Dental Attendance and Self-reported Oral Health Status of Renal Dialysis Patients: A Comparison of Results with the UK Adult Dental Health Survey.

PURPOSE: To compare the oral health status of renal patients attending a dialysis unit at a London teaching hospital with an age- and sex-matched sample from the Adult Dental Health Survey UK (ADHS) 2009. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questions adapted from the ADHS 2009 national survey were used to interview renal dialysis patients about their oral health, oral hygiene and dental visits. Any significant differences between the two groups were statistically analysed using the chi-squared (χ2) test. RESULTS: Two hundred renal dialysis patients participated. More renal dialysis patients were edentulous (p < 0.0001) and those who were dentate had fewer teeth (p < 0.0001) compared to the ADHS 2009 participants. Although 12% of the renal dialysis patients had difficulty in finding a dentist, 77% were linked to a dental practice, but fewer reported that they had previously been shown how to brush their teeth compared to the dentate ADHS group (p < 0.0001). The frequency of brushing (twice daily) was similar in the dialysis and ADHS groups. CONCLUSION: Awareness for good oral health needs to be raised in this group of medically compromised patients regularly attending a hospital unit. The responsibility for achieving this goal needs to be shared by both dialysis teams and oral health care professionals. We suggest an 'oral health toolkit' be made available in dialysis units for both professionals and patients.

Obesity does not influence hepcidin and hemojuvelin levels in hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Clinical studies have shown increased levels of hepcidin causing functional iron deficiency in obese individuals. This study examined whether obesity contributes to increased hepcidin and hemojuvelin levels in adult hemodialysis patients. METHODS: In a case-control design, 37 obese [body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m(2)] stable hemodialysis patients and 37 patients with normal BMI (20-25 kg/m(2)), matched for age, gender and race, who fulfilled a strict set of inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. Serum hepcidin and hemojuvelin, markers of iron status and inflammation, and routine hematological and biochemical variables were measured on samples obtained prior to the midweek hemodialysis session. RESULTS: Obese and nonobese patients (BMI 35.1 ± 3.4 vs. 22.8 ± 1.4 kg/m(2); p < 0.001) were similar with regard to basic comorbidities and use of erythropoietin and iron. Levels of hemoglobin, hypochromic red cells and reticulocytes were similar in the two groups. Serum iron and transferrin saturation levels were on the low side and not different between obese and lean individuals; total iron-binding capacity showed a trend towards higher levels in obese patients (48.4 ± 8.3 vs. 44.9 ± 7.4 µmol/l; p = 0.065). Levels of serum ferritin (651 ± 302 vs. 705 ± 327 µg/l; p = 0.46), hepcidin (118.3 ± 67.7 vs. 119.3 ± 78.0 ng/ml; p = 0.95) and hemojuvelin (1.90 ± 1.11 vs. 1.94 ± 1.24 mg/l; p = 0.90) were high but similar between the two groups. Serum hepcidin showed a significant correlation only with ferritin (r = 0.287, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Hepcidin and hemojuvelin levels are already considerably elevated in dialysis patients, but obesity does not have an additional impact. Further studies should examine whether increased weight contributes towards hepcidin elevation in predialysis individuals, in whom there is a lesser burden of systemic inflammation.

Intra-individual variability of serum hepcidin-25 in haemodialysis patients using mass spectrometry and ELISA.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of serum hepcidin levels may provide a useful alternative to the current methods of determining iron status in chronic haemodialysis (HD) patients. However, the biological variability of this pivotal regulator of iron homeostasis is unclear, and the impact of inflammation, dialysis clearance and iron therapy on hepcidin variability has not been established. METHODS: Two independent studies in chronic HD patients were conducted; serum hepcidin levels were measured at the start of dialysis sessions in 20 UK patients and in 43 Dutch patients by mass spectrometry (MS). Samples from UK patients were also analysed by a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA). Coefficient of variance (CV(1)) was calculated and potential factors affecting CV(1) were also examined. RESULTS: The median CV(1) (inter-quartile range) was 23% (17-28) for the UK MS, 26% (17-48) for the Dutch MS and 23% (17-39) for the UK cELISA. The CV(1) was similar in those patients receiving and those not receiving regular intravenous iron. The CV(1) was not associated with the degree of inflammation. Hepcidin levels were higher following an inter-dialytic period of 3 versus 2 days (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest considerable variability of serum hepcidin levels in HD patients. Inflammation and the use of iron did not impact on the degree of variability, and hepcidin levels were higher after an inter-dialytic period of 3 versus 2 days. These findings need to be taken into account in future studies assessing the utility of serum hepcidin as a guide to the use of iron or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents therapy.

