title: A critical assessment of uremia research.
abstract: There are considerably fewer randomized controlled trials investigating hemodialysis (HD) than other fields of internal medicine, and no significant improvements have been observed over time. Only the National Cooperative Dialysis Study and the HEMO trial were based on hard endpoints such as morbidity and mortality, but neither considered on-line hemodiafiltration or super-flux membranes, which are thought to provide a number of advantages in terms of the cardiovascular condition of uremic patients. However, results of well-designed clinical trials showing that increasing convection may improve the clinical outcome of HD patients are still lacking. The need for maximizing removal of uremic toxins calls for more frequent HD sessions, but this may be affected by many organizational problems. Therefore, well-designed, long-term clinical trials are urgently needed to investigate which currently available therapeutic instruments can improve the clinical outcome of uremic patients.
authors.affiliation: Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, A. Manzoni Hospital, Lecco, Italy. nefrologia@oespedale.lecco.it
authors.forename: Francesco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Locatelli
authors.forename: Salvatore
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Di Filippo
authors.forename: Pietro
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Pozzoni
mesh_terms: D017583:Hemodiafiltration / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D036302:Therapeutic Human Experimentation; D014511:Uremia / Q000628:therapy*