Jump to content

Guest Nicole

Popular medications linked to higher risk of kidney failure

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Guest Nicole -
Elisabeth Dolewka -
4
825

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Guest Nicole

(CNN)Taking one of the most-prescribed medications in the world -- proton pump inhibitors -- might dramatically increase a person's risk for kidney failure and kidney disease, new research suggests. The study was released Thursday in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

Doctors prescribe proton pump inhibitors, also known as PPIs, to help people who suffer from regular heart burn, ulcers, gastroesophageal reflux disease or acid reflux. They are sold under the names Prevacid, Prilosec, Nexium, Protonix, Aciphex and others. About 15 million Americans have prescriptions for them, although people can get them without a prescription -- so the number who use them is likely much higher.

The medications are popular because they relieve symptoms pretty quickly. It was also thought that they had a low toxicity.

Looking at data from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the study's authors found 173,321 people who used PPIs and 20,270 took a PPI alternative known as histamine H2 receptor blockers. The authors, who work at Washington University in St. Louis and at the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the VA St. Louis Health Care System, analyzed data from these patients five years later.

They found that a large percentage of those patients who were taking PPIs were now having more kidney problems than those patients who took the alternative histamine H2 receptor blockers.

Patients who took PPIs had a 96% increased risk of developing kidney failure and a 28% increased risk of chronic kidney disease compared to the patients who took the histamine H2 receptor blockers.

Earlier studies have shown that taking PPIs have been linked to acute interstitial nephritis, also a problem that may be likely to end in kidney failure. A study that ran online in JAMA in January also found a link between PPIs and a higher risk of chronic kidney disease, also known as CKD.

Like this study, it also was observational and doesn't provide evidence of causality, but as the earlier study said, "even a casual relationship between PPI use and CKD could have a considerable public health effect given the widespread extent of use."

Other side effects from taking PPIs include an increased risk of pneumonia, double the risk ofinfection from C. difficile and a small risk of osteoporosis, earlier studies have shown.

The authors of this research suggest that PPIs are overprescribed. Previous research, including a2008 study and others have shown the same. The authors of the new study conclude if a person has a prescription for a PPI, it should be used sparingly and only taken for a short period of time.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/14/health/proton-pump-inhibitors-kidney-failure/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Similar Content

