
New poll question to jump-start 2010.

Check out the latest poll question on the right. For those renal fellows working on Christmas Eve/Christmas Day: may your pager be silent for as long as possible! 

Question: Who is the most important medical subspecialist for a patient with CKD to have regular contact with? Is it the nephrologist? A case could be made, relying purely on mortality statistics, that it's actually the cardiologist. CKD/ESRD leads to a wide range of cardiovascular complications. A quick review:
The study of AKI/ATN has relied heavily on one particular animal model: the warm ischemia-reflow model (often referred to as "ischemia-reperfusion injury"), in which one of the renal arteries is transiently ligated off for a set period of time while body temperature is maintained, then opened up and allowed to reperfuse the kidney. A recent review in Kidney International by Heyman et al addresses some of the limitations of this model, mostly in terms of differences between the mouse model of ischemia-reperfusion and the typical human AKI/ATN we experience clinically.
This week's RFN Poll question is a fun one: let's assume Obama's stimulus package includes in its budget funding for a "Mount Rushmore of Nephrology" to be built. This gigantic statue will feature the faces of 4 prominent nephrologists etched into the rock face of a majestic mountain, preferably at one of the national parks in the Western United States. Of all the prominent nephrologists, which four would you choose as being the most influential in the field? Choose from the list of historic figures listed, and feel free to include "write-in votes" under the "comments" section if your favorite nephrologist is not listed. The list I made is admittedly biased towards physicians who have been practicing recently enough that the subspecialty has actually been in existence (e.g., not including folks like Hippocrates), and conversely I tended not to include the current heavy hitters of Nephrology, reasoning that the jury is still out on these folks. Realize that this is for fun, and I'm sure I've made several oversights. 

As acute rejection rates continue to fall, causes of late allograft loss, such as transplant glomerulopathy (TG), become increasingly important. TG should spring to mind when you encounter a renal transplant recipient who develops heavy proteinuria and progressive allograft failure, usually late post-transplant. The clinical presentation overlaps with that of chronic allograft nephropathy, although proteinuria tends to be greater in TG and patients are likely to have a history of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies. The pathogenesis is believed to relate to the presence of these donor-specific antibodies, which are often often anti-HLA Class II. These may wax and wane in concentration and, as a result, may not be detected on a single assay but repeat testing is usually successful. C4d staining is typically negative.
Various immunosupressive regimens have been tried, but none are known to be effective. Progressive graft failure and return to dialysis is the usual outcome. Finally, the increasing use of protocol biopsy informs us that ultrastructural changes that predate the TG lesion develop within the first months post-transplant and in apparently well-functioning kidneys.
The first order of business for today's Renal Fellow Network is to welcome another regular contributor to the mix: nephrology fellow Albert Lam, of Brigham & Women's Hospital. Fresh off the Nephrology boards, Albert will be periodically posting his renal pearls of wisdom for the benefit of renal fellows everywhere.
While there are a number of conditions which can cause the combination of hypokalemia and metabolic alkalosis there are a limited number of disease processes which lead to hypokalemia, metabolic alkalosis, AND hypertension. In order to have hypertension in this setting, the pathological disease process must involve increased sodium (and water) reabsorption which leads to volume expansion and elevated blood pressure. The list of these diseases includes:
A very interesting article in this month's JASN by Herlitz et al describes a cohort of 10 bodybuilders with chronic kidney disease, making a compelling case that anabolic steroid use is an underrecognized cause of secondary FSGS. The paper is strengthened by the fact that nine of the patients underwent renal biopsy documenting surprisingly aggressive forms of FSGS in many of these patients, including some with the "collapsing" variant of FSGS and others with surprisingly high degrees of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy which are not characteristially seen with secondary FSGS. Perhaps even more convincingly for providing a link between bodybuilding and secondary FSGS, the authors describe a patient whose serum creatinine and proteinuria IMPROVE once the patient's intensive steroid/exercise regimen stops, then gets worse when he returns to this regimen against the advice of his physicians.
