IntroductionLoss of renal function is associated with high mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have altered circulating adipokine and nonesterified fatty acid concentrations and insulin resistance, which are features of disturbed adipose tissue metabolism. Because dysfunctional adipose tissue contributes to the development of CVD, we hypothesize that adipose tissue dysfunctionality in patients with CKD could explain, at least in part, their high rates of CVD. Therefore we characterized adipose tissue from patients with CKD, in comparison to healthy controls, to search for signs of dysfunctionality.MethodsBiopsy samples of subcutaneous adipose tissue from 16 CKD patients and 11 healthy controls were analyzed for inflammation, fibrosis, and adipocyte size. Protein composition was assessed using 2-dimensional gel proteomics combined with multivariate analysis.ResultsAdipose tissue of CKD patients contained significantly more CD68-positive cells, but collagen content did not differ. Adipocyte size was significantly smaller in CKD patients. Proteomic analysis of adipose tissue revealed significant differences in the expression of certain proteins between the groups. Proteins whose expression differed the most were α-1-microglobulin/bikunin precursor (AMBP, higher in CKD) and vimentin (lower in CKD). Vimentin is a lipid droplet−associated protein, and changes in its expression may impair fatty acid storage/mobilization in adipose tissue, whereas high levels of AMBP may reflect oxidative stress.DiscussionThese findings demonstrate that adipose tissue of CKD patients shows signs of inflammation and disturbed functionality, thus potentially contributing to the unfavorable metabolic profile and increased risk of CVD in these patients.

BackgroundCompared with the current inpatient consultation model, a novel corounding model of care whereby palliative specialists round with oncology teams, increases healthcare collaboration and may improve quality of care for inpatients. Whether this translates to better pain control for patients is unexplored.ObjectiveTo determine whether the corounding model provides better pain control compared with the consultation model for cancer inpatients.MethodsCancer patients with moderate or severe pain severity during the admission were included in this observational study. Pain severity was determined using electronic records. Improvement to mild or no pain by day 3 of identification of moderate or severe pain was defined as good pain control and proportion of admissions achieving this was compared between models.ResultsA total of 142 and 128 admissions admitted under the consult and corounding model, respectively, had moderate or severe pain. The proportion of patients that achieved good pain control was 77.3% (99/128) and 71.8% (102/142) in the corounding and consult model, respectively. The difference in proportion of admissions achieving good pain control was significantly higher in the corounding model after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics (unadjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.77 to 2.33; adjusted OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.26).DiscussionThe odds of achieving good pain control was significantly better in the corounding model. However, the mechanism behind this is unexplored. This study can serve as precedence for future studies evaluating the corounding model of care.