Q&A

Q)

I’ve received mixed messages about whom to screen for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening only patients at high risk, but kidney experts advise screening everyone. Who is right? What does the data show?

In 2012, the USPSTF stated that there was insufficient evidence to assess the benefit, or harm, of regularly screening asymptomatic adults for CKD.¹ Other expert medical panels have come to this conclusion as well, and therefore only recommend screening highrisk patients.²

The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) encourages clinicians to assess all patients for risk factors of CKD. Diabetes and hypertension are strongly established risk factors for kidney disease; others include family history of kidney disease; cardiovascular disease; obesity; and older age.

If a patient is at risk for CKD, the NKF recommends testing serum creatinine levels to estimate glomerular filtration rate and testing urine for protein (microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria). These tests are readily accessible in a primary care setting. It should be noted that one-time testing of serum creatinine and/or urine has not been studied for sensitivity or specificity in the diagnosis of CKD. Diagnosis should be based on decreased renal function or kidney damage occurring over a three-month span.³

In May 2016, Canadian researchers published results from the See Kidney Disease Targeted Screening Program for CKD, comparing CKD screening in the general population with a targeted, at-risk individual population.⁴ The study, which included more than 6,000 participants, revealed a higher rate of unrecognized CKD in the at-risk population than in the general population (21.9% and 14.7%, respectively).

These findings support the idea that screening at-risk patients identifies more cases of CKD than screening the general patient population does.⁴ Early diagnosis of CKD, through recognition of risk factors, provides an opportunity to decrease complications and manage conditions that contribute to the progression of renal disease.^2,3 —RVR

Rebecca V. Rokosky, MSN, APRN, FNP
Renal Associates Clinical Advancement Center in San Antonio, Texas

Q)

I’ve received mixed messages about whom to screen for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening only patients at high risk, but kidney experts advise screening everyone. Who is right? What does the data show?

In 2012, the USPSTF stated that there was insufficient evidence to assess the benefit, or harm, of regularly screening asymptomatic adults for CKD.¹ Other expert medical panels have come to this conclusion as well, and therefore only recommend screening highrisk patients.²

The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) encourages clinicians to assess all patients for risk factors of CKD. Diabetes and hypertension are strongly established risk factors for kidney disease; others include family history of kidney disease; cardiovascular disease; obesity; and older age.

If a patient is at risk for CKD, the NKF recommends testing serum creatinine levels to estimate glomerular filtration rate and testing urine for protein (microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria). These tests are readily accessible in a primary care setting. It should be noted that one-time testing of serum creatinine and/or urine has not been studied for sensitivity or specificity in the diagnosis of CKD. Diagnosis should be based on decreased renal function or kidney damage occurring over a three-month span.³

In May 2016, Canadian researchers published results from the See Kidney Disease Targeted Screening Program for CKD, comparing CKD screening in the general population with a targeted, at-risk individual population.⁴ The study, which included more than 6,000 participants, revealed a higher rate of unrecognized CKD in the at-risk population than in the general population (21.9% and 14.7%, respectively).

These findings support the idea that screening at-risk patients identifies more cases of CKD than screening the general patient population does.⁴ Early diagnosis of CKD, through recognition of risk factors, provides an opportunity to decrease complications and manage conditions that contribute to the progression of renal disease.^2,3 —RVR

Rebecca V. Rokosky, MSN, APRN, FNP
Renal Associates Clinical Advancement Center in San Antonio, Texas

Q)

I’ve received mixed messages about whom to screen for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening only patients at high risk, but kidney experts advise screening everyone. Who is right? What does the data show?

In 2012, the USPSTF stated that there was insufficient evidence to assess the benefit, or harm, of regularly screening asymptomatic adults for CKD.¹ Other expert medical panels have come to this conclusion as well, and therefore only recommend screening highrisk patients.²

The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) encourages clinicians to assess all patients for risk factors of CKD. Diabetes and hypertension are strongly established risk factors for kidney disease; others include family history of kidney disease; cardiovascular disease; obesity; and older age.

If a patient is at risk for CKD, the NKF recommends testing serum creatinine levels to estimate glomerular filtration rate and testing urine for protein (microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria). These tests are readily accessible in a primary care setting. It should be noted that one-time testing of serum creatinine and/or urine has not been studied for sensitivity or specificity in the diagnosis of CKD. Diagnosis should be based on decreased renal function or kidney damage occurring over a three-month span.³

In May 2016, Canadian researchers published results from the See Kidney Disease Targeted Screening Program for CKD, comparing CKD screening in the general population with a targeted, at-risk individual population.⁴ The study, which included more than 6,000 participants, revealed a higher rate of unrecognized CKD in the at-risk population than in the general population (21.9% and 14.7%, respectively).

These findings support the idea that screening at-risk patients identifies more cases of CKD than screening the general patient population does.⁴ Early diagnosis of CKD, through recognition of risk factors, provides an opportunity to decrease complications and manage conditions that contribute to the progression of renal disease.^2,3 —RVR

Rebecca V. Rokosky, MSN, APRN, FNP
Renal Associates Clinical Advancement Center in San Antonio, Texas

A new-onset thyroid nodule, found on exam or incidentally on imaging, is a common presentation at primary care and specialist clinics. Palpable nodules are present in 4% to 7% of the population.¹ However, more sensitive evaluation with thyroid ultrasound (US) suggests an incidence as high as 70%.²

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2015, there were approximately 62,450 new cases of thyroid cancer in the United States (with 2.5 times as many occurring in women as in men).³ In fact, thyroid cancer is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the United States—attributable in part to the increased use of thyroid US and incidental detection.³

The high prevalence of thyroid nodules makes appropriate evaluation and treatment crucial. This article, through a case study, explores the evaluation of a thyroid nodule and the recommendation for and against thyroidectomy.

Felicia, 49, presents to the endocrine clinic as a new patient with questions about multinodular goiter (MNG). She has been advised by ENT to have a left-sided dominant nodule surgically removed while under anesthesia during her upcoming chronic sinusitis surgery. Felicia would like to avoid thyroid surgery, if possible. Her most recent thyroid US, performed three months ago, showed a right lobe with multiple colloid nodules with inspissated colloid, the largest of which is 1.5 cm, and a 4-cm complex, solid, cystic nodule with inspissated colloid in the cystic spaces replacing the entire left thyroid lobe.

HistoryThe first step is establishing a history of the nodule(s) in question. Key questions are listed in Table 1. The onset and progression of a thyroid nodule must be determined; ideally, the provider should review any previous studies related to the thyroid gland. This will help determine if the nodule is new, if it has been evaluated in the past, and if it has changed significantly.

A thorough history can identify risk factors for malignancy, which include a personal history of cancer or radiation exposure, as well as a family history of thyroid cancer or malignant endocrine syndromes.

Felicia denies any family or personal medical history concerning for malignancy. She notes that she has two sisters with MNG. She denies any neck pain, compressive/obstructive symptoms, and hypo- or hyperthyroid symptoms.

She reports that she was found to have a goiter on exam and was subsequently diagnosed with MNG in 2008. Thyroid US showed a 2.3-cm complex, largely solid mass in the right mid-pole and a 3.3-cm largely cystic lesion in the left mid-pole. She was referred for right-sided fine-needle aspiration (FNA); results were consistent with benign colloid nodule. The left-sided nodule was not biopsied at that time, due to a largely cystic component.

Felicia underwent a follow-up US in 2011; it showed a 1.6-cm right mid-pole nodule with multiple nonspecific echogenic areas; a 1-cm benign-appearing nodule; and a 3.7-cm highly vascular heterogeneous mass with some colloid components with indeterminate component in the left lower and mid-pole. She reports that she did not follow up in 2011. Her next evaluation was the current thyroid US. She has never had FNA of the left-sided dominant nodule.

Continue for symptomatic vs asymptomatic thyroid nodules >>

Symptomatic vs ­Asymptomatic Thyroid NodulesEvaluation of a symptomatic thyroid nodule can help to determine the need for surgery, as well as assess the level of interference with a patient’s activities of daily living and the potential for functional abnormalities. However, both local neck and constitutional symptoms may be nonspecific and unrelated to the thyroid gland’s structure or function. Therefore, the provider should exercise caution in making recommendations based on reported symptoms alone.

Symptoms indicative of the need for surgical intervention include neck pain, increased neck pressure, foreign body sensation, dysphonia, dyspnea, and dysphagia. However, it is essential to determine if these symptoms are likely due to a thyroid nodule or if they can be attributed to a secondary cause (eg, postnasal drip, vocal cord dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or esophageal stricture).

If the findings are inconsistent with the clinical picture, secondary evaluation is prudent to avoid an unnecessary procedure.

Physical ExamPalpation of a thyroid nodule is an unreliable indicator of risk for malignancy. Palpation alone does not allow for detection of all nodules, particularly smaller ones, and specific characteristics are not discernible. Imaging studies are required to accurately evaluate a thyroid nodule and determine the most appropriate course of action.

Palpation can be used to evaluate for a larger and/or fixed nodule, thyroid gland/nodule tenderness, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Physical exam can also assess for signs of hypo- or hyperthyroidism, including abnormal pulse rate or blood pressure, tremor, hypo- or hyperreflexia, and integumentary abnormalities (eg, hair loss, abnormal skin temperature, and nail changes).

Continue for serologic evaluation >>

Serologic Evaluation
If a thyroid nodule is suspected on exam or found on imaging, assessment of thyroid function, via thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) measurement, is the recommended first step. If TSH is elevated, further evaluation for hypothyroidism is recommended, with testing for free thyroxine (T4) and antithyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies.⁴ If TSH is suppressed, further evaluation with free T4 and assessment for underlying causes of hyperthyroidism are indicated, including work-up for toxic nodular goiter.

Routine monitoring of serum calcitonin level is not recommended. However, if there is suspicion for medullary thyroid cancer—based on either US findings or family history—serologic screening for abnormal calcitonin level may be indicated.^4,5

Felicia’s lab results include a TSH of 1.30 µIU/mL (reference range, 0.30-3.00 µIU/mL). Based on this finding, what (if any) further serologic testing is recommended? None: With normal TSH and no concerning family or personal history, additional laboratory evaluation is not indicated.

Imaging a Thyroid Nodule
Thyroid US is the most sensitive imaging study for evaluating thyroid nodule characteristics. Thyroid uptake and scan is not indicated unless TSH is suppressed and evaluation for toxic nodular goiter is needed. Additional imaging studies, such as CT or MRI, are not recommended for thyroid nodule evaluation.

Based on the thyroid US, what characteristics of Felicia’s nodule are suggestive of a benign nodule? Of a malignant nodule? (See Table 2.)

FNA of the left-sided dominant nodule is indicated, based on the US findings of a partially solid component and size > 1 cm. Unfortunately, FNA is nondiagnostic, because it yielded cystic fluid only with scant follicular cells for evaluation.

Continue to now what? >>

Now What?
While FNA most definitively distinguishes between benign and malignant nodules, the test is limited. An indeterminate, or nondiagnostic, finding occurs in 10% to 15% of cases and is more likely in nodules with a large cystic component.¹

Even a benign finding on FNA of a larger nodule should be viewed with caution, since aspiration is unlikely to pinpoint small insidious malignant cells nestled among a larger collection of benign tissue.³ In many situations, a patient receives FNA results and asks, “What should we do now?”

Nondiagnostic nodules
When FNA is indeterminate, the next step depends on the characteristics of the nodule. For a solid nodule, repeat FNA is recommended.^4,5 For nodules with repeatedly nondiagnostic FNAs, the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Thyroid Association recommend that a solid nodule be considered for surgical removal unless the nodule has “clearly favorable clinical and US features.”^4,5

Surgical excision should be considered for cysts that recur, those that are larger (> 4 cm), and those that are repeatedly nondiagnostic on FNA. Personal and family history should be taken into account when nodules that are nondiagnostic on FNA demonstrate suspicious characteristics on US.⁶

An analysis by Renshaw determined that risk for malignancy in a nodule with a single nondiagnostic FNA was about 20%. For nodules that underwent repeat FNA, the risk was 0% for those that were again nondiagnostic. This significant difference led the author to conclude that “patients with two sequential nondiagnostic thyroid aspirates have a very low risk of malignancy.”⁷

Consider the time commitment, financial burden, and emotional cost for the patient of repeated evaluation with thyroid US and possibly FNA. In recurrent cases, the risks associated with surgery begin to be outweighed by the cost and burden of prolonged observation.

Benign nodules
With a biopsy-proven benign nodule, observation is recommended unless certain criteria are present: local neck compressive/obstructive symptoms that can be confidently attributed to a thyroid nodule; patient preference (eg, due to anxiety or aesthetics); or higher index of suspicion (eg, history of previous radiation exposure, progressive nodule growth, or suspicious characteristics on US).^4,5

If surgical removal of a benign thyroid nodule is recommended, it is imperative to discuss the risks with patients. In addition to traditional surgery risks, thyroidectomy is associated with transient or permanent postoperative hypoparathyroidism, as well as vocal hoarseness or changes in vocal quality due to the proximity of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Additionally, patients should be advised of the potential for surgical hypothyroidism with hemithyroidectomy and certain irreversible hypothyroidism with total thyroidectomy.

After a discussion of the risks and cost of observation versus surgery, an informed decision between provider and patient can ultimately be reached.

Would thyroidectomy be recommended for Felicia? After a thorough discussion, it is decided that surgery is not indicated at this time. Relevant factors include the benign thyroid US characteristics, lack of clinical neck compressive symptoms, and patient preference.

According to the American Thyroid Association guidelines, Felicia’s risk for malignancy for the nodule in question is < 3%, since it is a partially cystic nodule without any suspicious sonographic features. By foregoing surgery, Felicia will need repeated imaging studies and possibly repeat serologic studies and FNA in the future.

References
1. Stang MT, Carty SE. Recent developments in predicting thyroid malignancy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;21(1):11-17.
2. Hambleton C, Kandil E. Appropriate and accurate diagnosis of thyroid nodules: a review of thyroid fine-needle aspiration. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2013;6(6):413-422.
3. American Cancer Society. Thyroid cancer (2014). www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003144-pdf.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016.
4. Gharib H, Papini E, Garber J, et al; AACE/AME/ETA Task Force on Thyroid Nodules. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, Associazione Medici Endocrinologi, and European Thyroid Association medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules—2016 Update. Endocrine Pract. 2016;22(suppl 1):1-60.
5. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al; The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016; 26(1):1-133.
6. Yeung MJ, Serpell JW. Management of the solitary thyroid nodule. Oncologist. 2008; 13(2):105-112.
7. Renshaw A. Significance of repeatedly nondiagnostic thyroid fine-needle aspirations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(5):750-752.

A new-onset thyroid nodule, found on exam or incidentally on imaging, is a common presentation at primary care and specialist clinics. Palpable nodules are present in 4% to 7% of the population.¹ However, more sensitive evaluation with thyroid ultrasound (US) suggests an incidence as high as 70%.²

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2015, there were approximately 62,450 new cases of thyroid cancer in the United States (with 2.5 times as many occurring in women as in men).³ In fact, thyroid cancer is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the United States—attributable in part to the increased use of thyroid US and incidental detection.³

The high prevalence of thyroid nodules makes appropriate evaluation and treatment crucial. This article, through a case study, explores the evaluation of a thyroid nodule and the recommendation for and against thyroidectomy.

Felicia, 49, presents to the endocrine clinic as a new patient with questions about multinodular goiter (MNG). She has been advised by ENT to have a left-sided dominant nodule surgically removed while under anesthesia during her upcoming chronic sinusitis surgery. Felicia would like to avoid thyroid surgery, if possible. Her most recent thyroid US, performed three months ago, showed a right lobe with multiple colloid nodules with inspissated colloid, the largest of which is 1.5 cm, and a 4-cm complex, solid, cystic nodule with inspissated colloid in the cystic spaces replacing the entire left thyroid lobe.

HistoryThe first step is establishing a history of the nodule(s) in question. Key questions are listed in Table 1. The onset and progression of a thyroid nodule must be determined; ideally, the provider should review any previous studies related to the thyroid gland. This will help determine if the nodule is new, if it has been evaluated in the past, and if it has changed significantly.

