Biomarkers of Glyco-Metabolic Control in Hemodialysis Patients: Glycated Hemoglobin vs. Glycated Albumin.

Background and Objectives: Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) dosage is considered the gold standard in glycol-metabolic monitoring, but it presents limits, which can underestimate the glycemia trend. In this regard, it was introduced the glycated albumin (GA). The aim of the study is to verify the predictivity of the GA compared to HbA1c in identifying glyco-metabolic alterations in non-diabetic and diabetic hemodialysis (HD) patients. Materials and Methods: For this purpose, we conducted a multicenter study involving one analysis laboratory and six dialysis centers in the Lazio region (Rome, Italy). Both diabetic and non-diabetic HD patients represent the study population, and the protocol included five time points. Results: The analyzed data highlighted the ability of GA to predict changes in glycemic metabolism in HD patients, and GA values are not significantly influenced, like HbA1c, by dialysis therapy itself and by comorbidities of the uremic state, such as normochromic and normocytic anemia. Thus, GA seems to reflect early glyco-metabolic alterations, both in patients with a previous diagnosis of diabetes and in subjects without diabetes mellitus. As part of this study, we analyzed two HD patients (one diabetic and one non-diabetic) in which GA was more predictive of glycol-metabolic alterations compared to HbA1c. Our study confirms the need to compare classical biomarkers used for the monitoring of glyco-metabolic alterations with new ones, likely more reliable and effective in specific subgroups of patients in which the classic biomarkers can be influenced by the preexisting pathological conditions. Conclusions: In conclusion, our evidence highlights that in uremic patients, GA shows a better ability to predict glyco-metabolic alterations allowing both an earlier diagnosis of DM and a prompt modulation of the hypoglycemic therapy, thus improving the clinical management of these patients.

[Best practices on peritoneal dialysis: the audit of Lazio Region]. / Best practices in dialisi peritoneale: l'audit della regione Lazio.

The diffusion of peritoneal methodology can not be something out of the real organizational context and the regional directive can not be the only means to encourage the diffusion. There is the need to provide effective and sustainable levels of assistance through a clinical scientific support and sharing of best-practises. On one side, the aim is to provide an aid by the centers with great expertise in the methodology, recognized as reference points; on the other side, to establish the shared K.P.I.s (Key Performance Index), to asses the clinical effectiveness and measure the objectives to be achieved, through a modality of valuation to establish the real applicability. For this purpose, a scientific board was founded, composed by the heads of UU.OO, that provide the peritoneal dialysis, to determine which aspects to investigate and identify factors of supply improvement. The selected method was the clinical audit. The analysis of the 2011 data has allowed us to capture the situation of the peritoneal dialysis in the Lazio Region. The formative procedure has enabled the centers to share and standardize protocols and therapeutic procedures, identify the strengths of peritoneal dialysis in the Lazio Region and define the KPIs through whose compare and monitor the centers over time. The conclusive analysis of the audit has enabled to identify a series of activities to be undertaken together in order to improve the situation of the peritoneal dialysis in the Lazio Region. In the following years, surveys will be carried out to verify the KPIs trend.

Blood pressure control and comorbidity in a nephrology clinic.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with established hypertension have poorly controlled blood pressure (BP). We studied demographic and clinical characteristics related to hypertension and analyzed the relationships between BP control and comorbidity. METHODS: This study was based on 414 consecutive hypertensive out-patients referred to our nephrology clinic. We recorded systolic and diastolic BP, age, gender, body mass index, total cholesterol, family history of hypertension, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), 24-hr proteinuria, diabetes, coronary artery disease, smoking habits and antihypertensive drug treatment. BP control was considered optimal if BP was < 130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease (CKD), if BP was < 125/75 mmHg in CKD with proteinuria > 1 g/24 hr and if BP was < 140/90 mmHg in patients with no comorbidity. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association between BP control and predictors. RESULTS: Only 26.6% of patients had adequately controlled BP. Eighty-five percent of patients aged > 65 yrs had uncontrolled systolic hypertension. Univariate analysis showed a significant association between poor BP control and age >65 yrs, family history of hypertension, diabetes, CKD with or without proteinuria > 1 g/24 hr and total cholesterol > 220 mg/dL. Multivariate logistic regression showed that age > 65 yrs, diabetes and CKD with or without proteinuria > 1 g/24 hr were significantly and independently associated with poor BP control. CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate hypertension control is a common cause for referral to our out-patient nephrology clinic. Our data confirm that elderly patients, diabetic patients and nephropathic patients are difficult to treat; and therefore, deserve the highest quality clinical attention.