The relevant trials to cite here are the DRIVE and DRIVE-II trials, in which anemic dialysis patients with an elevated serum ferritin (between 500-1220 ng/ml) and low transferrin saturation (less than 25%) were randomized to receive either a course of iv iron or not. After 6 weeks, individuals in the iron group were found to have greater hemoglobin levels than the control group, with no obvious differences in complications between the two groups. While this result would seemingly indicate that "giving a course of iv iron" would be the correct choice, there are still some reasonable doubters out there. For instance, this CJASN editorial by Drs. Spiegel and Chertow rationally point out that "the long-term safety of unbridled IV iron administration has never been established." Although we may find it distasteful as physicians wanted to do something to help our patient correct their anemia, I think a compelling case could also be made for the first answer suggested in the poll--"continue current anemia management."
Hypovitaminosis D is implicated in a wide variety of disease states, including insulin resistance and diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease. A new new study in JASN suggests it may also influence the development of de-novo renal disease.
I've done a post on renal-relevant HIV drugs previously, but I just heard an interesting case of tenofovir-induced renal failure at our Renal Grand Rounds and thought I'd mention a few interesting tidbits from the presentation.
write notes in the chart day after day? Why does the chart even exist? In my mind, the main function of the medical chart (and progress notes) is communication: charting allows physicians (and other members of the health care team) to effectively communicate with one another when face-to-face communication is not possible. In recent years, however, it seems as if charting has taken on a different primary function: that of a medicolegal document. Not only does the medical chart serve as the official log for documenting what was and wasn't done correctly (in the event of a lawsuit), but it also serves an important function in billing--in order for a physician to get reimbursed for a particular service, he or she must formally document that service, typically by using key words or phrases, within the written chart. Failure to do so correctly can result not only in a failure to get paid hard-earned money, but can even result in allegations of billing fraud.
Why do some dialysis patients require so much more Epogen than others? Some patients manage to hit their targets with relatively low doses, and may even require "holding" EPO injections to avoid the upper hemoglobin range where excess thromboembolic events occur; other patients struggle to achieve a Hgb greater than 10 despite massive doses of EPO and seemingly adequate iron stores. The variables are manifold, but one common assertion is that individuals with a high degree of chronic inflammation tend to be the ones with the greatest resistance to EPO.
A promising new class of oral hypoglycemic agents for type 2 diabetes, the SGLT inhibitors, are on the horizon. As they work on the kidney, and potentially have renal side effects, it may be helpful to review them.
Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is one of the potential neurologic complications associated with CKD or ESRD, though it can also occur independently of kidney dysfunction, with some cases of familial transmission documented (though no gene has yet to be identified). The 2003 NIH criteria for the diagnosis of RLS are the following:
There is a good review article in this month's NEJM entitled "Use of Diuretics in Patients with Hypertension" by Ernst and Moser which focuses predominantly on the thiazide class of diuretics. The thiazides are considered a FUNCTIONAL rather than a STRUCTURAL class of medications--that is, not all compounds considered thiazides have the same chemical backbone, but rather they are classified as such based on their common ability to inhibit the sodium-chloride electroneutral transporter in the distal convoluted tubule. The NEJM article breaks down thiazide diuretics into "thiazide-type" diuretics (which are structurally similar, containing a benzothiadiazine group--these include HCTZ and chlorothiazide, for instance) and the "thiazide-like" diuretics (which do not have the benzothiadiazine group--these include chlorthalidone, metolazone, and indapamide).
New poll on acute interstitial nephritis is on the right...one of the real "gray areas" in nephrology these days.
In my experience, it’s unusual to perform a transplant nephrectomy in a patient who has returned to dialysis in the absence of a ‘hard’ indication such as macroscopic hematuria or severe symptoms suggestive of rejection or infarction. There have been several occasions where I’ve considered transplant nephrectomy for failure to thrive or refractory anemia, but persuading a surgeon that this is necessary can be a challenge. If you’ve ever been in a similar situation, this paper may interest you. The authors examined all transplant recipients who returned to dialysis over a ten-year period, using the US Renal Data System. This amounted to approx 11,000 people, a third of whom underwent allograft nephrectomy. They found allograft nephrectomy to be independently associated with improved survival; specifically, there was a 32% lower relative risk for all-cause death after adjusting for many factors, including socioeconomic status, comorbidity, donor characteristics and identifiable conditions associated with requirement for allograft nephrectomy. The authors also excluded patients whose transplant lasted less than 3 months, as they would been likely to have an absolute indication for nephrectomy.
