Evaluating the effect of fructose and glucose ingestion on arterial stiffness and the renin angiotensin system in healthy humans

Sugar, particularly fructose, consumption has increased exponentially and has been shown to adversely affect the kidney and cardiovascular systems. Animal studies suggest a role for the vascular renin angiotensin system (RAS) in response to fructose intake, activation of which is deleterious to cardiovascular outcomes, though the mechanism remains elusive in humans. A randomized, blinded, two-period crossover study will be performed to determine the effect of fructose ingestion on arterial stiffness in 30 healthy, normotensive men and women adults. Subjects will be studied in high-salt balance to ensure maximum RAS suppression. Arterial stiffness, expressed as pulse wave velocity and aortic augmentation index, will be measured by tonometry at baseline and in response to 60min of graded Angiotensin II infusion, an index of RAS activity. Participants will then be randomized to either a 2 week period of daily ingestion of 200g fructose or glucose and will undergo an identical study day to measure arterial stiffness. After a minimum 1 week washout period, subjects will then cross over to the other treatment for the second study period after which time they will undergo a third identical study day. Six subjects have been recruited and three have completed the study to date. Due to the blinded nature of the study, no preliminary data is available. Ingestion of fructose is expected to increase baseline arterial stiffness and result in a blunted arterial stiffness response to Angiotensin II infusion compared to glucose ingestion, implying a more activated RAS. This will suggest that the increased fructose-associated cardiorenal risk may be mediated, in part, by changes in vascular RAS activity

Effectiveness of Multifaceted Care Approach on Adverse Clinical Outcomes in Nondiabetic CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The risk of major adverse events associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) could potentially be reduced with effective medical interventions. The impact of multifaceted interventions as compared with usual care in patients with nondiabetic CKD is unclear. We performed a systematic review to analyze the impact of multifaceted interventions on reducing the risk of major adverse events in this population. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases for medical literature published up to November 2016. Published original studies and abstracts were reviewed that reported on adult patients in a community or specialty care setting, with 2 or more CKD risk factors, treated with a combination of more than 2 interventions. We included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews. Studies focused on diabetic patients were excluded. The intervention was defined as a treatment with a combination of 2 or more interventions compared with the usual care. The outcomes were defined as a reduction in the risk of adverse clinical outcomes (renal replacement therapy, all-cause hospitalizations, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events) as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were optimal risk factor control (attaining guideline concordant blood pressure, reduction of proteinuria, smoking cessation). Results: Five of the 5846 unique citations from our initial literature search met our study criteria. All identified studies reported on patients with CKD and their management. In comparison with usual care, multifaceted interventions tended to reduce all-cause mortality (risk ratio: 0.81, 95% confidence interval: 0.63–1.03) and were associated with a lower risk of progression to kidney failure requiring dialysis (risk ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval: 0.35–0.94). Multifaceted interventions were not associated with reducing risk of all-cause hospitalizations (risk ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.71–1.23) or improved blood pressure control (mean difference: −0.48, range: −2.5 to 1.55 mm Hg). Discussion: Multifaceted interventions targeting multiple risk factors tended to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and reduced the risk to progress to end-stage kidney failure in patients with CKD. There is a need for high-quality studies that can rigorously evaluate a set of interventions targeting multiple domains of CKD management in the population with nondiabetic CKD due to paucity of data in the current published literature

