H1AMR006 CKD 1_3/1-15-02


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

H1AMR006 CKD 1_3/1-15-02

  1. 1. C.K.D. Volume 1, Number 3 JANUARY 2002 THE JOURNAL OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE Current Editorial: Early referral of patients with kidney disease: overcoming the obstacles care of Current care of patients with patients chronic kidney disease: Opportunities for improvement with chronic One-on-One: An interview with Gerald Bernstein, MD, on kidney the care of the diabetic nephropathy patient: a team effort toward optimal outcomes. disease Lit Review: Selected papers from the literature What’s new: Scarring may play major role Diagnostic Challenge: in transplant rejection See page 30 to review Your Opinion: Treatment of hypertension this puzzling case.
  2. 2. Table of Contents Editorial: Early referral of patients with kidney disease: 3 overcoming the obstacles By Steven Fishbane, MD, and Allen R. Nissenson, MD Current care of patients with chronic kidney disease: 7 Opportunities for improvement By Allen R. Nissenson, MD, and Brian J.G. Pereira, MD, MBA One-on-One: An interview with Gerald Bernstein, MD, on the 11 care of the diabetic nephropathy patient: a team effort toward optimal outcomes. Perspectives on diabetic nephropathy 15 By Eli A. Friedman, MD Lit Review: Remission and regression in the nephropathy of type 1 22 diabetes when blood pressure is controlled aggressively What’s New: Scarring may play major role in transplant rejection 24 Your Opinion: Treatment of hypertension 28 30 Diagnostic Challenge: Submitted by Jill Lindberg, MD
  3. 3. Steven Fishbane, MD Mineola, New York Editorial Allen R. Nissenson, MD Los Angeles, California Co-Editors Steven Fishbane, MD Early referral of patients with Mineola, New York kidney disease: overcoming the obstacles Allen R. Nissenson, MD Los Angeles, California A pproximately 6.2 million Americans have chronic kidney disease (CKD),1 and care for these patients is often less than ideal.2 Medical management of CKD Editorial Advisory Board requires attention to a variety of interrelated problems that have a progressive Anatole Besarab, MD Morgantown, West Virginia impact on patients’ health. For example, anemia and cardiovascular disease (CVD), both common in CKD,2—4 are interrelated.2 Yet both are inadequately treated in many W. Kline Bolton, MD patients.2, 5, 6 Anorexia and malnutrition are integral parts of the spectrum of conditions asso- Charlottesville, Virginia ciated with CKD, yet patients rarely are referred for dietary consultation.7 In the latter stages David N. Churchill, MD of CKD, planning for and placing vascular access are vitally important, yet most patients Hamilton, Ontario, Canada start dialysis without a functioning permanent vascular access.7 These examples illustrate the need for improvement in CKD care. Robert N. Foley, MD Salford, United Kingdom An important factor contributing to these less-than-ideal statistics may be delayed referral Raymond Hakim, MD, PhD of patients by primary care physicians (PCPs) to nephrologists. In fact, many patients never Nashville, Tennessee see a nephrologist until the 3 months leading up to dialysis initiation.7 This article explores reasons for delayed referral, as well as potential solutions. Annamaria Kausz, MD Boston, Massachusetts Advantages of nephrologist care Alan S. Kliger, MD Why is early referral important? What data support the hypothesis that care by nephro- New Haven, Connecticut logists offers advantages to patients with CKD? Adeera Levin, MD Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Sesso and Belasco8 evaluated the effect of late diagnosis of CKD on mortality risk. They found that late diagnosis led to a decrease in 6-month survival—from 87% to 69% (P<0.01). Jill Lindberg, MD Similarly, studies indicate a 6-fold increase in hospital days with late referral,9 as well as New Orleans, Louisiana lengthening of emergency treatment by 2- to 10-fold in inpatient stay over elective care.10 Roger London, MD Other data indicate that failure to refer to a nephrologist adversely affects likelihood of vascu- White Plains, New York lar access placement, need for emergency dialysis, hypertension and anemia management, Brian J.G. Pereira, MD, DM, MBA and risk of pulmonary edema.9, 11 Boston, Massachusetts Taken together, a large number of studies are remarkably consistent in the finding of Richard A. Sherman, MD important benefits when nephrologists are involved early in the care of patients with CKD. New Brunswick, New Jersey Although none of these studies are randomized clinical trials, the trend is compelling. John C. Stivelman, MD Seattle, Washington Reasons for delayed referral PCPs choose to refer patients to specialists based on their assessment of patients’ needs Paul Zabetakis, MD Oak Park, Illinois and their level of confidence in their ability to adequately meet those needs. Until recently, the PCP had complete autonomy in referral decisions. The introduction of managed care plans as payers for primary care created obstacles to specialist referral.7,12 The administrative Publishing Staff processes set up by managed care companies undoubtedly have contributed to delayed David Dunn referral to nephrologists. President In addition to managed care issues, a variety of other factors affect nephrology referral Keith J. Croes Editorial Director (Table 1). Some patients may have entered a late stage of disease by the time they see a PCP. For example, a young patient with immunoglobulin-A nephropathy may not be aware that Norma Padilla, PhD he has the disease until kidney function is severely diminished.9 Indeed, CKD is often Director, Scientific Affairs asymptomatic even as it progresses, and perhaps is more likely to be detected earlier in Kerry Mariani older individuals than in young, healthy people. Senior Project Director [ Soleenne Desravines Project Director, Scientific Affairs Sandra Schaller CKD—The Journal of Chronic Kidney Disease (ISSN 1532-4419) is published quarterly by HealthVizion Communications, Inc., Art Director and sponsored by Amgen Inc. Copyright 2002 HealthVizion Communications. All rights reserved. Address correspondence and request for reprints to the Editorial Director, HealthVizion Communications, 20 Waterview Blvd., Parsippany, NJ 07054-1295; fax: 973-263-3952.