A thorough history can identify risk factors for malignancy, which include a personal history of cancer or radiation exposure, as well as a family history of thyroid cancer or malignant endocrine syndromes.

Felicia denies any family or personal medical history concerning for malignancy. She notes that she has two sisters with MNG. She denies any neck pain, compressive/obstructive symptoms, and hypo- or hyperthyroid symptoms.

She reports that she was found to have a goiter on exam and was subsequently diagnosed with MNG in 2008. Thyroid US showed a 2.3-cm complex, largely solid mass in the right mid-pole and a 3.3-cm largely cystic lesion in the left mid-pole. She was referred for right-sided fine-needle aspiration (FNA); results were consistent with benign colloid nodule. The left-sided nodule was not biopsied at that time, due to a largely cystic component.

Felicia underwent a follow-up US in 2011; it showed a 1.6-cm right mid-pole nodule with multiple nonspecific echogenic areas; a 1-cm benign-appearing nodule; and a 3.7-cm highly vascular heterogeneous mass with some colloid components with indeterminate component in the left lower and mid-pole. She reports that she did not follow up in 2011. Her next evaluation was the current thyroid US. She has never had FNA of the left-sided dominant nodule.

Continue for symptomatic vs asymptomatic thyroid nodules >>

Symptomatic vs ­Asymptomatic Thyroid NodulesEvaluation of a symptomatic thyroid nodule can help to determine the need for surgery, as well as assess the level of interference with a patient’s activities of daily living and the potential for functional abnormalities. However, both local neck and constitutional symptoms may be nonspecific and unrelated to the thyroid gland’s structure or function. Therefore, the provider should exercise caution in making recommendations based on reported symptoms alone.

Symptoms indicative of the need for surgical intervention include neck pain, increased neck pressure, foreign body sensation, dysphonia, dyspnea, and dysphagia. However, it is essential to determine if these symptoms are likely due to a thyroid nodule or if they can be attributed to a secondary cause (eg, postnasal drip, vocal cord dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or esophageal stricture).

If the findings are inconsistent with the clinical picture, secondary evaluation is prudent to avoid an unnecessary procedure.

Physical ExamPalpation of a thyroid nodule is an unreliable indicator of risk for malignancy. Palpation alone does not allow for detection of all nodules, particularly smaller ones, and specific characteristics are not discernible. Imaging studies are required to accurately evaluate a thyroid nodule and determine the most appropriate course of action.

Palpation can be used to evaluate for a larger and/or fixed nodule, thyroid gland/nodule tenderness, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Physical exam can also assess for signs of hypo- or hyperthyroidism, including abnormal pulse rate or blood pressure, tremor, hypo- or hyperreflexia, and integumentary abnormalities (eg, hair loss, abnormal skin temperature, and nail changes).

Continue for serologic evaluation >>

Serologic Evaluation
If a thyroid nodule is suspected on exam or found on imaging, assessment of thyroid function, via thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) measurement, is the recommended first step. If TSH is elevated, further evaluation for hypothyroidism is recommended, with testing for free thyroxine (T4) and antithyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies.⁴ If TSH is suppressed, further evaluation with free T4 and assessment for underlying causes of hyperthyroidism are indicated, including work-up for toxic nodular goiter.

Routine monitoring of serum calcitonin level is not recommended. However, if there is suspicion for medullary thyroid cancer—based on either US findings or family history—serologic screening for abnormal calcitonin level may be indicated.^4,5

Felicia’s lab results include a TSH of 1.30 µIU/mL (reference range, 0.30-3.00 µIU/mL). Based on this finding, what (if any) further serologic testing is recommended? None: With normal TSH and no concerning family or personal history, additional laboratory evaluation is not indicated.

Imaging a Thyroid Nodule
Thyroid US is the most sensitive imaging study for evaluating thyroid nodule characteristics. Thyroid uptake and scan is not indicated unless TSH is suppressed and evaluation for toxic nodular goiter is needed. Additional imaging studies, such as CT or MRI, are not recommended for thyroid nodule evaluation.

Based on the thyroid US, what characteristics of Felicia’s nodule are suggestive of a benign nodule? Of a malignant nodule? (See Table 2.)

FNA of the left-sided dominant nodule is indicated, based on the US findings of a partially solid component and size > 1 cm. Unfortunately, FNA is nondiagnostic, because it yielded cystic fluid only with scant follicular cells for evaluation.

Continue to now what? >>

Now What?
While FNA most definitively distinguishes between benign and malignant nodules, the test is limited. An indeterminate, or nondiagnostic, finding occurs in 10% to 15% of cases and is more likely in nodules with a large cystic component.¹

Even a benign finding on FNA of a larger nodule should be viewed with caution, since aspiration is unlikely to pinpoint small insidious malignant cells nestled among a larger collection of benign tissue.³ In many situations, a patient receives FNA results and asks, “What should we do now?”

Nondiagnostic nodules
When FNA is indeterminate, the next step depends on the characteristics of the nodule. For a solid nodule, repeat FNA is recommended.^4,5 For nodules with repeatedly nondiagnostic FNAs, the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Thyroid Association recommend that a solid nodule be considered for surgical removal unless the nodule has “clearly favorable clinical and US features.”^4,5

Surgical excision should be considered for cysts that recur, those that are larger (> 4 cm), and those that are repeatedly nondiagnostic on FNA. Personal and family history should be taken into account when nodules that are nondiagnostic on FNA demonstrate suspicious characteristics on US.⁶

An analysis by Renshaw determined that risk for malignancy in a nodule with a single nondiagnostic FNA was about 20%. For nodules that underwent repeat FNA, the risk was 0% for those that were again nondiagnostic. This significant difference led the author to conclude that “patients with two sequential nondiagnostic thyroid aspirates have a very low risk of malignancy.”⁷

Consider the time commitment, financial burden, and emotional cost for the patient of repeated evaluation with thyroid US and possibly FNA. In recurrent cases, the risks associated with surgery begin to be outweighed by the cost and burden of prolonged observation.

Benign nodules
With a biopsy-proven benign nodule, observation is recommended unless certain criteria are present: local neck compressive/obstructive symptoms that can be confidently attributed to a thyroid nodule; patient preference (eg, due to anxiety or aesthetics); or higher index of suspicion (eg, history of previous radiation exposure, progressive nodule growth, or suspicious characteristics on US).^4,5

If surgical removal of a benign thyroid nodule is recommended, it is imperative to discuss the risks with patients. In addition to traditional surgery risks, thyroidectomy is associated with transient or permanent postoperative hypoparathyroidism, as well as vocal hoarseness or changes in vocal quality due to the proximity of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Additionally, patients should be advised of the potential for surgical hypothyroidism with hemithyroidectomy and certain irreversible hypothyroidism with total thyroidectomy.

After a discussion of the risks and cost of observation versus surgery, an informed decision between provider and patient can ultimately be reached.

Would thyroidectomy be recommended for Felicia? After a thorough discussion, it is decided that surgery is not indicated at this time. Relevant factors include the benign thyroid US characteristics, lack of clinical neck compressive symptoms, and patient preference.

According to the American Thyroid Association guidelines, Felicia’s risk for malignancy for the nodule in question is < 3%, since it is a partially cystic nodule without any suspicious sonographic features. By foregoing surgery, Felicia will need repeated imaging studies and possibly repeat serologic studies and FNA in the future.

References
1. Stang MT, Carty SE. Recent developments in predicting thyroid malignancy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;21(1):11-17.
2. Hambleton C, Kandil E. Appropriate and accurate diagnosis of thyroid nodules: a review of thyroid fine-needle aspiration. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2013;6(6):413-422.
3. American Cancer Society. Thyroid cancer (2014). www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003144-pdf.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016.
4. Gharib H, Papini E, Garber J, et al; AACE/AME/ETA Task Force on Thyroid Nodules. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, Associazione Medici Endocrinologi, and European Thyroid Association medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules—2016 Update. Endocrine Pract. 2016;22(suppl 1):1-60.
5. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al; The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016; 26(1):1-133.
6. Yeung MJ, Serpell JW. Management of the solitary thyroid nodule. Oncologist. 2008; 13(2):105-112.
7. Renshaw A. Significance of repeatedly nondiagnostic thyroid fine-needle aspirations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(5):750-752.

A new-onset thyroid nodule, found on exam or incidentally on imaging, is a common presentation at primary care and specialist clinics. Palpable nodules are present in 4% to 7% of the population.¹ However, more sensitive evaluation with thyroid ultrasound (US) suggests an incidence as high as 70%.²

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2015, there were approximately 62,450 new cases of thyroid cancer in the United States (with 2.5 times as many occurring in women as in men).³ In fact, thyroid cancer is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the United States—attributable in part to the increased use of thyroid US and incidental detection.³

The high prevalence of thyroid nodules makes appropriate evaluation and treatment crucial. This article, through a case study, explores the evaluation of a thyroid nodule and the recommendation for and against thyroidectomy.

Felicia, 49, presents to the endocrine clinic as a new patient with questions about multinodular goiter (MNG). She has been advised by ENT to have a left-sided dominant nodule surgically removed while under anesthesia during her upcoming chronic sinusitis surgery. Felicia would like to avoid thyroid surgery, if possible. Her most recent thyroid US, performed three months ago, showed a right lobe with multiple colloid nodules with inspissated colloid, the largest of which is 1.5 cm, and a 4-cm complex, solid, cystic nodule with inspissated colloid in the cystic spaces replacing the entire left thyroid lobe.

HistoryThe first step is establishing a history of the nodule(s) in question. Key questions are listed in Table 1. The onset and progression of a thyroid nodule must be determined; ideally, the provider should review any previous studies related to the thyroid gland. This will help determine if the nodule is new, if it has been evaluated in the past, and if it has changed significantly.

A thorough history can identify risk factors for malignancy, which include a personal history of cancer or radiation exposure, as well as a family history of thyroid cancer or malignant endocrine syndromes.

Felicia denies any family or personal medical history concerning for malignancy. She notes that she has two sisters with MNG. She denies any neck pain, compressive/obstructive symptoms, and hypo- or hyperthyroid symptoms.

She reports that she was found to have a goiter on exam and was subsequently diagnosed with MNG in 2008. Thyroid US showed a 2.3-cm complex, largely solid mass in the right mid-pole and a 3.3-cm largely cystic lesion in the left mid-pole. She was referred for right-sided fine-needle aspiration (FNA); results were consistent with benign colloid nodule. The left-sided nodule was not biopsied at that time, due to a largely cystic component.

Felicia underwent a follow-up US in 2011; it showed a 1.6-cm right mid-pole nodule with multiple nonspecific echogenic areas; a 1-cm benign-appearing nodule; and a 3.7-cm highly vascular heterogeneous mass with some colloid components with indeterminate component in the left lower and mid-pole. She reports that she did not follow up in 2011. Her next evaluation was the current thyroid US. She has never had FNA of the left-sided dominant nodule.

Continue for symptomatic vs asymptomatic thyroid nodules >>

Symptomatic vs ­Asymptomatic Thyroid NodulesEvaluation of a symptomatic thyroid nodule can help to determine the need for surgery, as well as assess the level of interference with a patient’s activities of daily living and the potential for functional abnormalities. However, both local neck and constitutional symptoms may be nonspecific and unrelated to the thyroid gland’s structure or function. Therefore, the provider should exercise caution in making recommendations based on reported symptoms alone.

Symptoms indicative of the need for surgical intervention include neck pain, increased neck pressure, foreign body sensation, dysphonia, dyspnea, and dysphagia. However, it is essential to determine if these symptoms are likely due to a thyroid nodule or if they can be attributed to a secondary cause (eg, postnasal drip, vocal cord dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or esophageal stricture).

If the findings are inconsistent with the clinical picture, secondary evaluation is prudent to avoid an unnecessary procedure.

Physical ExamPalpation of a thyroid nodule is an unreliable indicator of risk for malignancy. Palpation alone does not allow for detection of all nodules, particularly smaller ones, and specific characteristics are not discernible. Imaging studies are required to accurately evaluate a thyroid nodule and determine the most appropriate course of action.

Palpation can be used to evaluate for a larger and/or fixed nodule, thyroid gland/nodule tenderness, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Physical exam can also assess for signs of hypo- or hyperthyroidism, including abnormal pulse rate or blood pressure, tremor, hypo- or hyperreflexia, and integumentary abnormalities (eg, hair loss, abnormal skin temperature, and nail changes).

Continue for serologic evaluation >>

Serologic Evaluation
If a thyroid nodule is suspected on exam or found on imaging, assessment of thyroid function, via thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) measurement, is the recommended first step. If TSH is elevated, further evaluation for hypothyroidism is recommended, with testing for free thyroxine (T4) and antithyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies.⁴ If TSH is suppressed, further evaluation with free T4 and assessment for underlying causes of hyperthyroidism are indicated, including work-up for toxic nodular goiter.

Routine monitoring of serum calcitonin level is not recommended. However, if there is suspicion for medullary thyroid cancer—based on either US findings or family history—serologic screening for abnormal calcitonin level may be indicated.^4,5

Felicia’s lab results include a TSH of 1.30 µIU/mL (reference range, 0.30-3.00 µIU/mL). Based on this finding, what (if any) further serologic testing is recommended? None: With normal TSH and no concerning family or personal history, additional laboratory evaluation is not indicated.

Imaging a Thyroid Nodule
Thyroid US is the most sensitive imaging study for evaluating thyroid nodule characteristics. Thyroid uptake and scan is not indicated unless TSH is suppressed and evaluation for toxic nodular goiter is needed. Additional imaging studies, such as CT or MRI, are not recommended for thyroid nodule evaluation.

Based on the thyroid US, what characteristics of Felicia’s nodule are suggestive of a benign nodule? Of a malignant nodule? (See Table 2.)

FNA of the left-sided dominant nodule is indicated, based on the US findings of a partially solid component and size > 1 cm. Unfortunately, FNA is nondiagnostic, because it yielded cystic fluid only with scant follicular cells for evaluation.

Continue to now what? >>

Now What?
While FNA most definitively distinguishes between benign and malignant nodules, the test is limited. An indeterminate, or nondiagnostic, finding occurs in 10% to 15% of cases and is more likely in nodules with a large cystic component.¹

Even a benign finding on FNA of a larger nodule should be viewed with caution, since aspiration is unlikely to pinpoint small insidious malignant cells nestled among a larger collection of benign tissue.³ In many situations, a patient receives FNA results and asks, “What should we do now?”

Nondiagnostic nodules
When FNA is indeterminate, the next step depends on the characteristics of the nodule. For a solid nodule, repeat FNA is recommended.^4,5 For nodules with repeatedly nondiagnostic FNAs, the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American Thyroid Association recommend that a solid nodule be considered for surgical removal unless the nodule has “clearly favorable clinical and US features.”^4,5

Surgical excision should be considered for cysts that recur, those that are larger (> 4 cm), and those that are repeatedly nondiagnostic on FNA. Personal and family history should be taken into account when nodules that are nondiagnostic on FNA demonstrate suspicious characteristics on US.⁶

An analysis by Renshaw determined that risk for malignancy in a nodule with a single nondiagnostic FNA was about 20%. For nodules that underwent repeat FNA, the risk was 0% for those that were again nondiagnostic. This significant difference led the author to conclude that “patients with two sequential nondiagnostic thyroid aspirates have a very low risk of malignancy.”⁷

Consider the time commitment, financial burden, and emotional cost for the patient of repeated evaluation with thyroid US and possibly FNA. In recurrent cases, the risks associated with surgery begin to be outweighed by the cost and burden of prolonged observation.

Benign nodules
With a biopsy-proven benign nodule, observation is recommended unless certain criteria are present: local neck compressive/obstructive symptoms that can be confidently attributed to a thyroid nodule; patient preference (eg, due to anxiety or aesthetics); or higher index of suspicion (eg, history of previous radiation exposure, progressive nodule growth, or suspicious characteristics on US).^4,5

If surgical removal of a benign thyroid nodule is recommended, it is imperative to discuss the risks with patients. In addition to traditional surgery risks, thyroidectomy is associated with transient or permanent postoperative hypoparathyroidism, as well as vocal hoarseness or changes in vocal quality due to the proximity of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Additionally, patients should be advised of the potential for surgical hypothyroidism with hemithyroidectomy and certain irreversible hypothyroidism with total thyroidectomy.