    • By The Librarian
      Erythropoietin and iron supplements have been used for 30 years to treat anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease, but erythropoiesis-stimulating agents can only be safely used to increase hemoglobin levels to 11 g per deciliter. Roxadustat, a member of a new class of drugs called hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors, stimulates erythropoiesis and regulates iron metabolism. As reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, results from two Phase 3 randomized, clinical trials in China suggest that roxadustat may be beneficial for patients with chronic kidney disease. During the 26-week trials, 154 patients with chronic kidney disease not receiving dialysis and 305 patients undergoing long-term dialysis were randomized to receive either roxadustat or epoetin alfa (or a placebo for patients not receiving dialysis). Hemoglobin levels increased and hepcidin levels decreased in both groups of patients receiving roxadustat. Furthermore, roxadustat increased transferrin levels while maintaining serum iron levels and attenuated decreases in transferrin saturation levels. However, patients taking roxadustat were more likely to have hyperkalemia and upper respiratory infections. Allowing hemoglobin levels to be normalized, roxadustat may transform the treatment of chronic kidney disease. Ongoing clinical trials are monitoring roxadustat’s use over longer periods and in other populations.
      References:
      Chen N, Hao C, Peng X, Lin H, et al. Roxadustat for anemia in patients with kidney disease not receiving dialysis. The New England Journal of Medicine 2019 Chen N, Hao C, Liu BC, Lin H, et al. Roxadustat treatment for anemia in patients undergoing long-term dialysis. The New England Journal of Medicine 2019 Kaplan J. Roxadustat and anemia of chronic kidney disease. The New England Journal of Medicine 2019
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Read more: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a12240756/selena-gomez-kidney-transplant/
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      It’s long been thought that certain over-the-counter and prescription anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen, are safer than other pain-relievers. However, a new study found that these drugs actually might not be that great for your kidneys and heart when used long-term.
      Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), such as Advil and Motrin, are commonly used to relieve joint pain and headaches, and are also used in higher doses for people with chronic pain. A certain type of NSAID — COX-2 inhibitors — were originally found to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, while also being easier on the stomach, Timereports. As a result, two COX-2 inhibitors were removed from the market, with only celecoxib (or Celebrex) remaining.
      Yet, a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that celecoxib doesn’t cause more heart events than ibuprofen and naproxen. In fact, celecoxib may actually lead to fewer kidney problems, according to the study’s lead author Dr. Steven Nissen, of the Cleveland Clinic:
      “I would have never guessed these results. The whole world has been saying for a decade now that if you must take an NSAID, you probably ought to take naproxen because it’s the safest. We just don’t see that in these results. In almost every measure, ibuprofen looks worse, naproxen is intermediate and celecoxib is the best.”
      The heart risks associated with ibuprofen and naproxen don’t necessarily apply to those who just use them as short-term fixes, according to the study. So at this time, there’s no need to toss your ibuprofen or naproxen if you only use them every once in a while.
      http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/new-study-reveals-ibuprofen-and-naproxen-health-risks.html
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Dana Edson was talking with a friend from her church in Kerrville, TX. Her friend’s son was in need of a kidney transplant. Edson offered to be tested to see if she was a match for Mark Ridgaway, whom she’d never met.
      Ridgaway had been given a kidney transplant from his mother 16 years ago, but he was in need of another transplant and had been on a wait list for over a year. It turned out that Edson was match, but instead of donating a kidney to Ridgaway, Dr. Osama Gaber – director of the J.C. Walter Jr. Transplant Center at Houston Methodist – asked her to enter a swap program.
      She agreed on one condition: “I wouldn’t want to give my kidney if Mark had to wait three years for his, and that’s when (Dr. Gaber) gave me the guarantee that Mark would get his the same day as I gave mine,” says Edson. 
      When it was all said and done, Edson’s willingness to enter the program resulted in a six-way kidney swap. 71-year old Rudyne Walker was the last of the six to receive a kidney. She was in stage five renal failure when she received, Edson’s.
      “I got from Dana a kidney that is young and vigorous and excited about life. I haven’t had a kidney like that in 40-years. It moves me when I’m not ready to go,” said Walker.
      In order for a recipient to receive a kidney, they must have a donor willing to enter the swap program. Kellie Canaday worked with Walker at Exxon. Canaday had offered to donate a kidney for Walker but they weren’t a match. Maria Coronado ended up receiving Kellie’s kidney.
      Juan Coronado shed 30 pounds to help his wife. Maria had been dealing with dialysis for two years. Juan’s kidney went to Steve Miller, whom Coronado had never met. Miller had been battling with diabetes for 43 years and like Ridgaway, was in need of a second transplant. 
      Olivia Miller wanted to help her husband, but she was not a match. So instead she helped Esmerelda Guerrero. Guerrero and her husband Cesar are Jehovah’s Witnesses from New Mexico. They had been turned down in their effort to receive a kidney transplant for Esmerelda because they refuse to have blood transfusions. Fortunately for them, Houston Methodist is one of a select few hospitals that perform bloodless transfusions.
      “We have a program for Jehovah’s Witness transplants. We do actual lung transplants with Jehovah’s Witnesses. So, we give them hormones to raise their blood count, we prepare them differently for the transplant,” says Dr. Gaber.
      While Cesar didn’t provide a kidney for his wife, he was still able to help. Felix Rodriguez received Cesar’s kidney. Sandra Izquierdo wanted to help her brother, Felix, but couldn’t because she wasn’t a match. Instead her kidney went to Mark Ridgaway.
      Six donors and six recipients, all thanks to the kindness of strangers, though they all consider themselves family now. Dr. Gaber says months of preparation went into performing the “six-way” organ swap. “You actually need 12 operating rooms and it is hard on the hospital because of the complexity, you don’t want to make mistakes. The kidney needs to go to the right place,” said Dr. Gaber.
      With more than 1,400 people on the Methodist kidney transplant wait list, the hospital hopes more people will participate in the program.
      http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/08/01/162583/houston-methodist-performs-six-way-kidney-swap/
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Clint Smith, at home in New Orleans, had a procedure that altered his immune system to allow his body to accept a kidney from an incompatible donor. It “changed my life,” he said. Credit William Widmer for The New York Times
       
