Longitudinal Assessment of the Effect of Atrasentan on Thoracic Bioimpedance in Diabetic Nephropathy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Fluid retention is a common adverse event in patients who receive endothelin (ET) receptor antagonist therapy, including the highly selective ETA receptor antagonist, atrasentan. OBJECTIVE: We performed longitudinal assessments of thoracic bioimpedance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy to determine whether a decrease in bioimpedance accurately reflected fluid retention during treatment with atrasentan. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 48 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy who were receiving stable doses of renin angiotensin system inhibitors and diuretics. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo, atrasentan 0.5 mg, or atrasentan 1.25 mg once daily for 8 weeks. Thoracic bioimpedance, vital signs, clinical exams, and serologies were taken at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8, with the exception of serum hemoglobin, which was not taken at week 1, and serum brain natriuretic peptide, which was only taken at baseline, week 4, and week 8. RESULTS: Alterations in bioimpedance were more often present in those who received atrasentan than in those who received placebo, though overall differences were not statistically significant. Transient declines in thoracic bioimpedance during the first 2 weeks of atrasentan exposure occurred before or during peak increases in body weight and hemodilution (decreased serum hemoglobin). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that thoracic bioimpedance did not reflect changes in weight gain or edema with atrasentan treatment in this study. However, the sample size was small, and it may be of interest to explore the use of thoracic bioimpedance in a larger population to understand its potential clinical use in monitoring fluid retention in patients with chronic kidney disease who receive ET receptor antagonists.

Propagating the nephrology research workforce: a Kidney Research National Dialogue training commentary.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases conducted the Kidney Research National Dialogue as an interactive means to formulate and prioritize research goals necessary to address the needs of patients with renal disease. This commentary summarizes the discussion and priorities arising from the training domain of the dialogue and posits three overall strategies to broaden the nephrology research workforce pipeline. The community needs to recruit and provide support for mentors in nephrology, target medical and graduate students earlier in their education for exposure to renal research, and expand the research workforce to include basic scientists from many disciplines as well as under-represented minorities.

Why not nephrology? A survey of US internal medicine subspecialty fellows.

BACKGROUND: There is a decreased interest in nephrology such that the number of trainees likely will not meet the upcoming workforce demands posed by the projected number of patients with kidney disease. We conducted a survey of US internal medicine subspecialty fellows in fields other than nephrology to determine why they did not choose nephrology. METHODS: A web-based survey with multiple choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions was sent in summer 2011 to trainees reached through internal medicine subspecialty program directors. RESULTS: 714 fellows responded to the survey (11% response rate). All non-nephrology internal medicine subspecialties were represented, and 90% of respondents were from university-based programs. Of the respondents, 31% indicated that nephrology was the most difficult physiology course taught in medical school, and 26% had considered nephrology as a career choice. Nearly one-fourth of the respondents said they would have considered nephrology if the field had higher income or the subject were taught well during medical school and residency training. The top reasons for not choosing nephrology were the belief that patients with end-stage renal disease were too complicated, the lack of a mentor, and that there were insufficient procedures in nephrology. CONCLUSIONS: Most non-nephrology internal medicine subspecialty fellows never considered nephrology as a career choice. A significant proportion were dissuaded by factors such as the challenges of the patient population, lack of role models, lack of procedures, and perceived difficulty of the subject matter. Addressing these factors will require the concerted effort of nephrologists throughout the training community.

The chronic kidney disease epidemic: a challenge for nephrology training programs.

A major challenge facing the nephrology community in the United States is the training of adequate numbers of nephrologists to meet patient care and research needs. There is particular cause for concern because of the increasing incidence and prevalence of patients with chronic kidney disease. Data on the clinical and research nephrology workforce are incomplete or absent. However, the number of such individuals likely is inadequate to meet current and projected needs. To solve these workforce shortages, significant issues with regard to clinical and research training need to be addressed. These include funding of fellowship training, increasing the pipeline of medical students and internal medicine residents, and enhancing interest in nephrology among international and particularly US medical graduates. This review discusses these challenges facing the renal community, with emphasis on the care, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease, and identifies potential pathways to developing solutions.

Nephrology training programs and applicants: a very good match.

A critical mission of academic nephrology programs is training the next generation of nephrologists. Attracting high-quality candidates into nephrology training programs is the first step in this process. The training program directors (TPDs) in nephrology launched an initiative several years ago to standardize the application and recruitment process for applicants to their programs. This has recently culminated in the completion of a formal matching process using the Medical Specialties Matching Program (MSMP). This review will outline the history of this process and present the results of the recent matching process in nephrology for applicants who applied to training programs with a start date of July 1, 2009. The authors report that 89% of participating programs and 95% of applicant positions were filled. On the basis of a survey of nephrology TPDs, the match process was successful, with almost all respondents planning on participating in the match with a start date of July 1, 2010. Certain issues remain, including determining the correct number of interviews, how many applicants to rank, and whether four tracks are necessary. It is concluded that the nephrology match is of benefit to both training programs and applicants.