After a discussion of the risks and cost of observation versus surgery, an informed decision between provider and patient can ultimately be reached.

Would thyroidectomy be recommended for Felicia? After a thorough discussion, it is decided that surgery is not indicated at this time. Relevant factors include the benign thyroid US characteristics, lack of clinical neck compressive symptoms, and patient preference.

According to the American Thyroid Association guidelines, Felicia’s risk for malignancy for the nodule in question is < 3%, since it is a partially cystic nodule without any suspicious sonographic features. By foregoing surgery, Felicia will need repeated imaging studies and possibly repeat serologic studies and FNA in the future.

References
1. Stang MT, Carty SE. Recent developments in predicting thyroid malignancy. Curr Opin Oncol. 2008;21(1):11-17.
2. Hambleton C, Kandil E. Appropriate and accurate diagnosis of thyroid nodules: a review of thyroid fine-needle aspiration. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2013;6(6):413-422.
3. American Cancer Society. Thyroid cancer (2014). www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/003144-pdf.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016.
4. Gharib H, Papini E, Garber J, et al; AACE/AME/ETA Task Force on Thyroid Nodules. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, Associazione Medici Endocrinologi, and European Thyroid Association medical guidelines for clinical practice for the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules—2016 Update. Endocrine Pract. 2016;22(suppl 1):1-60.
5. Haugen BR, Alexander EK, Bible KC, et al; The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. 2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2016; 26(1):1-133.
6. Yeung MJ, Serpell JW. Management of the solitary thyroid nodule. Oncologist. 2008; 13(2):105-112.
7. Renshaw A. Significance of repeatedly nondiagnostic thyroid fine-needle aspirations. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;135(5):750-752.

Q) One of my diabetic patients read about finerenone in The New York Times. Apparently, it’s the “newest cure for albuminuria”! Is this just hype, or do the trials on this medication really show progress against kidney disease? Should I buy stock in the company?

Albuminuria (> 500 mg/d) associated with diabetic nephropathy and other glomerular diseases increases patient risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and its progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Reduction of albuminuria has been shown to slow the progression of CKD.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, such as ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, are considered firstline therapy to reduce albuminuria. Additional treatment modalities include diuretics, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, ß-blockers, and aldosterone antagonist therapy. Limiting dietary sodium helps control blood pressure, thus slowing disease progression. In addition, some studies show that limiting phosphorus and protein (for the latter, intake of no more than 0.7 g/kg ideal body weight per day) may slow the progression of CKD. Unfortunately, despite these interventions, patients may still advance to ESRD.¹

The aldosterone and steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) spironolactone and eplerenone have been found to reduce albuminuria when used in conjunction with RAAS blockade. However, patients using this combination are up to eight times more likely to experience hyperkalemia—a serious, potentially life-threatening adverse condition—than those not using an MRA.² The presence of hyperkalemia requires discontinuation of the RAAS blocker and the MRA, at least temporarily.

Finerenone, a nonsteroidal MRA with “greater receptor selectivity than spironolactone and better receptor affinity than eplerenone in vitro,” is in phase III trials for the treatment of systolic and diastolic dysfunction and reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure.² One study has already demonstrated that finerenone (5 to 10 mg/d) is at least as effective as spironolactone (25 mg/d) for heart failure patients.³

The Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Tolerability Study-Diabetic Nephropathy (ARTS-DN) found that finerenone at 10 to 20 mg/d was superior to spironolactone and eplerenone, partly due to the decreased incidence of hyperkalemia. However, it should be noted that the lower incidence of hyperkalemia may be attributable to the fact that 66% of the study participants had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 60 mL/min and that potential participants with a serum potassium level of more than 4.8 mEq/L were not included in the study.²

Additional research is needed to confirm superiority of finerenone over spironolactone and eplerenone, in conjunction with RAAS blockers, in the treatment of albuminuria and hyperkalemia. Including subjects with lower eGFR (such as patients with stage IV CKD who are at higher risk for hyperkalemia) would give a better indication of finerenone’s efficacy. In the meantime, it’s probably too soon to corner the market on this stock! —SEB

Susan E. Brown, MS, ARNP, ACNP-BC, CCRN
Great River Nephrology, West Burlington, Iowa

References
1. Parikh SV, Haddad NJ, Hebert LA. Retarding progression of kidney disease. In: Johnson RJ, Feehally J, Floege J, eds. Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2015:931-940.
2. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Chan JC, et al. Effect of finerenone on albuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(9):884-894.
3. Kolkhof P, Delbeck M, Kretschmer A, et al. Finerenone, a novel selective nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, protects from rat cardiorenal injury. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2014;64(1):69-78.

Q) One of my diabetic patients read about finerenone in The New York Times. Apparently, it’s the “newest cure for albuminuria”! Is this just hype, or do the trials on this medication really show progress against kidney disease? Should I buy stock in the company?

Albuminuria (> 500 mg/d) associated with diabetic nephropathy and other glomerular diseases increases patient risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and its progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Reduction of albuminuria has been shown to slow the progression of CKD.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, such as ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, are considered firstline therapy to reduce albuminuria. Additional treatment modalities include diuretics, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, ß-blockers, and aldosterone antagonist therapy. Limiting dietary sodium helps control blood pressure, thus slowing disease progression. In addition, some studies show that limiting phosphorus and protein (for the latter, intake of no more than 0.7 g/kg ideal body weight per day) may slow the progression of CKD. Unfortunately, despite these interventions, patients may still advance to ESRD.¹

The aldosterone and steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) spironolactone and eplerenone have been found to reduce albuminuria when used in conjunction with RAAS blockade. However, patients using this combination are up to eight times more likely to experience hyperkalemia—a serious, potentially life-threatening adverse condition—than those not using an MRA.² The presence of hyperkalemia requires discontinuation of the RAAS blocker and the MRA, at least temporarily.

Finerenone, a nonsteroidal MRA with “greater receptor selectivity than spironolactone and better receptor affinity than eplerenone in vitro,” is in phase III trials for the treatment of systolic and diastolic dysfunction and reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure.² One study has already demonstrated that finerenone (5 to 10 mg/d) is at least as effective as spironolactone (25 mg/d) for heart failure patients.³

The Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Tolerability Study-Diabetic Nephropathy (ARTS-DN) found that finerenone at 10 to 20 mg/d was superior to spironolactone and eplerenone, partly due to the decreased incidence of hyperkalemia. However, it should be noted that the lower incidence of hyperkalemia may be attributable to the fact that 66% of the study participants had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 60 mL/min and that potential participants with a serum potassium level of more than 4.8 mEq/L were not included in the study.²

Additional research is needed to confirm superiority of finerenone over spironolactone and eplerenone, in conjunction with RAAS blockers, in the treatment of albuminuria and hyperkalemia. Including subjects with lower eGFR (such as patients with stage IV CKD who are at higher risk for hyperkalemia) would give a better indication of finerenone’s efficacy. In the meantime, it’s probably too soon to corner the market on this stock! —SEB

Susan E. Brown, MS, ARNP, ACNP-BC, CCRN
Great River Nephrology, West Burlington, Iowa

References
1. Parikh SV, Haddad NJ, Hebert LA. Retarding progression of kidney disease. In: Johnson RJ, Feehally J, Floege J, eds. Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2015:931-940.
2. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Chan JC, et al. Effect of finerenone on albuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(9):884-894.
3. Kolkhof P, Delbeck M, Kretschmer A, et al. Finerenone, a novel selective nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, protects from rat cardiorenal injury. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2014;64(1):69-78.

Q) One of my diabetic patients read about finerenone in The New York Times. Apparently, it’s the “newest cure for albuminuria”! Is this just hype, or do the trials on this medication really show progress against kidney disease? Should I buy stock in the company?

Albuminuria (> 500 mg/d) associated with diabetic nephropathy and other glomerular diseases increases patient risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and its progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Reduction of albuminuria has been shown to slow the progression of CKD.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, such as ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, are considered firstline therapy to reduce albuminuria. Additional treatment modalities include diuretics, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, ß-blockers, and aldosterone antagonist therapy. Limiting dietary sodium helps control blood pressure, thus slowing disease progression. In addition, some studies show that limiting phosphorus and protein (for the latter, intake of no more than 0.7 g/kg ideal body weight per day) may slow the progression of CKD. Unfortunately, despite these interventions, patients may still advance to ESRD.¹

The aldosterone and steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) spironolactone and eplerenone have been found to reduce albuminuria when used in conjunction with RAAS blockade. However, patients using this combination are up to eight times more likely to experience hyperkalemia—a serious, potentially life-threatening adverse condition—than those not using an MRA.² The presence of hyperkalemia requires discontinuation of the RAAS blocker and the MRA, at least temporarily.

Finerenone, a nonsteroidal MRA with “greater receptor selectivity than spironolactone and better receptor affinity than eplerenone in vitro,” is in phase III trials for the treatment of systolic and diastolic dysfunction and reduction of morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure.² One study has already demonstrated that finerenone (5 to 10 mg/d) is at least as effective as spironolactone (25 mg/d) for heart failure patients.³

The Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Tolerability Study-Diabetic Nephropathy (ARTS-DN) found that finerenone at 10 to 20 mg/d was superior to spironolactone and eplerenone, partly due to the decreased incidence of hyperkalemia. However, it should be noted that the lower incidence of hyperkalemia may be attributable to the fact that 66% of the study participants had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) greater than 60 mL/min and that potential participants with a serum potassium level of more than 4.8 mEq/L were not included in the study.²

Additional research is needed to confirm superiority of finerenone over spironolactone and eplerenone, in conjunction with RAAS blockers, in the treatment of albuminuria and hyperkalemia. Including subjects with lower eGFR (such as patients with stage IV CKD who are at higher risk for hyperkalemia) would give a better indication of finerenone’s efficacy. In the meantime, it’s probably too soon to corner the market on this stock! —SEB

Susan E. Brown, MS, ARNP, ACNP-BC, CCRN
Great River Nephrology, West Burlington, Iowa

References
1. Parikh SV, Haddad NJ, Hebert LA. Retarding progression of kidney disease. In: Johnson RJ, Feehally J, Floege J, eds. Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2015:931-940.
2. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Chan JC, et al. Effect of finerenone on albuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(9):884-894.
3. Kolkhof P, Delbeck M, Kretschmer A, et al. Finerenone, a novel selective nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, protects from rat cardiorenal injury. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2014;64(1):69-78.

Q) I see patients with diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), obesity ... often all within the same patient! I keep hearing that the DASH diet is best for these patients. Is this true? Do you have any suggestions (or handouts) for teaching good eating habits in a 15-minute office visit?

It is always nice to focus on what patients can do, rather than what they can’t. Patients with diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, and obesity hear a lot of “can’t” messages, making “can” messages particularly important to emphasize.

Healthy diets for diabetes, heart, and kidney patients include foods low in trans and saturated fats and sodium. Not all CKD patients are required to follow a low-potassium diet; dietary restrictions are based on laboratory values, medications, and other factors. As we know, adding an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to the treatment regimen can cause an elevation in serum potassium.

For adults with CKD, it is recommended that sodium intake be restricted to < 2,000 mg/d.⁴ And in this population, salt substitutes are not recommended, since they often contain large amounts of potassium chloride, which increases risk for hyperkalemia.⁵ Other ­spices (eg, garlic, pepper, lemon) are better substitutes for salt.

The late Paul Prudhomme, an award-winning chef from New Orleans, struggled with obesity and health issues for years. He developed wonderful, kidney-friendly spices free of salt and potassium. His line of spices, Magic Seasoning Blends, is sold in many grocery stores. You can recommend them without worry.

Studies have shown that the usual Western diet (which features an abundance of processed foods, fats, and sugars) contributes to kidney disease.⁶ The DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, developed by cardio experts, replaces these foods with healthier alternatives.

Recent research has shown that the DASH diet does, in fact, slow the progression of kidney disease.⁷ It also lowers blood pressure and decreases kidney stone formation, which are risk factors for kidney disease.

So, the DASH diet is protective for your patients (from both a kidney and a cardiac standpoint)—but how do you explain this in a 15-minute office visit?

Here are a few quick tips:
• Increase fruit and vegetable intake to include all colors on your plate (and no, tan is not really a color)
• If you eat meat, the cooking method should start with “B” (ie, bake, boil, broil, barbeque [without salty sauce]) ... Note that “fried” does not start with “B”!
• Use a smaller plate and you will not eat as much
• Use technology in your favor. There are great apps and downloads you can recommend (see Table). —CC

Christine Corbett, MSN, APRN, FNP-BC, CNN-NP
Kansas City Veterans Affairs, Kansas City, Missouri

References
4. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;(3):1-150.
5. National Kidney Disease Education Program. Potassium: tips for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-communication-programs/nkdep/a-z/nutrition-potassium/Documents/nutrition-potassium-508.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016.
6. Odermatt A. The Western-style diet: a major risk factor for impaired kidney function and chronic kidney disease. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2011;301(5):F919-F931.
7. Steiber A. DASH-style diet effective in preventing, delaying CKD progression. Renal and Urology News. 2012.

Q) I see patients with diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), obesity ... often all within the same patient! I keep hearing that the DASH diet is best for these patients. Is this true? Do you have any suggestions (or handouts) for teaching good eating habits in a 15-minute office visit?

It is always nice to focus on what patients can do, rather than what they can’t. Patients with diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, and obesity hear a lot of “can’t” messages, making “can” messages particularly important to emphasize.

Healthy diets for diabetes, heart, and kidney patients include foods low in trans and saturated fats and sodium. Not all CKD patients are required to follow a low-potassium diet; dietary restrictions are based on laboratory values, medications, and other factors. As we know, adding an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to the treatment regimen can cause an elevation in serum potassium.

For adults with CKD, it is recommended that sodium intake be restricted to < 2,000 mg/d.⁴ And in this population, salt substitutes are not recommended, since they often contain large amounts of potassium chloride, which increases risk for hyperkalemia.⁵ Other ­spices (eg, garlic, pepper, lemon) are better substitutes for salt.

The late Paul Prudhomme, an award-winning chef from New Orleans, struggled with obesity and health issues for years. He developed wonderful, kidney-friendly spices free of salt and potassium. His line of spices, Magic Seasoning Blends, is sold in many grocery stores. You can recommend them without worry.

Studies have shown that the usual Western diet (which features an abundance of processed foods, fats, and sugars) contributes to kidney disease.⁶ The DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, developed by cardio experts, replaces these foods with healthier alternatives.

Recent research has shown that the DASH diet does, in fact, slow the progression of kidney disease.⁷ It also lowers blood pressure and decreases kidney stone formation, which are risk factors for kidney disease.

So, the DASH diet is protective for your patients (from both a kidney and a cardiac standpoint)—but how do you explain this in a 15-minute office visit?

Here are a few quick tips:
• Increase fruit and vegetable intake to include all colors on your plate (and no, tan is not really a color)
• If you eat meat, the cooking method should start with “B” (ie, bake, boil, broil, barbeque [without salty sauce]) ... Note that “fried” does not start with “B”!
• Use a smaller plate and you will not eat as much
• Use technology in your favor. There are great apps and downloads you can recommend (see Table). —CC

Christine Corbett, MSN, APRN, FNP-BC, CNN-NP
Kansas City Veterans Affairs, Kansas City, Missouri

References
4. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;(3):1-150.
5. National Kidney Disease Education Program. Potassium: tips for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-communication-programs/nkdep/a-z/nutrition-potassium/Documents/nutrition-potassium-508.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016.
6. Odermatt A. The Western-style diet: a major risk factor for impaired kidney function and chronic kidney disease. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2011;301(5):F919-F931.
7. Steiber A. DASH-style diet effective in preventing, delaying CKD progression. Renal and Urology News. 2012.

Q) I see patients with diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), obesity ... often all within the same patient! I keep hearing that the DASH diet is best for these patients. Is this true? Do you have any suggestions (or handouts) for teaching good eating habits in a 15-minute office visit?

