Nephrology

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnancy increases the risk for first-time symptomatic kidney stone formation which peaks close to the time of delivery but can persist even a year later, a population-based, case-controlled study suggests.

“We suspected the risk of a kidney stone event would be high during pregnancy, but we were surprised that the risk remained high for up to a year after delivery,” senior author Andrew Rule, MD, a nephrologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said in a statement from his institution.

“[So] while most kidney stones that form during pregnancy are detected early by painful passage, some may remain stable in the kidney undetected for a longer period before dislodging and [again] resulting in a painful passage,” he added.

The study was published online April 15, 2021, in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases by Charat Thongprayoon, MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, and colleagues.

“The results of this study indicate that prenatal counseling regarding kidney stones may be warranted, especially for women with other risk factors for kidney stones, such as obesity,” he noted.
 

First-time stone formers

The observational study included 945 first-time symptomatic kidney stone formers aged between 15 and 45 years who were compared with 1,890 age-matched female controls from the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The latter is a medical record linkage system for almost all medical care administered in Olmsted County in Minnesota.

Compared with nonpregnant women, the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone forming in a pregnant woman was similar in the first trimester (odds ratio, 0.92; P = .8), began to increase during the second trimester (OR, 2.00; P = .007), further increased during the third trimester (OR, 2.69; P = .001), and peaked at 0-3 months after delivery (OR, 3.53; P < .001). The risk returned to baseline by 1 year after delivery.

These associations persisted after adjustment for age and race or for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. These results did not significantly differ by age, race, time period, or number of prior pregnancies.

The risk of a pregnant woman developing a symptomatic kidney stone was higher in women with obesity, compared with those of normal weight (P = .01).

And compared with women who had not been pregnant before, one prior pregnancy also increased the risk of having a symptomatic kidney stone by approximately 30% (OR, 1.29; P = .03), although two or more prior pregnancies did not significantly increase symptomatic kidney stone risk.

Thus, “it can be inferred that the odds of a symptomatic kidney stone peak around the time of delivery,” the authors emphasized. “The odds of a first-time symptomatic kidney stone then decreased over time and were fully attenuated and no longer statistically significant by 12 months after delivery.”

Dr. Thongprayoon said there are several physiologic reasons why pregnancy might contribute to kidney stone formation.

During pregnancy, ureteral compression and ureteral relaxation caused by elevated progesterone levels can cause urinary stasis.

Furthermore, increased urinary calcium excretion and elevated urine pH during pregnancy can promote calcium phosphate stone formation. It is noteworthy that almost all pregnant, first-time stone formers had calcium phosphate stones.

“During pregnancy, a kidney stone may contribute to serious complications,” Dr. Thongprayoon explained.

General dietary recommendations for preventing kidney stones include drinking abundant fluids and consuming a low-salt diet.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic O’Brien Urology Research Center and a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with incidence rates of 39% and 52% in two independent, European case series presented recently at the International Society of Nephrology: 2021 World Congress. Many of the cases progressed to more severe, stage 3 AKI. Factors linked with incident AKI in the two reports included use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or diuretics, and elevations in inflammatory markers.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

The new findings confirm several U.S. reports published during the past year. In those reports, roughly a third of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 developed AKI during their hospital stay, said Jay L. Koyner, MD, during another renal conference, the National Kidney Foundation 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.

Experience has shown it’s bad news when hospitalized COVID-19 patients develop AKI, which can prove fatal or can lead to the development or worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD), which in some cases rapidly progresses to end-stage disease.
 

COVID-19 giving nephrologists an opportunity to improve AKI care

“COVID is giving us an opportunity to do a better job of taking care of patients who develop AKI, which is something that nephrologists have not often excelled at doing,” said Dr. Koyner, professor and director of the nephrology ICU at the University of Chicago.

“Many studies will look at how we can manage COVID-19 patients better after they develop AKI, because I suspect a large number of these patients will wind up with CKD,” Dr. Koyner said during his talk.

He cited several lessons from reports of AKI that occurs in patients hospitalized for COVID-19:

• Preexisting CKD, , and severe COVID-19 appear to be risk factors for developing COVID-related AKI.
• Patients who develop AKI during acutely severe COVID-19 may have slightly worse outcomes than patients without COVID-19 who develop AKI.
• Certain genetic susceptibilities may play a role in developing COVID-19–related AKI.
• Routine follow-up of AKI is generally inadequate and is not standardized, whether AKI develops while ill with COVID-19 or in other settings.

The most encouraging AKI takeaway from COVID-19’s first year is that its incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appears to have dropped from very high rates early on, possibly because of more routine use of steroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a reduction in the use of ventilators, Dr. Koyner suggested.
 

In-hospital diuretic treatment links with AKI

One of the World Congress of Nephrology reports involved 1,248 patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in London during March–May 2020. The average age of the patients was 69 years, 59% were men, and 17% had CKD at admission, as determined on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m².

During hospitalization, 487 patients (39%) developed AKI, including 175 (14%) with stage 3 AKI and 109 (9%) who required renal replacement therapy (dialysis or kidney transplant). The incidence of AKI peaked 5 weeks after COVID-19 admission, Paul Jewell and associates from King’s College Hospital, London, reported in a poster.

Multivariate analysis identified several demographic and clinical variables that were significantly linked with an increased risk of developing AKI: male sex (which boosted risk by 55%), Black race (79% higher risk), CKD at admission (triple the risk), being hypertensive on admission (73% higher risk), and being administered diuretics during hospitalization (69% higher risk).

The findings of a risk linked with diuretic use “supports the cautious use of diuretics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially in the presence of background renal impairment,” the authors said.

For patients with incident AKI, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly increased; mortality was 59% higher among patients who developed stage 1 AKI and was roughly triple among patients who developed stage 2 or 3 AKI.
 

Second report links ventilation, vasopressors with worse AKI

A separate report from clinicians at Charité Hospital, Berlin, retrospectively analyzed 223 patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19 to three Charité sites during March–June 2020. During hospitalization, 117 patients (52%) developed AKI, including 70 (31%) with stage 3 disease; 67 (30%) required renal replacement therapy. Half the patients with stage 3 AKI required ICU admission.

Compared with patients with less severe AKI, patients who developed stage 3 AKI were more often male, older, and had a higher body mass index.

In a multivariate model, compared with patients who developed less severe AKI, those who developed stage 3 disease also were significantly more likely to have received mechanical ventilation or vasopressor drugs and were more likely to have increased levels of leukocytes or procalcitonin, two inflammatory markers, Jan-Hendrink B. Hardenburg, MD, a Charité nephrologist, and associates reported in a poster at the meeting.

Mechanical ventilation was linked with a sixfold higher rate of stage 3 AKI, and treatment with vasopressor drugs was linked with a threefold higher rate. Elevations in procalcitonin or leukocyte levels were linked with about 60% increases in rates of stage 3 AKI. For both of these risk factors, temporal relationships were tighter; increases in both values appeared just before onset of stage 3 disease.

Dr. Joyner has been a speaker on behalf of NXStage Medical; a consultant to Astute Medical, Baxter, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Sphingotec; and he has received research funding from Astute, Bioporto, NxStage, and Satellite Healthcare. Mr. Jewell and Dr. Hardenburg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with incidence rates of 39% and 52% in two independent, European case series presented recently at the International Society of Nephrology: 2021 World Congress. Many of the cases progressed to more severe, stage 3 AKI. Factors linked with incident AKI in the two reports included use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or diuretics, and elevations in inflammatory markers.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

The new findings confirm several U.S. reports published during the past year. In those reports, roughly a third of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 developed AKI during their hospital stay, said Jay L. Koyner, MD, during another renal conference, the National Kidney Foundation 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.

Experience has shown it’s bad news when hospitalized COVID-19 patients develop AKI, which can prove fatal or can lead to the development or worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD), which in some cases rapidly progresses to end-stage disease.
 

COVID-19 giving nephrologists an opportunity to improve AKI care

“COVID is giving us an opportunity to do a better job of taking care of patients who develop AKI, which is something that nephrologists have not often excelled at doing,” said Dr. Koyner, professor and director of the nephrology ICU at the University of Chicago.

“Many studies will look at how we can manage COVID-19 patients better after they develop AKI, because I suspect a large number of these patients will wind up with CKD,” Dr. Koyner said during his talk.

He cited several lessons from reports of AKI that occurs in patients hospitalized for COVID-19:

• Preexisting CKD, , and severe COVID-19 appear to be risk factors for developing COVID-related AKI.
• Patients who develop AKI during acutely severe COVID-19 may have slightly worse outcomes than patients without COVID-19 who develop AKI.
• Certain genetic susceptibilities may play a role in developing COVID-19–related AKI.
• Routine follow-up of AKI is generally inadequate and is not standardized, whether AKI develops while ill with COVID-19 or in other settings.

The most encouraging AKI takeaway from COVID-19’s first year is that its incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appears to have dropped from very high rates early on, possibly because of more routine use of steroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a reduction in the use of ventilators, Dr. Koyner suggested.
 

In-hospital diuretic treatment links with AKI

One of the World Congress of Nephrology reports involved 1,248 patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in London during March–May 2020. The average age of the patients was 69 years, 59% were men, and 17% had CKD at admission, as determined on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m².

During hospitalization, 487 patients (39%) developed AKI, including 175 (14%) with stage 3 AKI and 109 (9%) who required renal replacement therapy (dialysis or kidney transplant). The incidence of AKI peaked 5 weeks after COVID-19 admission, Paul Jewell and associates from King’s College Hospital, London, reported in a poster.

Multivariate analysis identified several demographic and clinical variables that were significantly linked with an increased risk of developing AKI: male sex (which boosted risk by 55%), Black race (79% higher risk), CKD at admission (triple the risk), being hypertensive on admission (73% higher risk), and being administered diuretics during hospitalization (69% higher risk).

The findings of a risk linked with diuretic use “supports the cautious use of diuretics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially in the presence of background renal impairment,” the authors said.

For patients with incident AKI, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly increased; mortality was 59% higher among patients who developed stage 1 AKI and was roughly triple among patients who developed stage 2 or 3 AKI.
 

Second report links ventilation, vasopressors with worse AKI

A separate report from clinicians at Charité Hospital, Berlin, retrospectively analyzed 223 patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19 to three Charité sites during March–June 2020. During hospitalization, 117 patients (52%) developed AKI, including 70 (31%) with stage 3 disease; 67 (30%) required renal replacement therapy. Half the patients with stage 3 AKI required ICU admission.

Compared with patients with less severe AKI, patients who developed stage 3 AKI were more often male, older, and had a higher body mass index.

In a multivariate model, compared with patients who developed less severe AKI, those who developed stage 3 disease also were significantly more likely to have received mechanical ventilation or vasopressor drugs and were more likely to have increased levels of leukocytes or procalcitonin, two inflammatory markers, Jan-Hendrink B. Hardenburg, MD, a Charité nephrologist, and associates reported in a poster at the meeting.

Mechanical ventilation was linked with a sixfold higher rate of stage 3 AKI, and treatment with vasopressor drugs was linked with a threefold higher rate. Elevations in procalcitonin or leukocyte levels were linked with about 60% increases in rates of stage 3 AKI. For both of these risk factors, temporal relationships were tighter; increases in both values appeared just before onset of stage 3 disease.

Dr. Joyner has been a speaker on behalf of NXStage Medical; a consultant to Astute Medical, Baxter, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Sphingotec; and he has received research funding from Astute, Bioporto, NxStage, and Satellite Healthcare. Mr. Jewell and Dr. Hardenburg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, with incidence rates of 39% and 52% in two independent, European case series presented recently at the International Society of Nephrology: 2021 World Congress. Many of the cases progressed to more severe, stage 3 AKI. Factors linked with incident AKI in the two reports included use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or diuretics, and elevations in inflammatory markers.

Mohammed Haneefa Nizamudeen/Getty Images

The new findings confirm several U.S. reports published during the past year. In those reports, roughly a third of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 developed AKI during their hospital stay, said Jay L. Koyner, MD, during another renal conference, the National Kidney Foundation 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.

Experience has shown it’s bad news when hospitalized COVID-19 patients develop AKI, which can prove fatal or can lead to the development or worsening of chronic kidney disease (CKD), which in some cases rapidly progresses to end-stage disease.
 

COVID-19 giving nephrologists an opportunity to improve AKI care

“COVID is giving us an opportunity to do a better job of taking care of patients who develop AKI, which is something that nephrologists have not often excelled at doing,” said Dr. Koyner, professor and director of the nephrology ICU at the University of Chicago.

“Many studies will look at how we can manage COVID-19 patients better after they develop AKI, because I suspect a large number of these patients will wind up with CKD,” Dr. Koyner said during his talk.

He cited several lessons from reports of AKI that occurs in patients hospitalized for COVID-19:

• Preexisting CKD, , and severe COVID-19 appear to be risk factors for developing COVID-related AKI.
• Patients who develop AKI during acutely severe COVID-19 may have slightly worse outcomes than patients without COVID-19 who develop AKI.
• Certain genetic susceptibilities may play a role in developing COVID-19–related AKI.
• Routine follow-up of AKI is generally inadequate and is not standardized, whether AKI develops while ill with COVID-19 or in other settings.

The most encouraging AKI takeaway from COVID-19’s first year is that its incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appears to have dropped from very high rates early on, possibly because of more routine use of steroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a reduction in the use of ventilators, Dr. Koyner suggested.
 

In-hospital diuretic treatment links with AKI

One of the World Congress of Nephrology reports involved 1,248 patients admitted with confirmed COVID-19 at two tertiary care hospitals in London during March–May 2020. The average age of the patients was 69 years, 59% were men, and 17% had CKD at admission, as determined on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m².

During hospitalization, 487 patients (39%) developed AKI, including 175 (14%) with stage 3 AKI and 109 (9%) who required renal replacement therapy (dialysis or kidney transplant). The incidence of AKI peaked 5 weeks after COVID-19 admission, Paul Jewell and associates from King’s College Hospital, London, reported in a poster.

Multivariate analysis identified several demographic and clinical variables that were significantly linked with an increased risk of developing AKI: male sex (which boosted risk by 55%), Black race (79% higher risk), CKD at admission (triple the risk), being hypertensive on admission (73% higher risk), and being administered diuretics during hospitalization (69% higher risk).

The findings of a risk linked with diuretic use “supports the cautious use of diuretics in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially in the presence of background renal impairment,” the authors said.

For patients with incident AKI, the 30-day mortality rate was significantly increased; mortality was 59% higher among patients who developed stage 1 AKI and was roughly triple among patients who developed stage 2 or 3 AKI.
 

Second report links ventilation, vasopressors with worse AKI

A separate report from clinicians at Charité Hospital, Berlin, retrospectively analyzed 223 patients admitted with symptomatic COVID-19 to three Charité sites during March–June 2020. During hospitalization, 117 patients (52%) developed AKI, including 70 (31%) with stage 3 disease; 67 (30%) required renal replacement therapy. Half the patients with stage 3 AKI required ICU admission.

Compared with patients with less severe AKI, patients who developed stage 3 AKI were more often male, older, and had a higher body mass index.

In a multivariate model, compared with patients who developed less severe AKI, those who developed stage 3 disease also were significantly more likely to have received mechanical ventilation or vasopressor drugs and were more likely to have increased levels of leukocytes or procalcitonin, two inflammatory markers, Jan-Hendrink B. Hardenburg, MD, a Charité nephrologist, and associates reported in a poster at the meeting.

Mechanical ventilation was linked with a sixfold higher rate of stage 3 AKI, and treatment with vasopressor drugs was linked with a threefold higher rate. Elevations in procalcitonin or leukocyte levels were linked with about 60% increases in rates of stage 3 AKI. For both of these risk factors, temporal relationships were tighter; increases in both values appeared just before onset of stage 3 disease.

Dr. Joyner has been a speaker on behalf of NXStage Medical; a consultant to Astute Medical, Baxter, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Sphingotec; and he has received research funding from Astute, Bioporto, NxStage, and Satellite Healthcare. Mr. Jewell and Dr. Hardenburg disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Fat toxicity results in inflammation of the liver and eventual hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Thyroid hormones can greatly reduce this hepatic steatosis by restoring metabolic pathways in damaged liver, prevent fibrosis progression, and have broad atherogenic lipid-lowering actions by activating hepatic thyroid beta-receptors.

However, hyperthyroidism also leads to osteoporosis, tachyarrhythmias, muscle wasting, and psychiatric side effects, mediated by the alpha-thyroid receptor. Resmetirom (MGL-3196) is a novel, highly selective thyroid beta-agonist, with a minimal side-effect profile, which avoids the alpha–side effects.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Setting: 25 centers in the United States.

Synopsis: Of 125 adults with NASH fibrosis 1-3 and greater than 10% hepatic fat, 84 received resmetirom and 41 received placebo. Resmetirom resulted in a nearly 30% decrease over placebo in hepatic fat, compared with baseline, significant improvement in lipid profile, improvement in liver enzymes, fibrosis markers, and histologic resolution of NASH in some patients.

While the study showed resolution of inflammation, the 36-week study was likely not long enough to show improvement of fibrosis. The relatively small sample size also limited results. Placebo patients who lost significant weight also showed improvement and were discarded from analysis, suggesting that weight loss itself is also an excellent alternative to reverse NASH. Resmetirom use in NASH is now moving into a large phase 3 trial.

Bottom line: Resmetirom results in major liver and cardiovascular benefits in patients with NASH.

Citation: Harrison SA et al. Resmetirom (MGL-3196) for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2019 Nov 11;394(10213):2012-24.

Dr. Raghavan is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Background: Fat toxicity results in inflammation of the liver and eventual hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Thyroid hormones can greatly reduce this hepatic steatosis by restoring metabolic pathways in damaged liver, prevent fibrosis progression, and have broad atherogenic lipid-lowering actions by activating hepatic thyroid beta-receptors.

However, hyperthyroidism also leads to osteoporosis, tachyarrhythmias, muscle wasting, and psychiatric side effects, mediated by the alpha-thyroid receptor. Resmetirom (MGL-3196) is a novel, highly selective thyroid beta-agonist, with a minimal side-effect profile, which avoids the alpha–side effects.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Setting: 25 centers in the United States.

Synopsis: Of 125 adults with NASH fibrosis 1-3 and greater than 10% hepatic fat, 84 received resmetirom and 41 received placebo. Resmetirom resulted in a nearly 30% decrease over placebo in hepatic fat, compared with baseline, significant improvement in lipid profile, improvement in liver enzymes, fibrosis markers, and histologic resolution of NASH in some patients.

While the study showed resolution of inflammation, the 36-week study was likely not long enough to show improvement of fibrosis. The relatively small sample size also limited results. Placebo patients who lost significant weight also showed improvement and were discarded from analysis, suggesting that weight loss itself is also an excellent alternative to reverse NASH. Resmetirom use in NASH is now moving into a large phase 3 trial.

Bottom line: Resmetirom results in major liver and cardiovascular benefits in patients with NASH.

Citation: Harrison SA et al. Resmetirom (MGL-3196) for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2019 Nov 11;394(10213):2012-24.

Dr. Raghavan is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Background: Fat toxicity results in inflammation of the liver and eventual hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Thyroid hormones can greatly reduce this hepatic steatosis by restoring metabolic pathways in damaged liver, prevent fibrosis progression, and have broad atherogenic lipid-lowering actions by activating hepatic thyroid beta-receptors.

However, hyperthyroidism also leads to osteoporosis, tachyarrhythmias, muscle wasting, and psychiatric side effects, mediated by the alpha-thyroid receptor. Resmetirom (MGL-3196) is a novel, highly selective thyroid beta-agonist, with a minimal side-effect profile, which avoids the alpha–side effects.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Setting: 25 centers in the United States.

Synopsis: Of 125 adults with NASH fibrosis 1-3 and greater than 10% hepatic fat, 84 received resmetirom and 41 received placebo. Resmetirom resulted in a nearly 30% decrease over placebo in hepatic fat, compared with baseline, significant improvement in lipid profile, improvement in liver enzymes, fibrosis markers, and histologic resolution of NASH in some patients.

While the study showed resolution of inflammation, the 36-week study was likely not long enough to show improvement of fibrosis. The relatively small sample size also limited results. Placebo patients who lost significant weight also showed improvement and were discarded from analysis, suggesting that weight loss itself is also an excellent alternative to reverse NASH. Resmetirom use in NASH is now moving into a large phase 3 trial.

Bottom line: Resmetirom results in major liver and cardiovascular benefits in patients with NASH.

Citation: Harrison SA et al. Resmetirom (MGL-3196) for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2019 Nov 11;394(10213):2012-24.

Dr. Raghavan is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

The prices of two new drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of lupus nephritis are in “reasonable alignment” with the drugs’ estimated benefits for patients with the disease, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has determined.

“Both belimumab [Benlysta] and voclosporin [Lupkynis] are important new treatment options,” Steven Pearson, MD, president of ICER, observed in a summary of the report’s findings.

“Despite remaining uncertainty about both treatments’ longer-term outcomes, their estimated net prices appear to be aligned with their anticipated clinical benefits. ... For patients and clinicians to have responsibly priced options specifically indicated for lupus nephritis is a win for patients and the entire health system,” Dr. Pearson added.

The estimated annual price of belimumab is approximately $43,000 per patient; the estimated annual price for voclosporin is approximately $92,000 per patient.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab is approximately $90,0000 per quality-adjusted life-year; the corresponding value for voclosporin is higher, at approximately $149,000 per QALY, the ICER authors noted.

The report was published by ICER in April 2021.

Large unmet need for treatment of lupus nephritis

In their report, the ICER reviewed belimumab, a parenteral B-lymphocyte inhibitor, as well as voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, as initial treatment of patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Belimumab was first approved for the treatment of lupus in adults in the United States in March 2011. In April 2019, it was approved for use for the same indication for children aged 5 years and older. The FDA expanded the indication in December 2020 to include adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Voclosporin was approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis in January 2021.

In the pivotal trials for the two agents, each drug was added to standard induction therapy for lupus nephritis, which consisted of high-dose corticosteroids combined with either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide.

Compared with standard therapy alone, belimumab increased the complete renal response and the primary efficacy renal response at 2 years. With voclosporin, complete response was nearly doubled, and there was marked increased in partial response at 1 year, compared with standard therapy alone.

Neither drug appeared to increase the adverse-event rate or the rate of discontinuations, compared with standard therapy, although the FDA did add a black box warning regarding the possible risk for serious infections and malignancies with voclosporin use.

“There is a very large unmet need for the treatment of lupus nephritis,” Chris Phillips, MD, of Paducah (Ky.) Rheumatology said in an interview.

“A very large percentage of patients who do not achieve complete remission on traditional treatments have side effects or contraindications to these treatments, so we’ve needed new ones for sure,” he stressed.

The ICER authors made it clear that there is considerable uncertainty as to how short-term assessment of each of the two drugs’ performance might translate into meaningful long-term outcomes for patients, especially given that SLE is a lifelong illness.

On the other hand, “there are a lot of attributes for both of these new drugs that suggest there is potential for kidney benefit over time,” Brad Rovin, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

For example, data from the BLISS-LN study, reported by Dr. Rovin during a meeting last year, suggest that belimumab reduces the flare rate and appears to stabilize kidney function over time, compared with standard therapy alone.

“BLISS-LN was 2 years long, so it gave us an opportunity to look at kidney function over a longer period of time than most of our prior trials in lupus nephritis,” he explained.

“The stabilization of kidney function is important, because it suggests that belimumab has a kidney protective effect, while a decrease in lupus nephritis flares is also important, because each time the disease flares, you can accumulate chronic tissue damage, which can eventually cause end-stage renal disease [ESRD],” he said.

Dr. Rovin also pointed out that the BLISS-LN trial results indicate that patients who achieve a urine protein level less than 700 mg/d after the first year of treatment do very well on long-term follow-up – another hint that belimumab may have long-term benefits for kidney function.

Voclosporin is a calcineurin inhibitor, which are protective of podocytes. “When you start to lose too many podocytes, the kidney can again progress onto ESRD, so this is again an extra benefit of the calcineurin inhibitors in the context of kidney disease that affects the glomeruli,” he noted.

“So both of these drugs have these interesting attributes that go beyond, or at least are maybe tied to, their immunosuppressive actions, but they do offer some kidney protective effects,” he reaffirmed.
 

Black patients underrepresented in trials

The ICER authors voiced concern over the fact that individuals most at risk for SLE – mostly Black patients, but also patients of other racial groups – were underrepresented in clinical trials that evaluated both agents.

“We cannot stress enough that the results are highly uncertain due to the small numbers of Black patients in the available clinical trials and the lack of data on differences among subgroups in long-term outcomes,” they stated.

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips pointed out. Responses to both MMF and cyclophosphamide differ among persons of different races, “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips said, because there are racial disparities in how patients respond to both MMF and cyclophosphamide – “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

The ICER authors appear to agree. They urged the manufacturers of the two new agents to expand their research to include adequate representation of lupus nephritis patients from Black and other non-White communities.

However, it is somewhat reassuring that the pivotal voclosporin trial enrolled about 30% of Hispanic patients and that about 17% of participants in the BLISS-LN trial were also Hispanic, Dr. Rovin pointed out.

This is important because Hispanic patients can have very aggressive disease, as can Black patients, he noted. There is some evidence to suggest both drugs are effective in aggressive disease.

The ICER also pointed out that the length of time that both drugs can be used prior to tapering of treatment, after which patients receive standard maintenance therapy alone, has yet to be established.

This is important, Dr. Rovin and Dr. Phillips agreed, because calcineurin inhibitors are known to be nephrotoxic, and both drugs are immunosuppressive. At least with respect to voclosporin, there is some cause of concern regarding prolonged use of the drug for patients with kidney disease.

“We don’t want patients to be on an immunosuppressive drug forever if they don’t need to be,” Dr. Rovin emphasized.

“But we are seeing really long-term remission in the setting of other inflammatory diseases, like vasculitis with rituximab. So there is hope that we can achieve the same thing in lupus. If we use drugs that target T cells in the immune system, like voclosporin, or B cells, like belimumab, maybe we can ‘reset’ the immune system and get rid of potentially autoreactive cells that could allow long-lasting disease remission, which is an unanswered question but an intriguing possibility,” he concluded.

Dr. Rovin has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Phillips disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The prices of two new drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of lupus nephritis are in “reasonable alignment” with the drugs’ estimated benefits for patients with the disease, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has determined.

“Both belimumab [Benlysta] and voclosporin [Lupkynis] are important new treatment options,” Steven Pearson, MD, president of ICER, observed in a summary of the report’s findings.

“Despite remaining uncertainty about both treatments’ longer-term outcomes, their estimated net prices appear to be aligned with their anticipated clinical benefits. ... For patients and clinicians to have responsibly priced options specifically indicated for lupus nephritis is a win for patients and the entire health system,” Dr. Pearson added.

The estimated annual price of belimumab is approximately $43,000 per patient; the estimated annual price for voclosporin is approximately $92,000 per patient.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab is approximately $90,0000 per quality-adjusted life-year; the corresponding value for voclosporin is higher, at approximately $149,000 per QALY, the ICER authors noted.

The report was published by ICER in April 2021.

Large unmet need for treatment of lupus nephritis

In their report, the ICER reviewed belimumab, a parenteral B-lymphocyte inhibitor, as well as voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, as initial treatment of patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Belimumab was first approved for the treatment of lupus in adults in the United States in March 2011. In April 2019, it was approved for use for the same indication for children aged 5 years and older. The FDA expanded the indication in December 2020 to include adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Voclosporin was approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis in January 2021.

In the pivotal trials for the two agents, each drug was added to standard induction therapy for lupus nephritis, which consisted of high-dose corticosteroids combined with either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide.

Compared with standard therapy alone, belimumab increased the complete renal response and the primary efficacy renal response at 2 years. With voclosporin, complete response was nearly doubled, and there was marked increased in partial response at 1 year, compared with standard therapy alone.

Neither drug appeared to increase the adverse-event rate or the rate of discontinuations, compared with standard therapy, although the FDA did add a black box warning regarding the possible risk for serious infections and malignancies with voclosporin use.

“There is a very large unmet need for the treatment of lupus nephritis,” Chris Phillips, MD, of Paducah (Ky.) Rheumatology said in an interview.

“A very large percentage of patients who do not achieve complete remission on traditional treatments have side effects or contraindications to these treatments, so we’ve needed new ones for sure,” he stressed.

The ICER authors made it clear that there is considerable uncertainty as to how short-term assessment of each of the two drugs’ performance might translate into meaningful long-term outcomes for patients, especially given that SLE is a lifelong illness.

On the other hand, “there are a lot of attributes for both of these new drugs that suggest there is potential for kidney benefit over time,” Brad Rovin, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

For example, data from the BLISS-LN study, reported by Dr. Rovin during a meeting last year, suggest that belimumab reduces the flare rate and appears to stabilize kidney function over time, compared with standard therapy alone.

“BLISS-LN was 2 years long, so it gave us an opportunity to look at kidney function over a longer period of time than most of our prior trials in lupus nephritis,” he explained.

“The stabilization of kidney function is important, because it suggests that belimumab has a kidney protective effect, while a decrease in lupus nephritis flares is also important, because each time the disease flares, you can accumulate chronic tissue damage, which can eventually cause end-stage renal disease [ESRD],” he said.

Dr. Rovin also pointed out that the BLISS-LN trial results indicate that patients who achieve a urine protein level less than 700 mg/d after the first year of treatment do very well on long-term follow-up – another hint that belimumab may have long-term benefits for kidney function.

Voclosporin is a calcineurin inhibitor, which are protective of podocytes. “When you start to lose too many podocytes, the kidney can again progress onto ESRD, so this is again an extra benefit of the calcineurin inhibitors in the context of kidney disease that affects the glomeruli,” he noted.

“So both of these drugs have these interesting attributes that go beyond, or at least are maybe tied to, their immunosuppressive actions, but they do offer some kidney protective effects,” he reaffirmed.
 

Black patients underrepresented in trials

The ICER authors voiced concern over the fact that individuals most at risk for SLE – mostly Black patients, but also patients of other racial groups – were underrepresented in clinical trials that evaluated both agents.

“We cannot stress enough that the results are highly uncertain due to the small numbers of Black patients in the available clinical trials and the lack of data on differences among subgroups in long-term outcomes,” they stated.

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips pointed out. Responses to both MMF and cyclophosphamide differ among persons of different races, “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips said, because there are racial disparities in how patients respond to both MMF and cyclophosphamide – “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

The ICER authors appear to agree. They urged the manufacturers of the two new agents to expand their research to include adequate representation of lupus nephritis patients from Black and other non-White communities.

However, it is somewhat reassuring that the pivotal voclosporin trial enrolled about 30% of Hispanic patients and that about 17% of participants in the BLISS-LN trial were also Hispanic, Dr. Rovin pointed out.

This is important because Hispanic patients can have very aggressive disease, as can Black patients, he noted. There is some evidence to suggest both drugs are effective in aggressive disease.

The ICER also pointed out that the length of time that both drugs can be used prior to tapering of treatment, after which patients receive standard maintenance therapy alone, has yet to be established.

This is important, Dr. Rovin and Dr. Phillips agreed, because calcineurin inhibitors are known to be nephrotoxic, and both drugs are immunosuppressive. At least with respect to voclosporin, there is some cause of concern regarding prolonged use of the drug for patients with kidney disease.

“We don’t want patients to be on an immunosuppressive drug forever if they don’t need to be,” Dr. Rovin emphasized.

“But we are seeing really long-term remission in the setting of other inflammatory diseases, like vasculitis with rituximab. So there is hope that we can achieve the same thing in lupus. If we use drugs that target T cells in the immune system, like voclosporin, or B cells, like belimumab, maybe we can ‘reset’ the immune system and get rid of potentially autoreactive cells that could allow long-lasting disease remission, which is an unanswered question but an intriguing possibility,” he concluded.

Dr. Rovin has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Phillips disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The prices of two new drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of lupus nephritis are in “reasonable alignment” with the drugs’ estimated benefits for patients with the disease, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review has determined.

“Both belimumab [Benlysta] and voclosporin [Lupkynis] are important new treatment options,” Steven Pearson, MD, president of ICER, observed in a summary of the report’s findings.

“Despite remaining uncertainty about both treatments’ longer-term outcomes, their estimated net prices appear to be aligned with their anticipated clinical benefits. ... For patients and clinicians to have responsibly priced options specifically indicated for lupus nephritis is a win for patients and the entire health system,” Dr. Pearson added.

The estimated annual price of belimumab is approximately $43,000 per patient; the estimated annual price for voclosporin is approximately $92,000 per patient.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab is approximately $90,0000 per quality-adjusted life-year; the corresponding value for voclosporin is higher, at approximately $149,000 per QALY, the ICER authors noted.

The report was published by ICER in April 2021.

Large unmet need for treatment of lupus nephritis

In their report, the ICER reviewed belimumab, a parenteral B-lymphocyte inhibitor, as well as voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, as initial treatment of patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus nephritis is a serious complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Belimumab was first approved for the treatment of lupus in adults in the United States in March 2011. In April 2019, it was approved for use for the same indication for children aged 5 years and older. The FDA expanded the indication in December 2020 to include adults with active lupus nephritis who are receiving standard therapy.

Voclosporin was approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis in January 2021.

In the pivotal trials for the two agents, each drug was added to standard induction therapy for lupus nephritis, which consisted of high-dose corticosteroids combined with either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide.

Compared with standard therapy alone, belimumab increased the complete renal response and the primary efficacy renal response at 2 years. With voclosporin, complete response was nearly doubled, and there was marked increased in partial response at 1 year, compared with standard therapy alone.

Neither drug appeared to increase the adverse-event rate or the rate of discontinuations, compared with standard therapy, although the FDA did add a black box warning regarding the possible risk for serious infections and malignancies with voclosporin use.

“There is a very large unmet need for the treatment of lupus nephritis,” Chris Phillips, MD, of Paducah (Ky.) Rheumatology said in an interview.

“A very large percentage of patients who do not achieve complete remission on traditional treatments have side effects or contraindications to these treatments, so we’ve needed new ones for sure,” he stressed.

The ICER authors made it clear that there is considerable uncertainty as to how short-term assessment of each of the two drugs’ performance might translate into meaningful long-term outcomes for patients, especially given that SLE is a lifelong illness.

On the other hand, “there are a lot of attributes for both of these new drugs that suggest there is potential for kidney benefit over time,” Brad Rovin, MD, professor of medicine and pathology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

For example, data from the BLISS-LN study, reported by Dr. Rovin during a meeting last year, suggest that belimumab reduces the flare rate and appears to stabilize kidney function over time, compared with standard therapy alone.

“BLISS-LN was 2 years long, so it gave us an opportunity to look at kidney function over a longer period of time than most of our prior trials in lupus nephritis,” he explained.

“The stabilization of kidney function is important, because it suggests that belimumab has a kidney protective effect, while a decrease in lupus nephritis flares is also important, because each time the disease flares, you can accumulate chronic tissue damage, which can eventually cause end-stage renal disease [ESRD],” he said.

Dr. Rovin also pointed out that the BLISS-LN trial results indicate that patients who achieve a urine protein level less than 700 mg/d after the first year of treatment do very well on long-term follow-up – another hint that belimumab may have long-term benefits for kidney function.

Voclosporin is a calcineurin inhibitor, which are protective of podocytes. “When you start to lose too many podocytes, the kidney can again progress onto ESRD, so this is again an extra benefit of the calcineurin inhibitors in the context of kidney disease that affects the glomeruli,” he noted.

“So both of these drugs have these interesting attributes that go beyond, or at least are maybe tied to, their immunosuppressive actions, but they do offer some kidney protective effects,” he reaffirmed.
 

Black patients underrepresented in trials

The ICER authors voiced concern over the fact that individuals most at risk for SLE – mostly Black patients, but also patients of other racial groups – were underrepresented in clinical trials that evaluated both agents.

“We cannot stress enough that the results are highly uncertain due to the small numbers of Black patients in the available clinical trials and the lack of data on differences among subgroups in long-term outcomes,” they stated.

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips pointed out. Responses to both MMF and cyclophosphamide differ among persons of different races, “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

This is not an academic issue, Dr. Phillips said, because there are racial disparities in how patients respond to both MMF and cyclophosphamide – “so it’s not unreasonable to consider that there could be racial differences in treatment responses to both drugs, and these definitely need to be investigated.”

The ICER authors appear to agree. They urged the manufacturers of the two new agents to expand their research to include adequate representation of lupus nephritis patients from Black and other non-White communities.

However, it is somewhat reassuring that the pivotal voclosporin trial enrolled about 30% of Hispanic patients and that about 17% of participants in the BLISS-LN trial were also Hispanic, Dr. Rovin pointed out.

This is important because Hispanic patients can have very aggressive disease, as can Black patients, he noted. There is some evidence to suggest both drugs are effective in aggressive disease.

The ICER also pointed out that the length of time that both drugs can be used prior to tapering of treatment, after which patients receive standard maintenance therapy alone, has yet to be established.

This is important, Dr. Rovin and Dr. Phillips agreed, because calcineurin inhibitors are known to be nephrotoxic, and both drugs are immunosuppressive. At least with respect to voclosporin, there is some cause of concern regarding prolonged use of the drug for patients with kidney disease.

“We don’t want patients to be on an immunosuppressive drug forever if they don’t need to be,” Dr. Rovin emphasized.

“But we are seeing really long-term remission in the setting of other inflammatory diseases, like vasculitis with rituximab. So there is hope that we can achieve the same thing in lupus. If we use drugs that target T cells in the immune system, like voclosporin, or B cells, like belimumab, maybe we can ‘reset’ the immune system and get rid of potentially autoreactive cells that could allow long-lasting disease remission, which is an unanswered question but an intriguing possibility,” he concluded.

Dr. Rovin has served as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Phillips disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Metabolic alkalosis, a disorder that causes elevations in serum bicarbonate and arterial pH, is a common metabolic abnormality found in nearly half of hospitalized patients but is rare in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) during the pretreatment state. The problem seems to arise due to a high rate of older patients with multiple comorbidities and malnutrition who are undergoing HD. Metabolic alkalosis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In this report, we present a case of metabolic alkalosis, describe an innovative approach to manage metabolic alkalosis in the dialysis population, and review the pathophysiology.

Case Presentation

A 63-year-old female with emphysema, diabetic nephropathy, and ESRD on regular HD for 2 months by a tunneled subclavian vein catheter was admitted with 2 weeks of orthopnea and leg swelling. The review of systems was negative for chest pain, cough, wheeze, or sputum production. She was a former smoker with no alcohol or drug misuse. The patient was taking carvedilol 25 mg daily, furosemide 20 mg twice daily, basal insulin premeal, lisinopril 40 mg daily, pantoprazole 40 mg daily, calcium carbonate 400 mg 3 times daily, ferrous sulphate 325 mg daily, and a vilanterol/tiotropium inhaler once daily. Her dialysate outpatient prescription included sodium 140 mEq/L, potassium 2 mEq/L, calcium 2.5 mEq/L, and bicarbonate 36 mEq/L. Our dialysis unit used NaturaLyte dry pack for bicarbonate dialysis.

The patient appeared tachypneic with 26 respirations/min, oxygen saturation of 89% on room air, which improved to 94% on a 2 L nasal cannula. Her heart rate was 89 beats/min, blood pressure was 129/72 mm Hg, and body mass index was 21.2. The physical examination revealed jugular venous distension, lung crackles, reduced air entry, and pedal edema. Muscle wasting was noted in the arms and thighs. The tunnel catheter did not appear infected.

The patient’s blood work showed sodium, 136 (reference, 132-140) mmol/L; potassium, 4.3 (reference, 3.5-5.0) mmol/L; chloride, 89 (reference, 98-111) mmol/L; total CO₂, 36 (reference, 24-28) mEq/L; blood urea nitrogen, 21 (reference, 7-21) mg/dL; creatinine 3.4 (reference, 0.5-1.4) mg/dL; and albumin, 2.7 (reference, 3.7-5.0) mg/dL. Arterial gases showed pH, 7.56 (reference, 7.35-7.45), partial CO₂, 47 (reference, 35-45) mm Hg; bicarbonate, 42 (reference, 22-26) mEq/L; partial O₂, 54 (reference, 75 to 100) mm Hg. Brain natriuretic peptide was 2,800 (normal, < 100) pg/mL with a normal troponin. X-rays showed pulmonary congestion and bilateral pleural effusions that were transudative on fluid analysis. An echocardiogram showed ejection fraction of 20 to 25% with normal valves (baseline ejection fraction of 60%-65%). A coronary arteriogram revealed severe nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

Treatment

To reduce bicarbonate levels, 3 L of normal saline solution were infused prefilter during HD, and ultrafiltration (UF) of 4.5 L achieved a net UF of -1.5 L over 3.5 hours on lower dialysate bicarbonate (30 mEq/L). Good catheter flow was achieved with a blood flow rate of 350 mL/min and a dialysate flow of 700 mL/min. Venous blood gases and basic serum metabolic panels were obtained throughout the first HD session (Table 1). Improvement in pH from 7.5 to 7.43 and in total CO₂ from 36 to 30 mEq/L were noted after the treatment. Subsequently, we used the same membrane (Optiflux F160NRe) for 2 consecutive daily treatments to remove excess fluid and prevent worsening alkalosis using the same minimal bicarbonate bath, but no further normal saline solution was given.

Outcome

Volume overload was controlled as needed with UF. The bicarbonate did not drop after the second HD session, suggesting low organic acid production in the intradialytic period. By shortening the duration of dialysis to 3 hours and improving nutritional intake, we achieved dry weight, and the patient was discharged home with a total CO₂ of 25 mEq/L. Outpatient dialysis sessions were arranged to run at shorter duration (3 hours compared with 3.5 hours) and use low bicarbonate dialysate. The patient was admitted several times afterward for acute decompensated heart failure, but in all those admissions, her bicarbonate was in the normal-to-high range, between 23 and 30 mEq/L.

Discussion

Metabolic alkalosis is relatively rare in ESRD patients on HD. Particularly in the predialysis period, but with the growing number of older patients undergoing HD and the aggressive treatment of acidosis with relatively higher buffer concentrations; there has been an increase in the incidence of metabolic alkalosis in patients on HD. In the Fresenius Medical Care (FMC) prevalent HD patient study, predialysis bicarbonate levels have increased overtime from a mean (SD)22.9 (3.1) mEq/L in 2004 to a mean (SD) 24.1 (3.5) mEq/L in September 2011, with 25% of patients > 26.0 mEq/L compared with only 6% in 2004.¹ The condition has been associated with cardiac arrhythmia, intradialytic hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypercapnia, hypoxia, accelerated hypertension, and seizure.^2-4 Metabolic alkalosis may be associated with increased mortality.^5-7 However, the effect dissipated after adjusting for inflammation and nutritional status.⁶

Our patient had primary metabolic alkalosis evident by her high pH of 7.56 and high total CO₂ of 36 mEq/L. The serum total CO₂ reflects the metabolic status more accurately than the blood gas bicarbonate, which is prone to calculation error by the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. Her respiratory compensation for the metabolic alkalosis was appropriate, with an increase of arterial PaCO₂ to 47 mm Hg (expected PaCO₂ = 40 + 0.7[HCO₃-24] = 48.4). She had normal baseline PaCO₂ in the weeks prior to admission. Due to lack of residual urine output, < 50 mL/d, her metabolic alkalosis could not be attributed to the generation of bicarbonate by the kidneys, or ameliorated by dumping of excess bicarbonate, which explained why her metabolic alkalosis was severe. On the other hand, respiratory distress may have hindered the appropriate CO₂ retention.

In patients with ESRD on HD who have no residual urine output, causes of metabolic alkalosis are limited to loss of net acid or gain of alkali through the gastrointestinal tract; our patient had none of these. Similarly, all renal causes of metabolic alkalosis are not applicable to our patient, including mineralocorticoid excess and contraction alkalosis. In patients with preserved kidney function, loop diuretics can induce alkalosis through enhanced tubular absorption of HCO₃. While acetazolamide can mitigate this scenario by blocking carbonic anhydrase in the luminal border of the collecting ducts resulting in excretion of bicarbonate in the urine, our patient had negligible urine output despite being on furosemide 20 mg twice daily, making this an unlikely cause.

Severe metabolic alkalosis in dialysis patients has been reported with cocaine use, pica ingestion, and citrate load as in plasma exchange, massive transfusions, and regional anticoagulation.^2,8-11 Although calcium carbonate intake can contribute to alkalosis, her small daily dose of 1,200 mg contains approximately 12 mEq of carbonate, which is not a significant contributor to the alkalosis.

With all other causes excluded, the metabolic alkalosis in our patient is presumed to result from the bicarbonate-rich dialysate. Since the majority of patients with ESRD are acidotic before dialysis, the dialysate bicarbonate is set at a higher than normal physiologic level to bring the pH close to or even higher than normal after dialysis. The patient had been dialyzed with NaturaLyte as an outpatient, which was set at the dialysis unit default mode of 36 mEq/L. This form of alkalosis has been reported to peak immediately after treatment but in most patients returns to the predialysis acidotic state due to endogenous acid production.^1,4,12 Normally, muscles play a significant role in buffering excess bicarbonate in patients with nonfunctioning kidneys; hence, malnutrition with muscle wasting tends to propagate and maintain alkalosis, as in our patient.

Managing alkalosis in patients on dialysis can be challenging and is often directed at identifying potential causes like overzealous bicarbonate dialysate and addressing comorbidities, especially malnutrition.^6,7 Bicarbonate delivery can be set on dialysis machines as low as 20 mEq/L. However, the reliability of correcting serum bicarbonate by adjusting bicarbonate-based dialysis products is in question as these products deliver additional buffering capacity through mixing and metabolism of acetate, acetic acid, or citric acid (Table 2).

Conclusions

Attention should be paid to detect elevated predialysis serum bicarbonate levels in ESRD patients on HD, especially those with values above 27 mmol/L due to higher mortality.^6,7 Treatment of these patients is more challenging than for those who are acidotic predialysis, especially when alkalosis is compounded by malnutrition. Mitigation of this problem is achieved by using a lower bicarbonate bath and the shortest effective dialysis duration that achieves adequate clearance. Poor clearance also deleteriously affects patient nutrition and well-being. We have shown that normal saline solution infusion with concurrent removal by UF can correct pretreatment metabolic alkalosis when other measures are inadequate.

Metabolic alkalosis, a disorder that causes elevations in serum bicarbonate and arterial pH, is a common metabolic abnormality found in nearly half of hospitalized patients but is rare in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) during the pretreatment state. The problem seems to arise due to a high rate of older patients with multiple comorbidities and malnutrition who are undergoing HD. Metabolic alkalosis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In this report, we present a case of metabolic alkalosis, describe an innovative approach to manage metabolic alkalosis in the dialysis population, and review the pathophysiology.

Case Presentation

A 63-year-old female with emphysema, diabetic nephropathy, and ESRD on regular HD for 2 months by a tunneled subclavian vein catheter was admitted with 2 weeks of orthopnea and leg swelling. The review of systems was negative for chest pain, cough, wheeze, or sputum production. She was a former smoker with no alcohol or drug misuse. The patient was taking carvedilol 25 mg daily, furosemide 20 mg twice daily, basal insulin premeal, lisinopril 40 mg daily, pantoprazole 40 mg daily, calcium carbonate 400 mg 3 times daily, ferrous sulphate 325 mg daily, and a vilanterol/tiotropium inhaler once daily. Her dialysate outpatient prescription included sodium 140 mEq/L, potassium 2 mEq/L, calcium 2.5 mEq/L, and bicarbonate 36 mEq/L. Our dialysis unit used NaturaLyte dry pack for bicarbonate dialysis.

The patient appeared tachypneic with 26 respirations/min, oxygen saturation of 89% on room air, which improved to 94% on a 2 L nasal cannula. Her heart rate was 89 beats/min, blood pressure was 129/72 mm Hg, and body mass index was 21.2. The physical examination revealed jugular venous distension, lung crackles, reduced air entry, and pedal edema. Muscle wasting was noted in the arms and thighs. The tunnel catheter did not appear infected.

The patient’s blood work showed sodium, 136 (reference, 132-140) mmol/L; potassium, 4.3 (reference, 3.5-5.0) mmol/L; chloride, 89 (reference, 98-111) mmol/L; total CO₂, 36 (reference, 24-28) mEq/L; blood urea nitrogen, 21 (reference, 7-21) mg/dL; creatinine 3.4 (reference, 0.5-1.4) mg/dL; and albumin, 2.7 (reference, 3.7-5.0) mg/dL. Arterial gases showed pH, 7.56 (reference, 7.35-7.45), partial CO₂, 47 (reference, 35-45) mm Hg; bicarbonate, 42 (reference, 22-26) mEq/L; partial O₂, 54 (reference, 75 to 100) mm Hg. Brain natriuretic peptide was 2,800 (normal, < 100) pg/mL with a normal troponin. X-rays showed pulmonary congestion and bilateral pleural effusions that were transudative on fluid analysis. An echocardiogram showed ejection fraction of 20 to 25% with normal valves (baseline ejection fraction of 60%-65%). A coronary arteriogram revealed severe nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

Treatment

To reduce bicarbonate levels, 3 L of normal saline solution were infused prefilter during HD, and ultrafiltration (UF) of 4.5 L achieved a net UF of -1.5 L over 3.5 hours on lower dialysate bicarbonate (30 mEq/L). Good catheter flow was achieved with a blood flow rate of 350 mL/min and a dialysate flow of 700 mL/min. Venous blood gases and basic serum metabolic panels were obtained throughout the first HD session (Table 1). Improvement in pH from 7.5 to 7.43 and in total CO₂ from 36 to 30 mEq/L were noted after the treatment. Subsequently, we used the same membrane (Optiflux F160NRe) for 2 consecutive daily treatments to remove excess fluid and prevent worsening alkalosis using the same minimal bicarbonate bath, but no further normal saline solution was given.

Outcome

Volume overload was controlled as needed with UF. The bicarbonate did not drop after the second HD session, suggesting low organic acid production in the intradialytic period. By shortening the duration of dialysis to 3 hours and improving nutritional intake, we achieved dry weight, and the patient was discharged home with a total CO₂ of 25 mEq/L. Outpatient dialysis sessions were arranged to run at shorter duration (3 hours compared with 3.5 hours) and use low bicarbonate dialysate. The patient was admitted several times afterward for acute decompensated heart failure, but in all those admissions, her bicarbonate was in the normal-to-high range, between 23 and 30 mEq/L.

Discussion

Metabolic alkalosis is relatively rare in ESRD patients on HD. Particularly in the predialysis period, but with the growing number of older patients undergoing HD and the aggressive treatment of acidosis with relatively higher buffer concentrations; there has been an increase in the incidence of metabolic alkalosis in patients on HD. In the Fresenius Medical Care (FMC) prevalent HD patient study, predialysis bicarbonate levels have increased overtime from a mean (SD)22.9 (3.1) mEq/L in 2004 to a mean (SD) 24.1 (3.5) mEq/L in September 2011, with 25% of patients > 26.0 mEq/L compared with only 6% in 2004.¹ The condition has been associated with cardiac arrhythmia, intradialytic hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypercapnia, hypoxia, accelerated hypertension, and seizure.^2-4 Metabolic alkalosis may be associated with increased mortality.^5-7 However, the effect dissipated after adjusting for inflammation and nutritional status.⁶

Our patient had primary metabolic alkalosis evident by her high pH of 7.56 and high total CO₂ of 36 mEq/L. The serum total CO₂ reflects the metabolic status more accurately than the blood gas bicarbonate, which is prone to calculation error by the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. Her respiratory compensation for the metabolic alkalosis was appropriate, with an increase of arterial PaCO₂ to 47 mm Hg (expected PaCO₂ = 40 + 0.7[HCO₃-24] = 48.4). She had normal baseline PaCO₂ in the weeks prior to admission. Due to lack of residual urine output, < 50 mL/d, her metabolic alkalosis could not be attributed to the generation of bicarbonate by the kidneys, or ameliorated by dumping of excess bicarbonate, which explained why her metabolic alkalosis was severe. On the other hand, respiratory distress may have hindered the appropriate CO₂ retention.

In patients with ESRD on HD who have no residual urine output, causes of metabolic alkalosis are limited to loss of net acid or gain of alkali through the gastrointestinal tract; our patient had none of these. Similarly, all renal causes of metabolic alkalosis are not applicable to our patient, including mineralocorticoid excess and contraction alkalosis. In patients with preserved kidney function, loop diuretics can induce alkalosis through enhanced tubular absorption of HCO₃. While acetazolamide can mitigate this scenario by blocking carbonic anhydrase in the luminal border of the collecting ducts resulting in excretion of bicarbonate in the urine, our patient had negligible urine output despite being on furosemide 20 mg twice daily, making this an unlikely cause.

Severe metabolic alkalosis in dialysis patients has been reported with cocaine use, pica ingestion, and citrate load as in plasma exchange, massive transfusions, and regional anticoagulation.^2,8-11 Although calcium carbonate intake can contribute to alkalosis, her small daily dose of 1,200 mg contains approximately 12 mEq of carbonate, which is not a significant contributor to the alkalosis.

With all other causes excluded, the metabolic alkalosis in our patient is presumed to result from the bicarbonate-rich dialysate. Since the majority of patients with ESRD are acidotic before dialysis, the dialysate bicarbonate is set at a higher than normal physiologic level to bring the pH close to or even higher than normal after dialysis. The patient had been dialyzed with NaturaLyte as an outpatient, which was set at the dialysis unit default mode of 36 mEq/L. This form of alkalosis has been reported to peak immediately after treatment but in most patients returns to the predialysis acidotic state due to endogenous acid production.^1,4,12 Normally, muscles play a significant role in buffering excess bicarbonate in patients with nonfunctioning kidneys; hence, malnutrition with muscle wasting tends to propagate and maintain alkalosis, as in our patient.

Managing alkalosis in patients on dialysis can be challenging and is often directed at identifying potential causes like overzealous bicarbonate dialysate and addressing comorbidities, especially malnutrition.^6,7 Bicarbonate delivery can be set on dialysis machines as low as 20 mEq/L. However, the reliability of correcting serum bicarbonate by adjusting bicarbonate-based dialysis products is in question as these products deliver additional buffering capacity through mixing and metabolism of acetate, acetic acid, or citric acid (Table 2).

Conclusions

Attention should be paid to detect elevated predialysis serum bicarbonate levels in ESRD patients on HD, especially those with values above 27 mmol/L due to higher mortality.^6,7 Treatment of these patients is more challenging than for those who are acidotic predialysis, especially when alkalosis is compounded by malnutrition. Mitigation of this problem is achieved by using a lower bicarbonate bath and the shortest effective dialysis duration that achieves adequate clearance. Poor clearance also deleteriously affects patient nutrition and well-being. We have shown that normal saline solution infusion with concurrent removal by UF can correct pretreatment metabolic alkalosis when other measures are inadequate.

Metabolic alkalosis, a disorder that causes elevations in serum bicarbonate and arterial pH, is a common metabolic abnormality found in nearly half of hospitalized patients but is rare in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) during the pretreatment state. The problem seems to arise due to a high rate of older patients with multiple comorbidities and malnutrition who are undergoing HD. Metabolic alkalosis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In this report, we present a case of metabolic alkalosis, describe an innovative approach to manage metabolic alkalosis in the dialysis population, and review the pathophysiology.

Case Presentation

A 63-year-old female with emphysema, diabetic nephropathy, and ESRD on regular HD for 2 months by a tunneled subclavian vein catheter was admitted with 2 weeks of orthopnea and leg swelling. The review of systems was negative for chest pain, cough, wheeze, or sputum production. She was a former smoker with no alcohol or drug misuse. The patient was taking carvedilol 25 mg daily, furosemide 20 mg twice daily, basal insulin premeal, lisinopril 40 mg daily, pantoprazole 40 mg daily, calcium carbonate 400 mg 3 times daily, ferrous sulphate 325 mg daily, and a vilanterol/tiotropium inhaler once daily. Her dialysate outpatient prescription included sodium 140 mEq/L, potassium 2 mEq/L, calcium 2.5 mEq/L, and bicarbonate 36 mEq/L. Our dialysis unit used NaturaLyte dry pack for bicarbonate dialysis.

The patient appeared tachypneic with 26 respirations/min, oxygen saturation of 89% on room air, which improved to 94% on a 2 L nasal cannula. Her heart rate was 89 beats/min, blood pressure was 129/72 mm Hg, and body mass index was 21.2. The physical examination revealed jugular venous distension, lung crackles, reduced air entry, and pedal edema. Muscle wasting was noted in the arms and thighs. The tunnel catheter did not appear infected.

The patient’s blood work showed sodium, 136 (reference, 132-140) mmol/L; potassium, 4.3 (reference, 3.5-5.0) mmol/L; chloride, 89 (reference, 98-111) mmol/L; total CO₂, 36 (reference, 24-28) mEq/L; blood urea nitrogen, 21 (reference, 7-21) mg/dL; creatinine 3.4 (reference, 0.5-1.4) mg/dL; and albumin, 2.7 (reference, 3.7-5.0) mg/dL. Arterial gases showed pH, 7.56 (reference, 7.35-7.45), partial CO₂, 47 (reference, 35-45) mm Hg; bicarbonate, 42 (reference, 22-26) mEq/L; partial O₂, 54 (reference, 75 to 100) mm Hg. Brain natriuretic peptide was 2,800 (normal, < 100) pg/mL with a normal troponin. X-rays showed pulmonary congestion and bilateral pleural effusions that were transudative on fluid analysis. An echocardiogram showed ejection fraction of 20 to 25% with normal valves (baseline ejection fraction of 60%-65%). A coronary arteriogram revealed severe nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

Treatment

To reduce bicarbonate levels, 3 L of normal saline solution were infused prefilter during HD, and ultrafiltration (UF) of 4.5 L achieved a net UF of -1.5 L over 3.5 hours on lower dialysate bicarbonate (30 mEq/L). Good catheter flow was achieved with a blood flow rate of 350 mL/min and a dialysate flow of 700 mL/min. Venous blood gases and basic serum metabolic panels were obtained throughout the first HD session (Table 1). Improvement in pH from 7.5 to 7.43 and in total CO₂ from 36 to 30 mEq/L were noted after the treatment. Subsequently, we used the same membrane (Optiflux F160NRe) for 2 consecutive daily treatments to remove excess fluid and prevent worsening alkalosis using the same minimal bicarbonate bath, but no further normal saline solution was given.

Outcome

Volume overload was controlled as needed with UF. The bicarbonate did not drop after the second HD session, suggesting low organic acid production in the intradialytic period. By shortening the duration of dialysis to 3 hours and improving nutritional intake, we achieved dry weight, and the patient was discharged home with a total CO₂ of 25 mEq/L. Outpatient dialysis sessions were arranged to run at shorter duration (3 hours compared with 3.5 hours) and use low bicarbonate dialysate. The patient was admitted several times afterward for acute decompensated heart failure, but in all those admissions, her bicarbonate was in the normal-to-high range, between 23 and 30 mEq/L.

Discussion

Metabolic alkalosis is relatively rare in ESRD patients on HD. Particularly in the predialysis period, but with the growing number of older patients undergoing HD and the aggressive treatment of acidosis with relatively higher buffer concentrations; there has been an increase in the incidence of metabolic alkalosis in patients on HD. In the Fresenius Medical Care (FMC) prevalent HD patient study, predialysis bicarbonate levels have increased overtime from a mean (SD)22.9 (3.1) mEq/L in 2004 to a mean (SD) 24.1 (3.5) mEq/L in September 2011, with 25% of patients > 26.0 mEq/L compared with only 6% in 2004.¹ The condition has been associated with cardiac arrhythmia, intradialytic hypocalcemia, hypokalemia, hypercapnia, hypoxia, accelerated hypertension, and seizure.^2-4 Metabolic alkalosis may be associated with increased mortality.^5-7 However, the effect dissipated after adjusting for inflammation and nutritional status.⁶

Our patient had primary metabolic alkalosis evident by her high pH of 7.56 and high total CO₂ of 36 mEq/L. The serum total CO₂ reflects the metabolic status more accurately than the blood gas bicarbonate, which is prone to calculation error by the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. Her respiratory compensation for the metabolic alkalosis was appropriate, with an increase of arterial PaCO₂ to 47 mm Hg (expected PaCO₂ = 40 + 0.7[HCO₃-24] = 48.4). She had normal baseline PaCO₂ in the weeks prior to admission. Due to lack of residual urine output, < 50 mL/d, her metabolic alkalosis could not be attributed to the generation of bicarbonate by the kidneys, or ameliorated by dumping of excess bicarbonate, which explained why her metabolic alkalosis was severe. On the other hand, respiratory distress may have hindered the appropriate CO₂ retention.

In patients with ESRD on HD who have no residual urine output, causes of metabolic alkalosis are limited to loss of net acid or gain of alkali through the gastrointestinal tract; our patient had none of these. Similarly, all renal causes of metabolic alkalosis are not applicable to our patient, including mineralocorticoid excess and contraction alkalosis. In patients with preserved kidney function, loop diuretics can induce alkalosis through enhanced tubular absorption of HCO₃. While acetazolamide can mitigate this scenario by blocking carbonic anhydrase in the luminal border of the collecting ducts resulting in excretion of bicarbonate in the urine, our patient had negligible urine output despite being on furosemide 20 mg twice daily, making this an unlikely cause.

Severe metabolic alkalosis in dialysis patients has been reported with cocaine use, pica ingestion, and citrate load as in plasma exchange, massive transfusions, and regional anticoagulation.^2,8-11 Although calcium carbonate intake can contribute to alkalosis, her small daily dose of 1,200 mg contains approximately 12 mEq of carbonate, which is not a significant contributor to the alkalosis.

With all other causes excluded, the metabolic alkalosis in our patient is presumed to result from the bicarbonate-rich dialysate. Since the majority of patients with ESRD are acidotic before dialysis, the dialysate bicarbonate is set at a higher than normal physiologic level to bring the pH close to or even higher than normal after dialysis. The patient had been dialyzed with NaturaLyte as an outpatient, which was set at the dialysis unit default mode of 36 mEq/L. This form of alkalosis has been reported to peak immediately after treatment but in most patients returns to the predialysis acidotic state due to endogenous acid production.^1,4,12 Normally, muscles play a significant role in buffering excess bicarbonate in patients with nonfunctioning kidneys; hence, malnutrition with muscle wasting tends to propagate and maintain alkalosis, as in our patient.

Managing alkalosis in patients on dialysis can be challenging and is often directed at identifying potential causes like overzealous bicarbonate dialysate and addressing comorbidities, especially malnutrition.^6,7 Bicarbonate delivery can be set on dialysis machines as low as 20 mEq/L. However, the reliability of correcting serum bicarbonate by adjusting bicarbonate-based dialysis products is in question as these products deliver additional buffering capacity through mixing and metabolism of acetate, acetic acid, or citric acid (Table 2).

Conclusions

Attention should be paid to detect elevated predialysis serum bicarbonate levels in ESRD patients on HD, especially those with values above 27 mmol/L due to higher mortality.^6,7 Treatment of these patients is more challenging than for those who are acidotic predialysis, especially when alkalosis is compounded by malnutrition. Mitigation of this problem is achieved by using a lower bicarbonate bath and the shortest effective dialysis duration that achieves adequate clearance. Poor clearance also deleteriously affects patient nutrition and well-being. We have shown that normal saline solution infusion with concurrent removal by UF can correct pretreatment metabolic alkalosis when other measures are inadequate.

In 2015-2016, almost 40% of adults and 18.5% of children ages 2 to 19 years in the United States met the definition for obesity—a chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that results in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.^1,2

Tremendous resources have been invested in research, policy development, and public education to try to prevent obesity and its related complications. Despite this, the obesity epidemic has worsened. Here, we explore how to evaluate and treat obese patients in a primary care setting based on the evidence and our experience seeing patients specifically for weight management in a family medicine residency teaching clinic. Pharmacotherapy and surgery, while often helpful, are outside the scope of this article.

It begins withan obesity-friendly office

Patients may have reservations about health care interactions specific to obesity, so it is important to invite them into a setting that facilitates trust and encourages collaboration. Actively engage patients with unhealthy weight by creating an environment where they feel comfortable. Offer wide chairs without armrests, which will easily accommodate patients of all sizes, and ensure that scales have a weight capacity > 400 lb. Communicate a message to patients, via waiting room materials and videos, that focuses on health rather than on weight or body mass index (BMI).

Understand the patient’s goals and challenges

Most (although not all) family physicians will see obese patients in the context of a visit for diabetes, hypertension, or another condition. However, we feel that having visits specifically to address weight in the initial stages of weight management is helpful. The focus of an initial visit should be getting to know how obesity has affected the patient and what his or her motive is in attempting to lose weight. Explore previous attempts at weight loss and establish what the patient’s highest weight has been, as this will impact weight-loss goals. For example, if a patient has weighed > 300 lb all her adult life, it will be extremely difficult to maintain a weight loss of 150 lb.

What else to ask about. Discuss stressors that may be causing increased food intake or poor food choices, including hunger, anger, loneliness, and sleep difficulties. Multidisciplinary care including a psychologist can aid in addressing these issues. Ask patients if they keep a food diary (and if not, recommend that they start), as food diaries are often helpful in elucidating eating and drinking patterns. Determine a patient’s current and past levels of physical activity, as this will guide the fitness goals you develop for him or her.

Screen for psychosocial disorders

As noted earlier, the physical component of obesity is commonly associated with mood disorders such as anxiety and depression.² This requires a multidisciplinary team effort to facilitate healing in the patient struggling with obesity.

Screening for depression and anxiety using standardized tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 is encouraged in patients who are overweight or obese. Positive screens should be addressed as part of the patient’s treatment plan, as untreated depression and anxiety can inhibit success with weight loss. Be mindful that many medications commonly used to treat these conditions can impair weight loss and even promote weight gain.

Continue to: Don't overlook binge-eating disorders

Don’t overlook binge-eating disorders. Screening specifically for binge-eating disorders is important, given the implications on treatment. The US Department of Veterans Affairs developed a single-item tool for this purpose, the VA Binge Eating Screener. The validated questionnaire asks, “On average, how often have you eaten extremely large amounts of food at one time and felt that your eating was out of control at that time?” Response options are: “Never,” “< 1 time/week,” “1 time/week,” “2-4 times/week,” and “5+ times/week.” A response of ≥ 2 times/week had a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 83.2% for binge-eating disorder.³

For patients who prefer a vegan or vegetarian whole food diet, it is important to note that these diets are generally deficient in vitamin B12 and omega 3 fatty acids, so supplementing these should be considered.

Patients with positive screens should undergo psychotherapy and consider pharmacotherapy with lisdexamfetamine as part of their treatment plan. Caution should be used if recommending intermittent fasting for someone with binge-eating disorder.

Evaluate for underlying causes and assess for comorbidities

Review the patient’s current medication list and history. Many medications can cause weight gain, and weight loss can often be achieved by deprescribing such medications. When feasible, prescribe an alternative medication with a more favorable weight profile. A previous article in The Journal of Family Practice addresses this in more depth.⁴

Laboratory and other testing

Laboratory analysis should primarily be focused on determining treatment alterations specific to underlying pathophysiology. Tests to consider ordering are outlined in the Table. Identification of underlying causes and/or comorbid conditions through such testing can guide medication changes, treatment choices, and diet recommendations.

Diabetes and insulin resistance. The American Diabetes Association recommends screening patients who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor for diabetes.⁵ This can be done by obtaining a fasting glucose level, hemoglobin A1C, or a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test.

Continue to: Since it is known that...

Since it is known that insulin resistance increases the risk for coronary heart disease⁶ and can be treated effectively,⁷ we recommend testing for insulin resistance in patients who do not already have impaired fasting glucose, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, or impaired glucose tolerance. The homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR)⁸ is a measure of insulin resistance and can be calculated from the fasting insulin and fasting glucose levels. This measure should not be done in isolation, but it can be a useful adjunct in identifying patients with insulin resistance and directing treatment.

If there is evidence of diabetes or insulin resistance, consider treatment with metformin ± initiation of a low-carbohydrate diet.

Hypothyroidism. Consider screening for thyroid dysfunction with a thyroid-stimulating hormone level, if it has not been checked previously.

Renal abnormalities. When serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rate indicate chronic kidney disease, consider recommending a protein-restricted diet and adjust medications according to renal dosing protocols, as indicated.

Liver abnormalities, including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Monitor aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase for resolution of elevations as weight loss is achieved. If abnormalities persist, consider ordering a liver ultrasound. Traditionally, low-calorie diets have been prescribed to treat NAFLD, but evidence shows that low-carbohydrate diets can also be effective.⁹

Continue to: Hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels

Hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels. Obtain a lipid panel if one has not been completed within the past several years, as hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL can improve dramatically with specific dietary changes.⁷ Observe trends to assess for resolution of lipid abnormalities as weight loss is achieved.

Gout. Consider checking a uric acid level if you are thinking about recommending a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly in patients with a history of gout, as this may temporarily increase the risk of gout flare.

Hypovitaminosis D. If the patient’s vitamin D level is low, consider appropriate supplementation to support the patient’s overall health. While vitamin D deficiency is common in obesity, the role of supplementation in this population is unclear.

Cardiovascular disease. Consider ordering an electrocardiogram, particularly if you are thinking of prescribing medication therapy. Use caution with initiation of certain medications, such as phentermine or diethylproprion, in the presence of arrhythmias or active cardiovascular disease.

Obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep health is important to address, since obesity is one of the most significant risk factors for obstructive sleep apnea.¹⁰ If your patient is given a diagnosis of OSA following a sleep study, consider treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), although there are conflicting studies regarding the effects of CPAP therapy in OSA on weight.^11,12

Continue to: Provide guidance on lifestyle changes

Provide guidance on lifestyle changes

Addressing obesity with patients can be challenging in a busy primary care clinic, but it is imperative to helping patients achieve overall health. Counseling on nutrition and physical activity is an important part of this process.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition counseling. Focus on creating individualized plans through which patients can achieve success. Some guidance follows, but also beware of common pitfalls that we have observed in clinical practice which, when addressed, can enable significant weight loss (see “Common pitfalls inhibiting weight loss”).

Choose an approach that works for the patient. Commonly prescribed diets to address obesity include, but are not limited to, Atkins, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), Glycemic Index, Mediterranean, Ornish, Paleolithic, Zone, whole food plant-based, and ketogenic. We attempt to engage patients in making the decision on what food choices are appropriate for them considering their food availability, culture, and belief systems. For patients who prefer a vegan or vegetarian whole food diet, it is important to note that these diets are generally deficient in vitamin B12 and omega 3 fatty acids, so supplementing these should be considered.

We recommend that patients focus on eliminating sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, vitamin water, sweet tea, chocolate milk, and Frappuccinos.

Rather than focus on a specific diet, which may not be sustainable long term, encourage healthy eating habits. Low-­carbohydrate diets have been shown to promote greater weight loss compared to low-fat diets.^13,14 Low-calorie diets can also be quite effective in promoting short-term weight loss. In our clinic, when weight loss is the primary goal, patients are typically encouraged to focus on either calorie or carbohydrate restriction in the initial stages of weight loss.

Eliminate sugar and refined carbohydrates. While rigorous mortality data are not available, more recent trials have demonstrated significant improvements in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk markers, including weight reduction and diabetes reversal, when following a diet that markedly decreases carbohydrate intake, especially sugar and refined carbohydrates.^7,14-17

Continue to: We recommend that patients focus...

We recommend that patients focus on eliminating sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, vitamin water, sweet tea, chocolate milk, and Frappuccinos. We also recommend substantially limiting or eliminating fruit juices and fruit smoothies due to their high sugar content. For example, 8 oz of orange juice contains 26 g of carbohydrates, which is almost as much as 8 oz of soda.

Compared with eating whole fruit, consuming fruit juice has demonstrated a small amount of weight gain in young children and adults.^18,19 It also has shown a higher insulin response compared with eating the same amount of carbohydrates in whole fruit.²⁰ Better options to drink include water, unsweetened tea, and black coffee. Also, avoid ultra-processed carbohydrates from foods such as breads, cereals, and pastries, as they have similar effects on blood glucose when compared to sugar.²¹

Greatly restrict highly processed foods. The evidence suggests that the availability of processed food is associated with increasing obesity.²² Simple advice to offer your patients is to encourage them to shop the perimeter of the grocery store, where fresh produce, meat, and dairy products are primarily located, and avoid the inner aisles, which contain primarily processed foods. Choosing food items with 5 or fewer ingredients is a starting point when teaching patients to read labels.

Consider limiting saturated fats. In 1977, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that Americans eat no more than 30% of total energy intake from fat and less than 10% of total energy intake from saturated fat; however, no randomized controlled trials had been done that supported this recommendation and epidemiologic data supporting it were weak.²³

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines continue to recommend limiting total energy intake from saturated fats.²⁴ While there may be a small decrease in cardiovascular risk with a reduction of saturated fat intake and replacement with unsaturated fats, no overall mortality benefit has been demonstrated.^24,25 More research is needed in this area to guide patients in decisions regarding consumption of saturated fats and what types of unsaturated fats are best for their health.

Continue to: Eat only 3 meals per day

Eat only 3 meals per day, but aim for fewer than that. The prescription of fasting is a modality that can be used for weight loss and improved health. Fasting has been a prescribed healing practice for thousands of years.²⁶ It is a practice that virtually every major religion in the world embraces. Studies have demonstrated fasting to be safe and effective in the setting of obesity without significant comorbidities, and it may promote weight loss and metabolic health.^26-29

There are multiple types of intermittent fasting. A practical way for patients to start is by restricting the number of hours in which they eat or drink calorie-containing beverages to 8 hours per day. In our experience, this regimen is easier for most patients to follow than alternate-day or other longer fasts. While there has been caution in the prescription of intermittent fasting due to concerns about causing eating disorders, a recent small study did not demonstrate increased risk of eating disorders with daily intermittent fasting.³⁰

Participate in healthy exercise. Nonpharmacologic office-based strategies for treating obesity have generally focused on increasing exercise and decreasing caloric intake.³¹ While exercise has significant health benefits, including preventing weight regain, evidence does not support monotherapy with exercise as an effective long-term weight-loss strategy.³² There are no studies available that adequately support prescribing an exact dose of exercise.³³ Generally, less than 150 minutes of exercise per week is not effective and more than that does have a dose-related response.³³

Follow up to help patients stay on target

There is no ideal interval for follow-up visits. However, frequent visits—anywhere from weekly to monthly—in the initial stages of weight loss increase the patient’s sense of accountability and, in our experience, seem to be helpful.

Patients may also choose to track their progress by weighing themselves regularly. A small study published in the International Journal of Obesity found that patients who weighed themselves daily had greater and more sustained weight loss than those who didn’t.³⁴ But the decision of whether to weigh one’s self at home should be individualized for each patient.

CORRESPONDENCE
Wesley Eichorn, DO, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49008; [email protected]

In 2015-2016, almost 40% of adults and 18.5% of children ages 2 to 19 years in the United States met the definition for obesity—a chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that results in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.^1,2

Tremendous resources have been invested in research, policy development, and public education to try to prevent obesity and its related complications. Despite this, the obesity epidemic has worsened. Here, we explore how to evaluate and treat obese patients in a primary care setting based on the evidence and our experience seeing patients specifically for weight management in a family medicine residency teaching clinic. Pharmacotherapy and surgery, while often helpful, are outside the scope of this article.

It begins withan obesity-friendly office

Patients may have reservations about health care interactions specific to obesity, so it is important to invite them into a setting that facilitates trust and encourages collaboration. Actively engage patients with unhealthy weight by creating an environment where they feel comfortable. Offer wide chairs without armrests, which will easily accommodate patients of all sizes, and ensure that scales have a weight capacity > 400 lb. Communicate a message to patients, via waiting room materials and videos, that focuses on health rather than on weight or body mass index (BMI).

Understand the patient’s goals and challenges

Most (although not all) family physicians will see obese patients in the context of a visit for diabetes, hypertension, or another condition. However, we feel that having visits specifically to address weight in the initial stages of weight management is helpful. The focus of an initial visit should be getting to know how obesity has affected the patient and what his or her motive is in attempting to lose weight. Explore previous attempts at weight loss and establish what the patient’s highest weight has been, as this will impact weight-loss goals. For example, if a patient has weighed > 300 lb all her adult life, it will be extremely difficult to maintain a weight loss of 150 lb.

What else to ask about. Discuss stressors that may be causing increased food intake or poor food choices, including hunger, anger, loneliness, and sleep difficulties. Multidisciplinary care including a psychologist can aid in addressing these issues. Ask patients if they keep a food diary (and if not, recommend that they start), as food diaries are often helpful in elucidating eating and drinking patterns. Determine a patient’s current and past levels of physical activity, as this will guide the fitness goals you develop for him or her.

Screen for psychosocial disorders

As noted earlier, the physical component of obesity is commonly associated with mood disorders such as anxiety and depression.² This requires a multidisciplinary team effort to facilitate healing in the patient struggling with obesity.

Screening for depression and anxiety using standardized tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 is encouraged in patients who are overweight or obese. Positive screens should be addressed as part of the patient’s treatment plan, as untreated depression and anxiety can inhibit success with weight loss. Be mindful that many medications commonly used to treat these conditions can impair weight loss and even promote weight gain.

Continue to: Don't overlook binge-eating disorders

Don’t overlook binge-eating disorders. Screening specifically for binge-eating disorders is important, given the implications on treatment. The US Department of Veterans Affairs developed a single-item tool for this purpose, the VA Binge Eating Screener. The validated questionnaire asks, “On average, how often have you eaten extremely large amounts of food at one time and felt that your eating was out of control at that time?” Response options are: “Never,” “< 1 time/week,” “1 time/week,” “2-4 times/week,” and “5+ times/week.” A response of ≥ 2 times/week had a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 83.2% for binge-eating disorder.³

For patients who prefer a vegan or vegetarian whole food diet, it is important to note that these diets are generally deficient in vitamin B12 and omega 3 fatty acids, so supplementing these should be considered.

Patients with positive screens should undergo psychotherapy and consider pharmacotherapy with lisdexamfetamine as part of their treatment plan. Caution should be used if recommending intermittent fasting for someone with binge-eating disorder.

Evaluate for underlying causes and assess for comorbidities

Review the patient’s current medication list and history. Many medications can cause weight gain, and weight loss can often be achieved by deprescribing such medications. When feasible, prescribe an alternative medication with a more favorable weight profile. A previous article in The Journal of Family Practice addresses this in more depth.⁴

Laboratory and other testing

Laboratory analysis should primarily be focused on determining treatment alterations specific to underlying pathophysiology. Tests to consider ordering are outlined in the Table. Identification of underlying causes and/or comorbid conditions through such testing can guide medication changes, treatment choices, and diet recommendations.

Diabetes and insulin resistance. The American Diabetes Association recommends screening patients who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor for diabetes.⁵ This can be done by obtaining a fasting glucose level, hemoglobin A1C, or a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test.

Continue to: Since it is known that...

Since it is known that insulin resistance increases the risk for coronary heart disease⁶ and can be treated effectively,⁷ we recommend testing for insulin resistance in patients who do not already have impaired fasting glucose, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, or impaired glucose tolerance. The homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR)⁸ is a measure of insulin resistance and can be calculated from the fasting insulin and fasting glucose levels. This measure should not be done in isolation, but it can be a useful adjunct in identifying patients with insulin resistance and directing treatment.

If there is evidence of diabetes or insulin resistance, consider treatment with metformin ± initiation of a low-carbohydrate diet.

Hypothyroidism. Consider screening for thyroid dysfunction with a thyroid-stimulating hormone level, if it has not been checked previously.

Renal abnormalities. When serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rate indicate chronic kidney disease, consider recommending a protein-restricted diet and adjust medications according to renal dosing protocols, as indicated.

Liver abnormalities, including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Monitor aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase for resolution of elevations as weight loss is achieved. If abnormalities persist, consider ordering a liver ultrasound. Traditionally, low-calorie diets have been prescribed to treat NAFLD, but evidence shows that low-carbohydrate diets can also be effective.⁹

Continue to: Hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels

Hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels. Obtain a lipid panel if one has not been completed within the past several years, as hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL can improve dramatically with specific dietary changes.⁷ Observe trends to assess for resolution of lipid abnormalities as weight loss is achieved.

Gout. Consider checking a uric acid level if you are thinking about recommending a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly in patients with a history of gout, as this may temporarily increase the risk of gout flare.

Hypovitaminosis D. If the patient’s vitamin D level is low, consider appropriate supplementation to support the patient’s overall health. While vitamin D deficiency is common in obesity, the role of supplementation in this population is unclear.

