Abstract
BackgroundThere is no single, gold-standard, low-protein diet (LPD) for CKD patients; the best compliance is probably obtained by personalization. This study tests the hypothesis that a multiple choice diet network allows patients to attain a good compliance level, and that, in an open-choice system, overall results are not dependent upon the specific diet, but upon the clinical characteristics of the patients.MethodsObservational study: Three LPD options were offered to all patients with severe or rapidly progressive CKD: vegan diets supplemented with alpha-ketoacids and essential aminoacids; protein-free food in substitution of normal bread and pasta; other (traditional, vegan non supplemented and tailored). Dialysis-free follow-up and survival were analyzed by Kaplan Meier curves according to diet, comorbidity and age.Compliance and metabolic control were estimated in 147 subjects on diet at March 2015, with recent complete data, prescribed protein intake 0.6 g/Kg/day. Protein intake was assessed by Maroni Mitch formula.ResultsFour hundreds and forty nine patients followed a LPD in December, 2007- March, 2015 (90% moderately restricted LPDs, 0.6 g/Kg/day of protein, 10% at lower targets); age (median 70 (19–97)) and comorbidity (Charlson index: 7) characterized our population as being in line with the usual CKD European population. Median e-GFR at start of the diet was 20 mL/min, 33.2% of the patients were diabetics. Baseline data differ significantly across diets: protein-free schemas are preferred by older, high-comorbidity patients (median age 76 years, Charlson index 8, GFR 20.5 mL/min, Proteinuria: 0.3 g/day), supplemented vegan diets by younger patients with lower GFR and higher proteinuria (median age 65 years, Charlson index 6, GFR 18.9 mL/min; Proteinuria: 1.2 g/day); other diets are chosen by an intermediate population (median age 71 years, Charlson index 6; GFR 22.5 mL/min; Proteinuria: 0.9 g/day); (p <0.001 for age, Charlson index, proteinuria, GFR). Adherence was good, only 1.1% of the patients were lost to follow-up and protein intake was at target in most of the cases with no differences among LPDs (protein intake: 0.47 (0.26–0.86) g/Kg/day). After adjustment for confounders, and/or selection of similar populations, no difference in mortality or dialysis start was observed on the different LPDs. Below the threshold of e-GFR 15 mL/min, 50% of the patients remain dialysis free for at least two years.ConclusionA multiple choice LPD system may allow reaching good adherence, without competition among diets, and with promising results in terms of dialysis-free follow-up. The advantages with respect to a non-customized approach deserve confirmation in further comparative studies or RCTs.
Highlights
There is no single, gold-standard, low-protein diet (LPD) for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients; the best compliance is probably obtained by personalization
CKD was defined according to the usual definitions of the K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines; e-GFR was assessed by the CKD-EPI equation, and compliance to the protein intake by the Maroni-Mitch formula [37,38,39]
Diets and controls Over time, the approach to LPDs shifted from the proposal of two main LPDs (0.6 g/Kg/day: vegan-vegetarian supplemented with alpha-ketoacids and aminoacids (LPD-AK) and with protein-free commercial food (LPDPFF)), which were eventually merged into one very-low protein diet, to a more integrated choice including different combinations of the previous diets and vegan non-supplemented diets [20, 33,34,35,36] (Table 1)
Summary
There is no single, gold-standard, low-protein diet (LPD) for CKD patients; the best compliance is probably obtained by personalization. Low protein diets had encountered mixed fortunes in the past and the term diet, often interpreted in a reductive way, has been recently challenged in favor of “nutritional therapy” in chronic kidney disease (CKD), underlining that the approach to CKD patients should be more comprehensive, beyond the restriction of one or more aliments [4, 5]. Concordance is an appealing idea, and probably the best way to manage chronic diseases; changing towards a patient-centered attitude is time consuming, may require a dynamic approach based upon shared choices and decisions [14,15,16]. As stated in a recent report of the World health Organization: “patients need to be supported, not blamed (...); adherence is simultaneously influenced by several factors (...); patient-tailored interventions are required (...); systems and providers need to develop means of accurately assessing adherence, and those factors that influence it.” [17]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