      In the anguishing wait for a new kidney, tens of thousands of patients on waiting lists may never find a match because their immune systems will reject almost any transplanted organ. Now, in a large national study thatexperts are calling revolutionary, researchers have found a way to get them the desperately needed procedure.
      In the new study, published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine, doctors successfully altered patients’ immune systems to allow them to accept kidneys from incompatible donors. Significantly more of those patients were still alive after eight years than patients who had remained on waiting lists or received a kidney transplanted from a deceased donor.
      The method, known as desensitization, “has the potential to save many lives,” said Dr. Jeffery Berns, a kidney specialist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine and the president of the National Kidney Foundation.
      It could slash the wait times for thousands of people and for some, like Clint Smith, a 56-year-old lawyer in New Orleans, mean the difference between receiving a transplant and spending the rest of their lives ondialysis.
      The procedure, Mr. Smith said, “changed my life.”
      Researchers estimate about half of the 100,000 people in the United States on waiting lists for a kidney transplant have antibodies that will attack a transplanted organ, and about 20 percent are so sensitive that finding a compatible organ is all but impossible. In addition, said Dr. Dorry Segev, the lead author of the new study and a transplant surgeon at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, an unknown number of people with kidney failure simply give up on the waiting lists after learning that their bodies would reject just about any organ. Instead, they resign themselves to dialysis, a difficult and draining procedure that can pretty much take over a person’s life.
      Desensitization involves first filtering the antibodies out of a patient’s blood. The patient is then given an infusion of other antibodies to provide some protection while the immune system regenerates its own antibodies. For some reason — exactly why is not known — the person’s regenerated antibodies are less likely to attack the new organ, Dr. Segev said. But if the person’s regenerated natural antibodies are still a concern, the patient is treated with drugs that destroy any white blood cells that might make antibodies that would attack the new kidney.
      The process is expensive, costing $30,000, and uses drugs not approved for this purpose. The transplant costs about $100,000. But kidney specialists argue that desensitization is cheaper in the long run than dialysis, which costs $70,000 a year for life.
      Although by far the biggest use of desensitization would be for kidney transplants, the process might be suitable for living-donor transplants of livers and lungs, researchers said. The liver is less sensitive to antibodies so there is less need for desensitization, “but it’s certainly possible if there are known incompatibilities,” Dr. Segev said. With lungs, he said, desensitization “is theoretically possible,” although he said he was not aware of anyone doing it yet.
      In the new study, 1,025 patients at 22 medical centers who had an incompatible donor were compared to an equal number of patients who remained on waiting lists for an organ or who had an organ from a deceased but compatible donor. After eight years, 76.5 percent of those who received an incompatible kidney were still alive, compared with 62.9 percent who remained on the waiting list or received a deceased donor kidney and 43.9 percent who remained on the waiting list but never got a transplant.
      The desensitization procedure takes time — for some patients as long as two weeks — and is performed before the transplant operation, so patients must have a living donor. It is not known how many have someone willing to donate a kidney, but doctors say they often see situations in which a relative or even a friend is willing to donate but is incompatible.
      “Often patients are told that their living donor is incompatible, so they are stuck on waiting lists,” for a deceased donor, Dr. Segev said.
      In recent years, an option called a kidney exchange has helped some in this situation. Patients who have incompatible living donors can swap donors with someone whose donor may be compatible with them. Often, there are chains of patient-donor pairs leading to a compatible organ swap.
      That process can be successful, said Dr. Krista L. Lentine, the medical director of the living donation program at the Saint Louis Center for Transplantation, but patients often still cannot find a compatible organ because they have antibodies that would reject almost every kidney. In those cases, “desensitization may be the only realistic option for receiving a transplant,” said Dr. Lentine, who was not involved with the study.
      Dr. Jeffrey Campsen, a transplant surgeon at the University of Utah Health Sciences Center who also was not a study investigator, said his group focused on exchanges and had been fairly successful. But he also comes across patients whose donors do not want to participate. “There is a hurdle if the donor and patient have an emotional bond,” he said.
      The new data showing the success of desensitization “lets people get behind it,” Dr. Campsen said, adding, “I do think it is something we would consider.”
      Mr. Smith, the New Orleans patient who went through desensitization, had progressive kidney disease that slowly scarred his kidneys until, in 2004, they stopped functioning. His sister-in-law, Allison Sutton, donated a kidney to him, and he had a transplant, but after six and a half years, it failed. He went on dialysis, spending four days a week hooked up to dialysis machines for hours. It was keeping him alive, he told his friends, but it was not a life.
      Then a nurse suggested that he ask Johns Hopkins about its desensitization study. “I was like, whatever I could do,” he said. He discovered that he qualified for the study. But he needed a donor.
      One day, his wife, Sheryl Smith, was talking on the phone to a college friend, Angela Watkins, who lives in Augusta, Ga., and mentioned that Mr. Smith was praying for a donor. Mrs. Watkins’s husband, David Watkins, a judge in state court, had been friends with Mr. Smith in college and the two wives, also college friends, had kept in touch over the years.
      Mrs. Watkins told her husband about the conversation, and they asked themselves if they should offer to donate.
      “We talked and researched and prayed,” Judge Watkins said. Finally, he said, they came to a conclusion. “We have a moral obligation to at least see if we would qualify.” And he thought that he should be the one to go first. If he did not qualify, his wife could be tested.
      Mr. Smith warned his old friend that donating was an enormous undertaking. “He said, ‘You can’t grasp what you are doing.’ I heard him but it didn’t register,” Judge Watkins said. “I told him, ‘I have something you need, so what’s the big deal?’ ”
      Of course, it was a big deal. Although Judge Watkins had prepared by getting himself in top physical shape, it still took about six months to recover from the operation.
      That was four years ago, and Mr. Smith’s new kidney is still functioning and he is back to his active life, forever grateful to his friend.
      “Every night,” he says, “during my nightly prayers with my wife, I thank God for bringing David and Allison to me and for giving me the gift of life.
      “But for David giving me this gift, I would still be in that dialysis chair.”
      Correction: March 9, 2016 
      Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the role of Dr. Krista L. Lentine, the medical director of the living donation program at the Saint Louis Center for Transplantation, in the study of kidney transplants. She was not involved.
      Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/health/kidney-transplant-desensitization-immune-system.html?ref=health
  • Forum Statistics

