4.4 Article

Vitamin D supplementation and mortality risk in chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of 20 observational studies

期刊

BMC NEPHROLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-14-199

关键词

Vitamin D; Mortality; Calcitriol; Paricalcitol; Chronic kidney disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Vitamin D insufficiency correlates with mortality risk among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The survival benefits of active vitamin D treatment have been assessed in patients with CKD not requiring dialysis and in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrance Library, and article reference lists were searched for relevant observational trials. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist. Pooled effects were calculated as hazard ratios (HR) using random-effects models. Results: Twenty studies (11 prospective cohorts, 6 historical cohorts and 3 retrospective cohorts) were included in the meta-analysis., Participants receiving vitamin D had lower mortality compared to those with no treatment (adjusted case mixed baseline model: HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.67-0.82; P < 0.001; time-dependent Cox model: HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89; P < 0.001). Participants that received calcitriol (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.79; P < 0.001) and paricalcitol (HR, 0.43 95% CI, 0.29-0.63; P < 0.001) had a lower cardiovascular mortality. Patients receiving paricalcitol had a survival advantage over those that received calcitriol (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Vitamin D treatment was associated with decreased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with CKD not requiring dialysis and patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis. There was a slight difference in survival depending on the type of vitamin D analogue. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are necessary to assess the survival benefits of vitamin D.

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

4.4
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