The relationship between subjective appetite sensations, markers of inflammation and appetite in dialysis patients

Background: Poor appetite is a marker of morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis patients, making it an important area for research. Visual analog scales (VAS) can capture a range of subjective sensations related to appetite (such as hunger, desire to eat or fullness), but have not been commonly used to measure appetite in dialysis patients. The aim of this study was to explore the association between retrospective ratings of appetite using VAS and a range of clinical variables as well as biomarkers of appetite in hemodialysis patients.----- Methods: 28 hemodialysis patients (mean age 61±17y, 50% male, median dialysis vintage 19.5(4-101) months) rated their appetite using VAS for hunger, fullness and desire to eat and a 5-point categorical scale measuring general appetite. Blood levels of the appetite peptides leptin, ghrelin and peptide YY were also measured.----- Results: Hunger ratings measured by VAS were significantly (p<0.05) correlated with a range of clinical, nutritional and inflammatory markers: age (r=-0.376), co-morbidities, (r=-0.380) PG-SGA score (r=-0.451), weight (r=-0.375), fat-free mass (r=-0.435), C-Reactive Protein (CRP) (r=-0.383) and Intercellular adhesion molecule (sICAM-1) (r=-0.387). There was a consistent relationship between VAS and appetite on a 5-point categorical scale for questions of hunger, and a similar trend for desire to eat, but not for fullness. Neither method of measuring subjective appetite correlated with appetite peptides.----- Conclusions: Retrospective ratings of hunger on a VAS are associated with a range of clinical variables and further studies are warranted to support their use as a method of measuring appetite in dialysis patients.

Clinical education for nephrology nurse practitioner candidates in Australia : a consensus statement

Objectives: To develop recommendations for the clinical education required to prepare Australian Nurse Practitioner candidates for advanced and extended practice in nephrology settings. Methods: Using the Delphi research technique a consensus statement was developed over a nine month period. All endorsed and candidate Nephrology Nurse Practitioners (NNP) were invited to participate as the expert panel. The Delphi research technique uses a systematic and iterative process. The expert panel were asked to generate a list of items which were then circulated to all NNPs. They were asked to determine their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale There was opportunity for free-text comments to be provided if desired. Results from each round were collated; the document was refined and circulated to the experts for a subsequent round. Consensus was demonstrated after three Delphi rounds. Results: The consensus statement comprises four components explaining the role and membership of the mentorship team, the setting and location of NNP clinical education, learning strategies to support the NNP, and outcomes of NNP clinical education. Demographic questions in the final survey revealed information about the qualifications, years of experience, and practice location of Australian NNPs. Conclusions: The consensus statement is not prescriptive but it will inform NNP candidates, university course providers and mentors about the expected extended nephrology specific clinical education that will enable the NNP to provide advanced nursing care for patients regardless of the stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the practice setting.