    61,649
    Total Topics
    114,337
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,500
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    didiervaissiere
    Newest Member
    didiervaissiere
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just as the WT knows how to work the global market by investing their money in hedge funds, they know how to manipulate a developing mind with persuasion techniques.  I perceive the downplay of higher education as a safeguard from losing members.  While the organization warns these young ones of Satan’s worldly traps when pursuing higher education, in reality it appears to me that it’s all about keeping JWs captive to the organization’s “empty philosophy”.  Col 2:8  Knowing how the young mind develops sheds light on the org's use of persistent warnings not to pursue higher education.  “Developmental Tasks and Attributes of Late Adolescence/Young Adulthood (Ages 18-24 years) http://www.amchp.org/programsandtopics/AdolescentHealth/projects/Documents/SAHRC AYADevelopment LateAdolescentYoungAdulthood.pdf This is a time of life when very little is normative. It is a period of frequent change and exploration that covers many aspects of their life: home, family, work, school, resources, and role. Develop and apply abstract thinking skills Adolescents experience significant changes in their capacity to think. In changing from concrete to abstract thought they are increasingly able to understand and grapple with abstract ideas, think about possibilities, think ahead, think about thinking, and “put themselves in another person’s shoes.” In general, this changes their ability to think about themselves, others and the world around them. This is a gradual process that spans adolescence and young adulthood. For example, early in the process youth are limited in their ability to hold more than one point of view – understanding something from one perspective but not another. ·        Capacity for abstract thought becomes established; can think abstractly and hypothetically; can discern the underlying principles and apply them to new situations; and can think about the future, considering many possibilities and logical outcomes of possible events. ·       Able to hold and manipulate clusters of abstract ideas and create systems for organizing abstract thoughts. ·       Greater ability to consider different points of view at the same time can result in increased empathy and concern for others, and new interest in societal issues for many. It also allows youth to better value the diversity of people (and their perspectives) and appreciate that there may be many right answers to a problem. Adopt A Personal Value System Adolescents develop a more complex understanding of moral behavior and underlying principles of justice. They question and assess beliefs from childhood and restructure these beliefs into a personal ideology (e.g. more personally meaningful values, religious views, and belief systems to guide decisions and behavior). ·        Decisions and values are less influenced by peers. ·       Able to see multiple viewpoints, value the diversity of people and perspectives and appreciate that there can be many right answers to a problem. ·        Identify values and viewpoints that work for oneself while respecting viewpoints/values of others I would imagine there is a high risk of young JWs entering a college or university after high school, with the same age group, and going through the same mental development stages ...leaving the Watchtower altogether.  
    • John 17:14-16 The comments in the study Bible on John 17:15 say: "Jehovah...could even separate his people physically from the rest of the world and place them in a a safe and peaceful environment. However, regarding his disciples, Jesus prayed to his heavenly Father: "I request you, not to take them out of the world, but to watch over them because of the wicked one." Jehovah has chosen not to take us "out of the world." Rather, it is his will that we live among the general population of this world in order to proclaim his message of hope and comfort to others. (Rom. 10:13-15) But, as Jesus implied in his prayer, by living in this world, we are exposed to "the wicked one." Disobedient mankind and wicked spirit forces cause much pain and anguish, and Christians are not immune to distress." 