Circulating markers of bone turnover

Renal osteodystrophy is a feature of chronic kidney disease (CKD), with increasing prevalence as CKD progresses. This bone disease is responsible for major morbidity, including fractures, and a deterioration in the quality of life and its sequelae. Circulating biomarkers of renal osteodystrophy typically indicate bone turnover, but not other features of bone, like bone volume, mineralization, quality or strength. Bone turnover can be considered to be primarily a reflection of bone cell activity, in particular that of osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Since current treatments for bone disease usually target cellular activity, biomarkers are considered to be able to contribute to the decision-making for treatment and its follow-up. In CKD, one has to consider the impact of a diminished clearance of biomarkers or their altered metabolism, both potentially limiting its clinical use. Here, several aspects of the most frequently used biomarkers of bone turnover are reviewed, with an emphasis on the specific situation represented by CKD. This review is based on the overview lecture at the symposium held in Amsterdam, September 23, 2016: "The Bone In CKD", organized by the CKD-MBD working group of ERA-EDTA

Is chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder (CKD-MBD) really a syndrome?

The concept of chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder (CKD-MBD) does not appear to fulfil the requirements for a syndrome at first glance, but its definition has brought some clear-cut benefits for clinicians and patients, including wider and more complex diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to the management of this challenging set of issues. Admittedly, not all components of CKD-MBD are present in all patients at all times, but these are highly interrelated, involving mineral and bone laboratory abnormalities, clinical and histological bone disease and finally, cardiovascular disease. The presence of typical biological bone ossification processes in an ectopic anatomical location in CKD has helped to define the existence of an unprecedented bone-vascular relationship, extending its interest even to other medical specialities. For now, we believe that CKD-MBD does not reach full criteria to be defined as a syndrome. However, this novel concept has clearly influenced current clinical guidelines. The National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF/KDOQI\u2122) guidelines in 2003 for instance recommended that calcium-based phosphate binders should be avoided to treat hyperphosphataemia in the presence of cardiovascular calcifications. In 2009, the KDIGO and other guidelines reinforced and extended this recommendation by stating that it is reasonable to choose oral phosphate binder therapy by taking into consideration other components of CKD-MBD. Similarly, it is also considered reasonable to use information on vascular/valvular calcification to guide the management of CKD-MBD. Our current assumption as a working group 'CKD-MBD' is that CKD-MBD has the potential to be defined a true syndrome, such as a constellation of concurrent signs and symptoms that suggest a common underlying mechanism for these components as opposed to the term disease. The term 'syndrome' also implies that in any patient at risk due to the presence of one or a few components of the entire syndrome, the screening for additional components is highly recommended. However, it has not currently been demonstrated that there is an additive predictive value, which can be derived from identifying individual components. Despite all we have learned about this putative syndrome, we have been left with only a hypothetical framework about how to treat patients. So while we agree that the concept of CKD-MBD has influenced, and continues to influence, our current clinical hypotheses, definitive proof of a benefit of interventions in CKD-MBD is still lacking and a global-multiple therapeutic approach to treat simultaneously several components of CKD-MBD should be tested by well-designed new randomized controlled trials

Citrate anticoagulation versus systemic heparinisation in continuous venovenous hemofiltration in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: A multi-center randomized clinical trial

