ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07717255Updated Jul 21, 2026

Adequacy of Haemodiafiltration: Middle Molecules Clearance, Patients Reported Outcomes and Sodium Balance

An observational study in Haemodiafiltration, Haemodialysis and Patient Reported Outcome Measurements, sponsored by East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust. Recruiting at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-21.

Sponsored by East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Jan 2025; still recruiting 1 year 10 months later.
Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
300
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The goal of this observational study is to understand the differences in terms of middle molecules clearance and patient outcomes in High (>23Litres (L)) vs Low (\<23 L) convection volume (CV) Hemodiafiltration (HDF) and to understand the effect of dialysate fluid sodium concentration (137 vs 140 mmol/L) on overhydration volume in patients on HD and HDF.

Read the detailed description

Background and Rationale The concept of normalised urea clearance (Kt/V) to determine the efficiency of dialysis emerged over four decades ago. This is based on evidence that Kt/V below a certain threshold is associated with poor outcomes , although the survival benefit appears to be capped beyond a threshold of around 1.2 . Dialysis techniques have evolved significantly since this evidence emerged. Routine use of high-flux membranes and convective treatments/Haemodiafiltration (HDF), increase removal of toxins of larger molecular weight such as middle molecules. Some of these have direct toxic potential unlike urea. Nevertheless, the metric of dialysis efficiency is still based on conventional small molecule clearance which doesn't correlate with removal of more clinically relevant middle molecules removed during HDF. Moreover, the relationship of small molecules clearance with patient reported symptoms and their nutritional status remains inconsistent. Most recent dialysis prescription guidelines highlight the limitations of Kt/V and suggest using this parameter as only one aspect of dialysis efficiency amongst others including nutrition, bone and mineral metabolism, salt and fluid homeostasis and anaemia management. Updating measure of dialysis quality to align more with current dialysis practice (HDF) seems a logical step. There are multiple aspects of quality of dialysis including toxins clearance, dialysis related symptoms burden, quality of life, fluid status and nutrition. This study aims to develop a metric of HDF adequacy which encompass these aspects comprehensively.

1.1 Toxins clearance and dialysis symptoms burden

One of the recent advances in dialysis is increasing use of haemodiafiltration (HDF) which appears to improve survival when large convection volumes are delivered. There is no agreed definition for high-volume HDF but it is generally accepted that ≥23 liters convection volume per session is high volume HDF since this volume has been associated with a beneficial survival outcome in most recent HDF trial (CONVINCE Trial). It is unclear though, what drives the benefit of high volume HDF. Convective treatment removes more middle molecules (such as β2-Microglobulin (β2M)) compared to conventional diffusive treatments, and enhanced middle molecules clearance is considered a plausible mechanism of survival benefit . Direct evidence for this though, is lacking. In the absence of an instrument to measure dialysis efficiency in HDF, currently the HDF prescription relies on achieving the same small molecule clearance as conventional HD and additionally achieving a certain convection volume. Interestingly by achieving the desirable convection volume, the delivered small molecules clearance exceeds the threshold at which survival benefit was reported to be capped in HEMO study. This method of HDF prescription needs to be rationalised. Measuring middle molecules clearance - as β2M clearance - could reflect the convection volume as well as small molecules clearance. Such a strategy may have a role in assessment of HDF adequacy. However, given the strong correlation between serum β2M and RKF, the impacts of RKF on β2M clearance need to be taken into consideration before using this tool to assess the HDF adequacy. This study intends to explore the relationship between HDF convection volume and β2M clearance and the change in this relationship with declining kidney function.

Whilst survival is considered the outcome of primary importance in clinical trials, there are other outcomes which may be of similar or greater importance to patients and carers. The Standardised outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) is a global initiative to establish set of core outcomes for research across the spectrum of kidney disease. These outcomes are developed based on the shared priorities of all relevant stakeholders. While high volume HDF has been shown to be related to better survival, there is little data on the relationship between HDF convection volume and important patient reported outcomes such a Fatigue, Recovery time after dialysis and cognitive function. It is important to understand the impact of HDF volume or its potential surrogate middle molecules clearance on these important outcomes. Similarly, it is unclear if HDF volume or Middle molecules clearance is related to other important aspects of dialysis efficiency such as bone and mineral metabolism, cumulative phosphate binder use and nutritional status. Many of these patient reported outcomes and biochemical and nutritional markers are important components of SONG-HD outcomes. Understanding these relationships could lead to development of more comprehensive and clinically relevant dialysis efficiency marker in HDF.

