New insight of amino acid-based dialysis solutions

Abstract

Malnutrition is a major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Daily losses of proteins and amino acids (AAs) into dialysate contribute to this problem. Previous metabolic balance study demonstrated that treatment with 1.1% AA-based dialysis solution is safe and may improve protein malnutrition in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) patients ingesting low protein intake. Other prospective studies also showed that AA solution can provide nutritional benefit for malnourished PD patients resulting in a significant improvement in some biochemical and/or anthropometric nutritional parameters. However, there are other studies showing no particular improvement in nutritional parameters after long-term use of AA solution. This may be related to the differences in the study design, sample size, methods used to assess nutritional status, and other factors such as dietary intake and comorbidities of study subjects. Published data will be reviewed to further emphasize the nutritional benefit of long-term use of AA solution in malnourished PD patients along with a brief discussion on the various reasons that may partly explain the different study results. We will also present the results of a longitudinal observational study evaluating changes in nutritional parameters following use of one exchange of 1.1% AA solution in malnourished Korean PD patients. A significant improvement of somatic protein status such as lean body mass (LBM) and hand grip strength was observed. No significant change in serum albumin level was noted. Patients with a positive estimated coefficient for LBM in the fitted regression model to the repeated observations over 1 year were classified as responders and patients with neutral or negative coefficient were considered as non-responders. Thirty-one out of 43 malnourished patients (72%) showed nutritional benefit based on the change of LBM. Hand grip strength and back lift strength were significantly higher in responders at baseline. Other baseline parameters did not differ between the two groups.