  4. 4. Table 1. Factors That Contribute to Late This problem could be solved if laboratories were Referral to Nephrologists to report both SCr and Ccr results. Laboratories could utilize the Cockcroft-Gault formula, which has an 84% Managed care limitations on specialty referral correlation with measured Ccr,13 and provide Ccr esti- Late presentation to the PCP mates in their standardized reports. Except for the patient’s weight, the laboratory has access to all the PCPs not recognizing that kidney disease is data necessary to do this. The Ccr estimate, therefore, present because of: could be reported as a range instead of a single figure. — failure to recognize CKD in older and smaller For example, in the case discussed above, the SCr level patients with normal serum creatinine levels of 1 mg/dL could be reported with a likely Ccr range — failure to appropriately screen high-risk patients, of 33 to 66 mL/min for patients weighing 40 to 80 kg. such as those with diabetes mellitus or Alternatively, a “normogram” could be displayed. hypertension Knowledge of CKD-related issues extends also to the PCPs not fully understanding CKD treatment issues and the importance of CKD-related complications PCP’s ability to identify patients who need appropriate screening. For example, PCPs may overlook micro- PCPs being unaware of the incremental benefit of albumin testing in patients with diabetes mellitus, or nephrology consultation SCr levels and urinalysis in patients with hypertension. PCP’s fear of loss of control over their patient A renal sonogram may be overlooked for the adult child of a patient with polycystic kidney disease. PCP’s negative evaluation of previous CKD patient referral to nephrologists Even when PCPs recognize that CKD is present, they may have incomplete knowledge of how it should be Inadequate communication by nephrologists monitored and treated. The importance of anemia, Patient reluctance to see another doctor malnutrition, early bone disease, and vascular access planning may be underappreciated, leading to late To get an idea of the relative weight PCPs assign referral to the nephrologist. to the various factors involved in referral decisions, we conducted a survey (unpublished) of 105 PCPs Nephrologist response from Long Island, NY. Seventy-three provided detailed PCPs often indicate that, after referring patients with explanations of their perception of the role of early CKD to nephrologists, patients sometimes report nephrology consultation in CKD patients. Fifty-one that nephrologists express bewilderment as to why a of these PCPs reported that they occasionally referred patient not needing dialysis is being referred to them. patients late in the course of CKD. Table 2 lists some (Many of the PCPs in our survey described such of the reasons reported by the respondents. experiences.) Why would nephrologists react this way? It seems clear that nephrologists could do much to con- Inadequate knowledge of issues tribute meaningfully to the care of such patients. Among the factors that can potentially delay referral to the nephrologist is an inadequate knowledge of Two factors may help explain this response. First, CKD-related issues among some PCPs. The PCP may some nephrologists may not be sufficiently aware of fail even to recognize that CKD is present. Many PCPs the important purpose of consultation in this setting, rely solely on serum creatinine (SCr) levels as a screen from the standpoints both of medical care and of for kidney disease, despite the important diagnostic building a successful practice. Second, some nephrolo- limitations of the test.13, 14 A medium-size 70-year-old gists may simply be too busy to provide care to patients woman may have an SCr level of 1 mg/dL, a seeming- who are in the early stages of CKD. Indeed, a growing ly normal level, despite a creatinine clearance (Ccr) as shortage of nephrologists may prompt PCPs, of low as 40 mL/min, a rate that signals the presence of necessity, to focus increasingly on the care of patients significant kidney functional impairment. There with end-stage renal disease.15 appears to have been little educational effort to inform PCPs about this pitfall of SCr levels. Moreover, the hec- Importance of communication tic pace of primary care practice makes it unlikely that Many of the PCPs in our survey were disappointed the PCP will have time to calculate an estimated Ccr. with the level of communication they typically 4
  5. 5. experience with nephrologists. Their complaints often patient aware of treatments that should have, but were cited an inadequate explanation of tests that were not, previously provided. ordered, and treatment and medication plans that were prescribed. Consultation letters and phone calls to the Nephrologists, like any specialist, should take great PCP can effectively address this type of complaint. care in their communication with referred patients not to diminish the patient’s perception of their PCP. The Written communication by the nephrologist to the nephrologist benefits by clearly expressing both to the PCP should be structured in a way that adequately PCP and the patient that the care they are providing is informs the PCP of treatment plans and goals. The consultative, and that the nephrologist is working in consultation note serves a broader purpose than simply collaboration with the PCP. providing medical information; the letter builds on the PCP’s perception of the nephrologist’s quality and com- Initiatives designed to inform PCPs of issues pleteness of care. The letter also serves a marketing surrounding the care of CKD patients could go far purpose, enhancing the PCP’s sense of the importance toward stimulating earlier referrals. In one interesting and value of nephrology consultation. collegial approach, a nephrology group invited PCPs in their geographic area to an evening session. A national For patients with early CKD, the nephrologist should expert lectured on principles of CKD care. Participants emphasize aspects of care that ought to be addressed, were then seated with five PCPs and a nephrologist at including blood pressure management, identification each table. Over dinner, the nephrologists led their PCP and treatment of the CKD etiology, management of group through a structured discussion of CKD issues. anemia and early bone disease, and the interaction The result was one of relationship building and an between CKD and existing comorbidity. Similarly, enhanced and shared understanding of the respective communication with the patient should reflect the roles the nephrologist and PCP play in the care of value that the nephrologist’s involvement provides. patients with CKD. Many PCPs fear “losing” patients to nephrologists. Summary Several issues likely stimulate this concern. The PCP may have cared for the patient for many years, gaining Earlier referral of patients with CKD to nephrologists the patient’s trust and cultivating a healthy therapeutic is an important goal to achieve if patient treatment is relationship. Specialist referral may be viewed as dif- to improve. A variety of dynamic issues are involved fusing the strength of this relationship. The PCP may in this process. Certain trends, such as the worsening fear the loss of future income if the patient decides to shortage of nephrologists, may hinder efforts to seek subsequent primary care from the nephrologist. increase the early referral of these patients. Strategies Indeed, Campbell and colleagues16 found that 19% of such as the use of nurse practitioners and physician surveyed PCPs expressed this concern. The PCP also assistants, and disease-management approaches, may be worried that the nephrologist will make the offer promise. CKD Table 2. Reasons Given by PCPs for Delaying Referral to Nephrologists* Feel very capable of treating kidney-related problems 65% → 10%† Have found little value in early nephrology consultation 80% Fear of “losing” patient 34% Financial referral issues 31% Long delays to get appointments 25% Old patients, comorbidity 20% Fear of poor reflection on primary care 2% * 51 of 105 PCPs surveyed delay referral until creatinine clearance is <50 mL/min. † 65% initially reported that they felt capable of treating these patients: after being asked to review their scores on the analog scale items, only 10% remained confident. 5