Prevalence, patterns of treatment, and control of hypertension in predialysis patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Data on the prevalence, treatment and control of hypertension in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited. This study aimed to examine the above factors in a cohort of predialysis patients. METHODS: During a period of 4 months, we recorded information on blood pressure (BP), comorbidities, medications and related parameters of patients followed up in the Low-Clearance Clinic of our Department. Control rates of hypertension were calculated at two thresholds: <130/80 and <140/90 mm Hg. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were employed to assess factors associated with BP control. RESULTS: In the population studied [n = 238, males 58.4%, age 66.21 ± 4.2 years (mean ± SD), estimated glomerular filtration rate 14.5 ± 4.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2)], the prevalence of hypertension was 95.0%. Treatment rate among hypertensives was at 99.1%. On average, 3.04 ± 1.32 antihypertensive drugs were used, ranging from 1 to 7 agents. BP control rates at the <130/80 and <140/90 mm Hg thresholds were 26.5% and 48.2%, respectively. The systolic goal was achieved in 31.0% and 50.4%, whereas the diastolic goal was achieved in 67.7% and 91.2% of patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis, only black race was independently and inversely related with hypertension control (ß = -0.187, p = 0.030). No specific antihypertensive class showed independent associations with control. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension is highly prevalent in predialysis CKD patients. An almost universal treatment, employing a multi-agent regime, can help towards improved rates of control. Systolic BP is the main barrier to successful control and black race is associated with poorer control rates.

Prevalence and factors associated with hyperkalemia in predialysis patients followed in a low-clearance clinic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent studies evaluated the prevalence of hyperkalemia and related risk factors in patients with CKD of various stages, but there is limited relevant information in predialysis patients. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and factors associated with hyperkalemia in the structured environment of a low-clearance clinic. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a cross-sectional fashion over a prespecified period of 4 months, information on serum potassium and relevant laboratory variables, comorbidities, medications, and dietician input in patients with advanced CKD under follow-up in the low-clearance clinic of our department was recorded. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with serum potassium ≥ 5.5 meq/L. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 238 patients aged 66.2 ± 4.2 years with estimated GFR of 14.5 ± 4.8 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). The prevalence of hyperkalemia. defined as potassium > 5.0, ≥ 5.5, and ≥ 6.0 meq/L., was at 54.2%, 31.5%, and 8.4%, respectively. In univariate comparisons, patients with potassium ≥ 5.5 meq/L had significantly higher urea and lower estimated GFR and serum bicarbonate; also, they were more often using sodium bicarbonate and had received potassium education and attempts for dietary potassium lowering. Use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers was not associated with hyperkalemia. In multivariate analyses, estimated GFR<15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) and sodium bicarbonate use were independently associated with hyperkalemia. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of hyperkalemia in predialysis patients with CKD is high. Even at this range of renal function, low estimated GFR seems to be the most important factor associated with hyperkalemia among the wide range of demographic, clinical, and laboratory characteristics studied.

Serum hemojuvelin and hepcidin levels in chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Hemojuvelin (HJV) has recently emerged as one of a number of significant regulators of iron homeostasis and hepcidin expression. Recently, an immunoassay has been developed to measure circulating levels of soluble HJV (sHJV). The aim of this study was to measure serum hepcidin and sHJV levels in a chronic kidney disease (CKD) population. METHODS: A total of 93 patients participated in the study (31 hemodialysis, 31 non-dialysis, 31 transplant recipients), and were matched for age and gender. Serum samples were taken for measurement of hepcidin-25 and sHJV, along with standard hematological, biochemical and inflammatory markers, and univariate/multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Serum sHJV levels were markedly elevated in the hemodialysis patients (2,619 ± 1,445 ng/ml) compared to the CKD (590 ± 344 ng/ml) and transplant recipients (870 ± 638 ng/ml) (p < 0.001), normal range 370-890 ng/ml. There was a strong correlation between serum ferritin and sHJV, which remained after adjustment for potential confounders (beta 0.92, p < 0.001). In the univariate analysis, sHJV levels correlated with serum hepcidin but this was not evident in the multivariate analysis. No associations were seen between sHJV and markers of inflammation or eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: sHJV is elevated in hemodialysis patients compared to non-dialysis CKD patients. There was no association between sHJV and eGFR (in the non-dialysis groups), suggesting that factors other than decreased renal clearance are responsible for the high sHJV levels. The strong association between sHJV and ferritin suggests an interdependent relationship, although further studies are required to elucidate the possible mechanism(s) for this.

Review of eprodisate for the treatment of renal disease in AA amyloidosis.

Secondary (AA) amyloidosis is a multisystem disorder complicating chronic infections or inflammatory diseases. It is characterized by extracellular deposit of fibrils composed of fragments of serum amyloid A (SAA), an acute phase reactant protein. The kidney is the most frequent organ involved, manifesting as progressive proteinuria and renal impairment. Attenuation of the level of circulating SAA protein by treating the underlying inflammatory condition remains the primary strategy in treating AA amyloidosis. However, at times, achieving adequate control of protein production can prove difficult. In addition, relapse of renal function often occurs rapidly following any subsequent inflammatory stimulus in patients with existing amyloidosis. Recently there has been an interest in finding other potential strategies targeting amyloid deposits themselves. Eprodisate is a sulfonated molecule with a structure similar to heparan sulfate. It competitively binds to the glycosaminoglycan-binding sites on SAA and inhibits fibril polymerization and amyloid deposition. Recent randomized clinical trial showed that it may slow down progressive renal failure in patients with AA amyloidosis. However confirmatory studies are needed and results of a second Phase III study are eagerly awaited to clarify whether or not eprodisate has a place in treating renal amyloid disease.