Cardiovascular disease. Consider ordering an electrocardiogram, particularly if you are thinking of prescribing medication therapy. Use caution with initiation of certain medications, such as phentermine or diethylproprion, in the presence of arrhythmias or active cardiovascular disease.

Obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep health is important to address, since obesity is one of the most significant risk factors for obstructive sleep apnea.¹⁰ If your patient is given a diagnosis of OSA following a sleep study, consider treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), although there are conflicting studies regarding the effects of CPAP therapy in OSA on weight.^11,12

Continue to: Provide guidance on lifestyle changes

Provide guidance on lifestyle changes

Addressing obesity with patients can be challenging in a busy primary care clinic, but it is imperative to helping patients achieve overall health. Counseling on nutrition and physical activity is an important part of this process.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition counseling. Focus on creating individualized plans through which patients can achieve success. Some guidance follows, but also beware of common pitfalls that we have observed in clinical practice which, when addressed, can enable significant weight loss (see “Common pitfalls inhibiting weight loss”).

Choose an approach that works for the patient. Commonly prescribed diets to address obesity include, but are not limited to, Atkins, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), Glycemic Index, Mediterranean, Ornish, Paleolithic, Zone, whole food plant-based, and ketogenic. We attempt to engage patients in making the decision on what food choices are appropriate for them considering their food availability, culture, and belief systems. For patients who prefer a vegan or vegetarian whole food diet, it is important to note that these diets are generally deficient in vitamin B12 and omega 3 fatty acids, so supplementing these should be considered.

We recommend that patients focus on eliminating sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, vitamin water, sweet tea, chocolate milk, and Frappuccinos.

Rather than focus on a specific diet, which may not be sustainable long term, encourage healthy eating habits. Low-­carbohydrate diets have been shown to promote greater weight loss compared to low-fat diets.^13,14 Low-calorie diets can also be quite effective in promoting short-term weight loss. In our clinic, when weight loss is the primary goal, patients are typically encouraged to focus on either calorie or carbohydrate restriction in the initial stages of weight loss.

Eliminate sugar and refined carbohydrates. While rigorous mortality data are not available, more recent trials have demonstrated significant improvements in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk markers, including weight reduction and diabetes reversal, when following a diet that markedly decreases carbohydrate intake, especially sugar and refined carbohydrates.^7,14-17

Continue to: We recommend that patients focus...

We recommend that patients focus on eliminating sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, vitamin water, sweet tea, chocolate milk, and Frappuccinos. We also recommend substantially limiting or eliminating fruit juices and fruit smoothies due to their high sugar content. For example, 8 oz of orange juice contains 26 g of carbohydrates, which is almost as much as 8 oz of soda.

Compared with eating whole fruit, consuming fruit juice has demonstrated a small amount of weight gain in young children and adults.^18,19 It also has shown a higher insulin response compared with eating the same amount of carbohydrates in whole fruit.²⁰ Better options to drink include water, unsweetened tea, and black coffee. Also, avoid ultra-processed carbohydrates from foods such as breads, cereals, and pastries, as they have similar effects on blood glucose when compared to sugar.²¹

Greatly restrict highly processed foods. The evidence suggests that the availability of processed food is associated with increasing obesity.²² Simple advice to offer your patients is to encourage them to shop the perimeter of the grocery store, where fresh produce, meat, and dairy products are primarily located, and avoid the inner aisles, which contain primarily processed foods. Choosing food items with 5 or fewer ingredients is a starting point when teaching patients to read labels.

Consider limiting saturated fats. In 1977, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that Americans eat no more than 30% of total energy intake from fat and less than 10% of total energy intake from saturated fat; however, no randomized controlled trials had been done that supported this recommendation and epidemiologic data supporting it were weak.²³

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines continue to recommend limiting total energy intake from saturated fats.²⁴ While there may be a small decrease in cardiovascular risk with a reduction of saturated fat intake and replacement with unsaturated fats, no overall mortality benefit has been demonstrated.^24,25 More research is needed in this area to guide patients in decisions regarding consumption of saturated fats and what types of unsaturated fats are best for their health.

Continue to: Eat only 3 meals per day

Eat only 3 meals per day, but aim for fewer than that. The prescription of fasting is a modality that can be used for weight loss and improved health. Fasting has been a prescribed healing practice for thousands of years.²⁶ It is a practice that virtually every major religion in the world embraces. Studies have demonstrated fasting to be safe and effective in the setting of obesity without significant comorbidities, and it may promote weight loss and metabolic health.^26-29

There are multiple types of intermittent fasting. A practical way for patients to start is by restricting the number of hours in which they eat or drink calorie-containing beverages to 8 hours per day. In our experience, this regimen is easier for most patients to follow than alternate-day or other longer fasts. While there has been caution in the prescription of intermittent fasting due to concerns about causing eating disorders, a recent small study did not demonstrate increased risk of eating disorders with daily intermittent fasting.³⁰

Participate in healthy exercise. Nonpharmacologic office-based strategies for treating obesity have generally focused on increasing exercise and decreasing caloric intake.³¹ While exercise has significant health benefits, including preventing weight regain, evidence does not support monotherapy with exercise as an effective long-term weight-loss strategy.³² There are no studies available that adequately support prescribing an exact dose of exercise.³³ Generally, less than 150 minutes of exercise per week is not effective and more than that does have a dose-related response.³³

Follow up to help patients stay on target

There is no ideal interval for follow-up visits. However, frequent visits—anywhere from weekly to monthly—in the initial stages of weight loss increase the patient’s sense of accountability and, in our experience, seem to be helpful.

Patients may also choose to track their progress by weighing themselves regularly. A small study published in the International Journal of Obesity found that patients who weighed themselves daily had greater and more sustained weight loss than those who didn’t.³⁴ But the decision of whether to weigh one’s self at home should be individualized for each patient.

CORRESPONDENCE
Wesley Eichorn, DO, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49008; [email protected]

In 2015-2016, almost 40% of adults and 18.5% of children ages 2 to 19 years in the United States met the definition for obesity—a chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that results in adverse metabolic, biomechanical, and psychosocial health consequences.^1,2

Tremendous resources have been invested in research, policy development, and public education to try to prevent obesity and its related complications. Despite this, the obesity epidemic has worsened. Here, we explore how to evaluate and treat obese patients in a primary care setting based on the evidence and our experience seeing patients specifically for weight management in a family medicine residency teaching clinic. Pharmacotherapy and surgery, while often helpful, are outside the scope of this article.

It begins withan obesity-friendly office

Patients may have reservations about health care interactions specific to obesity, so it is important to invite them into a setting that facilitates trust and encourages collaboration. Actively engage patients with unhealthy weight by creating an environment where they feel comfortable. Offer wide chairs without armrests, which will easily accommodate patients of all sizes, and ensure that scales have a weight capacity > 400 lb. Communicate a message to patients, via waiting room materials and videos, that focuses on health rather than on weight or body mass index (BMI).

Understand the patient’s goals and challenges

Most (although not all) family physicians will see obese patients in the context of a visit for diabetes, hypertension, or another condition. However, we feel that having visits specifically to address weight in the initial stages of weight management is helpful. The focus of an initial visit should be getting to know how obesity has affected the patient and what his or her motive is in attempting to lose weight. Explore previous attempts at weight loss and establish what the patient’s highest weight has been, as this will impact weight-loss goals. For example, if a patient has weighed > 300 lb all her adult life, it will be extremely difficult to maintain a weight loss of 150 lb.

What else to ask about. Discuss stressors that may be causing increased food intake or poor food choices, including hunger, anger, loneliness, and sleep difficulties. Multidisciplinary care including a psychologist can aid in addressing these issues. Ask patients if they keep a food diary (and if not, recommend that they start), as food diaries are often helpful in elucidating eating and drinking patterns. Determine a patient’s current and past levels of physical activity, as this will guide the fitness goals you develop for him or her.

Screen for psychosocial disorders

As noted earlier, the physical component of obesity is commonly associated with mood disorders such as anxiety and depression.² This requires a multidisciplinary team effort to facilitate healing in the patient struggling with obesity.

Screening for depression and anxiety using standardized tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 is encouraged in patients who are overweight or obese. Positive screens should be addressed as part of the patient’s treatment plan, as untreated depression and anxiety can inhibit success with weight loss. Be mindful that many medications commonly used to treat these conditions can impair weight loss and even promote weight gain.

Continue to: Don't overlook binge-eating disorders

Don’t overlook binge-eating disorders. Screening specifically for binge-eating disorders is important, given the implications on treatment. The US Department of Veterans Affairs developed a single-item tool for this purpose, the VA Binge Eating Screener. The validated questionnaire asks, “On average, how often have you eaten extremely large amounts of food at one time and felt that your eating was out of control at that time?” Response options are: “Never,” “< 1 time/week,” “1 time/week,” “2-4 times/week,” and “5+ times/week.” A response of ≥ 2 times/week had a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity of 83.2% for binge-eating disorder.³

For patients who prefer a vegan or vegetarian whole food diet, it is important to note that these diets are generally deficient in vitamin B12 and omega 3 fatty acids, so supplementing these should be considered.

Patients with positive screens should undergo psychotherapy and consider pharmacotherapy with lisdexamfetamine as part of their treatment plan. Caution should be used if recommending intermittent fasting for someone with binge-eating disorder.

Evaluate for underlying causes and assess for comorbidities

Review the patient’s current medication list and history. Many medications can cause weight gain, and weight loss can often be achieved by deprescribing such medications. When feasible, prescribe an alternative medication with a more favorable weight profile. A previous article in The Journal of Family Practice addresses this in more depth.⁴

Laboratory and other testing

Laboratory analysis should primarily be focused on determining treatment alterations specific to underlying pathophysiology. Tests to consider ordering are outlined in the Table. Identification of underlying causes and/or comorbid conditions through such testing can guide medication changes, treatment choices, and diet recommendations.

Diabetes and insulin resistance. The American Diabetes Association recommends screening patients who are overweight or obese and have an additional risk factor for diabetes.⁵ This can be done by obtaining a fasting glucose level, hemoglobin A1C, or a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test.

Continue to: Since it is known that...

Since it is known that insulin resistance increases the risk for coronary heart disease⁶ and can be treated effectively,⁷ we recommend testing for insulin resistance in patients who do not already have impaired fasting glucose, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, or impaired glucose tolerance. The homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR)⁸ is a measure of insulin resistance and can be calculated from the fasting insulin and fasting glucose levels. This measure should not be done in isolation, but it can be a useful adjunct in identifying patients with insulin resistance and directing treatment.

If there is evidence of diabetes or insulin resistance, consider treatment with metformin ± initiation of a low-carbohydrate diet.

Hypothyroidism. Consider screening for thyroid dysfunction with a thyroid-stimulating hormone level, if it has not been checked previously.

Renal abnormalities. When serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rate indicate chronic kidney disease, consider recommending a protein-restricted diet and adjust medications according to renal dosing protocols, as indicated.

Liver abnormalities, including nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Monitor aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase for resolution of elevations as weight loss is achieved. If abnormalities persist, consider ordering a liver ultrasound. Traditionally, low-calorie diets have been prescribed to treat NAFLD, but evidence shows that low-carbohydrate diets can also be effective.⁹

Continue to: Hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels

Hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels. Obtain a lipid panel if one has not been completed within the past several years, as hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL can improve dramatically with specific dietary changes.⁷ Observe trends to assess for resolution of lipid abnormalities as weight loss is achieved.

Gout. Consider checking a uric acid level if you are thinking about recommending a low-carbohydrate diet, particularly in patients with a history of gout, as this may temporarily increase the risk of gout flare.

Hypovitaminosis D. If the patient’s vitamin D level is low, consider appropriate supplementation to support the patient’s overall health. While vitamin D deficiency is common in obesity, the role of supplementation in this population is unclear.

Cardiovascular disease. Consider ordering an electrocardiogram, particularly if you are thinking of prescribing medication therapy. Use caution with initiation of certain medications, such as phentermine or diethylproprion, in the presence of arrhythmias or active cardiovascular disease.

Obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep health is important to address, since obesity is one of the most significant risk factors for obstructive sleep apnea.¹⁰ If your patient is given a diagnosis of OSA following a sleep study, consider treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), although there are conflicting studies regarding the effects of CPAP therapy in OSA on weight.^11,12

Continue to: Provide guidance on lifestyle changes

Provide guidance on lifestyle changes

Addressing obesity with patients can be challenging in a busy primary care clinic, but it is imperative to helping patients achieve overall health. Counseling on nutrition and physical activity is an important part of this process.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition counseling. Focus on creating individualized plans through which patients can achieve success. Some guidance follows, but also beware of common pitfalls that we have observed in clinical practice which, when addressed, can enable significant weight loss (see “Common pitfalls inhibiting weight loss”).

Choose an approach that works for the patient. Commonly prescribed diets to address obesity include, but are not limited to, Atkins, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), Glycemic Index, Mediterranean, Ornish, Paleolithic, Zone, whole food plant-based, and ketogenic. We attempt to engage patients in making the decision on what food choices are appropriate for them considering their food availability, culture, and belief systems. For patients who prefer a vegan or vegetarian whole food diet, it is important to note that these diets are generally deficient in vitamin B12 and omega 3 fatty acids, so supplementing these should be considered.

We recommend that patients focus on eliminating sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, vitamin water, sweet tea, chocolate milk, and Frappuccinos.

Rather than focus on a specific diet, which may not be sustainable long term, encourage healthy eating habits. Low-­carbohydrate diets have been shown to promote greater weight loss compared to low-fat diets.^13,14 Low-calorie diets can also be quite effective in promoting short-term weight loss. In our clinic, when weight loss is the primary goal, patients are typically encouraged to focus on either calorie or carbohydrate restriction in the initial stages of weight loss.

Eliminate sugar and refined carbohydrates. While rigorous mortality data are not available, more recent trials have demonstrated significant improvements in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk markers, including weight reduction and diabetes reversal, when following a diet that markedly decreases carbohydrate intake, especially sugar and refined carbohydrates.^7,14-17

Continue to: We recommend that patients focus...

We recommend that patients focus on eliminating sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, vitamin water, sweet tea, chocolate milk, and Frappuccinos. We also recommend substantially limiting or eliminating fruit juices and fruit smoothies due to their high sugar content. For example, 8 oz of orange juice contains 26 g of carbohydrates, which is almost as much as 8 oz of soda.

Compared with eating whole fruit, consuming fruit juice has demonstrated a small amount of weight gain in young children and adults.^18,19 It also has shown a higher insulin response compared with eating the same amount of carbohydrates in whole fruit.²⁰ Better options to drink include water, unsweetened tea, and black coffee. Also, avoid ultra-processed carbohydrates from foods such as breads, cereals, and pastries, as they have similar effects on blood glucose when compared to sugar.²¹

Greatly restrict highly processed foods. The evidence suggests that the availability of processed food is associated with increasing obesity.²² Simple advice to offer your patients is to encourage them to shop the perimeter of the grocery store, where fresh produce, meat, and dairy products are primarily located, and avoid the inner aisles, which contain primarily processed foods. Choosing food items with 5 or fewer ingredients is a starting point when teaching patients to read labels.

Consider limiting saturated fats. In 1977, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that Americans eat no more than 30% of total energy intake from fat and less than 10% of total energy intake from saturated fat; however, no randomized controlled trials had been done that supported this recommendation and epidemiologic data supporting it were weak.²³

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines continue to recommend limiting total energy intake from saturated fats.²⁴ While there may be a small decrease in cardiovascular risk with a reduction of saturated fat intake and replacement with unsaturated fats, no overall mortality benefit has been demonstrated.^24,25 More research is needed in this area to guide patients in decisions regarding consumption of saturated fats and what types of unsaturated fats are best for their health.

Continue to: Eat only 3 meals per day

Eat only 3 meals per day, but aim for fewer than that. The prescription of fasting is a modality that can be used for weight loss and improved health. Fasting has been a prescribed healing practice for thousands of years.²⁶ It is a practice that virtually every major religion in the world embraces. Studies have demonstrated fasting to be safe and effective in the setting of obesity without significant comorbidities, and it may promote weight loss and metabolic health.^26-29

There are multiple types of intermittent fasting. A practical way for patients to start is by restricting the number of hours in which they eat or drink calorie-containing beverages to 8 hours per day. In our experience, this regimen is easier for most patients to follow than alternate-day or other longer fasts. While there has been caution in the prescription of intermittent fasting due to concerns about causing eating disorders, a recent small study did not demonstrate increased risk of eating disorders with daily intermittent fasting.³⁰

Participate in healthy exercise. Nonpharmacologic office-based strategies for treating obesity have generally focused on increasing exercise and decreasing caloric intake.³¹ While exercise has significant health benefits, including preventing weight regain, evidence does not support monotherapy with exercise as an effective long-term weight-loss strategy.³² There are no studies available that adequately support prescribing an exact dose of exercise.³³ Generally, less than 150 minutes of exercise per week is not effective and more than that does have a dose-related response.³³

Follow up to help patients stay on target

There is no ideal interval for follow-up visits. However, frequent visits—anywhere from weekly to monthly—in the initial stages of weight loss increase the patient’s sense of accountability and, in our experience, seem to be helpful.

Patients may also choose to track their progress by weighing themselves regularly. A small study published in the International Journal of Obesity found that patients who weighed themselves daily had greater and more sustained weight loss than those who didn’t.³⁴ But the decision of whether to weigh one’s self at home should be individualized for each patient.

CORRESPONDENCE
Wesley Eichorn, DO, 1000 Oakland Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49008; [email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning health care providers about the risk for potentially life-threatening infections associated with reprocessed endoscopes used for viewing the urinary tract, including cystoscopes, cystouerthroscopes, and ureteroscopes.

The federal agency is investigating more than 450 medical device reports, including three reports of deaths, received between Jan. 1, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2021, that describe post-procedure infections and other possible contamination problems associated with the reprocessing or cleaning and sterilization of the devices.

Although it’s early in the investigation, on the basis of available data, the FDA believes the risk for infection is low.

“We are very concerned about the three reported deaths – outside of the United States – associated with these infections, and we’re acting fast to communicate with health care providers and the public about what we know and what is still an emerging issue,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement released on April 1.

Manufacturer Olympus Corporation submitted three reports of deaths attributed to a bacterial infection. In two of those reports, the infection was linked to a forceps/irrigation plug, an accessory component used to control water flow and enable access to the working channel of the endoscope. Lab tests confirmed that the bacteria that caused the infection was present in the forceps/irrigation plug.

The FDA said the third victim’s death involved a cystoscope that did not pass a leak test. It is possible that the damaged device was a factor in the patient’s becoming infected.

It’s not known to what degree the reported infections or patient comorbidities played a part in the patient deaths. The FDA also hasn’t concluded that any specific manufacturer or brand of these devices is associated with higher risks than others.

The FDA released recommendations for processing and using these devices and emphasized the importance of following manufacturers’ labeling and reprocessing instructions to minimize the risk for infection.

In addition to following reprocessing instructions, the recommendations include not using a device that has failed a leak test, developing schedules for routine device inspection and maintenance, and discussing the potential benefits and risks associated with procedures involving reprocessed urologic endoscopes with patients.

The newly reported concerns with urologic endoscopes are similar to problems associated with reprocessed duodenoscopes. In 2018, the FDA warned about higher-than-expected contamination rates for reprocessed duodenoscopes. The FDA has taken action on infections related to the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. In 2015, it required postmarket safety studies and the updating of sampling and culturing protocols. In 2019, the FDA approved single-use duodenoscopes in an effort to curb infections.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning health care providers about the risk for potentially life-threatening infections associated with reprocessed endoscopes used for viewing the urinary tract, including cystoscopes, cystouerthroscopes, and ureteroscopes.

The federal agency is investigating more than 450 medical device reports, including three reports of deaths, received between Jan. 1, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2021, that describe post-procedure infections and other possible contamination problems associated with the reprocessing or cleaning and sterilization of the devices.

Although it’s early in the investigation, on the basis of available data, the FDA believes the risk for infection is low.

“We are very concerned about the three reported deaths – outside of the United States – associated with these infections, and we’re acting fast to communicate with health care providers and the public about what we know and what is still an emerging issue,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement released on April 1.

Manufacturer Olympus Corporation submitted three reports of deaths attributed to a bacterial infection. In two of those reports, the infection was linked to a forceps/irrigation plug, an accessory component used to control water flow and enable access to the working channel of the endoscope. Lab tests confirmed that the bacteria that caused the infection was present in the forceps/irrigation plug.

The FDA said the third victim’s death involved a cystoscope that did not pass a leak test. It is possible that the damaged device was a factor in the patient’s becoming infected.

It’s not known to what degree the reported infections or patient comorbidities played a part in the patient deaths. The FDA also hasn’t concluded that any specific manufacturer or brand of these devices is associated with higher risks than others.

The FDA released recommendations for processing and using these devices and emphasized the importance of following manufacturers’ labeling and reprocessing instructions to minimize the risk for infection.

In addition to following reprocessing instructions, the recommendations include not using a device that has failed a leak test, developing schedules for routine device inspection and maintenance, and discussing the potential benefits and risks associated with procedures involving reprocessed urologic endoscopes with patients.

The newly reported concerns with urologic endoscopes are similar to problems associated with reprocessed duodenoscopes. In 2018, the FDA warned about higher-than-expected contamination rates for reprocessed duodenoscopes. The FDA has taken action on infections related to the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. In 2015, it required postmarket safety studies and the updating of sampling and culturing protocols. In 2019, the FDA approved single-use duodenoscopes in an effort to curb infections.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is warning health care providers about the risk for potentially life-threatening infections associated with reprocessed endoscopes used for viewing the urinary tract, including cystoscopes, cystouerthroscopes, and ureteroscopes.

The federal agency is investigating more than 450 medical device reports, including three reports of deaths, received between Jan. 1, 2017, and Feb. 20, 2021, that describe post-procedure infections and other possible contamination problems associated with the reprocessing or cleaning and sterilization of the devices.

Although it’s early in the investigation, on the basis of available data, the FDA believes the risk for infection is low.

“We are very concerned about the three reported deaths – outside of the United States – associated with these infections, and we’re acting fast to communicate with health care providers and the public about what we know and what is still an emerging issue,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement released on April 1.

Manufacturer Olympus Corporation submitted three reports of deaths attributed to a bacterial infection. In two of those reports, the infection was linked to a forceps/irrigation plug, an accessory component used to control water flow and enable access to the working channel of the endoscope. Lab tests confirmed that the bacteria that caused the infection was present in the forceps/irrigation plug.

The FDA said the third victim’s death involved a cystoscope that did not pass a leak test. It is possible that the damaged device was a factor in the patient’s becoming infected.

It’s not known to what degree the reported infections or patient comorbidities played a part in the patient deaths. The FDA also hasn’t concluded that any specific manufacturer or brand of these devices is associated with higher risks than others.

The FDA released recommendations for processing and using these devices and emphasized the importance of following manufacturers’ labeling and reprocessing instructions to minimize the risk for infection.

In addition to following reprocessing instructions, the recommendations include not using a device that has failed a leak test, developing schedules for routine device inspection and maintenance, and discussing the potential benefits and risks associated with procedures involving reprocessed urologic endoscopes with patients.

The newly reported concerns with urologic endoscopes are similar to problems associated with reprocessed duodenoscopes. In 2018, the FDA warned about higher-than-expected contamination rates for reprocessed duodenoscopes. The FDA has taken action on infections related to the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. In 2015, it required postmarket safety studies and the updating of sampling and culturing protocols. In 2019, the FDA approved single-use duodenoscopes in an effort to curb infections.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib alone for the treatment of newly diagnosed advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive treatment with 1 of 3 regimens: lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle; lenvatinib 18 mg daily plus everolimus 5 mg once daily for each 21-day cycle; or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Patients were stratified according to geographic region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic risk group.

Setting and participants. A total of 1417 patients were screened, and 1069 patients underwent randomization between October 2016 and July 2019: 355 patients were randomized to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 were randomized to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 were randomized to the sunitinib alone group. The patients must have had a diagnosis of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component. All the patients need to have a Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, adequate renal function, and controlled blood pressure with or without antihypertensive medications.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) as evaluated by independent review committee using RECIST, version 1.1. Imaging was performed at the time of screening and every 8 weeks thereafter. Secondary endpoints were safety, overall survival (OS), and objective response rate as well as investigator-assessed PFS. Also, they assessed the duration of response. During the treatment period, the safety and adverse events were assessed up to 30 days from the last dose of the trial drug.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. More than 70% of enrolled participants were male. Approximately 60% of participants were MSKCC intermediate risk, 27% were favorable risk, and 9% were poor risk. Patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1% or more represented 30% of the population. The remainder had a PD-L1 combined positive score of <1% (30%) or such data were not available (38%). Liver metastases were present in 17% of patients at baseline in each group, and 70% of patients had a prior nephrectomy. The data cutoff occurred in August 2020 for PFS and the median follow-up for OS was 26.6 months. Around 40% of the participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 18.8% in the sunitinib group, and 31% in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group were still receiving trial treatment at data cutoff. The leading cause for discontinuing therapy was disease progression. Approximately 50% of patients in the lenvatinib/everolimus group and sunitinib group received subsequent checkpoint inhibitor therapy after progression.

The median PFS in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was significantly longer than in the sunitinib group, 23.9 months vs 9.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.49; P < 0.001). The median PFS was also significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group compared with sunitinib, 14.7 vs 9.2 months (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; P < 0.001). The PFS benefit favored the lenvatinib combination groups over sunitinib in all subgroups, including the MSKCC prognostic risk groups. The median OS was not reached with any treatment, with 79% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 66% of patients in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 70% in the sunitinib group still alive at 24 months. Survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with sunitinib (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = 0.005). The OS favored lenvatinib/pembrolizumab over sunitinib in the PD-L1 positive or negative groups. The median duration of response in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was 25.8 months compared to 16.6 months and 14.6 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus and sunitinib groups, respectively. Complete response rates were higher in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (16%) compared with lenvatinib/everolimus (9.8%) or sunitinib (4.2%). The median time to response was around 1.9 months in all 3 groups.

The most frequent adverse events seen in all groups were diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea. Hypothyroidism was seen more frequently in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (47%). Grade 3 adverse events were seen in approximately 80% of patients in all groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was hypertension in all 3 groups. The median time for discontinuing treatment due to side effects was 8.97 months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm, 5.49 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 4.57 months in the sunitinib group. In the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 15 patients had grade 5 adverse events; 11 participants had fatal events not related to disease progression. In the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, there were 22 patients with grade 5 events, with 10 fatal events not related to disease progression. In the sunitinib group, 11 patients had grade 5 events, and only 2 fatal events were not linked to disease progression.

Conclusion. The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly prolongs PFS and OS compared with sunitinib in patients with previously untreated and advanced ccRCC. The median OS has not yet been reached.

Commentary

The results of the current phase 3 CLEAR trial highlight the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment in advanced ccRCC. This trial adds to the rapidly growing body of literature supporting the notion that the combination of anti-PD-1 based therapy with either CTLA-4 antibodies or VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improves outcomes in previously untreated patients with advanced ccRCC. Previously presented data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), Checkmate-214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and Javelin Renal 101 (Avelumab plus axitinib) have also shown improved outcomes with combination therapy in the frontline setting.^1-4 While the landscape of therapeutic options in the frontline setting continues to grow, there remains lack of clarity as to how to tailor our therapeutic decisions for specific patient populations. The exception would be nivolumab and ipilimumab, which are currently indicated for IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk patients.

The combination of VEGFR TKI therapy and PD-1 antibodies provides rapid disease control, with a median time to response in the current study of 1.9 months, and, generally speaking, a low risk of progression in the first 6 months of therapy. While cross-trial comparisons are always problematic, the PFS reported in this study and others with VEGFR TKI and PD-1 antibody combinations is quite impressive and surpasses that noted in Checkmate 214.³ While the median OS survival has not yet been reached, the long duration of PFS and complete response rate of 16% in this study certainly make this an attractive frontline option for newly diagnosed patients with advanced ccRCC. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the survival benefit noted.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current data support the use VEGFR TKI and anti-PD1 therapy in the frontline setting. How to choose between such combination regimens or combination immunotherapy remains unclear, and further biomarker-based assessments are needed to help guide therapeutic decisions for our patients.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib alone for the treatment of newly diagnosed advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive treatment with 1 of 3 regimens: lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle; lenvatinib 18 mg daily plus everolimus 5 mg once daily for each 21-day cycle; or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Patients were stratified according to geographic region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic risk group.

Setting and participants. A total of 1417 patients were screened, and 1069 patients underwent randomization between October 2016 and July 2019: 355 patients were randomized to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 were randomized to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 were randomized to the sunitinib alone group. The patients must have had a diagnosis of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component. All the patients need to have a Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, adequate renal function, and controlled blood pressure with or without antihypertensive medications.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) as evaluated by independent review committee using RECIST, version 1.1. Imaging was performed at the time of screening and every 8 weeks thereafter. Secondary endpoints were safety, overall survival (OS), and objective response rate as well as investigator-assessed PFS. Also, they assessed the duration of response. During the treatment period, the safety and adverse events were assessed up to 30 days from the last dose of the trial drug.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. More than 70% of enrolled participants were male. Approximately 60% of participants were MSKCC intermediate risk, 27% were favorable risk, and 9% were poor risk. Patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1% or more represented 30% of the population. The remainder had a PD-L1 combined positive score of <1% (30%) or such data were not available (38%). Liver metastases were present in 17% of patients at baseline in each group, and 70% of patients had a prior nephrectomy. The data cutoff occurred in August 2020 for PFS and the median follow-up for OS was 26.6 months. Around 40% of the participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 18.8% in the sunitinib group, and 31% in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group were still receiving trial treatment at data cutoff. The leading cause for discontinuing therapy was disease progression. Approximately 50% of patients in the lenvatinib/everolimus group and sunitinib group received subsequent checkpoint inhibitor therapy after progression.

The median PFS in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was significantly longer than in the sunitinib group, 23.9 months vs 9.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.49; P < 0.001). The median PFS was also significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group compared with sunitinib, 14.7 vs 9.2 months (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; P < 0.001). The PFS benefit favored the lenvatinib combination groups over sunitinib in all subgroups, including the MSKCC prognostic risk groups. The median OS was not reached with any treatment, with 79% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 66% of patients in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 70% in the sunitinib group still alive at 24 months. Survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with sunitinib (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = 0.005). The OS favored lenvatinib/pembrolizumab over sunitinib in the PD-L1 positive or negative groups. The median duration of response in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was 25.8 months compared to 16.6 months and 14.6 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus and sunitinib groups, respectively. Complete response rates were higher in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (16%) compared with lenvatinib/everolimus (9.8%) or sunitinib (4.2%). The median time to response was around 1.9 months in all 3 groups.

The most frequent adverse events seen in all groups were diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea. Hypothyroidism was seen more frequently in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (47%). Grade 3 adverse events were seen in approximately 80% of patients in all groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was hypertension in all 3 groups. The median time for discontinuing treatment due to side effects was 8.97 months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm, 5.49 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 4.57 months in the sunitinib group. In the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 15 patients had grade 5 adverse events; 11 participants had fatal events not related to disease progression. In the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, there were 22 patients with grade 5 events, with 10 fatal events not related to disease progression. In the sunitinib group, 11 patients had grade 5 events, and only 2 fatal events were not linked to disease progression.

Conclusion. The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly prolongs PFS and OS compared with sunitinib in patients with previously untreated and advanced ccRCC. The median OS has not yet been reached.

Commentary

The results of the current phase 3 CLEAR trial highlight the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment in advanced ccRCC. This trial adds to the rapidly growing body of literature supporting the notion that the combination of anti-PD-1 based therapy with either CTLA-4 antibodies or VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improves outcomes in previously untreated patients with advanced ccRCC. Previously presented data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), Checkmate-214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and Javelin Renal 101 (Avelumab plus axitinib) have also shown improved outcomes with combination therapy in the frontline setting.^1-4 While the landscape of therapeutic options in the frontline setting continues to grow, there remains lack of clarity as to how to tailor our therapeutic decisions for specific patient populations. The exception would be nivolumab and ipilimumab, which are currently indicated for IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk patients.

