ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dialysis treatment is improving, but several long-term problems remain unsolved, including metabolic bone disease linked to chronic kidney disease (CKD-MBD). The availability of new, efficacious but expensive drugs (intravenous calcimimetic agents) poses ethical problems, especially in the setting of budget limitations. METHODS: Reasons of choice, side effects, biochemical trends were discussed in a cohort of 15 patients (13% of the dialysis population) who stared treatment with intravenous calcimimetics in a single center. All patients had previously been treated with oral calcimimetic agents; dialysis efficacy was at target in 14/15; hemodiafiltration was employed in 10/15. Median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 8. The indications were discussed according to the principlist ethics (beneficience, non maleficience, justice and autonomy). Biochemical results were analyzed to support the clinical-ethical choices. RESULTS: In the context of a strict clinical and biochemical surveillance, the lack of side effects ensured "non-maleficence"; efficacy was at least similar to oral calcimimetic agents, but tolerance was better. Autonomy was respected through a shared decision-making model; all patients appreciated the reduction of the drug burden, and most acknowledged better control of their biochemical data. The ethical conflict resides in the balance between the clinical "beneficience, non-maleficience" advantage and "justice" (economic impact of treatment, potentially in attrition with other resources, since the drug is expensive and included in the dialysis bundle). The dilemma is more relevant when a patient's life expectancy is short (economic impact without clear clinical advantages), or when non-compliance is an issue (unclear advantage if the whole treatment is not correctly taken). CONCLUSIONS: In a context of person-centered medicine, autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence should weight more than economic justice. While ethical discussions are not aimed at finding "the right answer" but asking "the right questions", this example can raise awareness of the importance of including an ethical analysis in the choice of "economically relevant" drugs.
Subject(s)
Calcimimetic Agents/administration & dosage , Personal Autonomy , Aged , Beneficence , Female , Humans , Male , Renal Dialysis , Social JusticeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The improvements in dialysis have not eliminated long-term problems, including dialysis-related amyloidosis (DRA), caused by Beta-2 microglobulin deposition. Several types of scintigraphy have been tested to detect DRA, none entered the clinical practice. Aim of the study was to assess the potential of PET-FDG scan in the diagnosis of DRA. METHODS: Forty-six dialysis patients with at least one PET scan (72 scans) were selected out 162 patients treated in 2016-2018. Subjective global assessment (SGA), malnutrition inflammation score (A), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), were assessed at time of scan; 218 age-matched cases with normal kidney function were selected as controls. PET scans were read in duplicate. Carpal tunnel syndrome was considered a proxy for DRA. A composite "amyloid score" score considered each dialysis year = 1 point; carpal tunnel-DRA = 5 points per site. Logistic regression, ROC curves and a prediction model were built. RESULTS: The prevalence of positive PET was 43.5% in dialysis, 5% in controls (p < 0.0001). PET was positive in 14/15 (93.3%) scans in patients with carpal tunnel. PET sensitivity for detecting DRA was 95% (specificity 64%). Carpal tunnel was related to dialysis vintage and MIS. A positive PET scan was significantly associated with dialysis vintage, MIS and amyloid score. A prediction model to explain PET positivity combined clinical score and MIS, allowing for an AUC of 0.906 (CI: 0.813-0.962; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PET-FDG may identify DRA, and may be useful in detecting cases in which inflammation favours B2M deposition. This finding, needing large-scale confirmation, could open new perspectives in the study of DRA.
ABSTRACT
The history of dialysis and diet can be viewed as a series of battles waged against potential threats to patients' lives. In the early years of dialysis, potassium was identified as "the killer", and the lists patients were given of forbidden foods included most plant-derived nourishment. As soon as dialysis became more efficient and survival increased, hyperphosphatemia, was identified as the enemy, generating an even longer list of banned aliments. Conversely, the "third era" finds us combating protein-energy wasting. This review discusses four questions and four paradoxes, regarding the diet-dialysis dyad: are the "magic numbers" of nutritional requirements (calories: 30-35 kcal/kg; proteins > 1.2 g/kg) still valid? Are the guidelines based on the metabolic needs of patients on "conventional" thrice-weekly bicarbonate dialysis applicable to different dialysis schedules, including daily dialysis or haemodiafiltration? The quantity of phosphate and potassium contained in processed and preserved foods may be significantly different from those in untreated foods: what are we eating? Is malnutrition one condition or a combination of conditions? The paradoxes: obesity is associated with higher survival in dialysis, losing weight is associated with mortality, but high BMI is a contraindication for kidney transplantation; it is difficult to limit phosphate intake when a patient is on a high-protein diet, such as the ones usually prescribed on dialysis; low serum albumin is associated with low dialysis efficiency and reduced survival, but on haemodiafiltration, high efficiency is coupled with albumin losses; banning plant derived food may limit consumption of "vascular healthy" food in a vulnerable population. Tailored approaches and agreed practices are needed so that we can identify attainable goals and pursue them in our fragile haemodialysis populations.
