2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      Call for Papers in Kidney and Blood Pressure ResearchKidney Function and Omics Science

      Submission Deadline: December 20, 2023

      Submit now

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gut Microbiome-Derived Uremic Toxin Levels in Hemodialysis Patients on Different Phosphate Binder Therapies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Constipation is prevalent in patients with kidney failure partly due to the use of medication, such as phosphate binders. We hypothesized that serum levels of gut microbiome-derived uremic toxins (UTOX) may be affected by the choice of phosphate binder putatively through its impact on colonic transit time. We investigated two commonly prescribed phosphate binders, sevelamer carbonate (SEV) and sucroferric oxyhydroxide (SFO), and their association with gut microbiome-derived UTOX levels in hemodialysis (HD) patients.

          Methods

          Weekly blood samples were collected from 16 anuric HD participants during the 5-week observational period. All participants were on active phosphate binder monotherapy with either SFO or SEV for at least 4 weeks prior to enrollment. Eight UTOX (7 gut microbiome-derived) and tryptophan were quantified using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Serum phosphorus, nutritional, and liver function markers were also measured. For each substance, weekly individual levels, the median concentration per participant, and differences between SFO and SEV groups were reported. Patient-reported bowel movements, by the Bristol Stool Scale (BSS), and pill usage were assessed weekly.

          Results

          The SEV group reported a 3.3-fold higher frequency of BSS stool types 1 and 2 (more likely constipated, p < 0.05), whereas the SFO group reported a 1.5-fold higher frequency of BSS stool types 5–7 (more likely loose stool and diarrhea, not significant). Participants in the SFO group showed a trend toward better adherence to phosphate binder therapy (SFO: 87.6% vs. SEV: 66.6%, not significant). UTOX, serum phosphorus, nutritional and liver function markers, and tryptophan were not different between the two groups.

          Conclusion

          There was no difference in the gut microbiome-derived UTOX levels between phosphate binders (SFO vs. SEV), despite SFO therapy resulting in fewer constipated participants. This pilot study may inform study design of future clinical trials and highlights the importance of including factors beyond bowel habits and their association with UTOX levels.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Procedures for large-scale metabolic profiling of serum and plasma using gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry.

          Metabolism has an essential role in biological systems. Identification and quantitation of the compounds in the metabolome is defined as metabolic profiling, and it is applied to define metabolic changes related to genetic differences, environmental influences and disease or drug perturbations. Chromatography-mass spectrometry (MS) platforms are frequently used to provide the sensitive and reproducible detection of hundreds to thousands of metabolites in a single biofluid or tissue sample. Here we describe the experimental workflow for long-term and large-scale metabolomic studies involving thousands of human samples with data acquired for multiple analytical batches over many months and years. Protocols for serum- and plasma-based metabolic profiling applying gas chromatography-MS (GC-MS) and ultraperformance liquid chromatography-MS (UPLC-MS) are described. These include biofluid collection, sample preparation, data acquisition, data pre-processing and quality assurance. Methods for quality control-based robust LOESS signal correction to provide signal correction and integration of data from multiple analytical batches are also described.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Stool form scale as a useful guide to intestinal transit time.

            Stool form scales are a simple method of assessing intestinal transit rate but are not widely used in clinical practice or research, possibly because of the lack of evidence that they are responsive to changes in transit time. We set out to assess the responsiveness of the Bristol stool form scale to change in transit time. Sixty-six volunteers had their whole-gut transit time (WGTT) measured with radiopaque marker pellets and their stools weighed, and they kept a diary of their stool form on a 7-point scale and of their defecatory frequency. WGTT was then altered with senna and loperamide, and the measurements were repeated. The base-line WGTT measurements correlated with defecatory frequency (r = 0.35, P = 0.005) and with stool output (r = -0.41, P = 0.001) but best with stool form (r = -0.54, P < 0.001). When the volunteers took senna (n = 44), the WGTT decreased, whereas defecatory frequency, stool form score, and stool output increased (all, P < 0.001). With loperamide (n = 43) all measurements changed in the opposite direction. Change in WGTT from base line correlated with change in defecatory frequency (r = 0.41, P < 0.001) and with change in stool output (n = -0.54, P < 0.001) but best with change in stool form (r = -0.65, P < 0.001). This study has shown that a stool form scale can be used to monitor change in intestinal function. Such scales have utility in both clinical practice and research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Expansion of Urease- and Uricase-Containing, Indole- and p-Cresol-Forming and Contraction of Short-Chain Fatty Acid-Producing Intestinal Microbiota in ESRD

              Background: Intestinal microbiome constitutes a symbiotic ecosystem that is essential for health, and changes in its composition/function cause various illnesses. Biochemical milieu shapes the structure and function of the microbiome. Recently, we found marked differences in the abundance of numerous bacterial taxa between ESRD and healthy individuals. Influx of urea and uric acid and dietary restriction of fruits and vegetables to prevent hyperkalemia alter ESRD patients' intestinal milieu. We hypothesized that relative abundances of bacteria possessing urease, uricase, and p-cresol- and indole-producing enzymes is increased, while abundance of bacteria containing enzymes converting dietary fiber to short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) is reduced in ESRD. Methods: Reference sets of bacteria containing genes of interest were compiled to family, and sets of intestinal bacterial families showing differential abundances between 12 healthy and 24 ESRD individuals enrolled in our original study were compiled. Overlap between sets was assessed using hypergeometric distribution tests. Results: Among 19 microbial families that were dominant in ESRD patients, 12 possessed urease, 5 possessed uricase, and 4 possessed indole and p-cresol-forming enzymes. Among 4 microbial families that were diminished in ESRD patients, 2 possessed butyrate-forming enzymes. Probabilities of these overlapping distributions were <0.05. Conclusions: ESRD patients exhibited significant expansion of bacterial families possessing urease, uricase, and indole and p-cresol forming enzymes, and contraction of families possessing butyrate-forming enzymes. Given the deleterious effects of indoxyl sulfate, p-cresol sulfate, and urea-derived ammonia, and beneficial actions of SCFA, these changes in intestinal microbial metabolism contribute to uremic toxicity and inflammation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Blood Purif
                Blood Purif
                BPU
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG (Allschwilerstrasse 10, P.O. Box · Postfach · Case postale, CH–4009, Basel, Switzerland · Schweiz · Suisse, Phone: +41 61 306 11 11, Fax: +41 61 306 12 34, karger@karger.com )
                0253-5068
                1421-9735
                10 August 2021
                10 August 2021
                : 51
                : 8
                : 639-648
                Affiliations
                [1] aRenal Research Institute, New York, New York, USA
                [2] bIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
                Author notes
                Article
                bpu-0051-0639
                10.1159/000517470
                9393811
                34375976
                14528cb5-b6bd-400f-aba7-f1d0c1bcf539
                Copyright © 2021 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel

                This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 21 September 2020
                : 27 May 2021
                : 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 3, References: 39, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Research Article

                hemodialysis,uremic toxins,phosphate binders,sucroferric oxyhydroxide,sevelamer carbonate

                Comments

                Comment on this article