  6. 6. References 8. Sesso R, Belasco AG. Late diagnosis of chronic renal failure and 1. Jones CA, McQuillan GM, Kusek JW, et al. Serum creatinine levels mortality on maintenance dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;11:2417-2420. in the US population: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (erratum in Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35:178). 9. Jungers P, Zingraff J, Page B, Albouze G, Hannedouche T, Man NK. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:992-999. Detrimental effects of late referral in patients with chronic renal failure: a case-control study. Kidney Int. 1993;41:S170-S173. 2. Obrador GT, Ruthazer R, Arora P, Kausz AT, Pereira BJ. Prevalence of and factors associated with suboptimal care before initiation of 10. Eadington DW. Delayed referral for dialysis. Nephrol Dial dialysis in the United States. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10:1793-1800. Transplant. 1996;11:2124-2126. 3. Foley RN, Parfrey PS, Harnett JD, et al. Clinical and echocardio- 11. Schmidt RJ, Domico JR, Sorkin MI, Hobbs G. Early referral and its graphic disease in patients starting end-stage renal disease therapy. impact on emergent first dialyses, health care costs, and outcome. Kidney Int. 1995;47:186-192. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:278-283. 4. Levin A, Singer J, Thompson CR, Ross H, Lewis M. Prevalent 12. Franks P, Williams GC, Zwanziger J, Mooney C, Sorbero M. Why do left ventricular hypertrophy in the predialysis population: physicians vary so widely in their referral rates? J Gen Intern Med. identifying opportunities for intervention. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;15:163-168. 1996;27:347-354. 13. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from 5. Kausz AT, Obrador GT, Pereira BJ. Anemia management in serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16:31-41. patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Am J Kidney Dis. 14. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more 2000;36:S39-S51. accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal 6. McClellan WM, Knight DF, Karp H, Brown WW. Early Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:461-470. detection and treatment of renal disease in hospitalized diabetic and hypertensive patients: important differences between practice 15. Bolton WK, Kliger AS. Chronic renal insufficiency: current under- and published guidelines. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997;29:368-375. standings and their implications. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;36:S4-S12. 7. Arora P, Obrador GT, Ruthazer R, et al. Prevalence, predictors, 16. Campbell JD, Ewigman B, Hosokawa M, Van Stone JC. The timing and consequences of late nephrology referral at a tertiary care of referral of patients with end stage renal disease. Dial Transplant. center. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10:1281-1286. 1989;18:660-686. 6
  7. 7. Allen R. Nissenson, MD Los Angeles, California feature Brian J.G. Pereira, MD, MBA Boston, Massachusetts Current care of patients with chronic kidney disease: Opportunities for improvement Better adherence to practices known to be of clinical benefit not only will improve patient outcomes, but also may reduce the cost of care. Author information: Author information: Allen R. Nissenson, MD, is Professor of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Director of the UCLA Dialysis Program. Brian J.G. Pereira, MD, MBA, is Senior Vice President of the New England Medical Center, and Professor of Medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine and the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences. Dr. Nissenson is supported in part by the Richard Rosenthal Dialysis Fund. M ore than 6 million Americans have elevat- human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) was used infrequent- ed serum creatinine (SCr) concentrations ly in 7.4% of patients. The majority of patients who (≥ 1.5 mg/dL), and an estimated 2.5 mil- received rHuEPO exhibited moderate or severe lion may have chronic kidney disease anemia, and very few patients with hematocrit (Hct) (CKD) if CKD is defined as SCr levels of 1.7 mg/dL or values of >32.9% received this medication.7 For the greater.1 Unfortunately, a number of studies have most part, the patients who received rHuEPO also revealed that patients with CKD are not routinely being exhibited the most severe CKD on the basis of SCr val- identified in the early stages of their disease.2-5 In addi- ues. In addition, at any given Hct level, the likelihood tion, even after they have been diagnosed, many CKD that a patient would be treated with rHuEPO increased patients may not be receiving optimal treatment based with increasing SCr values. Finally, it was uncommon on current standards of care.2, 5, 6 for patients to receive rHuEPO unless patients had been seen by a nephrologist, even after controlling for This may prove to be penny wise and pound foolish CKD severity and Hct level. More detailed analyses of in the long term. Early identification and comprehen- anemia and its treatment in this cohort are ongoing. sive treatment of these patients may have a significant impact not only on their quality of life, but also on the overall cost of their care. The following steps are crucial: ACE inhibitor use As shown in a recent meta-analysis,8 angiotensin- Timely introduction of therapies to slow the converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use among patients progression of CKD with CKD is effective in slowing the progression of Identification and management of the comorbidi- renal disease, whether or not the patient also suffers ties commonly associated with CKD (eg, diabetes from diabetes mellitus (DM). A recent analysis by mellitus and heart disease) Golan and colleagues9 demonstrated that the use of ACE inhibitor therapy for patients with type 2 DM is Management of common complications of CKD also cost-effective. There were several noteworthy (eg, anemia and renal osteodystrophy) findings regarding the use of ACE inhibitors in our Smooth transitions to renal replacement therapy cohort7 (see Table 1): when necessary. Use of ACE inhibitors among patients with CKD We recently conducted a study of the patterns of was disappointingly low, particularly among practice for the treatment of 1,658 patients with CKD patients with SCr values of ≥ 4 mg/dL. During the at a large, integrated health maintenance organization first year after entry into the study, fewer than (HMO) in New Mexico.7 Because an extensive database, half of the patients with CKD had been prescribed with considerable patient-specific information, was an ACE inhibitor. available for analysis, we were able to gain insights into the health care resources used by patients with CKD, When SCr values were ≤ 3.9 mg/dL, the percent- including their patterns of hospitalization, use of vari- age of patients who received an ACE inhibitor ous types of outpatient providers, and use of outpatient was similar regardless of SCr level, but prescription medications. These observations have this percentage decreased to less than 20% when added new information to our understanding of how SCr levels were ≥ 4 mg/dL. patients with CKD are being treated. Although the likelihood of ACE inhibitor use was higher among diabetic patients with CKD than Erythropoietin use among nondiabetic patients with CKD, ACE Although the prevalence of anemia was high among inhibitor use among diabetic patients was still the patients with CKD in our cohort, recombinant low, regardless of their SCr values, ranging from 7
  8. 8. Table 1. Percentage of Patients Who Received an ACE Inhibitor, According to SCr Category and Whether They Were Seen by a Nephrologist Annualized Percentage SCr Category All Patients Patients Seen by Nephrologist* Patients Not Seen by Nephrologist All patients n=1,658 n=317 n=1,341 All (n=1,658) 0.34 0.31 0.35 <2.0 mg/dL (n=1,203) 0.36 0.38 0.36 2.0 to 2.9 mg/dL (n=289) 0.31 0.31 0.31 3.0 to 3.9 mg/dL (n=53) 0.43 0.42 0.45 ≥4.0 mg/dL (n=113) 0.15 0.16 0.09 Diabetic patients n=425 n=109 n=316 All (n=425) 0.49 0.44 0.51 <2.0 mg/dL (n=287) 0.50 0.56 0.50 2.0 to 2.9 mg/dL (n=75) 0.59 0.57 0.60 3.0 to 3.9 mg/dL (n=20) 0.45 0.43 0.56 ≥4.0 mg/dL (n=43) 0.28 0.28 0.29 Nondiabetic patients n=1,233 n=208 n=1,025 All (n=1,233) 0.29 0.24 0.30 <2.0 mg/dL (n=916) 0.32 0.32 0.32 2.0 to 2.9 mg/dL (n=214) 0.21 0.19 0.22 3.0 to 3.9 mg/dL (n=33) 0.41 0.41 0.41 ≥4.0 mg/dL (n=70) 0.05 0.05 0.06 * Seen by a nephrologist within 1 year after entry into the CKD cohort. 45% to 59% for SCr values below 4.0 mg/dL, ment of these associated comorbid conditions can down to 28% for SCr values of 4.0 mg/dL and reduce hospitalizations for these patients. Cardio- above. vascular disease is highly prevalent among patients with CKD and often leads to hospitalization.14, 15 Closer Perhaps even more disappointing was the attention to the management of heart disease in this observation that the likelihood of ACE inhibitor population, as outlined by Meyer and Levey in a use was no higher among patients with CKD National Kidney Foundation report,16, 17 could substan- who were cared for by a nephrologist than by tially improve outcomes. In addition, several studies a primary care physician (PCP), even after demonstrated that even partial correction of anemia controlling for CKD severity. with rHuEPO (to a hemoglobin level of 11 to 12 g/dL) Although previous reports10—13 documented the among dialysis patients may prevent left ventricular effects of late referral of patients with CKD to nephrol- hypertrophy from developing or may lead to its ogists, this study provides a more complete view of the regression.18, 19 current practice patterns for these patients, including In 1994, a National Institutes of Health Consensus a number of aspects of care not previously well Development Conference on CKD20 recommended that characterized. a nephrologist be consulted early in the course of renal disease (when SCr values reach 1.5 mg/dL for women Comorbid conditions or 2 mg/dL for men) so that appropriate diagnostic Patients with CKD often suffer from other serious tests can be performed and interventions, when avail- conditions as well. Careful attention to the manage- able, can be prescribed. 8
  9. 9. Table 2. Percentage of Patients Who Visited a PCP or Nephrologist, According to SCr Category SCr Category Annualized Percentage PCP* Nephrologist All (n=1,658) 0.88 0.22 <2.0 mg/dL (n=1,203) 0.93 0.12 2.0 to 2.9 mg/dL (n=289) 0.86 0.31 3.0 to 3.9 mg/dL (n=53) 0.82 0.72 ≥4.0 mg/dL (n=113) 0.50 0.80 PCP = primary care physician * The type of provider was assessed on the basis of specialty-specific location-of-service codes used by the health maintenance organization. In our study,7 however, only a minority of patients late are more likely to present for dialysis with pul- with CKD were seen by a nephrologist during the first monary edema, the need for temporary vascular year of observation after entry into the study (Table 2). access, hypoalbuminemia, severe uremia,10 and meta- Although the percentage of patients who visited a bolic acidosis.12 Late referrals of patients to nephrologist nephrologist during the first year of the study further increase the need for invasive therapeutic increased with increasing SCr values, nephrologists measures, clinical morbidity, and, ultimately, costly tended not to be involved in the care of patients whose hospitalization.12 Several studies have demonstrated SCr values were lower than 3 mg/dL. that late referral increases morbidity and costs for patients with CKD.10-13 Unfortunately, the experience we observed is typical of clinical practice throughout the United States. Even when patients are referred to a nephrologist, Among another cohort of patients who were over the some aspects of care that have proven beneficial for age of 65 before the initiation of dialysis, 81% had not patients with CKD are not adhered to consistently. been seen by a nephrologist until 3 months before For example, there was no evidence in our study that beginning dialysis, and 47% had not been seen by a patients with CKD who visited a nephrologist had a nephrologist until 1 month before dialysis.2 Two other higher likelihood of ACE inhibitor use than did those findings from our study7 are worth noting: Diabetes who did not visit a nephrologist.7 In addition, signifi- mellitus, hypertension, or both were significantly cant numbers of anemic patients with CKD who associated with increased SCr and were increasingly visited a nephrologist did not receive rHuEPO. Our prevalent with higher SCr values. In addition, the findings are consistent with practices observed number of hospitalizations increased directly with the in other settings.10, 21 level of SCr (Table 3), and the majority of hospital- izations were related to associated comorbidities, Although in some cases this may reflect inadequate rather than to CKD itself. resources to pay for this costly medication, this is not the explanation for many patients. Rather, the physi- Discussion cian, whether a PCP or a nephrologist, has simply not The consequences of these late referrals to a treated the anemia. Similarly, McClellan and col- nephrologist are devastating. Patients who are referred leagues21 demonstrated that ACE inhibitors are infre- Table 3. Hospital Utilization by Patients With CKD SCr Category Hospitalization Utilization (Average No./Patient-Yr) All (n=1,658) 0.84 <2.0 mg/dL (n=1,203) 0.72 2.0 to 2.9 mg/dL (n=289) 0.96 3.0 to 3.9 mg/dL (n=53) 1.20 ≥4.0 mg/dL (n=113) 1.56 9
  10. 10. quently prescribed for patients with CKD who are 8. Kshirsagar AV, Joy MS, Hogan SL, Falk RJ, Colindres RE. Effect of ACE inhibitors in diabetic and nondiabetic chronic renal disease: a being discharged from the hospital. The appropriate systematic overview of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Am J use of rHuEPO and ACE inhibitors could substantially Kidney Dis. 2000;35:695-707. improve outcomes for this patient population. 9. Golan L, Birkmeyer JD, Welch HG. The cost-effectiveness of treat- ing all patients with type 2 diabetes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:660-667. For monitoring of nutritional status, effects of reduced-protein diets, use of appropriate multivita- 10. Arora P, Obrador GT, Ruthazer R, et al. Prevalence, predictors, and consequences of late nephrology referral at a tertiary care center. mins, and control of phosphorus and sodium intake, J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10:1281-1286. the routine availability of a trained dietitian is essential 11. Sesso R, Belasco AG. Late diagnosis of chronic renal failure and for the optimal treatment of patients with CKD. mortality on maintenance dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;11:2417-2420. The results of our study suggest numerous opportu- 12. Jungers P, Zingraff J, Page B, Albouze G, Hannedouche T, Man NK. Detrimental effects of late referral in patients with chronic renal nities to improve outcomes for this patient population. failure: a case-control study. Kidney Int. 1993;41:S170-S173. Better adherence to practices known to be of clinical 13. Schmidt RJ, Domico JR, Sorkin MI, Hobbs G. Early referral and its benefit not only will improve patient outcomes but also impact on emergent first dialyses, health care costs, and outcome. may reduce the cost of care. Because of the high clini- Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:278-283. cal and financial costs of ESRD programs, providers 14. Xia H, Ebben J, Ma JZ, Collins AJ. Hematocrit levels and hospital- and policy-makers should view CKD as a major public ization risks in hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10: 1309-1316. health problem and should initiate innovative pro- grams to address this growing patient population. CKD 15. Collins AJ, Li S, St Peter W, et al. Death, hospitalization, and eco- nomic associations among incident hemodialysis patients with hematocrit values of 36 to 39%. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:2465- 2473. References 16. Meyer KB, Levey AS. Controlling the epidemic of cardiovascular 1. Jones CA, McQuillan GM, Kusek JW, et al. Serum creatinine levels disease in chronic renal disease: report from the National Kidney in the US population: Third National Health and Nutrition Foundation Task Force on cardiovascular disease. J Am Soc Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:992-999 (erratum Nephrol. 1998;9(suppl 12):S31-S42. in Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35:178) 17. Levey AS, Beto JA, Coronado BE, et al. Controlling the epidemic of 2. Obrador GT, Pereira BJ. Early referral to the nephrologist and timely cardiovascular disease in chronic renal disease: What do we know? initiation of renal replacement therapy:a paradigm shift in the man- What do we need to learn? Where do we go from here? National agement of patients with chronic renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis. Kidney Foundation Task Force on Cardiovascular Disease. Am J 1998;31:398-417. Kidney Dis. 1998;32:853-906. 3. Eadington DW. Delayed referral for dialysis. Nephrol Dial 18. Macdougall IC, Lewis NP, Saunders MJ, et al. Long-term cardiores- Transplant. 1996;11:2124-2126. piratory effects of amelioration of renal anaemia by erythropoietin. Lancet. 1990;335:489-493. 4. Levin A. Anaemia in the patient with renal insufficiency: docu- menting the impact and reviewing treatment strategies. Nephrol 19. Martinez-Vea A, Bardaji A, Garcia C, Ridao C, Richart C, Oliver JA. Dial Transplant. 1999;14:292-295. Long-term myocardial effects of correction of anemia with recom- binant human erythropoietin in aged patients on hemodialysis. 5. Jungers P. Screening for renal insufficiency: Is it worth while? Is it Am J Kidney Dis. 1992;19:353-357. feasible? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999;14:2082-2084. 20. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference 6. Obrador GT, Ruthazer R, Arora P, Kausz AT, Pereira BJ. Prevalence Panel N. Morbidity and mortality of renal dialysis: an NIH of and factors associated with suboptimal care before initiation of consensus conference statement. Consensus Development dialysis in the United States. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10:1793-1800. Conference Panel. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:62-70. 7. Nissenson AR, Collins AJ, Hurley J, Petersen H, Pereira BJ, 21. McClellan WM, Knight DF, Karp H, Brown WW. Early detection Steinberg EP. Opportunities for improving the care of patients with and treatment of renal disease in hospitalized diabetic and hyper- chronic renal insufficiency: current practice patterns. J Am Soc tensive patients: important differences between practice and pub- Nephrol. 2001;12:1713-1720. lished guidelines. Am J Kidney Dis. 1997;29:368-375. 10
  11. 11. One-on-One Gerald Bernstein, MD New York, New York Care of the diabetic nephropathy patient: a team effort toward optimal outcomes A large percentage of people with chronic kidney disease is diabetic. Their optimal treatment will require overcoming current gaps in medical education. Of US patients who reach end-stage renal disease (ESRD), (ESRD) had a permanent vascular more than 40% do so because of diabetic nephropathy.1 As access before starting dialysis, and the diabetes in most of these patients is already being treat- almost one third were still using ed, endocrinologists are in a position to diagnose chronic kidney disease (CKD) in its early stages, before it has temporary access 30 days after dialysis progressed to ESRD. initiation. Too many of these patients also seemed to have albumin, serum Blood pressure control, optimization of angiotensin-convert- creatinine (SCr), and hemoglobin (Hb) ing enzyme inhibitor therapy, anemia treatment, treatment of levels that, in an ideal world, would bone disease, attention to nutrition, selection of renal replace- have been better controlled. Why ment modality in late-stage disease, and vascular access don’t people get better care prior planning all are important aspects of care in all CKD patients. Data from the US Renal Data System (USRDS), to dialysis? however, reveal notable deficiencies in such care. In a recent GERALD BERNSTEIN, MD: I think it goes back study2,3 utilizing USRDS data, Obrador and colleagues found to what we were taught—that once the process of that 60% of patients had albumin concentrations below the kidney failure starts, it's inexorable and will progress. lower limit of normal when they began dialysis. According Although chronic kidney disease (CKD) cannot be to another study,1,4 only 44% of patients had a functioning prevented from progressing, you can slow the process permanent vascular access before starting dialysis, and 27% dramatically with such things as angiotensin-convert- were still using a temporary access 30 days after dialysis initi- ing enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, a proper diet, blood ation. These figures indicate that patients have not had well- coordinated care in the time leading up to dialysis. This is true pressure management, management of diabetes, etc. of both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. The opportunity to These aspects of care for patients with CKD are improve care is particularly feasible in diabetics, however, probably not emphasized enough in general medicine. since they are often being followed by primary care physicians CKD: Do comfort levels have anything to do (PCPs) or endocrinologists when kidney disease first begins. with it? It’s rational to speculate, for CKD induces first mild and then severe anemia, regardless instance, that PCPs are comfortable of the primary cause of kidney functional loss. In diabetic treating hypertension and prescribing nephropathy, the onset of anemia caused by erythropoietin ACE inhibitors. It’s less likely they deficiency can occur early, well before ESRD.5 Recent would be comfortable treating CKD- experience with the “glitazones” (thiazolidinediones) has raised related anemia or bone and mineral the awareness of anemia among endocrinologists; still, only metabolic disorders, or providing about 20% of patients who begin dialysis with a hematocrit (Hct) level of 30% or less have received recombinant human nutrition and dialysis education. erythropoietin (rHuEPO) before reaching ESRD.3 BERNSTEIN: Even if they have some degree of CKD—THE JOURNAL OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE comfort, they may not be treating aggressively enough interviewed Gerald Bernstein, MD, on issues surrounding compared with someone who provides those services the care and referral of patients with diabetic nephropathy. all the time in order to reach certain targets. A former president of the American Diabetes Association, CKD: According to a study by Obrador and Bernstein is currently an attending physician at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York. colleagues,3 80% of patients initiating dialysis with hematocrit (Hct) levels CKD: According to US Renal Data System less than 28% had not received treat- (USRDS) data,1 less than half of ment with rHuEPO. Does that finding patients with end-stage renal disease surprise you? 11
  12. 12. BERNSTEIN: No, it doesn’t surprise me. As a family because of a drop in Hb level, nor do I know many practitioner or internist, you learn certain things about physicians who have. the natural history of kidney disease. The understand- ing is that it is natural for someone whose SCr level CKD: Did you ever take any steps to begins to rise to have a fall in Hct level. And when treat anemia? that happens, the individual compensates through biochemical mechanisms to deliver more oxygen to BERNSTEIN: No, because it was regarded as natural [ pathophysiology. the tissues. For most physicians, that’s where it leaves off. It certainly did with me. CKD: In the past several years, in your The typical approach for most physicians—if the opinion, has the awareness of anemia Gerald Bernstein, MD patient’s guaiac test is negative and bleeding can be increased, decreased, or remained is a former president ruled out—is simply to observe the patient. If the SCr the same? of the American level is 2.5 mg/dL, that’s no big issue because the Diabetes Association. patient is not ready for dialysis. Why do I need to BERNSTEIN: For the most part, I think it has He is currently an make a referral if the patient has no specific signs or remained the same. The sophisticated medical commu- ] attending physician at symptoms related to SCr level? nity is giving it more attention, but I don’t think that’s Beth Israel Medical the case in the general medical community. Center in New York. CKD: Somewhere along the line it appears CKD: According to a consensus statement you developed a different view of this from the National Institutes of Health,6 scenario. When did that happen? referral to a nephrologist for CKD is BERNSTEIN: A number of years ago. Having a large recommended at SCr levels of 1.5 diabetes practice, I’ve been very much involved with and 2.0 mg/dL for women and men, nephrologists. We’ve had many patients who have pro- respectively. Do you agree that people gressed to dialysis over 20 or 30 years, so I was no with this level of kidney functional stranger to dialysis and the issues of vascular access. impairment should be referred For us the question was, when do we refer? For the to a nephrologist? most part, we didn’t refer to nephrologists until SCr BERNSTEIN: Most nephrologists probably would not was up around 5 mg/dL. If the Hb level dropped to incorporate those people into a major part of their pro- 8 g/dL, well, we were not alarmed because that’s what gram. As I mentioned, I referred patients relatively we were taught happens to these people. If they’re early—when SCr levels were no higher than 3 mg/dL. functioning and going to work and don’t feel badly, I’ve worked with some well-respected nephrologists, and they’re not unusually acidotic or have a variety of and none has ever suggested that I should be referring other clinical issues, then there’s no need to make a earlier. And these were nephrologists with whom our referral. When their SCr level got to around 5 mg/dL, communications were very strong; it’s not as though we figured that even in the best of situations it might they were afraid of insulting me. be another year or so before they would need dialysis. We then would make the referral for the access—and CKD: Based on the National Kidney this was usually before even the nephrologist was Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes ready to address the access. Quality Initiative (NKF K/DOQI) guide- What began to become apparent as I watched lines, however, they probably should nephrologists was that nephrologists were much more be urging earlier referral. Perhaps focused on achieving certain goals, and the goals were more educational efforts are beyond what I could have achieved. My office wasn’t needed in nephrology? set up to accomplish these goals, nor was I attuned to the needs of the patient in the same preventative way BERNSTEIN: I think the problem has to be docu- during the early stages kidney of disease evident by mented and sold more aggressively. There are many rising SCr levels. medical conditions that were not treated in the past because the treatments were not available, or at least A number of years ago, I began to change my prac- not generally available. The more medical care tices and started making referrals when SCr levels were advances, the more tools that you have and the more between 2.5 and 3 mg/dL. I never made a referral problems become treatable at an earlier stage. 12
  13. 13. That’s where we are now with anemia; it is becom- BERNSTEIN: I’m sure that’s a factor. Subclinical ing more widely recognized that earlier treatment of adverse effects are also a major part of diabetes care. anemia may make a clinical difference in a patient’s Even a slight elevation in blood glucose will act as a life. In diabetes, we’re always dealing with quality-of- poison over a period of 10 or 20 years and lead to life (QOL) issues and the aggressive need to control kidney disease. Yet patients may not have any symp- blood sugar. There are good data7 showing that blood toms—or think they don’t have any symptoms. sugar control is associated with significant QOL Then it depends on the degree of pursuit. improvements. But a lot of people don’t know that their QOL is not so great because nobody asks them, One area that is a bit similar is diabetic stomach and they assume everybody feels the way they feel. disease. These people often are symptomatic, but their symptoms fall within a range of minor complaints that CKD: The use of Hct and SCr measurements seem normal. Patients say, “Well, I've got an upset is in question. The recent NKF-K/DOQI stomach, I’ve got a little reflux, I feel bloated,” that guidelines8 suggest that Hb should be kind of thing. They might talk to someone who doesn’t used instead of Hct as a quantifier of have diabetes who has the same complaints. It doesn’t anemia in CKD patients. Additionally, appear to the patient to be an issue until it reaches it’s recognized that SCr levels underes- an advanced stage. timate kidney functional impairment in CKD: What do we know about diabetes many patients9; consequently, there control and its effect on CKD? appears to be increasing support for the routine use of formulas that esti- BERNSTEIN: We know that controlling both blood mate glomerular filtration rate (GFR).10, 11 glucose and blood pressure can slow the progression of Are these messages being conveyed CKD.12 There’s some interesting unpublished data indi- to the general practitioner and cating that people with even advanced kidney disease endocrinologist? may, if they live long enough, demonstrate reversal of some of their kidney disease if their diabetes is BERNSTEIN: Not really. I read at least three general extremely well controlled in that interval. medical journals, and these issues are almost never discussed. A recent study by Bosman and colleagues5 showed that people with diabetes develop anemia earlier than Most of us some time ago learned that there was a people without diabetes, given the same SCr levels. straight-line relationship between SCr and GFR. Again, That’s an important observation that I’d like to see in the more sophisticated metabolic community, we’ve corroborated. begun to understand that such a straight-line relation- ship does not always hold true. But in the general med- CKD: You seem to have developed a good ical community, no, this is not widely appreciated. relationship with nephrologists. But Most physicians don’t have the opportunity to interact you also have been in a position to with “superspecialists” to get this kind of information. know what others have experienced I would suspect if you looked at a series of grand in caring for their patients with dia- rounds held over the course of the last year or two, there would be little or no discussion of this. betic nephropathy. Are there some general lessons that you’ve learned CKD: There’s also growing evidence of in terms of referral to and interaction adverse effects associated with Hb with nephrologists? levels less than 10 g/dL in people with CKD even prior to ESRD.3, 8 Is it fair to BERNSTEIN: It’s important to remember that the nephrologist has a team. The nephrologist works with a say that this information also is not nutritionist the same way the endocrinologist works widely appreciated? with a nutritionist. The practicing physician needs to BERNSTEIN: Yes, that’s fair to say. delegate more of the responsibility for certain elements of the care of patients to nonphysicians—the diabetes CKD: Many of these adverse effects are educator and the kidney educator—who then can subclinical. Is that why anemia is not spend the appropriate amount of time sorting out what being picked up earlier? needs to be done and getting the patient on the right 13
  14. 14. path. The physician simply doesn’t have time to do 5. Bosman DR, Winkler AS, Marsden JT, et al. Anemia with erythropoi- etin deficiency occurs early in diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Care. this in the ordinary working day. 2001;24:495-499. The earlier the intervention, the better. We need 6. National Institutes of Health. Morbidity and mortality of dialysis: an aggressive nephrologists who will bring in patients NIH consensus statement. NIH Consensus Statement. United States: National Institutes of Health; 1993:1-33. even if the patients don’t need to be seen often, and who will get patients involved with the education 7. Testa MA, Simonson DC. Health economic benefits and quality of life during improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 dia- process. The nephrology educator can then monitor betes mellitus: a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. JAMA. them for such developments as diminished Hb level 1998;280:1490-1496. or a slow increase in SCr level, and alert the nephr- 8. National Kidney Foundation. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice ologist as to when patients need additional medical Guidelines for Anemia of Chronic Kidney Disease: update 2000. treatment. CKD Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37(suppl 1):S182-S238. 9. Jones CA, McQuillan GM, Kusek JW, et al. Serum creatinine levels References in the US population: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. (erratum in Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35:178) 1. US Renal Data System. USRDS 1999 annual data report. Bethesda, Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32:992-999. Md: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health; 1999. 10. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from 2. US Renal Data System. USRDS 1996 annual data report. Bethesda, serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16:31-41. Md: National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Diabetes and 11. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more Digestive and Kidney Disease; 1996. accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum 3. Obrador GT, Ruthazer R, Arora P, Kausz AT, Pereira BJ. Prevalence of creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal and factors associated with suboptimal care before initiation of dialy- Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:461-470. sis in the United States. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10:1793-1800. 12. Zabetakis PM, Nissenson AR. Complications of chronic renal 4. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. insufficiency: beyond cardiovascular disease. Am J Kidney Dis. Healthy People 2010: Chronic Kidney Disease. 2000. 2000;36:S31-S38. 14
  15. 15. feature By Eli A. Friedman, MD Brooklyn, New York Perspectives on diabetic nephropathy Author information: Eli A. Friedman, MD, is Distinguished Teaching Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Renal Disease Division, Department of Medicine, State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn, NY. He is a recipient of both the American Association of Kidney Patients Medal of Excellence and the American Kidney Fund’s National Torchbearer Award. Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage on this understanding, may soon make the task of car- renal disease (ESRD). Clinicians and researchers are opti- ing for diabetic patients with major complications far mistic, however, that new therapies may make diabetes less daunting. The hope is that, within the very near more manageable and limit its impact on the kidneys. future, the prognosis for diabetic vasculopathy and nephropathy will be transformed from hopeless, inex- orable deterioration to a manageable metabolic disor- A ccording to the World Health der permitting full function and even cure. Organization, type 2 diabetes mellitus may afflict 300 million individuals world- This article discusses the options available to the dia- wide by 2025.1 In the United States, betic ESRD patient and the need for overall diabetic according to the National Institutes of Health’s National care during uremia therapy. Diabetes Information Clearinghouse, 15.7 million peo- ple—almost 6% of the population—have diabetes.2 One Options for ESRD treatment in diabetes third of these people are unaware of their disorder. Diabetic ESRD patients are managed similarly to Diabetes was the seventh leading cause of death listed nondiabetic ESRD patients with two exceptions: First, on US death certificates in 1996, contributing to simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplantation 193,140 deaths. More than 798,000 new cases are diag- is a diabetes-specific therapy. Second, in our experi- nosed each year. Health care expenditures for diabetes- ence, diabetic patients are more likely than nondiabetic related problems amount to a minimum of $98 billion patients to decline treatment, an option we refer to as annually in the United States, and may be even higher.2 passive suicide. Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end- ESRD in diabetic persons reflects the demographics stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States, Japan, of diabetes per se in that the incidence is higher in and most of industrialized Europe.3 As noted in the US African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans,3, Renal Data System (USRDS) 2001 annual report, more 4, 8 and the peak incidence of ESRD occurs from the 5th than 40% of all ESRD patients had diabetes at initiation to the 7th decade.8, 9 Blacks older than age 65 years face of therapy.4 Although much attention has been given to a 7-fold greater risk of diabetes-related kidney failure kidney disease in type 1 diabetes, the prevalence of than do whites.8 kidney disease caused by type 2 diabetes is significant.3 Contrary to widely prevalent thinking, kidney disease Type 2 diabetes accounts for the majority of patients is as likely to develop in type 2 diabetes as in type 1.5 who require renal replacement therapy (RRT)4; how- While there are differences in the prevalence of diabetic ever, there is often confusion over diabetes type.10 nephropathy among racial and ethnic groups,3 other Consequently, literature reports of the outcome of aspects of the two disorders—particularly the progres- ESRD therapy by diabetes type are few and imprecise. sion of nephropathy—are remarkably similar.6 Vasculopathic complications of diabetes, such as hyper- tension, have approximately the same impact on the Diabetic patients with kidney disease have the worst progression of diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetes overall age-adjusted survival rate of all patients with as in type 1 diabetes.6 ESRD.4 When compared to patients with other causes of ESRD, diabetic patients have greater mortality and Depending on age, severity of comorbid disorders, morbidity due to comorbid disorders, especially cardio- available local resources, and patient preference, the vascular and cerebrovascular disease.7 Given these uremic diabetic patient may be managed according facts, the prognosis for patients with kidney disease to different protocols (Table 1). Unfortunately, in the and diabetes seems uniformly grim. However, there is so-called preterminal care of diabetic patients with cause for considerable optimism. Continuing advances ESRD, inadequate attention often is paid to the control in understanding the pathogenesis of diabetic kidney of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, anemia, and disease, and the development of new therapies based ophthalmologic problems. 15
