysis: a reanalysis of the CANUSA study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12(10):2158–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Termorshuizen F, Dekker FW, van Manen JG, Korevaar JC, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT, NECOSAD Study Group. Relative contribution of residual renal function and different measures of adequacy to survival in hemodialysis patients: an analysis of the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD)-2. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(4):1061–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Termorshuizen F, Korevaar JC, Dekker FW, van Manen JG, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT, NECOSAD Study Group. The relative importance of residual renal function compared with peritoneal clearance for patient survival and quality of life: an analysis of the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD )-2. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41(6):1293–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fang W, Oreopoulos DG, Bargman JM. Use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and survival in patients on peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(11):3704–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Akbari A, Knoll G, Ferguson D, McCormick B, Davis A, Biyani M. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in peritoneal dialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Perit Dial Int. 2009;29(5):554–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mackenzie R, Holmes CJ, Jones S, Williams JD, Topley N. Clinical indices of in vivo biocompatibility: the role of ex vivo cell function studies and effluent markers in peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int Suppl. 2003;88:S84–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones S, Holmes CJ, Krediet RT, Mackenzie R, Faict D, Tranaeus A, Williams JD, Coles GA, Topley N, Bicarbonate/Lactate Study Group. Bicarbonate/lactate-based peritoneal dialysis solution increases cancer antigen 125 and decreases hyaluronic acid levels. Kidney Int. 2001;59(4):1529–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. le Poole CY, Welten AG, ter Wee PM, Paauw NJ, Djorai AN, Valentijn RM, et al. A peritoneal dialysis regimen low in glucose and glucose degradation products results in increased cancer antigen 125 and peritoneal activation. Perit Dial Int. 2012;32(3):305–15.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cheema H, Bargman JM. Cancer antigen 125 as a biomarker in peritoneal dialysis: mesothelial cell health or death? Perit Dial Int. 2013;33(4):349–52.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mactier RA, Sprosen TS, Gokal R, Williams PF, Lindbergh M, Naik RB, et al. Bicarbonate and bicarbonate/lactate peritoneal dialysis solutions for the treatment of infusion pain. Kidney Int. 1998;53(4):1061–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wieslander AP, Nordin MK, Martinson E, Kjellstrand PT, Boberg UC. Heat sterilized PD-fluids impair growth and inflammatory responses of cultured cell lines and human leukocytes. Clin Nephrol. 1993;39(6):343–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wieslander AP, Nordin MK, Kjellstrand PT, Boberg UC. Toxicity of peritoneal dialysis fluids on cultured fibroblasts, L-929. Kidney Int. 1991;40(1):77–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yung S, Chan TM. Pathophysiology of the peritoneal membrane during peritoneal dialysis: the role of hyaluronan. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011;2011:180594.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cho Y, Johnson DW, Craig JC, Strippoli GF, Badve SV, Wiggins KJ. Biocompatible dialysis fluids for peritoneal dialysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD007554.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Michels WM, Verduijn M, Grootendorst DC, le Cessie S, Boeschoten EW, Dekker FW, Krediet RT, NECOSAD study group. Decline in residual renal function in automated compared with continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(3):537–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kim CH, Oh HJ, Lee MJ, Kwon YE, Kim YL, Nam KH, Park KS, An SY, Ko KI, Koo HM, Doh FM, Han SH, Yoo TH, Kim BS, Kang SW, Choi KH. Effect of peritoneal dialysis modality on the 1-year rate of decline of residual renal function. Yonsei Med J. 2014;55(1):141–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bieber SD, Burkart J, Golper TA, Teitelbaum I, Mehrotra R. Comparative outcomes between continuous ambulatory and automated peritoneal dialysis: a narrative review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63:1027–37. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.11.025. pii: S0272-6386(13)01620-X. PubMed PMID: 24423779.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cho Y, Johnson DW, Craig JC, Strippoli GF, Badve SV, Wiggins KJ. Biocompatible dialysis fluids for peritoneal dialysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(3):CD007554.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kim SG, Kim S, Hwang YH, Kim K, Oh JE, Chung W, et al. Could solutions low in glucose degradation products preserve residual renal function in incident peritoneal dialysis patients? A 1-year multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial (Balnet study). Perit Dial Int. 2008;28 Suppl 3:S117–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McCafferty K, Fan SL. Are we underestimating the problem of ultrafiltration in peritoneal dialysis patients? Perit Dial Int. 2006;26(3):349–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Davies SJ. Overfill or ultrafiltration? We need to be clear. Perit Dial Int. 2006;26(4):449–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. La Milia V, Pozzoni P, Crepaldi M, Locatelli F. Overfill of peritoneal dialysis bags as a cause of underestimation of ultrafiltration failure. Perit Dial Int. 2006;26(4):503–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Misra M, Vonesh E, Van Stone JC, Moore HL, Prowant B, Nolph KD. Effect of cause and time of dropout on the residual GFR: a comparative analysis of the decline of GFR on dialysis. Kidney Int. 2001;59(2):754–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Misra M, Vonesh E, Churchill DN, Moore HL, Van Stone JC, Nolph KD. Preservation of glomerular filtration rate on dialysis when adjusted for patient dropout. Kidney Int. 2000;57(2):691–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. van der Wal WM, Noordzij M, Dekker FW, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT, Korevaar JC, Geskus RB, Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis Study Group (NECOSAD). Full loss of residual renal function causes higher mortality in dialysis patients; findings from a marginal structural model. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(9):2978–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Johnson DW, Brown FG, Clarke M, Boudville N, Elias TJ, Foo MW, et al. balANZ Trial Investigators. The effects of biocompatible compared with standard peritoneal dialysis solutions on peritonitis microbiology, treatment, and outcomes: the balANZ trial. Perit Dial Int. 2012;32(5):497–506.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Justo P, Sanz AB, Egido J, Ortiz A. 3,4-Dideoxyglucosone-3-ene induces apoptosis in renal tubular epithelial cells. Diabetes. 2005;54:2424–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Johnson DW, Brown FG, Clarke M, Boudville N, Elias TJ, Foo MW, et al. balANZ Trial Investigators. The effect of low glucose degradation product, neutral pH versus standard peritoneal dialysis solutions on peritoneal membrane function: the balANZ trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(12):4445–53.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Davies SJ. What has balANZ taught us about balancing ultrafiltration with membrane preservation? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(8):1971–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nephrology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Newcastle Road, Stoke-On-Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 6QG, UK

    Simon J. Davies BSc, MD, FRCP

Authors
  1. Simon J. Davies BSc, MD, FRCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon J. Davies BSc, MD, FRCP .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Doncaster, United Kingdom

    Mohsen El Kossi

  2. Sheffield Kidney Institute Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Arif Khwaja

  3. Sheffield Kidney Institute Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Meguid El Nahas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davies, S.J. (2015). Peritoneal Dialysis Clinical Trials: A Critical Appraisal. In: El Kossi, M., Khwaja, A., El Nahas, M. (eds) Informing Clinical Practice in Nephrology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10292-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10292-4_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-10291-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-10292-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation