4.7 Article

No difference between alfacalcidol and paricalcitol in the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis patients: a randomized crossover trial

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 80, Issue 8, Pages 841-850

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2011.226

Keywords

activated vitamin D; hemodialysis; hyperparathyroidism; mineral metabolism

Funding

  1. Abbott Laboratories A/S
  2. LEO Pharmaceuticals
  3. Danish Kidney Association
  4. Danish Society of Nephrology
  5. Region Zealand Health Sciences Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alfacalcidol and paricalcitol are vitamin D analogs used for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease, but have known dose-dependent side effects that cause hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. In this investigator-initiated multicenter randomized clinical trial, we originally intended two crossover study periods with a washout interval in 86 chronic hemodialysis patients. These patients received increasing intravenous doses of either alfacalcidol or paricalcitol for 16 weeks, until parathyroid hormone was adequately suppressed or calcium or phosphate levels reached an upper threshold. Unfortunately, due to a period effect, only the initial 16-week intervention period for 80 patients was statistically analyzed. The proportion of patients achieving a 30% decrease in parathyroid hormone levels over the last four weeks of study was statistically indistinguishable between the two groups. Paricalcitol was more efficient at correcting low than high baseline parathyroid hormone levels, whereas alfacalcidol was equally effective at all levels. There were no differences in the incidence of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. Thus, alfacalcidol and paricalcitol were equally effective in the suppression of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis patients while calcium and phosphorus were kept in the desired range. Kidney International (2011) 80, 841-850; doi:10.1038/ki.2011.226; published online 10 August 2011

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available