Management of diabetes in dialysis patients

Flash Glucose Monitoring in Subjects with Diabetes on Hemodialysis: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

In patients with diabetes related end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis, blood glucose management can be challenging due to the kinetics of glucose and insulin in addition to other factors. The glucose monitoring systems which measure glucose levels continuously may be useful to study the glucose profile of patients with diabetes undergoing hemodialysis. Our study is designed to use ambulatory glucose profile to study the glucose pattern - during, before, and after a session of hemodialysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients with type 2 diabetes with ESRD undergoing hemodialysis were recruited. Forty-eight glucose readings were recorded in a 12-h period which included 4 h each prior, during, and after the dialysis session with a flash glucose monitor (FreeStyle Libre-pro). The same 12 h time frame was also monitored on a non-dialysis day.

RESULTS

On the day of dialysis, the mean glucose level was significantly lower (P = 0.013) compared to the day without dialysis (95 ± 12.7 mg/dl vs 194 ± 76.8 mg/dl). As compared to the pre-dialysis period, the mean blood glucose levels during dialysis were lower (P = 0.004). As compared to the dialysis period, the mean blood glucose levels in the post-dialysis period were higher but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

In our study, subjects with type 2 diabetes on hemodialysis had lower glucose levels on the day of dialysis compared to non-dialysis day. Glucose levels showed a fall during hemodialysis and then a rise to higher levels after dialysis.

Perceptions of caregivers regarding engagement with integrated management of chronic kidney disease patients in selected public hospitals of KwaZulu-Natal region, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients rely on non-professional health care providers, namely caregivers to manage their long-term condition. Despite the growing literature on CKD patients, little is known about the perceptions of caregivers regarding integrated management of CKD.

AIM

The aim of the study was to explore the perceptions of caregivers with regard to integrated management of CKD patients.

SETTING

The study took place in selected public hospitals of KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa.

METHOD

A qualitative case study design was used. A purposive sampling method was used to select the study participants. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview schedule developed from the literature. Data were analysed through thematic template approach using Health Belief Model constructs.

RESULTS

Hypertension and diabetes mellitus were risk factors that worsen progression of CKD. Unemployment, lifestyle changes and limited social interaction were revealed as negative effects of CKD. Caregivers were aware of consequences of non-engagement with integrated management. The revealed positive benefits of integrated management were mainly physiological and system-related. Barriers to engagement with integrated management were side effects of diet and haemodialysis, hot weather, unemployment, false perception of good health and shortage of kidneys for transplant.

CONCLUSION

Chronic kidney disease patients require caregivers support to help with necessary changes to cope and adapt with integrated management of the disease. These caregivers experience effects of CKD, consequences of non-engagement and barriers to integrated management. Identification of caregivers perceptions offers healthcare workers a better understanding and formulation of strategies that can offer adequate support to this population.

Current therapeutic approaches in the management of hyperglycemia in chronic renal disease

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are intricately intertwined. DM is the most common cause of CKD. Adequate control of DM is necessary for prevention of progression of CKD, while careful management of the metabolic abnormalities in CKD will assist in achieving better control of DM. Two of the key organs involved in glucose production are the kidney and the liver. Furthermore, the kidney also plays a role in glucose filtration and reabsorption. In CKD, monitoring of glycemic control using traditional methods such as Hemoglobin A1c (Hba1c) must be done with caution secondary to associated hematological abnormalities in CKD. With regard to medication management in the care of patients with DM, CKD has significant effects. For example, the dosages of oral and non-insulin anti-hyperglycemic agents often need to be modified according to renal function. Insulin metabolism is altered in CKD, and a reduction in insulin dose is almost always needed. Dialysis also affects various aspects of glucose homeostasis, necessitating appropriate changes in therapy. Due to the aforementioned factors glycemic management in patients with DM and CKD can be quiet challenging.

Safety and efficacy of vildagliptin versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment: a prospective 24-week randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIM

Assess safety/tolerability and efficacy of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in 515 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and moderate or severe renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 24-week clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of vildagliptin (50 mg qd) added to current antidiabetic therapy, in patients with T2DM and moderate or severe RI (GFR ≥ 30 to <50 or <30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ).

RESULTS

The study population comprised of 165 and 129 patients with moderate RI and 124 and 97 patients with severe RI randomized to vildagliptin and placebo, respectively, with most patients receiving background insulin therapy (68 and 81% for moderate and severe RI, respectively). After 24 weeks, the between-treatment difference in the adjusted mean change in A1C was -0.5 ± 0.1% (p < 0.0001) in moderate RI (baseline A1C = 7.9%) and -0.6 ± 0.1% (p < 0.0001) in severe RI (baseline A1C = 7.7%). In patients with moderate RI, similar proportions of those receiving vildagliptin or placebo experienced any AE (68 vs. 73%), any SAE (9 vs. 9%), any AE leading to discontinuation (3 vs. 5%) or death (1 vs. 1%). This was also true for patients with severe RI: AEs (73 vs. 74%), SAEs (19 vs. 21%), AEs leading to discontinuation (9 vs. 6%) and death (2 vs. 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this 24-week study of 515 patients with T2DM and moderate or severe RI, vildagliptin added to ongoing antidiabetic therapy had a safety profile similar to placebo. Further, relative to placebo, vildagliptin elicited a statistically and clinically significant decrease in A1C in patients with moderate or severe RI.