The combination of VEGFR TKI therapy and PD-1 antibodies provides rapid disease control, with a median time to response in the current study of 1.9 months, and, generally speaking, a low risk of progression in the first 6 months of therapy. While cross-trial comparisons are always problematic, the PFS reported in this study and others with VEGFR TKI and PD-1 antibody combinations is quite impressive and surpasses that noted in Checkmate 214.³ While the median OS survival has not yet been reached, the long duration of PFS and complete response rate of 16% in this study certainly make this an attractive frontline option for newly diagnosed patients with advanced ccRCC. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the survival benefit noted.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current data support the use VEGFR TKI and anti-PD1 therapy in the frontline setting. How to choose between such combination regimens or combination immunotherapy remains unclear, and further biomarker-based assessments are needed to help guide therapeutic decisions for our patients.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in combination with everolimus or pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib alone for the treatment of newly diagnosed advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Design. Global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive treatment with 1 of 3 regimens: lenvatinib 20 mg daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle; lenvatinib 18 mg daily plus everolimus 5 mg once daily for each 21-day cycle; or sunitinib 50 mg daily for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Patients were stratified according to geographic region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic risk group.

Setting and participants. A total of 1417 patients were screened, and 1069 patients underwent randomization between October 2016 and July 2019: 355 patients were randomized to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 were randomized to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 were randomized to the sunitinib alone group. The patients must have had a diagnosis of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component. All the patients need to have a Karnofsky performance status of at least 70, adequate renal function, and controlled blood pressure with or without antihypertensive medications.

Main outcome measures. The primary endpoint assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) as evaluated by independent review committee using RECIST, version 1.1. Imaging was performed at the time of screening and every 8 weeks thereafter. Secondary endpoints were safety, overall survival (OS), and objective response rate as well as investigator-assessed PFS. Also, they assessed the duration of response. During the treatment period, the safety and adverse events were assessed up to 30 days from the last dose of the trial drug.

Main results. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. More than 70% of enrolled participants were male. Approximately 60% of participants were MSKCC intermediate risk, 27% were favorable risk, and 9% were poor risk. Patients with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 1% or more represented 30% of the population. The remainder had a PD-L1 combined positive score of <1% (30%) or such data were not available (38%). Liver metastases were present in 17% of patients at baseline in each group, and 70% of patients had a prior nephrectomy. The data cutoff occurred in August 2020 for PFS and the median follow-up for OS was 26.6 months. Around 40% of the participants in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 18.8% in the sunitinib group, and 31% in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group were still receiving trial treatment at data cutoff. The leading cause for discontinuing therapy was disease progression. Approximately 50% of patients in the lenvatinib/everolimus group and sunitinib group received subsequent checkpoint inhibitor therapy after progression.

The median PFS in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was significantly longer than in the sunitinib group, 23.9 months vs 9.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.32-0.49; P < 0.001). The median PFS was also significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group compared with sunitinib, 14.7 vs 9.2 months (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.80; P < 0.001). The PFS benefit favored the lenvatinib combination groups over sunitinib in all subgroups, including the MSKCC prognostic risk groups. The median OS was not reached with any treatment, with 79% of patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 66% of patients in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 70% in the sunitinib group still alive at 24 months. Survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with sunitinib (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88; P = 0.005). The OS favored lenvatinib/pembrolizumab over sunitinib in the PD-L1 positive or negative groups. The median duration of response in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group was 25.8 months compared to 16.6 months and 14.6 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus and sunitinib groups, respectively. Complete response rates were higher in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (16%) compared with lenvatinib/everolimus (9.8%) or sunitinib (4.2%). The median time to response was around 1.9 months in all 3 groups.

The most frequent adverse events seen in all groups were diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and nausea. Hypothyroidism was seen more frequently in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (47%). Grade 3 adverse events were seen in approximately 80% of patients in all groups. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event was hypertension in all 3 groups. The median time for discontinuing treatment due to side effects was 8.97 months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab arm, 5.49 months in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 4.57 months in the sunitinib group. In the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 15 patients had grade 5 adverse events; 11 participants had fatal events not related to disease progression. In the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, there were 22 patients with grade 5 events, with 10 fatal events not related to disease progression. In the sunitinib group, 11 patients had grade 5 events, and only 2 fatal events were not linked to disease progression.

Conclusion. The combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly prolongs PFS and OS compared with sunitinib in patients with previously untreated and advanced ccRCC. The median OS has not yet been reached.

Commentary

The results of the current phase 3 CLEAR trial highlight the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment in advanced ccRCC. This trial adds to the rapidly growing body of literature supporting the notion that the combination of anti-PD-1 based therapy with either CTLA-4 antibodies or VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improves outcomes in previously untreated patients with advanced ccRCC. Previously presented data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), Checkmate-214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), and Javelin Renal 101 (Avelumab plus axitinib) have also shown improved outcomes with combination therapy in the frontline setting.^1-4 While the landscape of therapeutic options in the frontline setting continues to grow, there remains lack of clarity as to how to tailor our therapeutic decisions for specific patient populations. The exception would be nivolumab and ipilimumab, which are currently indicated for IMDC intermediate- or poor-risk patients.

The combination of VEGFR TKI therapy and PD-1 antibodies provides rapid disease control, with a median time to response in the current study of 1.9 months, and, generally speaking, a low risk of progression in the first 6 months of therapy. While cross-trial comparisons are always problematic, the PFS reported in this study and others with VEGFR TKI and PD-1 antibody combinations is quite impressive and surpasses that noted in Checkmate 214.³ While the median OS survival has not yet been reached, the long duration of PFS and complete response rate of 16% in this study certainly make this an attractive frontline option for newly diagnosed patients with advanced ccRCC. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the survival benefit noted.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The current data support the use VEGFR TKI and anti-PD1 therapy in the frontline setting. How to choose between such combination regimens or combination immunotherapy remains unclear, and further biomarker-based assessments are needed to help guide therapeutic decisions for our patients.

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”

This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.

The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.

“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.

The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
 

First, ‘take blood pressure well’

The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”

First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.

Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”

The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.

In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.

In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.

Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
 

Second, target 120, properly measured

“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.

“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.

“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.

“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
 

Still need individual treatment

Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.

“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.

“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.

“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”

“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
 

ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused

“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.

“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”

Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.

“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
 

Public health implications

SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.

They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m² or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.

On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.

These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.

“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”

Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost one in four men and women diagnosed with kidney stones have osteoporosis or a history of fracture at the time of their diagnosis, yet fewer than 10% undergo bone mineral density (BMD) screening, a retrospective analysis of a Veterans Health Administration database shows.

kgerakis/Getty Images

Because the majority of those analyzed in the VA dataset were men, this means that middle-aged and older men with kidney stones have about the same risk for osteoporosis as postmenopausal women do, but BMD screening for such men is not currently recommended, the study notes.

“These findings suggest that the risk of osteoporosis or fractures in patients with kidney stone disease is not restricted to postmenopausal women but is also observed in men, a group that is less well recognized to be at risk,” Calyani Ganesan, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues say in their article, published online March 3 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“We hope this work raises awareness regarding the possibility of reduced bone strength in patients with kidney stones, [and] in our future work, we hope to identify which patients with kidney stones are at higher risk for osteoporosis or fracture to help guide bone density screening efforts by clinicians in this population,” Dr. Ganesan added in a statement.
 

VA dataset: Just 9.1% had DXA after kidney stone diagnosed

A total of 531,431 patients with a history of kidney stone disease were identified in the VA dataset. Of these, 23.6% either had been diagnosed with osteoporosis or had a history of fracture around the time of their kidney stone diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was a non-hip fracture, seen in 19% of patients, Dr. Ganesan and colleagues note, followed by osteoporosis in 6.1%, and hip fracture in 2.1%.

The mean age of the patients who concurrently had received a diagnosis of kidney stone disease and osteoporosis or had a fracture history was 64.2 years. In this cohort, more than 91% were men. The majority of the patients were White.

Among some 462,681 patients who had no prior history of either osteoporosis or fracture before their diagnosis of kidney stones, only 9.1% had undergone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening for BMD in the 5 years after their kidney stone diagnosis.

“Of those who completed DXA ... 20% were subsequently diagnosed with osteoporosis,” the authors note – 19% with non-hip fracture, and 2.4% with hip fracture.

Importantly, 85% of patients with kidney stone disease who were screened with DXA and were later diagnosed with osteoporosis were men.

“Given that almost 20% of patients in our cohort had a non-hip fracture, we contend that osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated in older men with kidney stone disease,” the authors stress.

Perform DXA screen in older men, even in absence of hypercalciuria

The authors also explain that the most common metabolic abnormality associated with kidney stones is high urine calcium excretion, or hypercalciuria.

“In a subset of patients with kidney stones, dysregulated calcium homeostasis may be present in which calcium is resorbed from bone and excreted into the urine, which can lead to osteoporosis and the formation of calcium stones,” they explain.

However, when they carried out a 24-hour assessment of urine calcium excretion on a small subset of patients with kidney stones, “we found no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion,” they point out.

Even when the authors excluded patients who were taking a thiazide diuretic – a class of drugs that decreases urine calcium excretion – there was no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion.

The investigators suggest it is possible that, in the majority of patients with kidney stones, the cause of hypercalciuria is more closely related to overabsorption of calcium from the gut, not to overresorption of calcium from the bone.

“Nonetheless, our findings indicate that patients with kidney stone disease could benefit from DXA screening even in the absence of hypercalciuria,” they state.

“And our findings provide support for wider use of bone mineral density screening in patients with kidney stone disease, including middle-aged and older men, for whom efforts to mitigate risks of osteoporosis and fractures are not commonly emphasized,” they reaffirm.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost one in four men and women diagnosed with kidney stones have osteoporosis or a history of fracture at the time of their diagnosis, yet fewer than 10% undergo bone mineral density (BMD) screening, a retrospective analysis of a Veterans Health Administration database shows.

kgerakis/Getty Images

Because the majority of those analyzed in the VA dataset were men, this means that middle-aged and older men with kidney stones have about the same risk for osteoporosis as postmenopausal women do, but BMD screening for such men is not currently recommended, the study notes.

“These findings suggest that the risk of osteoporosis or fractures in patients with kidney stone disease is not restricted to postmenopausal women but is also observed in men, a group that is less well recognized to be at risk,” Calyani Ganesan, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues say in their article, published online March 3 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“We hope this work raises awareness regarding the possibility of reduced bone strength in patients with kidney stones, [and] in our future work, we hope to identify which patients with kidney stones are at higher risk for osteoporosis or fracture to help guide bone density screening efforts by clinicians in this population,” Dr. Ganesan added in a statement.
 

VA dataset: Just 9.1% had DXA after kidney stone diagnosed

A total of 531,431 patients with a history of kidney stone disease were identified in the VA dataset. Of these, 23.6% either had been diagnosed with osteoporosis or had a history of fracture around the time of their kidney stone diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was a non-hip fracture, seen in 19% of patients, Dr. Ganesan and colleagues note, followed by osteoporosis in 6.1%, and hip fracture in 2.1%.

The mean age of the patients who concurrently had received a diagnosis of kidney stone disease and osteoporosis or had a fracture history was 64.2 years. In this cohort, more than 91% were men. The majority of the patients were White.

Among some 462,681 patients who had no prior history of either osteoporosis or fracture before their diagnosis of kidney stones, only 9.1% had undergone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening for BMD in the 5 years after their kidney stone diagnosis.

“Of those who completed DXA ... 20% were subsequently diagnosed with osteoporosis,” the authors note – 19% with non-hip fracture, and 2.4% with hip fracture.

Importantly, 85% of patients with kidney stone disease who were screened with DXA and were later diagnosed with osteoporosis were men.

“Given that almost 20% of patients in our cohort had a non-hip fracture, we contend that osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated in older men with kidney stone disease,” the authors stress.

Perform DXA screen in older men, even in absence of hypercalciuria

The authors also explain that the most common metabolic abnormality associated with kidney stones is high urine calcium excretion, or hypercalciuria.

“In a subset of patients with kidney stones, dysregulated calcium homeostasis may be present in which calcium is resorbed from bone and excreted into the urine, which can lead to osteoporosis and the formation of calcium stones,” they explain.

However, when they carried out a 24-hour assessment of urine calcium excretion on a small subset of patients with kidney stones, “we found no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion,” they point out.

Even when the authors excluded patients who were taking a thiazide diuretic – a class of drugs that decreases urine calcium excretion – there was no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion.

The investigators suggest it is possible that, in the majority of patients with kidney stones, the cause of hypercalciuria is more closely related to overabsorption of calcium from the gut, not to overresorption of calcium from the bone.

“Nonetheless, our findings indicate that patients with kidney stone disease could benefit from DXA screening even in the absence of hypercalciuria,” they state.

“And our findings provide support for wider use of bone mineral density screening in patients with kidney stone disease, including middle-aged and older men, for whom efforts to mitigate risks of osteoporosis and fractures are not commonly emphasized,” they reaffirm.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost one in four men and women diagnosed with kidney stones have osteoporosis or a history of fracture at the time of their diagnosis, yet fewer than 10% undergo bone mineral density (BMD) screening, a retrospective analysis of a Veterans Health Administration database shows.

kgerakis/Getty Images

Because the majority of those analyzed in the VA dataset were men, this means that middle-aged and older men with kidney stones have about the same risk for osteoporosis as postmenopausal women do, but BMD screening for such men is not currently recommended, the study notes.

“These findings suggest that the risk of osteoporosis or fractures in patients with kidney stone disease is not restricted to postmenopausal women but is also observed in men, a group that is less well recognized to be at risk,” Calyani Ganesan, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues say in their article, published online March 3 in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“We hope this work raises awareness regarding the possibility of reduced bone strength in patients with kidney stones, [and] in our future work, we hope to identify which patients with kidney stones are at higher risk for osteoporosis or fracture to help guide bone density screening efforts by clinicians in this population,” Dr. Ganesan added in a statement.
 

VA dataset: Just 9.1% had DXA after kidney stone diagnosed

A total of 531,431 patients with a history of kidney stone disease were identified in the VA dataset. Of these, 23.6% either had been diagnosed with osteoporosis or had a history of fracture around the time of their kidney stone diagnosis. The most common diagnosis was a non-hip fracture, seen in 19% of patients, Dr. Ganesan and colleagues note, followed by osteoporosis in 6.1%, and hip fracture in 2.1%.

The mean age of the patients who concurrently had received a diagnosis of kidney stone disease and osteoporosis or had a fracture history was 64.2 years. In this cohort, more than 91% were men. The majority of the patients were White.

Among some 462,681 patients who had no prior history of either osteoporosis or fracture before their diagnosis of kidney stones, only 9.1% had undergone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) screening for BMD in the 5 years after their kidney stone diagnosis.

“Of those who completed DXA ... 20% were subsequently diagnosed with osteoporosis,” the authors note – 19% with non-hip fracture, and 2.4% with hip fracture.

Importantly, 85% of patients with kidney stone disease who were screened with DXA and were later diagnosed with osteoporosis were men.

“Given that almost 20% of patients in our cohort had a non-hip fracture, we contend that osteoporosis is underdiagnosed and undertreated in older men with kidney stone disease,” the authors stress.

Perform DXA screen in older men, even in absence of hypercalciuria

The authors also explain that the most common metabolic abnormality associated with kidney stones is high urine calcium excretion, or hypercalciuria.

“In a subset of patients with kidney stones, dysregulated calcium homeostasis may be present in which calcium is resorbed from bone and excreted into the urine, which can lead to osteoporosis and the formation of calcium stones,” they explain.

However, when they carried out a 24-hour assessment of urine calcium excretion on a small subset of patients with kidney stones, “we found no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion,” they point out.

Even when the authors excluded patients who were taking a thiazide diuretic – a class of drugs that decreases urine calcium excretion – there was no correlation between osteoporosis and the level of 24-hour urine calcium excretion.

The investigators suggest it is possible that, in the majority of patients with kidney stones, the cause of hypercalciuria is more closely related to overabsorption of calcium from the gut, not to overresorption of calcium from the bone.

“Nonetheless, our findings indicate that patients with kidney stone disease could benefit from DXA screening even in the absence of hypercalciuria,” they state.

“And our findings provide support for wider use of bone mineral density screening in patients with kidney stone disease, including middle-aged and older men, for whom efforts to mitigate risks of osteoporosis and fractures are not commonly emphasized,” they reaffirm.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.