Introduction: Because of ongoing controversy, renal and vital outcomes are compared between systemically administered unfractionated heparin and regional anticoagulation with citrate-buffered replacement solution in predilution mode, during continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI).Methods: In this multi-center randomized controlled trial, patients admitted to the intensive care unit requiring CVVH and meeting inclusion criteria, were randomly assigned to citrate or heparin. Primary endpoints were mortality and renal outcome in intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints were safety and efficacy. Safety was defined as absence of any adverse event necessitating discontinuation of the assigned anticoagulant. For efficacy, among other parameters, survival times of the first hemofilter were studied.Results: Of the 139 patients enrolled, 66 were randomized to citrate and 73 to heparin. Mortality rates at 28 and 90 days did not differ between groups: 22/66 (33%) of citrate-treated patients died versus 25/72 (35%) of heparin-treated patients at 28 days, and 27/65 (42%) of citrate-treated patients died versus 29/69 (42%) of heparin-treated patients at 90 days (P = 1.00 for both). Renal outcome, i.e. independency of renal replacement therapy 28 days after initiation of CVVH in surviving patients, did not differ between groups: 29/43 (67%) in the citrate-treated patients versus 33/47 (70%) in heparin-treated patients (P = 0.82). Heparin was discontinued in 24/73 (33%) of patients whereas citrate was discontinued in 5/66 (8%) of patients (P < 0.001). Filter survival times were superior for citrate (median 46 versus 32 hour

Serum magnesium and sudden death in European hemodialysis patients

Despite suggestions that higher serum magnesium (Mg) levels are associated with improved outcome, the association with mortality in European hemodialysis (HD) patients has only scarcely been investigated. Furthermore, data on the association between serum Mg and sudden death in this patient group is limited. Therefore, we evaluated Mg in a posthoc analysis using pooled data from the CONvective TRAnsport STudy (CONTRAST, NCT00205556), a randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the survival risk in dialysis patients on hemodiafiltration (HDF) compared to HD with a mean follow-up of 3.1 years. Serum Mg was measured at baseline and 6, 12, 24 and 36 months thereafter. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for confounders using inverse probability weighting, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of baseline serum Mg on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality and sudden death. A generalized linear mixed model was used to investigate Mg levels over time. Out of 714 randomized patients, a representative subset of 365 (51%) were analyzed in the present study. For every increase in baseline serum Mg of 0.1 mmol/L, the HR for all-cause mortality was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77-94), the HR for cardiovascular mortality 0.73 (95% CI 0.62-0.85) and for sudden death 0.76 (95% CI 0.62-0.93). These findings did not alter after extensive correction for potential confounders, including treatment modality. Importantly, no interaction was found between serum phosphate and serum Mg. Baseline serum Mg was not related to non-cardiovascular mortality. Mg decreased slightly but statistically significant over time (Ä -0.011 mmol/L/year, 95% CI -0.017 to -0.009, p = 0.03). In short, serum Mg has a strong, independent association with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and sudden death in European HD patients. Serum Mg levels decrease slightly over time

Recovery of dialysis patients with COVID-19 : health outcomes 3 months after diagnosis in ERACODA

Background. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related short-term mortality is high in dialysis patients, but longer-term outcomes are largely unknown. We therefore assessed patient recovery in a large cohort of dialysis patients 3 months after their COVID-19 diagnosis. Methods. We analyzed data on dialysis patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from 1 February 2020 to 31 March 2021 from the European Renal Association COVID-19 Database (ERACODA). The outcomes studied were patient survival, residence and functional and mental health status (estimated by their treating physician) 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. Complete follow-up data were available for 854 surviving patients. Patient characteristics associated with recovery were analyzed using logistic regression. Results. In 2449 hemodialysis patients (mean ± SD age 67.5 ± 14.4 years, 62% male), survival probabilities at 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were 90% for nonhospitalized patients (n = 1087), 73% for patients admitted to the hospital but not to an intensive care unit (ICU) (n = 1165) and 40% for those admitted to an ICU (n = 197). Patient survival hardly decreased between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. At 3 months, 87% functioned at their pre-existent functional and 94% at their pre-existent mental level. Only few of the surviving patients were still admitted to the hospital (0.8-6.3%) or a nursing home (∼5%). A higher age and frailty score at presentation and ICU admission were associated with worse functional outcome. Conclusions. Mortality between 28 days and 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis was low and the majority of patients who survived COVID-19 recovered to their pre-existent functional and mental health level at 3 months after diagnosis

Managing disorders of bone and mineral metabolism in chronic kidney disease

Wee, P.M. ter [Promotor