4.6 Article

Switching to lanthanum carbonate monotherapy provides effective phosphate control with a low tablet burden

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 23, 期 11, 页码 3677-3684

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfn310

关键词

dialysis; hyperphosphataemia; lanthanum carbonate; phosphate binder; tablet burden

资金

  1. Shire Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Despite recognized risks associated with hyperphosphataemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) Stage 5 on dialysis, the achievement of target levels of serum phosphate is poor. It is likely that this is partly due to poor adherence by patients to their phosphate-binder treatment regimens, which often comprise large daily tablet burdens. Methods. In this multicentre, open-label trial, patients on a stable dialysis regimen were screened while receiving phosphate-binder therapy, then entered into a washout phase. Patients with serum phosphate > 1.78 mmol/L after washout entered into the main 12-week treatment phase (N = 367), during which they were treated to target [Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI)]: 1.13-1.78 mmol/L; 3.5-5.5 mg/dL) with lanthanum carbonate monotherapy. Efficacy variables included serum phosphate levels and the percentage of patients with serum phosphate control. Safety and tolerability assessments were also conducted. Results. Mean serum phosphate levels were significantly reduced following 12 weeks of lanthanum carbonate monotherapy versus previous phosphate-binder therapy. The mean number of phosphate-binder tablets being taken per day at screening was 7.6, but during treatment with lanthanum carbonate, most patients were taking doses of up to 3000 mg/day, achievable with 3 x 1000 mg tablets per day (maximum of 6). Conclusion. These findings suggest that lanthanum carbonate monotherapy offers effective control of serum phosphate and, due to a low tablet burden, may help to simplify the management of hyperphosphataemia in patients with CKD Stage 5.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据