ABSTRACT
Background: Very low calorie diets (VLCDs) are an obesity treatment option in the general population, but their efficacy and safety in patients on haemodialysis (HD) is unknown. Methods: Prospective single arm study of VLCD in haemodialysis patients. All participants received 2.5-3.3 MJ/day for 12 weeks. Weekly assessment of VLCD, pre- and post-dialysis weight, inter-dialytic weight gain, and blood electrolytes occurred for the first 4 weeks, then fortnightly for another 8 weeks. Linear mixed models compared the change in weight over time as well as biochemical outcomes including potassium. Results: Twenty-two participants [nine home HD (HHD) and 13 satellite HD (SHD)] enrolled with 19 completing the 12-week intervention. Mean post-dialysis weight declined from 121.1 kg at baseline to 109.9 at week 12 resulting in average decline of 0.88 kg per week (95% C.I. 0.71, 1.05, P < .001) with 12-week mean percentage weight loss9.3% (SD 3.5). Mean post-dialysis body mass index declined from 40.9 kg/m2 at baseline to 37.1 kg/m2 at week 12 (95% C.I. 0.25, 0.35, P < .001). Serum potassium rose from week 1 to 3, stabilized during weeks 4 to 6, and fell from week 8, returning near baseline by week 12. Six of the nine (66.6%) HHD participants and seven of the 13 (70%) SHD participants had at least one episode of hyperkalaemia (K > 6 mmol/l). There were no clinical changes in serum sodium, corrected calcium, or phosphate levels during the study. Conclusion: VLCD with dietitian supervision was effective in producing significant weight reduction, with an acceptable safety profile in patients treated with haemodialysis.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Older patients are underrepresented in many areas of cancer services utilization and in clinical trial enrollment. This study evaluates whether age, when adjusted for sex, comorbidity, stage, tumor site, geography, and time period, is predictive of cancer treatment practice. METHODS: First, we used the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) to examine for any apparent differences in treatment practices between elderly (> or = 70 years) and younger patients in the last three decades. Second, we performed a chart review of 1,505 patients with lung, breast, and colorectal cancers seen in Ontario either at an urban center, the Princess Margaret Hospital, or at a rural center, the Northwestern Regional Cancer Centre. Patients were randomly selected from two time periods, 1977 to 1978 and 1997; and the study population was to comprise at least 50% elderly patients. RESULTS: OCR data demonstrated that, in some settings, such as colorectal cancer, the proportions of elderly cancer patients who were referred to cancer centers and who received any cancer treatment were lower than their younger counterparts. The chart review data showed that increasing age was a significant negative predictor for receiving any cancer treatment (P < .001, multivariate analysis) and for having a clinical trial discussion with the treating specialist (P < .001, multivariate analysis). CONCLUSION: Independent of other factors, older age is consistently a cause of disparity in cancer treatment practice and in clinical trial discussion with patients. By increasing the accrual rate of elderly cancer patients in clinical trials, a better understanding of appropriate therapies for this patient population can be obtained and may, thereby, impact on their cancer-related morbidity and mortality.