Being a retrospective, observational study, one needs to take the results with a pinch of salt, given the possibility of residual confounding and treatment selection bias. Also, there were some important differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups, e.g. patients who received nephrectomy were more likely to be younger, have a higher serum creatinine concentration and a higher serum albumin, suggesting they were better nourished.
This topic strikes me as a relatively straightforward subject for a randomized controlled trial. As it stands, these observations would embolden me to push a little harder for a transplant nephrectomy in someone with a ‘soft’ indication, in the knowledge that it does not appear harmful, and may in fact reduce mortality. And in the dialysis population, that’s no mean feat.
One of the hallmarks of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is hypertension. True, most patients with advanced kidney disease get hypertension anyways--but often the degree of hypertension in ADPKD patients seems to be especially high. Is there something about the function of the polycystin proteins which explains the high blood pressure?
Very cool project: The Nephrology Oral History Project. On their homepage you can access interviews with 14 different nephrologists who practiced during the early days of dialysis, as early as the 1950s and 1960s. It's well-organized in that each interview is broken down into labeled snippets, so you can only listen to the topics that interest you the most.
I saw an interesting case yesterday. A 71 year old male, CKD III with a syndrome suggestive of chronic tubulointerstitial disease (U/A trace proteinuria only, disproportionate anemia, mild cortical thinning on ultrasound, normal-appearing vasculature on ultrasound). He had longstanding, intermittent flank pain which began in his 50's, ascribed to nephrolithiasis, although no stone was ever seen. Anyway, after some probing, he admitted to taking a drug called Vanquish regularly (i.e. daily for over 20 years). I had to look it up, but it turns out to be a compound analgesic (acetaminophen, aspirin and caffeine). I was surprised, as I thought these compounds were off the market, as they are in Europe. So beware, analgesic nephropathy is alive and well in 2009!

Another day, another negative study… this is getting painful! The large, randomized ASTRAL trial comparing renal revascularization to medical therapy found no benefit, and substantial increased risk, in the interventional arm.
806 patients with atherosclerotic reno-vascular disease were randomized to undergo revascularization in addition to receiving medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. After 34 months of follow-up, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of renal events, major cardiovascular events, or death. There were some marginal positive outcomes in the intervention group, including better renal function (p = 0.06) and statistically significant reduction in blood pressure medications. However, 23 patients in the revascularization arm experienced serious complications, including 2 deaths and 3 amputations.
ASTRAL has been criticized on a few fronts. First, the trial design is based on the “principle of equipoise”. Essentially, the investigators only enrolled patients in whom they were uncertain as to whether they would derive clinical benefit from revascularization. As such, many patients enrolled in the trial had lesions of dubious clinical significance, as more high-risk patients would not have been randomized. As an example, 40% of those enrolled had less than 70% stenosis, and some patients with stenoses as low as 60% were included.
Personally, I feel a bit sorry for the authors here. They set out to answer the specific question of what to do with the incidentally discovered, moderate-grade renal artery lesion in a CKD patient, and are then criticized for designing a trial that excludes patients in whom intervention is very likely to benefit. Critics of the trial claim that many of the lesions chosen for intervention were of unclear clinical significance, but I believe that was exactly the point. It’s not as if the management approach to such lesions has been firmly established. The bottom line with intervention in renal arterial disease is that we are doing a poor job in identifying the right kidney in the right patient, and there is a lot more work to do. ASTRAL is step in the right direction.
Antibodies are comprised of the structure noted on the left: they have two immunoglobulin heavy chains (in blue) and two immunoglobulin light chains (in green), covalently linked with one another via disulfide bonds (in red). The light chains can be one of two types, either kappa or lambda; each individual B-cell (which synthesize and secrete clonal immunoglobulin) expresses either kappa or lambda, but not both, for the entire duration of its lifetime.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.