1.2 Dialysate sodium and fluid status

Sodium and fluid handling are the fundamental aspects of dialysis in end stage kidney disease (ESKD). There is wealth of evidence to relate fluid and sodium dysregulation with poor outcomes in dialysis patients. Despite this the optimal dialysate sodium concentration remains controversial. Different dialysis units use different standard dialysate sodium concentration. Fluid and sodium handling could potentially be more important in HDF compared to HD due to exposure to large convection volume and sodium retention due to Gibbs-Donnan effect in HDF. In-fact one plausible mechanism of benefit in HDF is better haemodynamic stability possibly as a result of fluid and salt retention. Although there is no evidence of bioimpedance measured fluid retention in high volume HDF compared to HD, the fluid status in HDF has not been assessed with varying dialysate sodium and with varying delivered convection volume. Optimum dialysate sodium or Dialysate - plasma sodium gradient in HDF remains an important but uncertain aspect of HDF prescription. This study aims to explore the effect of different dialysate sodium levels on patients' volume status in HD and HDF and also with varying HDF convection volume.

02

Conditions studied

  • Haemodiafiltration
  • Haemodialysis
  • Patient Reported Outcome Measurements
  • Nutrition
  • Malnutrition (Calorie)
  • Fluid Balance Outcomes

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Middle molecules clearance in haemodiafiltraion
  • Effect of dialysis clearance on nutritional status
  • Effect of dialysis clearance on patient reported outcome measure
  • Effect of dialysate sodium on fluid status
03

In context

Malnutrition

1,277 studies on the registry are indexed under Malnutrition; 230 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 300 is above the median of 206 across 393 observational studies indexed under Malnutrition.

Browse Malnutrition studies →

Lead sponsor

East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust is the lead sponsor of 38 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Adult patients with ESKD receiving hemodialysis accross 5 dialysis units in East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust , UK.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age 18 years or above.
  • Ability to give .
  • End stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated by haemodialysis for at least 3 months.
  • Prognosis > 6 months as assessed by principal investigator (PI)
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
300 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • HDF group

    Particiapants receiving hemodiafiltration

  • HD group

    Participants receiving high flux hemodialysis

  • Low dialysate sodium group

    Participants dialysing with dialysate sodium concentration 137 mmol/L

  • High dialysate sodium group

    Participants dialysing with dialysate sodium concentration 137 mmol/L

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Effect of high (≥23L) versus low volume HDF (<23L) on middle molecules clearance and on clinical and patients reported outcomes.

    1. Effect of high (≥23L) versus low volume HDF (\<23L) on β2M clearance. 2. Effect of high (≥23L) versus low volume HDF (\<23L) on dialysis related symptom score (measured using IPOS-Renal questionnaire). 3. Effect of high (≥23L) versus low volume HDF (\<23L) on cognitive function (Assessed using PROMIS cognitive function short form). 4. Effect of high (≥23L) versus low volume HDF (\<23L) on malnutrition score (Measured using modified subjective global assessment tool). 5. Effect of high (≥23L) versus low volume HDF (\<23L) on serum phosphate level (mmol/L). 6. Effect of high (≥23L) versus low volume HDF (\<23L) on phosphate binder dose (mg/day). This will be measured cross-sectionally at 0,6 and 12 month time points and longitudinally over time correcting for variables including residual renal function.

    Time frame: 12 months

  2. Effect of dialysis fluid sodium concentration of (137 vs 140 mmol/L) on overhydration volume in patients on HD and HDF.

    Effect of dialysis fluid sodium concentration of (137 vs 140 mmol/L) on overhydration volume (measured with Bioimpedance) in patients on HD and HDF. This will be assessed cross-sectionally at 0,6 and 12 months and also longitudinally over time correcting for confounding variables such as RKF.

    Time frame: 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Correlation between middle molecule clearance (β2M clearance) with rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (non-fatal MI, Non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death) and all cause hospitalizations.

    Correlation between middle molecule clearance (β2M clearance) with rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (non-fatal MI, Non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death) and all cause hospitalizations.

    Time frame: 5 years

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Lister Hospital, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust
    Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 4AB, United Kingdom
    Recruiting
    • Usama Afzal Butt, MBBS, MRCP · Contactusama.butt1@nhs.net · +441438284340
    • Enric Vilar, MBChB, MRCP, PhD · Principal investigator
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Jan 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Nov 2030, 69 months after the start.

Of 174 non-industry observational studies under Malnutrition, half reached primary completion within 24 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 11 and three quarters within 41. This study's planned 69 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 186 studies reached it within 21 months; a quarter within 11 and three quarters within 40.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jul 2, 2026
First posted
Jul 21, 2026
StartActual
Jan 9, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Nov 1, 2030
CompletionEst.
Nov 1, 2030
Last update
Jul 21, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 21, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07717255
Lead sponsor
East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jul 21, 2026
Start date
Jan 9, 2025
Primary completion
Nov 1, 2030 (estimated)
Completion
Nov 1, 2030 (estimated)
Last update
Jul 21, 2026

Study contacts

Usama Afzal Butt, MBBS, MRCP (UK)
Contact
usama.butt1@nhs.net
+441438284340
Usama Afzal Butt, MBBS, MRCP
principal investigator · East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion