No abstract

Bodybuilders routinely engage in many dietary and other practices purported to be harmful to kidney health. The development of acute kidney injury, focal segmental glomerular sclerosis (FSGS) and nephrocalcinosis may be particular risks. There is little evidence that high-protein diets and moderate creatine supplementation pose risks to individuals with normal kidney function though long-term high protein intake in those with underlying impairment of kidney function is inadvisable. The links between anabolic androgenic steroid use and FSGS are stronger, and there are undoubted dangers of nephrocalcinosis in those taking high doses of vitamins A, D and E. Dehydrating practices, including diuretic misuse, and NSAID use also carry potential risks. It is difficult to predict the effects of multiple practices carried out in concert. Investigations into subclinical kidney damage associated with these practices have rarely been undertaken. Future research is warranted to identify the clinical and subclinical harm associated with individual practices and combinations to enable appropriate and timely advice.

Increasingly popular, ultra-endurance participation exposes athletes to extremely high levels of functional and structural damage. Ultra-endurance athletes commonly develop acute kidney injury (AKI) and other pathologies harmful to kidney health. There is strong evidence that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, common amongst ultra-athletes, is linked to increased risk and severity of AKI and potentially ischaemic renal injury, i.e., acute tubular necrosis. Ultra-endurance participation also increases the risk of exertional rhabdomyolysis, exercise-associated hyponatremia, and gastrointestinal symptoms, interlinked pathologies all with potential to increase the risk of AKI. Hydration and fuelling both also play a role with the development of multiple pathologies and ultimately AKI, highlighting the need for individualised nutritional and hydration plans to promote athlete health. Faster athletes, supplementing nitrates, and being female also increase the risk of developing AKI in this setting. Serum creatinine criteria do not provide the best indicator for AKI for ultra-athletes therefore further investigations are needed to assess the practicality and accuracy of new renal biomarkers such as neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL). The potential of recurring episodes of AKI provide need for further research to assess the longitudinal renal health impact of ultra-participation to provide appropriate advice to athletes, coaches, medical staff, and event organisers.

ObjectivesTo examine the relative importance of patient and centre level factors in determining self-reported experience of care in patients with advanced kidney disease treated by maintenance haemodialysis (HD).DesignAnalysis of data from a cross sectional national survey; the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) national Kidney patient-reported experience measure (PREM) survey (2018). Centre-level data were obtained from the UKRR report (2018).SettingNational survey of patients with advanced kidney disease receiving treatment with maintenance HD in UK renal centres in 2018.ParticipantsThe Kidney PREM was distributed to all UK renal centres by the UKRR in May 2018. Each centre invited patients receiving outpatient treatment for kidney disease to complete the PREM. These included patients with chronic kidney disease, those receiving dialysis—both HD and peritoneal dialysis, and those with a functioning kidney transplant. There were no formal inclusion/exclusion criteria.Main outcome measuresThe Kidney PREM has 38 questions in 13 subscales. Responses were captured using a 7-point Likert scale (never 1, always 7). The primary outcome of interest was the mean PREM score calculated across all questions. Multilevel modelling was used to determine the proportion of variation of the mean PREM score across centres due to patient-related and centre-related factors.ResultsThere were records for 8253 HD patients (61% men, 77% white) from 69 renal centres (9–710 patients per centre). There was significant variation in mean PREM score across centres (5.35–6.53). In the multivariable analysis there was some variation in relation to both patient- and centre-level factors but these contributed little to explaining the overall variation. However, multilevel modelling showed that the overwhelming proportion of the explained variance (45%) was explained by variation between centres (40%), only a small proportion of which is identified by measured factors. Only 5% of the variation was related to patient-level factors.ConclusionsCentre rather than patient characteristics determine the experience of care of patients receiving HD. Further work is required to define the characteristics of the treating centre which determine patient experience.

No abstract