  16. 16. Table 1. Options in Uremia Therapy for ment regimen that will be employed.11 Approximately Diabetic ESRD Patients 12% of diabetic persons with ESRD will be treated by peritoneal dialysis (PD), while the remaining 8% will 1. No specific uremia intervention (passive suicide) receive a kidney transplant.11 2. Peritoneal dialysis Rehabilitation is difficult in diabetic ESRD patients. Intermittent peritoneal dialysis We have found that a couple of factors are especially Continuous ambulatory important. First, patients tend to fare best when they peritoneal dialysis participate in the design of their own treatment regi- Continuous cyclic peritoneal dialysis men. Second, a functioning kidney transplant permits markedly superior rehabilitation than that attained 3. Hemodialysis by either HD or PD. Facility hemodialysis Home hemodialysis Hemodialysis 4. Kidney transplantation We have found that as many as 55% of diabetic HD Cadaver donor kidney patients were unable to perform routine living chores without assistance vs 25% of nondiabetic HD patients.12 Living donor kidney In one study of 430 patients, the percentage of individ- 5. Pancreas plus kidney transplantation uals requiring a wheelchair was almost 3-fold higher in (From Friedman,199911). diabetic vs nondiabetic patients: 29% vs 10%.12 Other studies have confirmed these observations.11 The For the large majority—more than 80% of diabetic inescapable conclusion of studies to date is that main- persons who develop ESRD in the United States—main- tenance HD does not permit a full return to life's tenance hemodialysis (HD) is the only renal replace- responsibilities for most diabetic individuals. Survival of Diabetic ESRD Patients Percent Surviving Live Donor 100 95.4% Transplant 93.1% 93.1% 86.5% Cadaver Donor 80 75.4% Transplant 78.4% 61.6% 71.0% Dialysis 60 42.5% 40 39.4% 20 23.1% 3.8% 0 0 1 2 5 10 USRDS 2000 Years After Initiating Treatment Figure 1: Long-term survival of diabetic ESRD patients shows the grim chances of surviving for a decade on dialysis (data for HD and PD are pooled). Fewer than 1 in 25 diabetic patients treated by dialysis will live for 10 years.9 16
  17. 17. Table 2. Comparison of ESRD Options for Diabetic Patients Factor Peritoneal Dialysis Hemodialysis Kidney Transplant Extensive extrarenal No limitation No limitation except Excluded in cardiovascular disease for hypotension insufficiency Geriatric patients No limitation No limitation Arbitrary exclusion as determined by program Complete Rare, if ever Very few individuals Common as long rehabilitation as graft functions Death rate Much higher than Much higher than About the same as for nondiabetics for nondiabetics for nondiabetics First-year survival About 75% About 75% >90% Survival to second Almost never Fewer than 5% About 1 in 5 decade Progression of Usual and unremitting. Usual and unremitting. Interdicted by functioning complications Hyperglycemia and May benefit from pancreas and kidney. Partially hyperlipidemia metabolic control. ameliorated by correction of accentuated. azotemia. Disadvantages Peritonitis, Blood access a hazard Cosmetic disfigurement, hyperinsulinemia, for clotting, hemorrhage, hypertension, personal expense hyperglycemia, and infection. Cyclical for cytotoxic drugs. Induced hyperlipidemia. Long hypotension, weakness. malignancy. Human hours of treatment. More Aluminum toxicity, immunodeficiency virus days hospitalized than amyloidosis. transmission. either hemodialysis or transplant. Patient acceptance Variable, usually Variable, often Enthusiastic during periods of compliant with passive noncompliant with good renal allograft function. tolerance for regimen. dietary, metabolic, or Exalted when pancreas antihypertensive proffers euglycemia. component of regimen. Bias in comparison Delivered as first choice Treatment by default. All kidney transplant programs by enthusiasts, although Often complicated by preselect those patients with emerging evidence inattention to fewest complications. indicates substantially progressive cardiac and Exclusion of older patients higher mortality than peripheral vascular obviously favorably for hemodialysis. disease. prejudices outcome. Relative cost Most expensive over Less expensive than Pancreas/kidney engraftment long run. kidney transplant in first most expensive uremia therapy year, subsequent years for diabetic. After first year, more expensive. kidney transplant alone is lowest-cost option. (From Friedman,11 1999). 17
  18. 18. Peritoneal dialysis Evaluating the option of a combined pancreas and kidney transplant for the diabetic ESRD patient is diffi- In the United States, about 7% of diabetic ESRD cult. Although still regarded as investigational by some, patients are sustained by a form of PD, continuous pancreas transplantation is growing in acceptability ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD).9 The advan- and technical success.14, 15 A recent American Diabetes tages of this form, include freedom from a machine, Association position statement recommends that sim- ability to perform the procedure at home, rapid train- ultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) and pancreas-after- ing, minimal cardiovascular stress, and avoidance of kidney transplantation should be routine in diabetic heparin.11 Mechanical cycling of dialysate, termed con- kidney transplant recipients.15 tinuous cyclic peritoneal dialysis, can be performed during sleep.11 Some clinicians characterize CAPD as a Comorbid risk factors “first-choice treatment” for diabetic ESRD patients. Management of diabetic patients with progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) is more difficult than in Not all reports on CAPD are positive, however. Rubin age- and gender-matched nondiabetic patients. and Hsu13 offered a less-enthusiastic assessment of Treatment is often complicated by comorbid conditions CAPD in diabetic patients based on experience in a affecting other organ systems, including the eyes largely African American diabetic population in (retinopathy), heart (cardiovascular disease), and Jackson, Miss. Only 34% of patients remained on nervous system (peripheral or autonomic neuropathy). CAPD after 2 years, and at 3 years, only 18% Associated clinical syndromes must be followed and continued on CAPD. treated, if possible, while preparing the patient to receive RRT.16 A decision to select CAPD must therefore weigh its benefits (including freedom from a machine and elec- The toll of coincident disease—especially blindness, trical outlets and ease of travel) against its disadvan- limb amputations, and cardiac disease—complicates tages (unremitting attention to fluid exchange, constant rehabilitation. Diabetic ESRD patients have a higher risk of peritonitis, and disappearing exchange surface) death rate due to cardiac decompensation, stroke, for each patient.11 sepsis, and pulmonary disease than do nondiabetic ESRD patients.11 Kidney transplantation Following a kidney transplant, patient survival at Table 3 lists the major comorbid conditions of con- cern in the management of diabetic ESRD patients. 1 and 2 years in diabetic recipients is now similar to Retinal, cardiovascular, and lower-limb diseases rank that of the overall ESRD transplant population.9 at the top of the list. We routinely collaborate with an Statistical superiority in survival after a kidney trans- ophthalmologist so that laser and/or vitreous surgery plant compared with dialytic therapy does not tell the whole story (Figure 1), however, as rehabilitation is also vastly improved after transplant. Enhanced quality Table 3. Diabetic Complications That Persist of life (QOL) makes kidney transplant the distinctly and/or Progress During ESRD favored treatment when presented to newly evaluated 1. Retinopathy, glaucoma, cataracts diabetic ESRD patients younger than age 60 (Table 2). More than half of diabetic kidney transplant recipients 2. Coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy in most series live for at least 3 years, and many 3. Cerebrovascular disease survivors return to occupational, school, and home 4. Peripheral vascular disease: limb amputation responsibilities.11 5. Motor neuropathy, sensory neuropathy Unfortunately, bias in assignment to a specific treat- 6. Autonomic dysfunction: diarrhea, ment may have prejudiced the favorable view of kid- dysfunction, hypotension ney transplants. For example, studies in which the 7. Myopathy mean age of transplant patients is a decade younger 8. Depression than the CAPD or HD groups are likely to discern bet- ter functional status in the younger group.11 (From Friedman,11 1999). 18