Capacity of kidney care in Canada: Identifying barriers and opportunities

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant health problem in Canada. Understanding the capacity of the Canadian health-care system to deliver kidney care is important to provide optimal care. Objective: To compare Canada’s position in relation to countries of similar economic standing. Design: Cross-sectional electronic survey. Setting: Member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that participated in the survey. Participants: Nephrologists, other physicians, policymakers, and other professionals with relevant expertise in kidney care. Measurements: Not applicable. Methods: A survey administered by the International Society of Nephrology assessed the global capacity of kidney care delivery. Data from participating OECD countries were analyzed using descriptive statistics to compare Canada’s position. Results: Of the participating countries, most funded kidney care services (non-medication) by government (transplantation: 85%, dialysis: 81%, acute kidney injury (AKI): 77%). Most countries covered medication. Canada reported a public funding model for kidney services and a mix of public and private sources for medication. Nephrologists and nephrology trainee densities were lower in Canada compared to the median (15.33 vs. 25.82 and 1.74 vs. 3.94, respectively). CKD was recognized as a health priority in five countries, but not in Canada. Registries for CKD did not exist in most (24/26) countries. Canada followed a national strategy for noncommunicable diseases, but this was not specific to CKD care, dialysis, or transplantation. Limitations: Risks of recall bias or social desirability bias are present. Differences in a number of factors could influence discrepancies among countries and were not explored. Responses reflected the existence of practices, policies, and strategies, and may not necessarily describe action or impact. Capacity of care is not equal across all regions and provinces within Canada; however, the findings are reported on a national level and therefore may not appropriately address variability. Conclusions: This study describes the capacity for kidney care at a national level within the context of the Canadian health system. The Canadian health-care system is well funded by the government; however, there are areas that could be improved to increase the optimization of kidney care provided

Kidney care in low- and middle-income countries

Optimal kidney care requires a trained nephrology workforce, essential healthcare services, and medications. This study aimed to identify the access to these resources on a global scale using data from the multinational survey conducted by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN) (Global Kidney Health Atlas (GKHA) project), with emphasis on developing nations. For data analysis, the 125 participating countries were sorted into the 4 World Bank income groups: low income (LIC), lower-middle income (LMIC), upper-middle income (UMIC), and high income (HIC). A severe shortage of nephrologists was observed in LIC and LMIC with < 5 nephrologists per million population. Many LIC were unable to access estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria (proteinuria) tests in primary-care levels. Acute and chronic hemodialysis was available in most countries, although acute and chronic peritoneal dialysis access was severely limited in LIC (24% and 35%, respectively). Most countries had kidney transplantation access, except for LIC (12%). HIC and UMIC funded their renal replacement therapy (RRT) and renal medications primarily through public means, whereas LMIC and LIC required private and out-of-pocket contributions. In conclusion, this study found a huge gap in the availability and access to trained nephrology workforce, tools for diagnosis and management of CKD, RRT, and funding of RRT and essential medications in LIC and LMIC

Global capacity for clinical research in nephrology: a survey by the International Society of Nephrology

Due to the worldwide rising prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), there is a need to develop strategies through well-designed clinical studies to guide decision making and improve delivery of care to CKD patients. A cross-sectional survey was conducted based on the International Society of Nephrology Global Kidney Health Atlas data. For this study, the survey assessed the capacity of various countries and world regions in participating in and conducting kidney research. Availability of national funding for clinical trials was low (27%, n = 31), with the lowest figures obtained from Africa (7%, n = 2) and South Asia (0%), whereas high-income countries in North America and Europe had the highest participation in clinical trials. Overall, formal training to conduct clinical trials was inadequate for physicians (46%, n = 53) and even lower for nonphysicians, research assistants, and associates in clinical trials (34%, n = 39). There was also diminished availability of workforce and funding to conduct observational cohort studies in nephrology, and participation in highly specialized transplant trials was low in many regions. Overall, the availability of infrastructure (bio-banking and facilities for storage of clinical trial medications) was low, and it was lowest in low-income and lower-middle–income countries. Ethics approval for study conduct was mandatory in 91% (n = 106) of countries and regions, and 62% (n = 66) were reported to have institutional committees. Challenges with obtaining timely approval for a study were reported in 53% (n = 61) of regions but the challenges were similar across these regions. A potential limitation is the possibility of over-reporting or under-reporting due to social desirability bias. This study highlights some of the major challenges for participating in and conducting kidney research and offers suggestions for improving global kidney research

Global nephrology workforce: gaps and opportunities toward a sustainable kidney care&nbsp;system.

The health workforce is the cornerstone of any health care system. An adequately trained and sufficiently staffed workforce is essential to reach universal health coverage. In particular, a nephrology workforce is critical to meet the growing worldwide burden of kidney disease. Despite some attempts, the global nephrology workforce and training capacity remains widely unknown. This multinational cross-sectional survey was part of the Global Kidney Health Atlas project, a new initiative administered by the International Society of Nephrology (ISN). The objective of this study was to address the existing global nephrology workforce and training capacity. The questionnaire was administered online, and all data were analyzed and presented by ISN regions and World Bank country classification. Overall, 125 United Nations member states responded to the entire survey, with 121 countries responding to survey questions pertaining to the nephrology workforce. The global nephrologist density was 8.83 per million population (PMP); high-income countries reported a nephrologist density of 28.52 PMP compared with 0.31 PMP in low-income countries. Similarly, the global nephrologist trainee density was 1.87 PMP; high-income countries reported a 30 times greater nephrology trainee density than low-income countries (6.03 PMP vs. 0.18 PMP). Countries reported a shortage in all care providers in nephrology. A nephrology training program existed in 79% of countries, ranging from 97% in high-income countries to 41% in low-income countries. In countries with a training program, the majority (86%) of programs were 2 to 4 years, and the most common training structure (56%) was following general internal medicine. We found significant variation in the global density of nephrologists and nephrology trainees and shortages in all care providers in nephrology; the gap was more prominent in low-income countries, particularly in African and South Asian ISN regions. These findings point to significant gaps in the current nephrology workforce and opportunities for countries and regions to develop and maintain a sustainable workforce

Global overview of health systems oversight and financing for kidney care.

Reliable governance and health financing are critical to the abilities of health systems in different countries to sustainably meet the health needs of their peoples, including those with kidney disease. A comprehensive understanding of existing systems and infrastructure is therefore necessary to globally identify gaps in kidney care and prioritize areas for improvement. This multinational, cross-sectional survey, conducted by the ISN as part of the Global Kidney Health Atlas, examined the oversight, financing, and perceived quality of infrastructure for kidney care across the world. Overall, 125 countries, comprising 93% of the world's population, responded to the entire survey, with 122 countries responding to questions pertaining to this domain. National oversight of kidney care was most common in high-income countries while individual hospital oversight was most common in low-income countries. Parts of Africa and the Middle East appeared to have no organized oversight system. The proportion of countries in which health care system coverage for people with kidney disease was publicly funded and free varied for AKI (56%), nondialysis chronic kidney disease (40%), dialysis (63%), and kidney transplantation (57%), but was much less common in lower income countries, particularly Africa and Southeast Asia, which relied more heavily on private funding with out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Early detection and management of kidney disease were least likely to be covered by funding models. The perceived quality of health infrastructure supporting AKI and chronic kidney disease care was rated poor to extremely poor in none of the high-income countries but was rated poor to extremely poor in over 40% of low-income countries, particularly Africa. This study demonstrated significant gaps in oversight, funding, and infrastructure supporting health services caring for patients with kidney disease, especially in low- and middle-income countries

Global overview of health systems oversight and financing for kidney care

Reliable governance and health financing are critical to the abilities of health systems in different countries to sustainably meet the health needs of their peoples, including those with kidney disease. A comprehensive understanding of existing systems and infrastructure is therefore necessary to globally identify gaps in kidney care and prioritize areas for improvement. This multinational, cross-sectional survey, conducted by the ISN as part of the Global Kidney Health Atlas, examined the oversight, financing, and perceived quality of infrastructure for kidney care across the world. Overall, 125 countries, comprising 93% of the world's population, responded to the entire survey, with 122 countries responding to questions pertaining to this domain. National oversight of kidney care was most common in high-income countries while individual hospital oversight was most common in low-income countries. Parts of Africa and the Middle East appeared to have no organized oversight system. The proportion of countries in which health care system coverage for people with kidney disease was publicly funded and free varied for AKI (56%), nondialysis chronic kidney disease (40%), dialysis (63%), and kidney transplantation (57%), but was much less common in lower income countries, particularly Africa and Southeast Asia, which relied more heavily on private funding with out-of-pocket expenses for patients. Early detection and management of kidney disease were least likely to be covered by funding models. The perceived quality of health infrastructure supporting AKI and chronic kidney disease care was rated poor to extremely poor in none of the high-income countries but was rated poor to extremely poor in over 40% of low-income countries, particularly Africa. This study demonstrated significant gaps in oversight, funding, and infrastructure supporting health services caring for patients with kidney disease, especially in low- and middle-income countries