It is always nice to focus on what patients can do, rather than what they can’t. Patients with diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease, and obesity hear a lot of “can’t” messages, making “can” messages particularly important to emphasize.

Healthy diets for diabetes, heart, and kidney patients include foods low in trans and saturated fats and sodium. Not all CKD patients are required to follow a low-potassium diet; dietary restrictions are based on laboratory values, medications, and other factors. As we know, adding an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to the treatment regimen can cause an elevation in serum potassium.

For adults with CKD, it is recommended that sodium intake be restricted to < 2,000 mg/d.⁴ And in this population, salt substitutes are not recommended, since they often contain large amounts of potassium chloride, which increases risk for hyperkalemia.⁵ Other ­spices (eg, garlic, pepper, lemon) are better substitutes for salt.

The late Paul Prudhomme, an award-winning chef from New Orleans, struggled with obesity and health issues for years. He developed wonderful, kidney-friendly spices free of salt and potassium. His line of spices, Magic Seasoning Blends, is sold in many grocery stores. You can recommend them without worry.

Studies have shown that the usual Western diet (which features an abundance of processed foods, fats, and sugars) contributes to kidney disease.⁶ The DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet, developed by cardio experts, replaces these foods with healthier alternatives.

Recent research has shown that the DASH diet does, in fact, slow the progression of kidney disease.⁷ It also lowers blood pressure and decreases kidney stone formation, which are risk factors for kidney disease.

So, the DASH diet is protective for your patients (from both a kidney and a cardiac standpoint)—but how do you explain this in a 15-minute office visit?

Here are a few quick tips:
• Increase fruit and vegetable intake to include all colors on your plate (and no, tan is not really a color)
• If you eat meat, the cooking method should start with “B” (ie, bake, boil, broil, barbeque [without salty sauce]) ... Note that “fried” does not start with “B”!
• Use a smaller plate and you will not eat as much
• Use technology in your favor. There are great apps and downloads you can recommend (see Table). —CC

Christine Corbett, MSN, APRN, FNP-BC, CNN-NP
Kansas City Veterans Affairs, Kansas City, Missouri

References
4. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl. 2013;(3):1-150.
5. National Kidney Disease Education Program. Potassium: tips for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-communication-programs/nkdep/a-z/nutrition-potassium/Documents/nutrition-potassium-508.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2016.
6. Odermatt A. The Western-style diet: a major risk factor for impaired kidney function and chronic kidney disease. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2011;301(5):F919-F931.
7. Steiber A. DASH-style diet effective in preventing, delaying CKD progression. Renal and Urology News. 2012.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. CVD-related diseases affect 83.6 million people in the US and are responsible for almost 800,000 deaths annually.¹ The myriad underlying causes for these disorders range from inadequate lifestyle management to genetic abnormalities. One genetically determined abnormality is lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a).^2-4

It is estimated that 25% of the US population has elevated Lp(a) levels (> 30 mg/dL) that are clinically significant.⁵ Lp(a) is recognized as an independent risk factor for CVD, stroke, retinal artery occlusions, and restenosis of vein grafts.^2-5

Regardless of practice type, clinicians at some point in their career will see a “vasculopath.” Many of these patients have undiagnosed familial hypercholesterolemia, which affects 1 in 200 to 300 patients in the US and manifests with LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥ 190 mg/dL.^6-8 Other patients may have CVD with relatively “normal” traditional lipids, more aggressive premature disease, and/or progressive disease despite “usual therapy.”

As clinical lipid specialists working both in cardiology and endocrinology, the authors find the lack of evaluation for additional abnormalities in high-risk patients to be quite disturbing. The patient most commonly seen with the Lp(a) abnormality is one with CVD onset approximately one decade earlier than expected, along with a family history of premature CVD or closure of recently placed stents. Unfortunately, this may result in disease in the second or third decade for men and third or fourth decade for women.

Of course, CVD can leave patients with less productive lives and increase the burden to the health care system and to society. A positive outcome of identification of this apolipoprotein abnormality is that it may prompt evaluation of other family members prior to the inception of vascular disease. When it is identified in the asymptomatic, disease-free patient, aggressive risk reduction—in the form of lifestyle management and medication—may delay or prevent disease onset.

Continue for identification of the problem >>

Identification of the problem
Office visits seldom include a thorough and complete patient history. A “good” family history should include first-degree relatives. Time-constrained practi­tioners may take a rudimentary family history of immediate relatives when a pedigree of the patient would be more appropriate.

Pedigree assessment offers a more specific picture of disease in families and identifies prevalence and incidence. Busy clinicians could have patients use an online resource to generate their own family pedigree. Or, as in most practices, a medical assistant or other appropriate office staff could initiate the process in the chart.

Patients with premature or advanced disease and significant family history need further investigation. A suspect history would include multiple family members with disease earlier in life than expected and perhaps early cardiovascular death. The personal history of the patient may include multiple cardiovascular incidents despite therapeutic intervention; despite taking lipid-lowering and/or antiplatelet therapy, the patient will present with progressive disease. Often, disease manifests in multiple areas of the vasculature or as restenosis of previous interventions.

Genetics
Lp(a) results from a genetic variation of the apolipoprotein(a) (LPA) locus on chromosome 6q27. Lp(a) is comprised of an apolipoprotein(b) (apoB)–containing LDL molecule that is bonded to LPA. LPA is structurally similar to plasminogen, the precursor for plasmin that degrades fibrin in blood clots. Due to this similarity, LPA can competitively inhibit plasmin activity and thereby increase risk for thrombosis.^4,9

Continue for physical examination >>

Physical Examination
Patients with very elevated LDL-C levels in whom Lp(a) is also high may present with other outward stigmata of dyslipidemia. Visualization of the eye may reveal evidence of severe dyslipidemia with arcus cornea. This arcus can present as unilateral, bilateral, inferior, superior, or mixed and is representative of the buildup of cholesterol that cannot be removed from the body by normal means. Further examination may reveal tendon xanthomas, which are also representative of a genetic cholesterol disorder—in most cases, familial hypercholesterolemia.⁷

Laboratory Workup
In patients who are known or suspected to be at high risk for CVD, the laboratory workup should include a fasting lipid panel, with Lp(a) and apoB; a comprehensive metabolic profile to establish renal and liver function (as therapeutic interventions utilize these organs for metabolism); and a fasting glucose measurement to rule out occult diabetes, which enhances risk factors. Thyroid function is also assessed, secondary to its deleterious effects on lipid metabolism.

Lp(a) results must be interpreted in the context of ethnicity; significance will vary. For example, both the African-American and Asian populations have been found to have high levels of Lp(a), but these are generally felt to be less atherogenic in African Americans. No major differences have been identified for other populations. It is, however, important to note that those patients with nephropathies and elevated Lp(a) carry a higher risk for coronary artery disease.

Lp(a) levels will remain relatively steady throughout life, negating the need for routine monitoring once a patient’s levels have been established. The exception is postmenopausal women, in whom Lp(a) levels may increase due to changes in estrogen. It is prudent to assess Lp(a) in women both pre- and postmenopause, based on data from the Women’s Health Study.¹⁰

Continue for diagnosis and treatment >>

Diagnosis and Treatment
Elevated Lp(a), which is found in 25% to 35% of the population, is diagnosed at a level > 30 mg/dL, regardless of sex.^4,9 In conjunction with known disease, elevated Lp(a) is sufficient to warrant consideration of very aggressive treatment. In these circumstan­ces, the provider may consider a target LDL-C level ≤ 70 mg/dL.^6,7,11 In primary prevention, clinicians should consider lowering this threshold. Levels that may have been considered appropriate in a low- or moderate-risk patient (≤ 160 mg/dL and ≤ 130 mg/dL, respectively) may be reduced to ≤ 130 mg/dL and ≤ 100 mg/dL, respectively.^6,11

There is no peer-reviewed evidence with regard to lifestyle management (exercise and diet) for reduction of Lp(a). However, it is reasonable to recommend that high-risk patients adopt healthier regimens.

Management of elevated Lp(a) includes consideration of pharmacologic intervention. Since Lp(a) is prothrombotic, all patients without contraindications should at least be taking low-dose (81-mg) aspirin. Those with evidence of thrombotic events may need lifetime antiplatelet therapy.¹² Statin therapy has mixed and minimal effects on Lp(a), although it remains the mainstay of treatment due to its effects on LDL-C and other lipoproteins.¹³ Although long-term data are lacking, there is some anecdotal evidence of improvement with fibrate therapy. However, it is not recommended for treatment of elevated Lp(a).¹⁴

Nicotinic acid has had the longest and most robust history for reduction of Lp(a).^9,12 However, recent studies examining combination therapy with statins and nicotinic acid have yielded discouraging results—and in some cases have suggested negative outcomes with this combination.^15,16 High doses (4-5 g for immediate release and 2-3 g for sustained release) of nicotinic acid are necessary to produce beneficial results on Lp(a) or other lipid abnormalities (eg, elevated triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol).¹⁷ Use of OTC nicotinic acid is not recommended, since these products are considered dietary supplements and regulated as such, raising the potential for untoward adverse effects and/or the possibility that little to no active ingredient is present.^18-20

Results from the Women’s Health Study and the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study suggested that estrogen might be an effective therapy. In one analysis, women with elevated Lp(a) derived greater potential cardioprotective effects from hormone replacement therapy (HRT) than those with lower Lp(a), and the researchers noted a “significant interaction” between baseline Lp(a), HRT treatment, and CVD risk. However, use of HRT is not approved for treatment of vascular risk today, due to the potential for adverse effects.^10,21

A novel therapy, in the form of PCSK9 inhibition, has been shown to reduce LDL-C significantly; reduction in Lp(a) was also observed. The FDA recently approved two PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab and evolocumab) for use, although the primary indication is for further reduction in LDL-C on top of the maximally tolerated dose of statin therapy, not for reduction of Lp(a).^22,23

Apheresis has been shown to have positive effects in reducing ongoing vascular events in select patient populations. It is approved by the FDA for treatment of refractory LDL-C, mostly in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, but it is not indicated for treatment of elevated Lp(a). However, since Lp(a) tracks with LDL-C, it is also removed during the process; about a 50% reduction in Lp(a) levels has been noted, although levels rebound posttreatment. To date, reimbursement issues remain in the absence of an FDA indication and due to the paucity of treatment centers in the US.^24,25

Follow-up. The therapies mentioned require routine evaluation to assess tolerability and safety, as recommended in the prescribing information. Patients with known CVD should undergo an appropriate cardiac workup annually to evaluate for occult progression of disease. Patients require further evaluation of related cardiovascular risk factors and adherence with medication regimens. For primary prevention patients, annual follow-up is also recommended to assess for any changes in health status, lifestyle, or medication adherence.

Continue for conclusion >>

Conclusion
The average health care provider frequently performs the standard evaluation of a patient at risk for, or with, CVD. However, a subset of this population may be at increased cardiovascular risk due to Lp(a), a common genetic risk factor that can be responsible for premature or progressive CVD. Because of the aggressive nature of this disorder and the young age at which it influences the development of vascular disease, health care providers must be more vigilant about looking beyond the obvious in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia or family history of premature CVD.

Patients with progressive disease must be more thoroughly evaluated; there are already more than 63 million persons with elevated Lp(a) in the US—and many more undiagnosed—who may benefit from aggressive care. Underdiagnosis has been associated with decreased quality and productivity in the work environment, decreased quality of life, increased use of health dollars, and possibly early loss of life.

While the test for Lp(a) is readily available, the cost may not be covered by insurance and therefore may be passed on to the patient. It would behoove health care professionals to lobby for coverage as a means to reduce the prevalence of CVD, the number one cause of mortality in the US.

References
1. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Executive Summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 Update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129:399-410.
2. Bennet A, Di Angelantonio E, Erqou S, et al. Lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of future coronary heart disease: large-scale prospective data [published corrections appear in Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(10):1089 and Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(10):1096]. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(6):598-608.
3. Kamstrup PR, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Steffensen R, Nordestgaard BG. Genetically elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2009;301(22):2331-2339.
4. Suk DJ, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Lipo­protein(a), hormone replacement therapy, and risk of future cardiovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(2):124-131.
5. Scanu AM. Lipoprotein(a). A genetic risk factor for premature coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1992;267(24):3326-3329.
6. Goldberg AC, Hopkins PN, Toth PP; National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Familial hypercholesterolemia: screening, diagnosis and management of pediatric and adult patients: clinical guidance from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Lipid. 2011;5(3 suppl):S1-S8.
7. Ito M, McGowan MP, Moriarty PM; National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Management of familial hypercholesterolemias in adult patients: recommendations from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Lipid. 2011;5(3 suppl):S38-S45.
8. Sjouke B, Kusters DM, Kindt I, et al. Homozygous autosomal dominant hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands: prevalence, genotype-phenotype relationship, and clinical outcome. Eur Heart J. 2014 Feb 28. [Epub ahead of print]
9. Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Ray K, et al; European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Lipoprotein (a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current status. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(23):2844-2853.
10. Suk DJ, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Lipo­protein(a), measured with an assay independent of apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, and risk of future cardiovascular events among initially healthy women. JAMA. 2006;296 (11):1363-1370.
11. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110(2):227-239.
12. Jacobson TA. Lipoprotein (a), cardiovascular disease, and contemporary management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(11):1294-1311.
13. Hunninghake DB, Stein EA, Mellies MJ. Effects of one year of treatment with pravastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, on lipoprotein a. J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;33 (6):574-580.
14. Jones PH, Pownall HJ, Patsch W, et al. Effect of gemfibrozil on levels of lipoprotein[a] in type 2 hyperlipoproteinemic subjects. J Lipid Res. 1996;37(6):1298-1308.
15. Boden WE, Probstfield JL, Anderson T, et al; AIM-HIGH investigators. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(24):2255-2267.
16. Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, et al; HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;371 (3):203-212.
17. Morgan JM, Capuzzi DM, Guyton JR. A new extended-release niacin (Niaspan): efficacy, tolerability, and safety in hypercholesterolemic patients. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82 (12A): 29U-34U.
18. Piepho RW. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of agents proven to raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86(12A):35L-40L.
19. Guyton JR, Bays HE. Safety considerations with niacin therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(6A):22C-31C.
20. McKenney JM, Proctor JD, Harris S, Chinchili VM. A comparison of the efficacy and toxic effects of sustained- vs immediate-release niacin in hypercholesterolemic patients. JAMA. 1994;271(9):672-677.
21. Shlipak MG, Simon JA, Vittinghoff E, et al. Estrogen and progestin, lipoprotein(a), and the risk of recurrent coronary heart disease events after menopause. JAMA. 2000;283 (14):1845-1852.
22. Marbach JA, McKeon JL, Ross JL, Duffy D. Novel treatments for familial hypercholesterolemia: pharmacogenetics at work. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(9):961-972.
23. Stein EA, Mellis S, Yancopoulos GD, et al. Effect of a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9 on LDL cholesterol. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12): 1108-1118.
24. Sachais BS, Katz J, Ross J, Rader DJ. Long-term effects of LDL apheresis in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Apher. 2005;20:252-255.
25. Waldmann E, Parhofer K. Lipoprotein apheresis to treat elevated lipoprotein(a). J Lipid Res. 2016 Feb 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. CVD-related diseases affect 83.6 million people in the US and are responsible for almost 800,000 deaths annually.¹ The myriad underlying causes for these disorders range from inadequate lifestyle management to genetic abnormalities. One genetically determined abnormality is lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a).^2-4

It is estimated that 25% of the US population has elevated Lp(a) levels (> 30 mg/dL) that are clinically significant.⁵ Lp(a) is recognized as an independent risk factor for CVD, stroke, retinal artery occlusions, and restenosis of vein grafts.^2-5

Regardless of practice type, clinicians at some point in their career will see a “vasculopath.” Many of these patients have undiagnosed familial hypercholesterolemia, which affects 1 in 200 to 300 patients in the US and manifests with LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥ 190 mg/dL.^6-8 Other patients may have CVD with relatively “normal” traditional lipids, more aggressive premature disease, and/or progressive disease despite “usual therapy.”

As clinical lipid specialists working both in cardiology and endocrinology, the authors find the lack of evaluation for additional abnormalities in high-risk patients to be quite disturbing. The patient most commonly seen with the Lp(a) abnormality is one with CVD onset approximately one decade earlier than expected, along with a family history of premature CVD or closure of recently placed stents. Unfortunately, this may result in disease in the second or third decade for men and third or fourth decade for women.

Of course, CVD can leave patients with less productive lives and increase the burden to the health care system and to society. A positive outcome of identification of this apolipoprotein abnormality is that it may prompt evaluation of other family members prior to the inception of vascular disease. When it is identified in the asymptomatic, disease-free patient, aggressive risk reduction—in the form of lifestyle management and medication—may delay or prevent disease onset.

Continue for identification of the problem >>

Identification of the problem
Office visits seldom include a thorough and complete patient history. A “good” family history should include first-degree relatives. Time-constrained practi­tioners may take a rudimentary family history of immediate relatives when a pedigree of the patient would be more appropriate.

Pedigree assessment offers a more specific picture of disease in families and identifies prevalence and incidence. Busy clinicians could have patients use an online resource to generate their own family pedigree. Or, as in most practices, a medical assistant or other appropriate office staff could initiate the process in the chart.

Patients with premature or advanced disease and significant family history need further investigation. A suspect history would include multiple family members with disease earlier in life than expected and perhaps early cardiovascular death. The personal history of the patient may include multiple cardiovascular incidents despite therapeutic intervention; despite taking lipid-lowering and/or antiplatelet therapy, the patient will present with progressive disease. Often, disease manifests in multiple areas of the vasculature or as restenosis of previous interventions.

Genetics
Lp(a) results from a genetic variation of the apolipoprotein(a) (LPA) locus on chromosome 6q27. Lp(a) is comprised of an apolipoprotein(b) (apoB)–containing LDL molecule that is bonded to LPA. LPA is structurally similar to plasminogen, the precursor for plasmin that degrades fibrin in blood clots. Due to this similarity, LPA can competitively inhibit plasmin activity and thereby increase risk for thrombosis.^4,9

Continue for physical examination >>

Physical Examination
Patients with very elevated LDL-C levels in whom Lp(a) is also high may present with other outward stigmata of dyslipidemia. Visualization of the eye may reveal evidence of severe dyslipidemia with arcus cornea. This arcus can present as unilateral, bilateral, inferior, superior, or mixed and is representative of the buildup of cholesterol that cannot be removed from the body by normal means. Further examination may reveal tendon xanthomas, which are also representative of a genetic cholesterol disorder—in most cases, familial hypercholesterolemia.⁷

Laboratory Workup
In patients who are known or suspected to be at high risk for CVD, the laboratory workup should include a fasting lipid panel, with Lp(a) and apoB; a comprehensive metabolic profile to establish renal and liver function (as therapeutic interventions utilize these organs for metabolism); and a fasting glucose measurement to rule out occult diabetes, which enhances risk factors. Thyroid function is also assessed, secondary to its deleterious effects on lipid metabolism.

Lp(a) results must be interpreted in the context of ethnicity; significance will vary. For example, both the African-American and Asian populations have been found to have high levels of Lp(a), but these are generally felt to be less atherogenic in African Americans. No major differences have been identified for other populations. It is, however, important to note that those patients with nephropathies and elevated Lp(a) carry a higher risk for coronary artery disease.

Lp(a) levels will remain relatively steady throughout life, negating the need for routine monitoring once a patient’s levels have been established. The exception is postmenopausal women, in whom Lp(a) levels may increase due to changes in estrogen. It is prudent to assess Lp(a) in women both pre- and postmenopause, based on data from the Women’s Health Study.¹⁰

Continue for diagnosis and treatment >>

Diagnosis and Treatment
Elevated Lp(a), which is found in 25% to 35% of the population, is diagnosed at a level > 30 mg/dL, regardless of sex.^4,9 In conjunction with known disease, elevated Lp(a) is sufficient to warrant consideration of very aggressive treatment. In these circumstan­ces, the provider may consider a target LDL-C level ≤ 70 mg/dL.^6,7,11 In primary prevention, clinicians should consider lowering this threshold. Levels that may have been considered appropriate in a low- or moderate-risk patient (≤ 160 mg/dL and ≤ 130 mg/dL, respectively) may be reduced to ≤ 130 mg/dL and ≤ 100 mg/dL, respectively.^6,11

There is no peer-reviewed evidence with regard to lifestyle management (exercise and diet) for reduction of Lp(a). However, it is reasonable to recommend that high-risk patients adopt healthier regimens.

Management of elevated Lp(a) includes consideration of pharmacologic intervention. Since Lp(a) is prothrombotic, all patients without contraindications should at least be taking low-dose (81-mg) aspirin. Those with evidence of thrombotic events may need lifetime antiplatelet therapy.¹² Statin therapy has mixed and minimal effects on Lp(a), although it remains the mainstay of treatment due to its effects on LDL-C and other lipoproteins.¹³ Although long-term data are lacking, there is some anecdotal evidence of improvement with fibrate therapy. However, it is not recommended for treatment of elevated Lp(a).¹⁴

Nicotinic acid has had the longest and most robust history for reduction of Lp(a).^9,12 However, recent studies examining combination therapy with statins and nicotinic acid have yielded discouraging results—and in some cases have suggested negative outcomes with this combination.^15,16 High doses (4-5 g for immediate release and 2-3 g for sustained release) of nicotinic acid are necessary to produce beneficial results on Lp(a) or other lipid abnormalities (eg, elevated triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol).¹⁷ Use of OTC nicotinic acid is not recommended, since these products are considered dietary supplements and regulated as such, raising the potential for untoward adverse effects and/or the possibility that little to no active ingredient is present.^18-20

Results from the Women’s Health Study and the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study suggested that estrogen might be an effective therapy. In one analysis, women with elevated Lp(a) derived greater potential cardioprotective effects from hormone replacement therapy (HRT) than those with lower Lp(a), and the researchers noted a “significant interaction” between baseline Lp(a), HRT treatment, and CVD risk. However, use of HRT is not approved for treatment of vascular risk today, due to the potential for adverse effects.^10,21

A novel therapy, in the form of PCSK9 inhibition, has been shown to reduce LDL-C significantly; reduction in Lp(a) was also observed. The FDA recently approved two PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab and evolocumab) for use, although the primary indication is for further reduction in LDL-C on top of the maximally tolerated dose of statin therapy, not for reduction of Lp(a).^22,23

Apheresis has been shown to have positive effects in reducing ongoing vascular events in select patient populations. It is approved by the FDA for treatment of refractory LDL-C, mostly in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, but it is not indicated for treatment of elevated Lp(a). However, since Lp(a) tracks with LDL-C, it is also removed during the process; about a 50% reduction in Lp(a) levels has been noted, although levels rebound posttreatment. To date, reimbursement issues remain in the absence of an FDA indication and due to the paucity of treatment centers in the US.^24,25

Follow-up. The therapies mentioned require routine evaluation to assess tolerability and safety, as recommended in the prescribing information. Patients with known CVD should undergo an appropriate cardiac workup annually to evaluate for occult progression of disease. Patients require further evaluation of related cardiovascular risk factors and adherence with medication regimens. For primary prevention patients, annual follow-up is also recommended to assess for any changes in health status, lifestyle, or medication adherence.

Continue for conclusion >>

Conclusion
The average health care provider frequently performs the standard evaluation of a patient at risk for, or with, CVD. However, a subset of this population may be at increased cardiovascular risk due to Lp(a), a common genetic risk factor that can be responsible for premature or progressive CVD. Because of the aggressive nature of this disorder and the young age at which it influences the development of vascular disease, health care providers must be more vigilant about looking beyond the obvious in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia or family history of premature CVD.

Patients with progressive disease must be more thoroughly evaluated; there are already more than 63 million persons with elevated Lp(a) in the US—and many more undiagnosed—who may benefit from aggressive care. Underdiagnosis has been associated with decreased quality and productivity in the work environment, decreased quality of life, increased use of health dollars, and possibly early loss of life.

While the test for Lp(a) is readily available, the cost may not be covered by insurance and therefore may be passed on to the patient. It would behoove health care professionals to lobby for coverage as a means to reduce the prevalence of CVD, the number one cause of mortality in the US.

References
1. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Executive Summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 Update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129:399-410.
2. Bennet A, Di Angelantonio E, Erqou S, et al. Lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of future coronary heart disease: large-scale prospective data [published corrections appear in Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(10):1089 and Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(10):1096]. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(6):598-608.
3. Kamstrup PR, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Steffensen R, Nordestgaard BG. Genetically elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2009;301(22):2331-2339.
4. Suk DJ, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Lipo­protein(a), hormone replacement therapy, and risk of future cardiovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(2):124-131.
5. Scanu AM. Lipoprotein(a). A genetic risk factor for premature coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1992;267(24):3326-3329.
6. Goldberg AC, Hopkins PN, Toth PP; National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Familial hypercholesterolemia: screening, diagnosis and management of pediatric and adult patients: clinical guidance from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Lipid. 2011;5(3 suppl):S1-S8.
7. Ito M, McGowan MP, Moriarty PM; National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Management of familial hypercholesterolemias in adult patients: recommendations from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Lipid. 2011;5(3 suppl):S38-S45.
8. Sjouke B, Kusters DM, Kindt I, et al. Homozygous autosomal dominant hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands: prevalence, genotype-phenotype relationship, and clinical outcome. Eur Heart J. 2014 Feb 28. [Epub ahead of print]
9. Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Ray K, et al; European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Lipoprotein (a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current status. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(23):2844-2853.
10. Suk DJ, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Lipo­protein(a), measured with an assay independent of apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, and risk of future cardiovascular events among initially healthy women. JAMA. 2006;296 (11):1363-1370.
11. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110(2):227-239.
12. Jacobson TA. Lipoprotein (a), cardiovascular disease, and contemporary management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(11):1294-1311.
13. Hunninghake DB, Stein EA, Mellies MJ. Effects of one year of treatment with pravastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, on lipoprotein a. J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;33 (6):574-580.
14. Jones PH, Pownall HJ, Patsch W, et al. Effect of gemfibrozil on levels of lipoprotein[a] in type 2 hyperlipoproteinemic subjects. J Lipid Res. 1996;37(6):1298-1308.
15. Boden WE, Probstfield JL, Anderson T, et al; AIM-HIGH investigators. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(24):2255-2267.
16. Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, et al; HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;371 (3):203-212.
17. Morgan JM, Capuzzi DM, Guyton JR. A new extended-release niacin (Niaspan): efficacy, tolerability, and safety in hypercholesterolemic patients. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82 (12A): 29U-34U.
18. Piepho RW. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of agents proven to raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86(12A):35L-40L.
19. Guyton JR, Bays HE. Safety considerations with niacin therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(6A):22C-31C.
20. McKenney JM, Proctor JD, Harris S, Chinchili VM. A comparison of the efficacy and toxic effects of sustained- vs immediate-release niacin in hypercholesterolemic patients. JAMA. 1994;271(9):672-677.
21. Shlipak MG, Simon JA, Vittinghoff E, et al. Estrogen and progestin, lipoprotein(a), and the risk of recurrent coronary heart disease events after menopause. JAMA. 2000;283 (14):1845-1852.
22. Marbach JA, McKeon JL, Ross JL, Duffy D. Novel treatments for familial hypercholesterolemia: pharmacogenetics at work. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(9):961-972.
23. Stein EA, Mellis S, Yancopoulos GD, et al. Effect of a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9 on LDL cholesterol. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12): 1108-1118.
24. Sachais BS, Katz J, Ross J, Rader DJ. Long-term effects of LDL apheresis in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Apher. 2005;20:252-255.
25. Waldmann E, Parhofer K. Lipoprotein apheresis to treat elevated lipoprotein(a). J Lipid Res. 2016 Feb 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. CVD-related diseases affect 83.6 million people in the US and are responsible for almost 800,000 deaths annually.¹ The myriad underlying causes for these disorders range from inadequate lifestyle management to genetic abnormalities. One genetically determined abnormality is lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a).^2-4

It is estimated that 25% of the US population has elevated Lp(a) levels (> 30 mg/dL) that are clinically significant.⁵ Lp(a) is recognized as an independent risk factor for CVD, stroke, retinal artery occlusions, and restenosis of vein grafts.^2-5

Regardless of practice type, clinicians at some point in their career will see a “vasculopath.” Many of these patients have undiagnosed familial hypercholesterolemia, which affects 1 in 200 to 300 patients in the US and manifests with LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥ 190 mg/dL.^6-8 Other patients may have CVD with relatively “normal” traditional lipids, more aggressive premature disease, and/or progressive disease despite “usual therapy.”

As clinical lipid specialists working both in cardiology and endocrinology, the authors find the lack of evaluation for additional abnormalities in high-risk patients to be quite disturbing. The patient most commonly seen with the Lp(a) abnormality is one with CVD onset approximately one decade earlier than expected, along with a family history of premature CVD or closure of recently placed stents. Unfortunately, this may result in disease in the second or third decade for men and third or fourth decade for women.

Of course, CVD can leave patients with less productive lives and increase the burden to the health care system and to society. A positive outcome of identification of this apolipoprotein abnormality is that it may prompt evaluation of other family members prior to the inception of vascular disease. When it is identified in the asymptomatic, disease-free patient, aggressive risk reduction—in the form of lifestyle management and medication—may delay or prevent disease onset.

Continue for identification of the problem >>

Identification of the problem
Office visits seldom include a thorough and complete patient history. A “good” family history should include first-degree relatives. Time-constrained practi­tioners may take a rudimentary family history of immediate relatives when a pedigree of the patient would be more appropriate.

Pedigree assessment offers a more specific picture of disease in families and identifies prevalence and incidence. Busy clinicians could have patients use an online resource to generate their own family pedigree. Or, as in most practices, a medical assistant or other appropriate office staff could initiate the process in the chart.

Patients with premature or advanced disease and significant family history need further investigation. A suspect history would include multiple family members with disease earlier in life than expected and perhaps early cardiovascular death. The personal history of the patient may include multiple cardiovascular incidents despite therapeutic intervention; despite taking lipid-lowering and/or antiplatelet therapy, the patient will present with progressive disease. Often, disease manifests in multiple areas of the vasculature or as restenosis of previous interventions.

Genetics
Lp(a) results from a genetic variation of the apolipoprotein(a) (LPA) locus on chromosome 6q27. Lp(a) is comprised of an apolipoprotein(b) (apoB)–containing LDL molecule that is bonded to LPA. LPA is structurally similar to plasminogen, the precursor for plasmin that degrades fibrin in blood clots. Due to this similarity, LPA can competitively inhibit plasmin activity and thereby increase risk for thrombosis.^4,9

Continue for physical examination >>

Physical Examination
Patients with very elevated LDL-C levels in whom Lp(a) is also high may present with other outward stigmata of dyslipidemia. Visualization of the eye may reveal evidence of severe dyslipidemia with arcus cornea. This arcus can present as unilateral, bilateral, inferior, superior, or mixed and is representative of the buildup of cholesterol that cannot be removed from the body by normal means. Further examination may reveal tendon xanthomas, which are also representative of a genetic cholesterol disorder—in most cases, familial hypercholesterolemia.⁷

Laboratory Workup
In patients who are known or suspected to be at high risk for CVD, the laboratory workup should include a fasting lipid panel, with Lp(a) and apoB; a comprehensive metabolic profile to establish renal and liver function (as therapeutic interventions utilize these organs for metabolism); and a fasting glucose measurement to rule out occult diabetes, which enhances risk factors. Thyroid function is also assessed, secondary to its deleterious effects on lipid metabolism.

Lp(a) results must be interpreted in the context of ethnicity; significance will vary. For example, both the African-American and Asian populations have been found to have high levels of Lp(a), but these are generally felt to be less atherogenic in African Americans. No major differences have been identified for other populations. It is, however, important to note that those patients with nephropathies and elevated Lp(a) carry a higher risk for coronary artery disease.

Lp(a) levels will remain relatively steady throughout life, negating the need for routine monitoring once a patient’s levels have been established. The exception is postmenopausal women, in whom Lp(a) levels may increase due to changes in estrogen. It is prudent to assess Lp(a) in women both pre- and postmenopause, based on data from the Women’s Health Study.¹⁰

Continue for diagnosis and treatment >>

Diagnosis and Treatment
Elevated Lp(a), which is found in 25% to 35% of the population, is diagnosed at a level > 30 mg/dL, regardless of sex.^4,9 In conjunction with known disease, elevated Lp(a) is sufficient to warrant consideration of very aggressive treatment. In these circumstan­ces, the provider may consider a target LDL-C level ≤ 70 mg/dL.^6,7,11 In primary prevention, clinicians should consider lowering this threshold. Levels that may have been considered appropriate in a low- or moderate-risk patient (≤ 160 mg/dL and ≤ 130 mg/dL, respectively) may be reduced to ≤ 130 mg/dL and ≤ 100 mg/dL, respectively.^6,11

There is no peer-reviewed evidence with regard to lifestyle management (exercise and diet) for reduction of Lp(a). However, it is reasonable to recommend that high-risk patients adopt healthier regimens.

Management of elevated Lp(a) includes consideration of pharmacologic intervention. Since Lp(a) is prothrombotic, all patients without contraindications should at least be taking low-dose (81-mg) aspirin. Those with evidence of thrombotic events may need lifetime antiplatelet therapy.¹² Statin therapy has mixed and minimal effects on Lp(a), although it remains the mainstay of treatment due to its effects on LDL-C and other lipoproteins.¹³ Although long-term data are lacking, there is some anecdotal evidence of improvement with fibrate therapy. However, it is not recommended for treatment of elevated Lp(a).¹⁴

Nicotinic acid has had the longest and most robust history for reduction of Lp(a).^9,12 However, recent studies examining combination therapy with statins and nicotinic acid have yielded discouraging results—and in some cases have suggested negative outcomes with this combination.^15,16 High doses (4-5 g for immediate release and 2-3 g for sustained release) of nicotinic acid are necessary to produce beneficial results on Lp(a) or other lipid abnormalities (eg, elevated triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol).¹⁷ Use of OTC nicotinic acid is not recommended, since these products are considered dietary supplements and regulated as such, raising the potential for untoward adverse effects and/or the possibility that little to no active ingredient is present.^18-20

Results from the Women’s Health Study and the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study suggested that estrogen might be an effective therapy. In one analysis, women with elevated Lp(a) derived greater potential cardioprotective effects from hormone replacement therapy (HRT) than those with lower Lp(a), and the researchers noted a “significant interaction” between baseline Lp(a), HRT treatment, and CVD risk. However, use of HRT is not approved for treatment of vascular risk today, due to the potential for adverse effects.^10,21

A novel therapy, in the form of PCSK9 inhibition, has been shown to reduce LDL-C significantly; reduction in Lp(a) was also observed. The FDA recently approved two PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab and evolocumab) for use, although the primary indication is for further reduction in LDL-C on top of the maximally tolerated dose of statin therapy, not for reduction of Lp(a).^22,23

Apheresis has been shown to have positive effects in reducing ongoing vascular events in select patient populations. It is approved by the FDA for treatment of refractory LDL-C, mostly in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, but it is not indicated for treatment of elevated Lp(a). However, since Lp(a) tracks with LDL-C, it is also removed during the process; about a 50% reduction in Lp(a) levels has been noted, although levels rebound posttreatment. To date, reimbursement issues remain in the absence of an FDA indication and due to the paucity of treatment centers in the US.^24,25

Follow-up. The therapies mentioned require routine evaluation to assess tolerability and safety, as recommended in the prescribing information. Patients with known CVD should undergo an appropriate cardiac workup annually to evaluate for occult progression of disease. Patients require further evaluation of related cardiovascular risk factors and adherence with medication regimens. For primary prevention patients, annual follow-up is also recommended to assess for any changes in health status, lifestyle, or medication adherence.

Continue for conclusion >>

Conclusion
The average health care provider frequently performs the standard evaluation of a patient at risk for, or with, CVD. However, a subset of this population may be at increased cardiovascular risk due to Lp(a), a common genetic risk factor that can be responsible for premature or progressive CVD. Because of the aggressive nature of this disorder and the young age at which it influences the development of vascular disease, health care providers must be more vigilant about looking beyond the obvious in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia or family history of premature CVD.

Patients with progressive disease must be more thoroughly evaluated; there are already more than 63 million persons with elevated Lp(a) in the US—and many more undiagnosed—who may benefit from aggressive care. Underdiagnosis has been associated with decreased quality and productivity in the work environment, decreased quality of life, increased use of health dollars, and possibly early loss of life.

While the test for Lp(a) is readily available, the cost may not be covered by insurance and therefore may be passed on to the patient. It would behoove health care professionals to lobby for coverage as a means to reduce the prevalence of CVD, the number one cause of mortality in the US.

References
1. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al; American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Executive Summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 Update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129:399-410.
2. Bennet A, Di Angelantonio E, Erqou S, et al. Lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of future coronary heart disease: large-scale prospective data [published corrections appear in Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(10):1089 and Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(10):1096]. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(6):598-608.
3. Kamstrup PR, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Steffensen R, Nordestgaard BG. Genetically elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2009;301(22):2331-2339.
4. Suk DJ, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Lipo­protein(a), hormone replacement therapy, and risk of future cardiovascular events. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(2):124-131.
5. Scanu AM. Lipoprotein(a). A genetic risk factor for premature coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1992;267(24):3326-3329.
6. Goldberg AC, Hopkins PN, Toth PP; National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Familial hypercholesterolemia: screening, diagnosis and management of pediatric and adult patients: clinical guidance from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Lipid. 2011;5(3 suppl):S1-S8.
7. Ito M, McGowan MP, Moriarty PM; National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Management of familial hypercholesterolemias in adult patients: recommendations from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Lipid. 2011;5(3 suppl):S38-S45.
8. Sjouke B, Kusters DM, Kindt I, et al. Homozygous autosomal dominant hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands: prevalence, genotype-phenotype relationship, and clinical outcome. Eur Heart J. 2014 Feb 28. [Epub ahead of print]
9. Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Ray K, et al; European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Lipoprotein (a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current status. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(23):2844-2853.
10. Suk DJ, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Lipo­protein(a), measured with an assay independent of apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, and risk of future cardiovascular events among initially healthy women. JAMA. 2006;296 (11):1363-1370.
11. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110(2):227-239.
12. Jacobson TA. Lipoprotein (a), cardiovascular disease, and contemporary management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88(11):1294-1311.
13. Hunninghake DB, Stein EA, Mellies MJ. Effects of one year of treatment with pravastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, on lipoprotein a. J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;33 (6):574-580.
14. Jones PH, Pownall HJ, Patsch W, et al. Effect of gemfibrozil on levels of lipoprotein[a] in type 2 hyperlipoproteinemic subjects. J Lipid Res. 1996;37(6):1298-1308.
15. Boden WE, Probstfield JL, Anderson T, et al; AIM-HIGH investigators. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(24):2255-2267.
16. Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, et al; HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;371 (3):203-212.
17. Morgan JM, Capuzzi DM, Guyton JR. A new extended-release niacin (Niaspan): efficacy, tolerability, and safety in hypercholesterolemic patients. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82 (12A): 29U-34U.
18. Piepho RW. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of agents proven to raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86(12A):35L-40L.
19. Guyton JR, Bays HE. Safety considerations with niacin therapy. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(6A):22C-31C.
20. McKenney JM, Proctor JD, Harris S, Chinchili VM. A comparison of the efficacy and toxic effects of sustained- vs immediate-release niacin in hypercholesterolemic patients. JAMA. 1994;271(9):672-677.
21. Shlipak MG, Simon JA, Vittinghoff E, et al. Estrogen and progestin, lipoprotein(a), and the risk of recurrent coronary heart disease events after menopause. JAMA. 2000;283 (14):1845-1852.
22. Marbach JA, McKeon JL, Ross JL, Duffy D. Novel treatments for familial hypercholesterolemia: pharmacogenetics at work. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34(9):961-972.
23. Stein EA, Mellis S, Yancopoulos GD, et al. Effect of a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9 on LDL cholesterol. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(12): 1108-1118.
24. Sachais BS, Katz J, Ross J, Rader DJ. Long-term effects of LDL apheresis in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Apher. 2005;20:252-255.
25. Waldmann E, Parhofer K. Lipoprotein apheresis to treat elevated lipoprotein(a). J Lipid Res. 2016 Feb 17. [Epub ahead of print]

Q) suPAR, a new screening tool for chronic kidney disease, has gotten a lot of press recently. My practice is interested in implementing it, but we can’t find information on how to obtain it. Is it commercially available yet? How can we order it? And importantly for our patients, do insurance plans cover it?

Research has been ongoing regarding biomarkers that could identify those at risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) long before loss of renal function is apparent. A recently published study suggests that the circulating protein, soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), may be such a biomarker.

In a study of 3,683 subjects (ages 20 to 90) undergoing cardiac catheterization, and a further evaluation of 347 subjects in the Women’s Interagency HIV Study, Hayek et al found that elevated levels of suPAR were independently associated with CKD and with accelerated loss of renal function. At five-year follow-up, 24% of the 1,335 subjects with an initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² had developed CKD. Risk for progression to CKD was about 41% in those with a baseline suPAR level ≥ 3,040 ng/mL, compared to 12% in those with lower baseline suPAR levels.¹ Thus, the cutoff for high versus low risk appears to be 3,040 ng/mL.

Hayek and associates are not the first or the only investigators studying the connection between suPAR and kidney disease. Evolving research has suggested suPAR may be an initiating factor in the development of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS).² However, a recent study did not support this association.³

Currently, in the United States, laboratory testing for suPAR is available only for research purposes and has not been approved by the FDA for direct patient care.⁴ While more research is needed with different cohorts, there is much excitement in the field of nephrology regarding the potential role of suPAR as a biomarker for predicting CKD. —CS

Cindy Smith, DNP, APRN, CNN-NP, FNP-BC
Renal Consultants, PLLC, South Charleston, West Virgina

References
1. Hayek SS, Sever S, Ko Y-A, et al. Soluble urokinase receptor and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1916-1925.
2. Spinale JM, Mariani LH, Kapoor S, et al. A reassessment of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor in glomerular disease. Kidney Int. 2015;87(3):564-574.
3. Wei C, El Hindi S, Li J, et al. Circulating urokinase receptor as a cause of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.Nature Med. 2011;17: 952-960.
4. Rush University Medical Center. Early warning found for chronic kidney disease: common protein in blood rises months or years before disease develops [news release]. November 5, 2015. www.rush.edu/news/press-releases/early-warning-found-chronic-kidney-disease. Accessed April 11, 2016.

Q) suPAR, a new screening tool for chronic kidney disease, has gotten a lot of press recently. My practice is interested in implementing it, but we can’t find information on how to obtain it. Is it commercially available yet? How can we order it? And importantly for our patients, do insurance plans cover it?

Research has been ongoing regarding biomarkers that could identify those at risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) long before loss of renal function is apparent. A recently published study suggests that the circulating protein, soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), may be such a biomarker.

In a study of 3,683 subjects (ages 20 to 90) undergoing cardiac catheterization, and a further evaluation of 347 subjects in the Women’s Interagency HIV Study, Hayek et al found that elevated levels of suPAR were independently associated with CKD and with accelerated loss of renal function. At five-year follow-up, 24% of the 1,335 subjects with an initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² had developed CKD. Risk for progression to CKD was about 41% in those with a baseline suPAR level ≥ 3,040 ng/mL, compared to 12% in those with lower baseline suPAR levels.¹ Thus, the cutoff for high versus low risk appears to be 3,040 ng/mL.

Hayek and associates are not the first or the only investigators studying the connection between suPAR and kidney disease. Evolving research has suggested suPAR may be an initiating factor in the development of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS).² However, a recent study did not support this association.³

Currently, in the United States, laboratory testing for suPAR is available only for research purposes and has not been approved by the FDA for direct patient care.⁴ While more research is needed with different cohorts, there is much excitement in the field of nephrology regarding the potential role of suPAR as a biomarker for predicting CKD. —CS

Cindy Smith, DNP, APRN, CNN-NP, FNP-BC
Renal Consultants, PLLC, South Charleston, West Virgina

References
1. Hayek SS, Sever S, Ko Y-A, et al. Soluble urokinase receptor and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1916-1925.
2. Spinale JM, Mariani LH, Kapoor S, et al. A reassessment of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor in glomerular disease. Kidney Int. 2015;87(3):564-574.
3. Wei C, El Hindi S, Li J, et al. Circulating urokinase receptor as a cause of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.Nature Med. 2011;17: 952-960.
4. Rush University Medical Center. Early warning found for chronic kidney disease: common protein in blood rises months or years before disease develops [news release]. November 5, 2015. www.rush.edu/news/press-releases/early-warning-found-chronic-kidney-disease. Accessed April 11, 2016.

Q) suPAR, a new screening tool for chronic kidney disease, has gotten a lot of press recently. My practice is interested in implementing it, but we can’t find information on how to obtain it. Is it commercially available yet? How can we order it? And importantly for our patients, do insurance plans cover it?

Research has been ongoing regarding biomarkers that could identify those at risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) long before loss of renal function is apparent. A recently published study suggests that the circulating protein, soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR), may be such a biomarker.

In a study of 3,683 subjects (ages 20 to 90) undergoing cardiac catheterization, and a further evaluation of 347 subjects in the Women’s Interagency HIV Study, Hayek et al found that elevated levels of suPAR were independently associated with CKD and with accelerated loss of renal function. At five-year follow-up, 24% of the 1,335 subjects with an initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² had developed CKD. Risk for progression to CKD was about 41% in those with a baseline suPAR level ≥ 3,040 ng/mL, compared to 12% in those with lower baseline suPAR levels.¹ Thus, the cutoff for high versus low risk appears to be 3,040 ng/mL.

Hayek and associates are not the first or the only investigators studying the connection between suPAR and kidney disease. Evolving research has suggested suPAR may be an initiating factor in the development of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS).² However, a recent study did not support this association.³

Currently, in the United States, laboratory testing for suPAR is available only for research purposes and has not been approved by the FDA for direct patient care.⁴ While more research is needed with different cohorts, there is much excitement in the field of nephrology regarding the potential role of suPAR as a biomarker for predicting CKD. —CS

Cindy Smith, DNP, APRN, CNN-NP, FNP-BC
Renal Consultants, PLLC, South Charleston, West Virgina

References
1. Hayek SS, Sever S, Ko Y-A, et al. Soluble urokinase receptor and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1916-1925.
2. Spinale JM, Mariani LH, Kapoor S, et al. A reassessment of soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor in glomerular disease. Kidney Int. 2015;87(3):564-574.
3. Wei C, El Hindi S, Li J, et al. Circulating urokinase receptor as a cause of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.Nature Med. 2011;17: 952-960.
4. Rush University Medical Center. Early warning found for chronic kidney disease: common protein in blood rises months or years before disease develops [news release]. November 5, 2015. www.rush.edu/news/press-releases/early-warning-found-chronic-kidney-disease. Accessed April 11, 2016.

Q) I have a patient with stage 3a chronic kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate, 45-60 mL/min/1.73 m²). I have her on a statin and an ACE inhibitor. Is there anything else I can do to slow the progression of kidney disease?

For patients with stage 3a chronic kidney disease (CKD), ongoing evaluation of risk factors and management can impact the rate of disease progression. The cornerstones of CKD care include identification and treatment of the cause; management of hypertension, albuminuria, and diabetes (if applicable); reduction of cardiovascular (CV) risk; and ­correction of metabolic abnormalities.⁵

When considering factors that can contribute to kidney injury, clinicians should consider possible pre-, intra-, and post-renal processes that could potentially cause injury.

Prerenal: Approximately 20% of cardiac output is directed to the kidneys. Reduced left ventricular function, diastolic dysfunction, and pulmonary hypertension can all contribute to a reduction in renal blood flow and subsequent kidney injury.⁶

Intrarenal: Exploration of possible intra-renal processes begins with a thorough history of any familial disease, hematuria, stones, proteinuria, and exposure to nephrotoxins. The nephrotoxicity profile of all medications should be examined, and patients should be educated about products, particularly OTC medications (eg, NSAIDs, common cold preparations, and herbal or weight-loss products), that can be harmful to the kidneys. Patients should also be made aware of the risk for contrast-induced renal injury, especially when considering imaging or cardiac testing. Since diabetes is a leading cause of kidney disease, good diabetic control can reduce nephropathy and slow disease progression.

Postrenal: Benign prostatic hypertrophy, kidney stones, and neurogenic bladder can all cause injury. These warrant further evaluation and treatment.

CKD often worsens existing hypertension, which is an independent risk factor for kidney failure.⁷ Goal blood pressure (BP) for all patients without significant albuminuria should be < 140/90 mm Hg; for those with urinary albumin ≥ 30 mg/24 h, the goal is < 130/80 mm Hg.⁸ Choice of antihypertensive agents can be tailored to other comorbidities, but an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker should be considered firstline treatment. Nocturnal hypertension is common in patients with CKD and an independent marker of CV risk. By dosing antihypertensive medications at bedtime, the clinician supports CV risk reduction.⁹

CKD is an independent risk factor for CV disease, thus risk factor modification should be aggressively pursued. Regardless of the cause of CKD, cigarette smoking has been associated with a more rapid decline in renal function. Patients should be counseled on the risks and offered interventions to assist in smoking cessation.¹⁰ There is also emerging evidence that exercise likely benefits the vascular health of the kidneys and appears to slow the rate of kidney decline.^11,12 Overall, lifestyle interventions that help mitigate CV risk may directly benefit preservation of kidney function as well.

Metabolic abnormalities increase with CKD progression. Maintaining proper bone health through control of phosphate/acidosis and calcium equilibrium reduces morbidity as it relates to vascular and soft-tissue calcification. This can often be effectively managed through dietary modifications in early to moderate CKD. As the number of functioning nephrons decrease in CKD, so does the ability of the kidney to maintain proper acid/base balance. Persistent metabolic acidosis is related to CKD progression. Acid buffering with oral bicarbonate may be needed to achieve a goal CO₂ of 22 to 32 mEq/L.⁸

Through adoption of a comprehensive approach—one that is inclusive of the patient—optimal outcomes can be achieved for this rapidly growing and often underrecognized population. —CJ, ­AH-B, IS, BB

Crystal Johnson, PA-C
Angela Harker-Bacchus, FNP-BC
Irina Sadovskaya, PA-C
Beverly Benmoussa, FNP-BC
Transplant Nephrology Extra-Renal CKD Clinic, University of Michigan

References
5. Murphree DD, Thelen SM. Chronic kidney disease in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(4):542-550.
6. Coppolino G, Presta P, Saturno L, Fuiano G. Acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Nephrol. 2013;26(1):32-40.
7. Ravera M, Re M, Defarri L, et al. Importance of blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(4 suppl 2):S98-S103.
8. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int. 2013;3(suppl):1-150.
9. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications reduces cardiovascular risk in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(12):2313-2321.
10. Ricardo AC, Anderson CA, Yang W, et al. Healthy lifestyle and risk of kidney disease progression, atherosclerotic events, and death in CKD: findings from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(3):412-424.
11. Gould DW, Graham-Brown MPM, Watson EL, et al. Physiological benefits of exercise in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease. Nephrology (Carlton). 2014;19(9):519-527.
12. Robinson-Cohen C, Littman AJ, Duncan GE, et al. Physical activity and change in estimated GFR among persons with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25(2):399-406.

Q) I have a patient with stage 3a chronic kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate, 45-60 mL/min/1.73 m²). I have her on a statin and an ACE inhibitor. Is there anything else I can do to slow the progression of kidney disease?

For patients with stage 3a chronic kidney disease (CKD), ongoing evaluation of risk factors and management can impact the rate of disease progression. The cornerstones of CKD care include identification and treatment of the cause; management of hypertension, albuminuria, and diabetes (if applicable); reduction of cardiovascular (CV) risk; and ­correction of metabolic abnormalities.⁵

When considering factors that can contribute to kidney injury, clinicians should consider possible pre-, intra-, and post-renal processes that could potentially cause injury.

Prerenal: Approximately 20% of cardiac output is directed to the kidneys. Reduced left ventricular function, diastolic dysfunction, and pulmonary hypertension can all contribute to a reduction in renal blood flow and subsequent kidney injury.⁶

Intrarenal: Exploration of possible intra-renal processes begins with a thorough history of any familial disease, hematuria, stones, proteinuria, and exposure to nephrotoxins. The nephrotoxicity profile of all medications should be examined, and patients should be educated about products, particularly OTC medications (eg, NSAIDs, common cold preparations, and herbal or weight-loss products), that can be harmful to the kidneys. Patients should also be made aware of the risk for contrast-induced renal injury, especially when considering imaging or cardiac testing. Since diabetes is a leading cause of kidney disease, good diabetic control can reduce nephropathy and slow disease progression.

Postrenal: Benign prostatic hypertrophy, kidney stones, and neurogenic bladder can all cause injury. These warrant further evaluation and treatment.

CKD often worsens existing hypertension, which is an independent risk factor for kidney failure.⁷ Goal blood pressure (BP) for all patients without significant albuminuria should be < 140/90 mm Hg; for those with urinary albumin ≥ 30 mg/24 h, the goal is < 130/80 mm Hg.⁸ Choice of antihypertensive agents can be tailored to other comorbidities, but an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker should be considered firstline treatment. Nocturnal hypertension is common in patients with CKD and an independent marker of CV risk. By dosing antihypertensive medications at bedtime, the clinician supports CV risk reduction.⁹

CKD is an independent risk factor for CV disease, thus risk factor modification should be aggressively pursued. Regardless of the cause of CKD, cigarette smoking has been associated with a more rapid decline in renal function. Patients should be counseled on the risks and offered interventions to assist in smoking cessation.¹⁰ There is also emerging evidence that exercise likely benefits the vascular health of the kidneys and appears to slow the rate of kidney decline.^11,12 Overall, lifestyle interventions that help mitigate CV risk may directly benefit preservation of kidney function as well.

Metabolic abnormalities increase with CKD progression. Maintaining proper bone health through control of phosphate/acidosis and calcium equilibrium reduces morbidity as it relates to vascular and soft-tissue calcification. This can often be effectively managed through dietary modifications in early to moderate CKD. As the number of functioning nephrons decrease in CKD, so does the ability of the kidney to maintain proper acid/base balance. Persistent metabolic acidosis is related to CKD progression. Acid buffering with oral bicarbonate may be needed to achieve a goal CO₂ of 22 to 32 mEq/L.⁸

Through adoption of a comprehensive approach—one that is inclusive of the patient—optimal outcomes can be achieved for this rapidly growing and often underrecognized population. —CJ, ­AH-B, IS, BB

Crystal Johnson, PA-C
Angela Harker-Bacchus, FNP-BC
Irina Sadovskaya, PA-C
Beverly Benmoussa, FNP-BC
Transplant Nephrology Extra-Renal CKD Clinic, University of Michigan

References
5. Murphree DD, Thelen SM. Chronic kidney disease in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(4):542-550.
6. Coppolino G, Presta P, Saturno L, Fuiano G. Acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Nephrol. 2013;26(1):32-40.
7. Ravera M, Re M, Defarri L, et al. Importance of blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(4 suppl 2):S98-S103.
8. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int. 2013;3(suppl):1-150.
9. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications reduces cardiovascular risk in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(12):2313-2321.
10. Ricardo AC, Anderson CA, Yang W, et al. Healthy lifestyle and risk of kidney disease progression, atherosclerotic events, and death in CKD: findings from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(3):412-424.
11. Gould DW, Graham-Brown MPM, Watson EL, et al. Physiological benefits of exercise in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease. Nephrology (Carlton). 2014;19(9):519-527.
12. Robinson-Cohen C, Littman AJ, Duncan GE, et al. Physical activity and change in estimated GFR among persons with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25(2):399-406.

Q) I have a patient with stage 3a chronic kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate, 45-60 mL/min/1.73 m²). I have her on a statin and an ACE inhibitor. Is there anything else I can do to slow the progression of kidney disease?

For patients with stage 3a chronic kidney disease (CKD), ongoing evaluation of risk factors and management can impact the rate of disease progression. The cornerstones of CKD care include identification and treatment of the cause; management of hypertension, albuminuria, and diabetes (if applicable); reduction of cardiovascular (CV) risk; and ­correction of metabolic abnormalities.⁵

When considering factors that can contribute to kidney injury, clinicians should consider possible pre-, intra-, and post-renal processes that could potentially cause injury.

Prerenal: Approximately 20% of cardiac output is directed to the kidneys. Reduced left ventricular function, diastolic dysfunction, and pulmonary hypertension can all contribute to a reduction in renal blood flow and subsequent kidney injury.⁶

Intrarenal: Exploration of possible intra-renal processes begins with a thorough history of any familial disease, hematuria, stones, proteinuria, and exposure to nephrotoxins. The nephrotoxicity profile of all medications should be examined, and patients should be educated about products, particularly OTC medications (eg, NSAIDs, common cold preparations, and herbal or weight-loss products), that can be harmful to the kidneys. Patients should also be made aware of the risk for contrast-induced renal injury, especially when considering imaging or cardiac testing. Since diabetes is a leading cause of kidney disease, good diabetic control can reduce nephropathy and slow disease progression.

Postrenal: Benign prostatic hypertrophy, kidney stones, and neurogenic bladder can all cause injury. These warrant further evaluation and treatment.

CKD often worsens existing hypertension, which is an independent risk factor for kidney failure.⁷ Goal blood pressure (BP) for all patients without significant albuminuria should be < 140/90 mm Hg; for those with urinary albumin ≥ 30 mg/24 h, the goal is < 130/80 mm Hg.⁸ Choice of antihypertensive agents can be tailored to other comorbidities, but an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker should be considered firstline treatment. Nocturnal hypertension is common in patients with CKD and an independent marker of CV risk. By dosing antihypertensive medications at bedtime, the clinician supports CV risk reduction.⁹

CKD is an independent risk factor for CV disease, thus risk factor modification should be aggressively pursued. Regardless of the cause of CKD, cigarette smoking has been associated with a more rapid decline in renal function. Patients should be counseled on the risks and offered interventions to assist in smoking cessation.¹⁰ There is also emerging evidence that exercise likely benefits the vascular health of the kidneys and appears to slow the rate of kidney decline.^11,12 Overall, lifestyle interventions that help mitigate CV risk may directly benefit preservation of kidney function as well.

Metabolic abnormalities increase with CKD progression. Maintaining proper bone health through control of phosphate/acidosis and calcium equilibrium reduces morbidity as it relates to vascular and soft-tissue calcification. This can often be effectively managed through dietary modifications in early to moderate CKD. As the number of functioning nephrons decrease in CKD, so does the ability of the kidney to maintain proper acid/base balance. Persistent metabolic acidosis is related to CKD progression. Acid buffering with oral bicarbonate may be needed to achieve a goal CO₂ of 22 to 32 mEq/L.⁸

Through adoption of a comprehensive approach—one that is inclusive of the patient—optimal outcomes can be achieved for this rapidly growing and often underrecognized population. —CJ, ­AH-B, IS, BB

Crystal Johnson, PA-C
Angela Harker-Bacchus, FNP-BC
Irina Sadovskaya, PA-C
Beverly Benmoussa, FNP-BC
Transplant Nephrology Extra-Renal CKD Clinic, University of Michigan

References
5. Murphree DD, Thelen SM. Chronic kidney disease in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(4):542-550.
6. Coppolino G, Presta P, Saturno L, Fuiano G. Acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Nephrol. 2013;26(1):32-40.
7. Ravera M, Re M, Defarri L, et al. Importance of blood pressure control in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(4 suppl 2):S98-S103.
8. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int. 2013;3(suppl):1-150.
9. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Bedtime dosing of antihypertensive medications reduces cardiovascular risk in CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(12):2313-2321.
10. Ricardo AC, Anderson CA, Yang W, et al. Healthy lifestyle and risk of kidney disease progression, atherosclerotic events, and death in CKD: findings from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(3):412-424.
11. Gould DW, Graham-Brown MPM, Watson EL, et al. Physiological benefits of exercise in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease. Nephrology (Carlton). 2014;19(9):519-527.
12. Robinson-Cohen C, Littman AJ, Duncan GE, et al. Physical activity and change in estimated GFR among persons with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25(2):399-406.

Q) Recently, I have seen four or five Asian-American patients with really bad kidney function. All of them were thin but had diabetes, hypertension, and a serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL. The kidney disease was a shock to them (and me). Am I missing something here?

Diabetes and hypertension are the most common causes of chronic kidney disease (CKD), with diabetes slightly edging out hypertension for the number 1 slot.¹ Although Asian Americans have a tendency toward a lower body mass index (BMI) than the general population, this does not exclude them from developing diabetes or hypertension.

About 20% (1 in 5) of Asian-American adults have both diabetes and hypertension. In fact, Asian Americans with a BMI ≤ 25 often develop type 2 diabetes (T2DM), which is a direct contrast to other racial and ethnic groups in whom T2DM is more prevalent at higher BMIs. The current thinking is that Asian Americans have a higher percentage of body fat at lower BMIs.² Among racial and ethnic subgroups, Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (close to 50%).²

In 2004, after adjusting for lower BMI, McNeely and Boyko found that the incidence of diabetes in Asian Americans was 60% higher than in the Hispanic population.³ In 2015, this influenced the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to change its recommendation for diabetes screening in Asian Americans, lowering the threshold to a BMI of 23.⁴

Since abdominal or visceral fat is a risk factor for heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes, and it appears that the Asian-American population carries excess fat centrally, this population is also at risk for cardiac disease.⁵ For that reason, in this population, the American Heart Association recommends measuring waist circumference to screen for hidden abdominal adiposity.⁶

Thus, the trend you are seeing in your patient population is really only the tip of the iceberg. The Asian-American population is the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States.³ It’s time to update your diabetes screening protocols. —SWM

Shushanne Wynter-Minott, DNP, FNP-BC
Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, Florida

References
1. CDC. National Chronic Kidney Disease Fact Sheet, 2014. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/kidney_Factsheet.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2016.
2. Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, Cowie CC. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988-2012. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1021-1029.
3. McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ. Type 2 diabetes prevalence in Asian Americans: results of a national health survey. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(1):66-69.
4. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes­­—2015: summary of revisions. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(suppl):S4.
5. Park YW, Allison DB, Heymsfield SB, Gallagher D. Larger amounts of visceral adipose tissue in Asian Americans. Obes Res. 2001;9(7):381-387.
6. Rao G, Powell-Wiley TM, Ancheta I, et al; American Heart Association Obesity Committee of the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. Identification of obesity and cardiovascular risk in ethnically and racially diverse populations: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132(5):457-472.

Q) Recently, I have seen four or five Asian-American patients with really bad kidney function. All of them were thin but had diabetes, hypertension, and a serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL. The kidney disease was a shock to them (and me). Am I missing something here?

Diabetes and hypertension are the most common causes of chronic kidney disease (CKD), with diabetes slightly edging out hypertension for the number 1 slot.¹ Although Asian Americans have a tendency toward a lower body mass index (BMI) than the general population, this does not exclude them from developing diabetes or hypertension.

About 20% (1 in 5) of Asian-American adults have both diabetes and hypertension. In fact, Asian Americans with a BMI ≤ 25 often develop type 2 diabetes (T2DM), which is a direct contrast to other racial and ethnic groups in whom T2DM is more prevalent at higher BMIs. The current thinking is that Asian Americans have a higher percentage of body fat at lower BMIs.² Among racial and ethnic subgroups, Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (close to 50%).²

In 2004, after adjusting for lower BMI, McNeely and Boyko found that the incidence of diabetes in Asian Americans was 60% higher than in the Hispanic population.³ In 2015, this influenced the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to change its recommendation for diabetes screening in Asian Americans, lowering the threshold to a BMI of 23.⁴

Since abdominal or visceral fat is a risk factor for heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes, and it appears that the Asian-American population carries excess fat centrally, this population is also at risk for cardiac disease.⁵ For that reason, in this population, the American Heart Association recommends measuring waist circumference to screen for hidden abdominal adiposity.⁶

Thus, the trend you are seeing in your patient population is really only the tip of the iceberg. The Asian-American population is the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States.³ It’s time to update your diabetes screening protocols. —SWM

Shushanne Wynter-Minott, DNP, FNP-BC
Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, Florida

References
1. CDC. National Chronic Kidney Disease Fact Sheet, 2014. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/kidney_Factsheet.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2016.
2. Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, Cowie CC. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988-2012. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1021-1029.
3. McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ. Type 2 diabetes prevalence in Asian Americans: results of a national health survey. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(1):66-69.
4. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes­­—2015: summary of revisions. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(suppl):S4.
5. Park YW, Allison DB, Heymsfield SB, Gallagher D. Larger amounts of visceral adipose tissue in Asian Americans. Obes Res. 2001;9(7):381-387.
6. Rao G, Powell-Wiley TM, Ancheta I, et al; American Heart Association Obesity Committee of the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. Identification of obesity and cardiovascular risk in ethnically and racially diverse populations: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132(5):457-472.

Q) Recently, I have seen four or five Asian-American patients with really bad kidney function. All of them were thin but had diabetes, hypertension, and a serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL. The kidney disease was a shock to them (and me). Am I missing something here?

Diabetes and hypertension are the most common causes of chronic kidney disease (CKD), with diabetes slightly edging out hypertension for the number 1 slot.¹ Although Asian Americans have a tendency toward a lower body mass index (BMI) than the general population, this does not exclude them from developing diabetes or hypertension.

About 20% (1 in 5) of Asian-American adults have both diabetes and hypertension. In fact, Asian Americans with a BMI ≤ 25 often develop type 2 diabetes (T2DM), which is a direct contrast to other racial and ethnic groups in whom T2DM is more prevalent at higher BMIs. The current thinking is that Asian Americans have a higher percentage of body fat at lower BMIs.² Among racial and ethnic subgroups, Asian Americans have the highest prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes (close to 50%).²

In 2004, after adjusting for lower BMI, McNeely and Boyko found that the incidence of diabetes in Asian Americans was 60% higher than in the Hispanic population.³ In 2015, this influenced the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to change its recommendation for diabetes screening in Asian Americans, lowering the threshold to a BMI of 23.⁴

Since abdominal or visceral fat is a risk factor for heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes, and it appears that the Asian-American population carries excess fat centrally, this population is also at risk for cardiac disease.⁵ For that reason, in this population, the American Heart Association recommends measuring waist circumference to screen for hidden abdominal adiposity.⁶

Thus, the trend you are seeing in your patient population is really only the tip of the iceberg. The Asian-American population is the fastest-growing ethnic group in the United States.³ It’s time to update your diabetes screening protocols. —SWM

Shushanne Wynter-Minott, DNP, FNP-BC
Memorial Healthcare System, Hollywood, Florida

References
1. CDC. National Chronic Kidney Disease Fact Sheet, 2014. www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/kidney_Factsheet.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2016.
2. Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, Cowie CC. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988-2012. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1021-1029.
3. McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ. Type 2 diabetes prevalence in Asian Americans: results of a national health survey. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(1):66-69.
4. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes­­—2015: summary of revisions. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(suppl):S4.
5. Park YW, Allison DB, Heymsfield SB, Gallagher D. Larger amounts of visceral adipose tissue in Asian Americans. Obes Res. 2001;9(7):381-387.
6. Rao G, Powell-Wiley TM, Ancheta I, et al; American Heart Association Obesity Committee of the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. Identification of obesity and cardiovascular risk in ethnically and racially diverse populations: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015;132(5):457-472.

Q) We were operating on a 58-year-old woman for a subcapital fracture of her right hip. The orthopedist mentioned that the patient had kidney disease and that it probably caused her hip fracture. I didn’t know kidney disease causes hip fractures. Is this true?

Evolving evidence suggests an association between diminishing renal function and increased risk for fracture. Here’s a look at the available data:

Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. During a median 13 years’ follow-up of 10,955 community-based older adults, investigators identified higher albuminuria level and decreased creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as significant risk factors for fracture. Other risk factors included older age, race (Caucasians had the highest incidence), and sex (women were more likely than men to sustain a fracture). A nonlinear relationship was observed between eGFR and fracture diagnosis, with a graded association between fracture and albuminuria level.⁷

Cardiovascular Health Study. In this study of 4,699 older community-based adults, kidney function was assessed by measurement of serum cystatin C. During a mean follow-up of 7.1 years, higher cystatin C levels correlated to a higher risk for hip fracture in both sexes. In women, there was a significant association between diminishing renal function and hip fracture status: Those with lower eGFRs had a higher incidence of fractures. There was a similar magnitude of association among men, but it was not ­significant.⁸

Health, Aging and Body Composite Study. In 2,754 older adults, an association was noted between decreased femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk for fracture in those with and without CKD stage 3 to 5. With a concurrent diagnosis of osteoporosis, there was a 110% increased risk for nonspinal fracture in those with CKD and a 63% increased risk for those without CKD.⁹ In a study of 485 adult hemodialysis patients, decreased total hip and femoral neck BMD was associated with an increased risk for fractures in women with parathyroid hormone levels on the lower range of acceptable in this population (intact parathyroid hormone level [IPTH] < 204 pg/mL) and for spinal fractures in both genders.¹⁰

Bone changes associated with deterioration of renal function are complex and multifactorial. Human bone is a composite of protein fused to mineral crystals, primarily calcium and phosphate. Bone is dynamic, being broken down and rebuilt throughout adulthood, with the skeleton almost completely rebuilt every 10 years.¹¹

CKD–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD) is a systemic disorder seen in those with kidney disease that affects bone and mineral metabolism. Its manifestations include abnormalities in the bone, calcifications of vascular and/or soft tissues, abnormal vitamin D metabolism, and disruptions in the phosphorus, calcium, and parathyroid hormone levels. These components, and the severity of the condition, vary by stage of CKD. One component of CKD–MBD, renal osteodystrophy, is associated with changes in bone morphology and is definitively diagnosed by bone biopsy.¹²

Care of these patients is complex and can be compounded by osteoporosis and/or loss of bone strength. Osteoporosis, like CKD, increases in incidence with age and is associated with fracture risk.¹¹

While useful for diagnosing osteoporosis and predicting fracture risk in the general population, dual-energy X-ray densitometry (DXA) has not been recommended in those with CKD due to the type of bone changes that occur with diminished renal function.¹² However, evolving evidence regarding use of DXA in these patients prompted a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) “controversies” conference to recommend reexamination of the evidence regarding this recommendation.¹³ KDIGO’s 2009 clinical practice guideline on CKD–MBD (http://kdigo.org/home/mineral-bone-disorder/) can be of benefit in the assessment and care of affected patients. —CS

Cindy Smith, DNP, APRN, CNN-NP, FNP-BC
Renal Consultants, PLLC, South Charleston, West Virgina

References
7. Daya NR, Voskertchian A, Schneider ALC, et al. Kidney function and fracture risk: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(2):218-226.
8. Fried LF, Biggs ML, Shlipak MG, et al. Association of kidney function with incident hip fracture in older adults. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:282-286.
9. Yenchek RH, Ix JH, Shlipak MG, et al. Bone mineral density and fracture risk in older individuals with CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(7):1130-1136.
10. Iimori S, Mori Y, Akita W, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in predicting fracture in CKD stage 5D patients­­—a single-center cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:345-351.
11. Office of the Surgeon General (US). Bone Health and Osteoporosis: a Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General; 2004.
12. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2009;113:S1-S130.
13. Ketteler M, Elder GJ, Evenepoel P, et al. Revisiting KDIGO clinical practice guideline on chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder: a commentary from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes controversies conference. Kidney Int. 2015;87(3):502-528.

Q) We were operating on a 58-year-old woman for a subcapital fracture of her right hip. The orthopedist mentioned that the patient had kidney disease and that it probably caused her hip fracture. I didn’t know kidney disease causes hip fractures. Is this true?

Evolving evidence suggests an association between diminishing renal function and increased risk for fracture. Here’s a look at the available data:

Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. During a median 13 years’ follow-up of 10,955 community-based older adults, investigators identified higher albuminuria level and decreased creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as significant risk factors for fracture. Other risk factors included older age, race (Caucasians had the highest incidence), and sex (women were more likely than men to sustain a fracture). A nonlinear relationship was observed between eGFR and fracture diagnosis, with a graded association between fracture and albuminuria level.⁷

Cardiovascular Health Study. In this study of 4,699 older community-based adults, kidney function was assessed by measurement of serum cystatin C. During a mean follow-up of 7.1 years, higher cystatin C levels correlated to a higher risk for hip fracture in both sexes. In women, there was a significant association between diminishing renal function and hip fracture status: Those with lower eGFRs had a higher incidence of fractures. There was a similar magnitude of association among men, but it was not ­significant.⁸

Health, Aging and Body Composite Study. In 2,754 older adults, an association was noted between decreased femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk for fracture in those with and without CKD stage 3 to 5. With a concurrent diagnosis of osteoporosis, there was a 110% increased risk for nonspinal fracture in those with CKD and a 63% increased risk for those without CKD.⁹ In a study of 485 adult hemodialysis patients, decreased total hip and femoral neck BMD was associated with an increased risk for fractures in women with parathyroid hormone levels on the lower range of acceptable in this population (intact parathyroid hormone level [IPTH] < 204 pg/mL) and for spinal fractures in both genders.¹⁰

Bone changes associated with deterioration of renal function are complex and multifactorial. Human bone is a composite of protein fused to mineral crystals, primarily calcium and phosphate. Bone is dynamic, being broken down and rebuilt throughout adulthood, with the skeleton almost completely rebuilt every 10 years.¹¹

CKD–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD) is a systemic disorder seen in those with kidney disease that affects bone and mineral metabolism. Its manifestations include abnormalities in the bone, calcifications of vascular and/or soft tissues, abnormal vitamin D metabolism, and disruptions in the phosphorus, calcium, and parathyroid hormone levels. These components, and the severity of the condition, vary by stage of CKD. One component of CKD–MBD, renal osteodystrophy, is associated with changes in bone morphology and is definitively diagnosed by bone biopsy.¹²

Care of these patients is complex and can be compounded by osteoporosis and/or loss of bone strength. Osteoporosis, like CKD, increases in incidence with age and is associated with fracture risk.¹¹

While useful for diagnosing osteoporosis and predicting fracture risk in the general population, dual-energy X-ray densitometry (DXA) has not been recommended in those with CKD due to the type of bone changes that occur with diminished renal function.¹² However, evolving evidence regarding use of DXA in these patients prompted a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) “controversies” conference to recommend reexamination of the evidence regarding this recommendation.¹³ KDIGO’s 2009 clinical practice guideline on CKD–MBD (http://kdigo.org/home/mineral-bone-disorder/) can be of benefit in the assessment and care of affected patients. —CS

Cindy Smith, DNP, APRN, CNN-NP, FNP-BC
Renal Consultants, PLLC, South Charleston, West Virgina

References
7. Daya NR, Voskertchian A, Schneider ALC, et al. Kidney function and fracture risk: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(2):218-226.
8. Fried LF, Biggs ML, Shlipak MG, et al. Association of kidney function with incident hip fracture in older adults. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:282-286.
9. Yenchek RH, Ix JH, Shlipak MG, et al. Bone mineral density and fracture risk in older individuals with CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(7):1130-1136.
10. Iimori S, Mori Y, Akita W, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in predicting fracture in CKD stage 5D patients­­—a single-center cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:345-351.
11. Office of the Surgeon General (US). Bone Health and Osteoporosis: a Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General; 2004.
12. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2009;113:S1-S130.
13. Ketteler M, Elder GJ, Evenepoel P, et al. Revisiting KDIGO clinical practice guideline on chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder: a commentary from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes controversies conference. Kidney Int. 2015;87(3):502-528.

Q) We were operating on a 58-year-old woman for a subcapital fracture of her right hip. The orthopedist mentioned that the patient had kidney disease and that it probably caused her hip fracture. I didn’t know kidney disease causes hip fractures. Is this true?

Evolving evidence suggests an association between diminishing renal function and increased risk for fracture. Here’s a look at the available data:

Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. During a median 13 years’ follow-up of 10,955 community-based older adults, investigators identified higher albuminuria level and decreased creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) as significant risk factors for fracture. Other risk factors included older age, race (Caucasians had the highest incidence), and sex (women were more likely than men to sustain a fracture). A nonlinear relationship was observed between eGFR and fracture diagnosis, with a graded association between fracture and albuminuria level.⁷

Cardiovascular Health Study. In this study of 4,699 older community-based adults, kidney function was assessed by measurement of serum cystatin C. During a mean follow-up of 7.1 years, higher cystatin C levels correlated to a higher risk for hip fracture in both sexes. In women, there was a significant association between diminishing renal function and hip fracture status: Those with lower eGFRs had a higher incidence of fractures. There was a similar magnitude of association among men, but it was not ­significant.⁸

Health, Aging and Body Composite Study. In 2,754 older adults, an association was noted between decreased femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk for fracture in those with and without CKD stage 3 to 5. With a concurrent diagnosis of osteoporosis, there was a 110% increased risk for nonspinal fracture in those with CKD and a 63% increased risk for those without CKD.⁹ In a study of 485 adult hemodialysis patients, decreased total hip and femoral neck BMD was associated with an increased risk for fractures in women with parathyroid hormone levels on the lower range of acceptable in this population (intact parathyroid hormone level [IPTH] < 204 pg/mL) and for spinal fractures in both genders.¹⁰

Bone changes associated with deterioration of renal function are complex and multifactorial. Human bone is a composite of protein fused to mineral crystals, primarily calcium and phosphate. Bone is dynamic, being broken down and rebuilt throughout adulthood, with the skeleton almost completely rebuilt every 10 years.¹¹

CKD–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD) is a systemic disorder seen in those with kidney disease that affects bone and mineral metabolism. Its manifestations include abnormalities in the bone, calcifications of vascular and/or soft tissues, abnormal vitamin D metabolism, and disruptions in the phosphorus, calcium, and parathyroid hormone levels. These components, and the severity of the condition, vary by stage of CKD. One component of CKD–MBD, renal osteodystrophy, is associated with changes in bone morphology and is definitively diagnosed by bone biopsy.¹²

Care of these patients is complex and can be compounded by osteoporosis and/or loss of bone strength. Osteoporosis, like CKD, increases in incidence with age and is associated with fracture risk.¹¹

While useful for diagnosing osteoporosis and predicting fracture risk in the general population, dual-energy X-ray densitometry (DXA) has not been recommended in those with CKD due to the type of bone changes that occur with diminished renal function.¹² However, evolving evidence regarding use of DXA in these patients prompted a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) “controversies” conference to recommend reexamination of the evidence regarding this recommendation.¹³ KDIGO’s 2009 clinical practice guideline on CKD–MBD (http://kdigo.org/home/mineral-bone-disorder/) can be of benefit in the assessment and care of affected patients. —CS

Cindy Smith, DNP, APRN, CNN-NP, FNP-BC
Renal Consultants, PLLC, South Charleston, West Virgina

References
7. Daya NR, Voskertchian A, Schneider ALC, et al. Kidney function and fracture risk: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(2):218-226.
8. Fried LF, Biggs ML, Shlipak MG, et al. Association of kidney function with incident hip fracture in older adults. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:282-286.
9. Yenchek RH, Ix JH, Shlipak MG, et al. Bone mineral density and fracture risk in older individuals with CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(7):1130-1136.
10. Iimori S, Mori Y, Akita W, et al. Diagnostic usefulness of bone mineral density and biochemical markers of bone turnover in predicting fracture in CKD stage 5D patients­­—a single-center cohort study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:345-351.
11. Office of the Surgeon General (US). Bone Health and Osteoporosis: a Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General; 2004.
12. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2009;113:S1-S130.
13. Ketteler M, Elder GJ, Evenepoel P, et al. Revisiting KDIGO clinical practice guideline on chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder: a commentary from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes controversies conference. Kidney Int. 2015;87(3):502-528.