Effects of long-term intradialytic oral nutrition and exercise on muscle protein homeostasis and markers of mitochondrial content in patients on hemodialysis.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease on maintenance hemodialysis commonly develop protein-energy wasting, a syndrome characterized by nutritional and metabolic abnormalities. Nutritional supplementation and exercise are recommended to prevent protein-energy wasting. In a 6-mo prospective randomized, open-label, clinical trial, we reported that the combination of resistance exercise and nutritional supplementation does not have an additive effect on lean body mass measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. To provide more mechanistic data, we performed a secondary analysis where we hypothesized that the combination of nutritional supplementation and resistance exercise would have additive effects on muscle protein accretion by stable isotope protein kinetic experiments, muscle mass by MRI, and mitochondrial content markers in muscle. We found that 6 mo of nutritional supplementation during hemodialysis increased muscle protein net balance [baseline: 2.5 (-17.8, 13.0) µg·100 mL-1·min-1 vs. 6 mo: 43.7 (13.0, 98.5) µg·100 mL-1·min-1, median (interquartile range), P = 0.04] and mid-thigh fat area [baseline: 162.3 (104.7, 226.6) cm2 vs. 6 mo: 181.9 (126.3, 279.2) cm2, median (interquartile range), P = 0.04]. Three months of nutritional supplementation also increased markers of mitochondrial content in muscle. Although the study is underpowered to detected differences, the combination of nutritional supplementation and exercise failed to show further benefit in protein accretion or muscle cross-sectional area. We conclude that long-term nutritional supplementation increases the skeletal muscle anabolic effect, the fat cross-sectional area of the thigh, and markers of mitochondrial content in skeletal muscle.

Serious Illness Treatment Preferences for Older Adults with Advanced CKD.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care for older adults with CKD requires communication about patient's values, goals of care, and treatment preferences. Eliciting this information requires tools that patients understand and that enable effective communication about their care preferences. METHODS: Nephrology clinic patients age ≥60 years with stage 4 or 5 nondialysis-dependent CKD selected one of four responses to the question, "If you had a serious illness, what would be important to you?" Condensed versions of the options were, "Live as long as possible;" "Try treatments, but do not suffer;" "Focus on comfort;" or "Unsure." Patients also completed a validated health outcome prioritization tool and an instrument determining the acceptability of end-of-life scenarios. Patient responses to the three tools were compared. RESULTS: Of the 382 participants, 35% (n=134) selected "Try treatments, but do not suffer;" 33% (n=126) chose "Focus on comfort;" 20% (n=75) opted for "Live as long as possible;" and 12% (n=47) selected "Unsure." Answers were associated with patients' first health outcome priority and acceptability of end-of-life scenarios. One third of patients with a preference to "Focus on comfort" reported that a life on dialysis would not be worth living compared with 5% of those who chose "Live as long as possible" (P<0.001). About 90% of patients agreed to share their preferences with their providers. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with advanced CKD have diverse treatment preferences and want to share them. A single treatment preference question correlated well with longer, validated health preference tools and may provide a point of entry for discussions about patient's treatment goals.