Patient-Centered Model for Protein-Energy Wasting: Stakeholder Deliberative Panels.

OBJECTIVE: Integrating the patient's voice into research prioritization is essential for solving problems that patients care the most about in terms of health, symptom management, and survival. We used deliberative processes for adapting the existing model of protein-energy wasting (PEW) to one that includes stakeholder priorities, addressing gaps from the initial concept. DESIGN AND METHODS: From September 2015- to December 2017, two diverse, deliberative panels of stakeholders (one for patients and one for clinicians) were recruited from local communities and national networks and met four times to provide an insight into developing a patient-centered model for PEW. After each stakeholder meeting, the research team added the factors and outcomes that reached consensus, using a content analysis. The stakeholder members were then able to confirm what had been collected from an earlier panel discussion and offer additional feedback. The final model was approved by stakeholders. RESULTS: There were eight patient and twelve clinician stakeholders who participated in the panels. Factors and outcomes were only added or modified to the existing model, but none were deleted from the original PEW model. Critical factors identified by the stakeholders were ones related to lifestyle, treatment, and psychosocial aspects. The most important outcomes selected by stakeholders were living longer, staying out of the hospital, and being able to do more. CONCLUSIONS: The approved patient-centered model for PEW represents a testable model for researchers which incorporates the patient's voice. Garnering this insight should assist in the prioritization of projects for a maximal value to patients and their families by future investigators.

Modeling a Predictive Energy Equation Specific for Maintenance Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypermetabolism is theorized in patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease who are receiving maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). We aimed to distinguish key disease-specific determinants of resting energy expenditure to create a predictive energy equation that more precisely establishes energy needs with the intent of preventing protein-energy wasting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this 3-year multisite cross-sectional study (N = 116), eligible participants were diagnosed with chronic kidney disease and were receiving MHD for at least 3 months. Predictors for the model included weight, sex, age, C-reactive protein (CRP), glycosylated hemoglobin, and serum creatinine. The outcome variable was measured resting energy expenditure (mREE). Regression modeling was used to generate predictive formulas and Bland-Altman analyses to evaluate accuracy. RESULTS: The majority were male (60.3%), black (81.0%), and non-Hispanic (76.7%), and 23% were ≥65 years old. After screening for multicollinearity, the best predictive model of mREE (R2 = 0.67) included weight, age, sex, and CRP. Two alternative models with acceptable predictability (R2 = 0.66) were derived with glycosylated hemoglobin or serum creatinine. Based on Bland-Altman analyses, the maintenance hemodialysis equation that included CRP had the best precision, with the highest proportion of participants' predicted energy expenditure classified as accurate (61.2%) and with the lowest number of individuals with underestimation or overestimation. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms disease-specific factors as key determinants of mREE in patients on MHD and provides a preliminary predictive energy equation. Further prospective research is necessary to test the reliability and validity of this equation across diverse populations of patients who are receiving MHD.

Comparison of Subjective Global Assessment and Protein Energy Wasting Score to Nutrition Evaluations Conducted by Registered Dietitian Nutritionists in Identifying Protein Energy Wasting Risk in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 7-point subjective global assessment (SGA) and the protein energy wasting (PEW) score with nutrition evaluations conducted by registered dietitian nutritionists in identifying PEW risk in stage 5 chronic kidney disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis. DESIGN AND METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study entitled "Development and Validation of a Predictive energy Equation in Hemodialysis". PEW risk identified by the 7-point SGA and the PEW score was compared against the nutrition evaluations conducted by registered dietitian nutritionists through data examination from the original study (reference standard). SUBJECTS: A total of 133 patients were included for the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR) of both scoring tools were calculated when compared against the reference standard. RESULTS: The patients were predominately African American (n = 112, 84.2%), non-Hispanic (n = 101, 75.9%), and male (n = 80, 60.2%). Both the 7-point SGA (sensitivity = 78.6%, specificity = 59.1%, PPV = 33.9%, NPV = 91.2%, PLR = 1.9, and NLR = 0.4) and the PEW score (sensitivity = 100%, specificity = 28.6%, PPV = 27.2%, NPV = 100%, PLR = 1.4, and NLR = 0) were more sensitive than specific in identifying PEW risk. The 7-point SGA may miss 21.4% patients having PEW and falsely identify 40.9% of patients who do not have PEW. The PEW score can identify PEW risk in all patients, but 71.4% of patients identified may not have PEW risk. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 7-point SGA and the PEW score could identify PEW risk. The 7-point SGA was more specific, and the PEW score was more sensitive. Both scoring tools were found to be clinically confident in identifying patients who were actually not at PEW risk.

Abbreviated Steady State Intervals for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Indirect calorimetry requires a steady state (SS) protocol to determine measured resting energy expenditure (mREE). Achieving stringent criteria for an SS interval may be difficult for patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), as they may become uncomfortable because of the test itself or their health status. The study aim was to explore if a shortened SS interval was within acceptable limits for bias and precision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this cross-sectional secondary analysis, adults (N = 125) who received MHD thrice weekly were enrolled. The indirect calorimetry test was performed for a length of total time ≤30 consecutive minutes. SS was evaluated in accordance with intervals of 10, 5, 4, 3, and 2 minutes. The mREE at the 10-minute SS was compared with the mREE at 5, 4, 3, and 2 minutes, via t tests and Bland-Altman analysis, to determine degree of bias and level of agreement. The a priori alpha level was set at ≤0.5. RESULTS: The sample was primarily male, African American, and non-Hispanic, with a mean ± SD age of 55.4 ± 12.2 years, who reported being on MHD for an average of 62.4 ± 74.3 months. None of the mREE measures were significantly different from that of the 10-minute SS interval. Seventy-two percent of the participants were able to achieve SS at the 10-minute interval, 83.2% at 5 minutes, 87.2% at 4 minutes, and 89.6% for both 3 and 2 minutes. CONCLUSION: For patients on MHD, an abbreviated SS interval of <10 minutes (eg, 5 minutes) yielded valid mREE measurements.