| 2008 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.505 | HOME AUTHOR INFO EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP | |||
| CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | JASN Express | ONLINE SUBMISSION | |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Article |
,
*Division of Nephrology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana;
Kidney Associates, Houston, Texas; and
Division of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
Correspondence: Dr. Allon Friedman, 1481 W. 10th Street-111N, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Phone: 317-988-4414; Fax: 317-988-2171; E-mail: allfried{at}iupui.edu
The decision by nephrologists, renal dietitians, federal agencies, health care payers, large dialysis organizations, and the research community to embrace serum albumin as an important index of nutrition and clinical performance is based on numerous misconceptions. Patients with analbuminemia are not malnourished and individuals with simple malnutrition are rarely hypoalbuminemic. With the possible exception of kwashiorkor, a rare nutritional state, serum albumin is an unreliable marker of nutritional status. Furthermore, nutritional supplementation has not been clearly shown to raise levels of serum albumin. The use of serum albumin as a quality care index is also problematic. It has encouraged a reflexive reliance on expensive and unproven interventions such as dietary supplements and may lead to adverse selection of healthier patients by health care providers. The authors offer a rationale for considering albumin as a marker of illness rather than nutrition. Viewed in this manner, hypoalbuminemia may offer an opportunity to improve patient well-being by identifying and treating the underlying disorder.
|
HOME
CURRENT ISSUE
ARCHIVES
JASN Express
ONLINE SUBMISSION
AUTHOR INFO
EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP |
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society of Nephrology. Online ISSN: 1533-3450 Print ISSN: 1046-6673