1 Peter 5:9 So while we recognize we have to live in a world under Satan's control, it doesn't mean we should go out of our way to expose ourselves to potentially dangerous influences and bad association. There are of course necessary things we must do to survive and provide for our families - such as employment, which as you correctly pointed out, can mean rubbing shoulders with worldly people and attitudes whatever level of education we choose. But even on that, we are selective so as to minimize our exposure to potentially harmful influences. It may include being selective as to what type of work we are willing to accept, or whom we work with/for. Many caring parents know they can't completely eliminate bad influences at school for instance (since kids have to have some type of schooling and it is beneficial), but they may choose to be selective as to whom they allow their kids to spend their extra time with. So living in the world, we recognize there are certain things we must do whether we like it or not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise caution and be selective as to what we choose to involve ourselves in. I could rationalize that I need a job to support myself and my family - a legitimate and necessary need,  but would I choose to work for the mafia to do so? No, I would be selective and cautious.  I agree with you. I often have the same problem on both phone and tablet. Fortunately I've recently discovered that we can edit and make corrections. I wish I had known that earlier before "auto-correct" ran roughshod over my posts.  As for my level of education, I provide as little information as possible to identify me. As a "whistleblower" on some things, there would be an opportunity for "blowback" from men in authority who have something to hide. I don't even post what country I'm from. So when I have written that at times there are men in authority who act as wickedly as people in the world and hide behind their authority, I know exactly what I'm talking about. That's why I don't buy into the "Jesus is in full control of everything..." stuff, because I know some of the stuff that goes on is about as unChristlike as you can get. He doesn't cause/control it just because he allows it for a time. I also question some of the decisions men (not Jesus) have made when I am in possession of all the facts - especially when removal or disfellowshipping has as it's objective to silence whistleblowers who expose their corruption. I have never been DF'd, but I know if they thought I was spilling the beens on them, that's exactly what would happen. So I don't mention any names either that would tip them off. Just letting people know that you can still maintain your faith and relationship with God despite the evil that (some) men do - and get away with for now.  Sorry if this rant is off topic.
    • Perhaps it can be as you said. And perhaps this can be true with many other similar "stories".   What I see as important in this "story", is fine moral message and inspirational, motivating injection that in this materialistic and superficial everyday life offers a spiritual upgrade.... said with different order of words. 
    • Some do. Like the Rainbow Mountains, and some of the Caucasus (Svaneti) look more like rocky Alps. I'd love to see those mountains, and I planned to visit Georgia within two or three years if possible. I've never been to Georgia, the closest so far has been to northern Turkey (Ankara, Zonguldak, Samsun). If Jehovah did not intervene, and nature was left to itself, moving the tectonic plates would have caused thousands of violent aftershocks and tsunamis for quite some time after the floodwaters settled. Even on water, during the Flood, the Ark would have to be given divine protection. Settling on a high mountain might protect from tsunamis but not the quakes. I'd like to look up some info on these. Where should I start?
    • The story has also been told that it was a "black boy" who offered him the newspaper for free: https://mylife-chapter.blogspot.com/2017/08/who-is-richer-than-bill-gates.html When my wife was a school principal, teachers were always putting up posters about, for example, the "Ten Things Bill Gates Says about School" or "What Bill Gates Said Were the Most Important Things in Life" etc. He may have told a story like this, but usually people create such stories so that their own moral lesson comes across with more authority.  
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.