Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology最新文献

Background: Many nephrology providers express difficulty in discussing care options for patients who forgo KRT, which hampers their ability to help patients make decisions about their current and future treatment of kidney disease.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using interviews with a national sample of nephrology providers (i.e., physicians and advanced practice providers) who participated in US professional societies between July and December 2022. We performed a thematic analysis of interviews to identify emergent themes reflecting providers' experiences discussing care for patients who forgo KRT.

Results: There were 21 providers (age 54±13 years, female 81%, White 32%) who participated in interviews, of whom 43% were physicians and most (57%) practiced in academic settings. Three dominant themes emerged from interviews reflecting challenges to discussing the option to forgo KRT: (1) Inconsistent terminology: while providers sought to use terms to describe care for patients who forgo KRT that affirmed patients' decision, clearly conveyed that KRT would not be pursued, and were already familiar to patients and other providers, they disagreed about which terms satisfied these priorities; (2) blurred distinctions between KRT and its alternative: providers' descriptions of their care practices suggested that differences in their approaches to caring for patients who forgo KRT and those who are planning to pursue KRT could be opaque; and (3) deciphering patients' decision to forgo KRT: providers did not readily accept patients' expressed preferences to forgo KRT at face value and described using a variety of methods to assess whether patients would follow through with their decision.

Conclusions: Providers used different, inconsistent terms to describe care for patients who forgo KRT. They disagreed about what this care entailed and were uncertain about what patients might mean when they express not wanting to undergo KRT.

Diets high in plant-based foods are commonly recommended for people with CKD. One putative advantage of these diets is reduced intestinal phosphate absorption. This effect has been ascribed to phytic acid (myoinositol hexaphosphoric acid) and its anion, phytate, that are present in many plant foods, particularly in the seeds, nuts, grains, and fruits of plants. This article reviews the structure and many actions of phytate with particular reference to its potential effects on people with CKD. Phytate binds avidly to and can reduce gastrointestinal absorption of the phosphate anion and many macrominerals and trace elements including iron, zinc, calcium, and magnesium. This has led some opinion leaders to label phytate as an anti-nutrient. The human intestine lacks phytase; hence, phytate is essentially not degraded in the small intestine. A small amount of phytate is absorbed from the small intestine, although phytate bound to phosphate is poorly absorbed. Clinical trials in maintenance hemodialysis patients indicate that intravenously administered phytate may decrease hydroxyapatite formation, vascular calcification, and calciphylaxis. Orally administered phytate or in vitro studies indicate that phytate may also reduce osteoporosis, urinary calcium calculi formation, and dental plaque formation. Phytate seems to have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects, at least partly because of its ability to chelate iron. Other potential therapeutic roles for phytate, not definitively established, include suppression of cancer formation, reduction in cognitive decline that occurs with aging, and amelioration of certain neurodegenerative diseases and several gastrointestinal and metabolic disorders. These latter potential benefits of phytate are supported by cell or animal research or observational studies in humans. Many of the above disorders are particularly common in patients with CKD. Definitive clinical trials to identify potential therapeutic benefits of phytate in patients with CKD are clearly warranted.