4.7 Article

Serum Phosphate:A Neglected Test in the Clinical Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 107, 期 2, 页码 E612-E618

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgab676

关键词

primary hyperparathyroidism; phosphate; surgical indication; osteoporosis; renal stones

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the relationship between P levels and clinical features of PHPT severity and found that P levels are associated with the severity of PHPT. Even moderate HypoP predicts surgical indication in asymptomatic PHPT patients.
Background: Although the inverse correlation between serum PTH and phosphate (P) levels in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is well known, the relationship between P levels and the clinical picture of the disease has not been well investigated. This was thus the aim of this paper. Patients: A total of 472 consecutive patients with PHPT attending our center were retrospectively evaluated at diagnosis. Results: P levels lower than 2.5 mg/dL (HypoP) were found in 198/472 patients (41.9%). HypoP was mild (2-2.5 mg/dL), moderate (1-1.9 mg/dL), and severe (<1 mg/dL) in 168 (84.9%), 30 (15.1%), and 0 cases, respectively. P levels were lower in males than females. Patients with more severe bone density impairment at the radial (but not the vertebral or femoral) site had P levels significantly lower than other patients. PHPT severity was worse in HypoP patients, both clinically (higher prevalence of renal stones, but not of osteoporosis) and biochemically (higher serum calcium and PTH levels). All patients in the moderate HypoP group were either symptomatic or asymptomatic reaching surgical indication according to the latest guidelines. Conclusions: We observed a relationship between P levels and biochemical and clinical features of PHPT severity. In asymptomatic PHPT patients, even moderate HypoP is predictive of surgical indication, regardless of age and hypercalcemia severity.

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

4.7
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