Effects of calcitriol on parathyroid function and on bone remodelling in secondary hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND: Secondary hyperparathyroidism (2HPT) develops in chronic renal failure due to disturbances of calcium, phosphorus and vitamin D metabolism. It is characterized by high turnover bone disease and an altered calcium-parathyroid hormone (PTH) relationship. Calcitriol has been widely used for the treatment of 2HPT. However, it remains controversial whether calcitriol is capable of inducing changes of the calcium-PTH curve. The aim of the present study was to examine this issue and to determine the effect of calcitriol on bone remodelling in patients with severe 2HPT.
METHODS: We evaluated 16 chronic haemodialysis patients with severe 2HPT (PTH 899+/-342 pg/ml). Each patient underwent a dynamic parathyroid function test (by infusion of calcium gluconate and sodium citrate) and a bone biopsy before and after a 6 month period of i.v. calcitriol therapy (CTx).
RESULTS: After treatment, eight patients were identified as calcitriol responders and the other eight as non-responders, based on plasma PTH level (<300 pg/ml for responders and >300 pg/ml for non-responders). The first group had higher plasma 25OHD(3) levels (39+/-8 vs 24+/-7 ng/ml, P<0.005). As to the calcium-PTH curve, we found differences in slope (-12.7+/-5.2 vs -21.7+/-11.4, P=0.05), basal/maximum PTH ratio (48.8+/-14.9 vs 71.05+/-20.1%, P=0.01) and time to achieve hypocalcaemia (79.0+/-13.5 vs 94.3+/-13.7 min, P<0.001). Initial histomorphometric parameters did not allow identification of the different groups. After the 6-month CTx, alterations in the calcium-PTH curve were clearly seen in responders [a drop in maximum PTH (from 1651+/-616 to 938+/-744 pg/ml, P<0.05) and minimum PTH (from 163+/-75.4 to 102.2+/-56.7 pg/ml, P<0.005)], associated with an increase in minimum/basal PTH ratio (from 23.3+/-11.6 to 34.5+/-20.4%, P<0.05) and maximum calcium (from 0.99+/-0.07 to 1.1+/-0.09 mmol/l, P<0.05). Set point and slope were not altered after calcitriol treatment, in responders (set point=1.17+/-0.08 vs 1.15+/-0.1 mmol/l, ns; slope=-12.7+/-5.2 vs -12.9+/-9.3, ns) or non-responders (set point=1.21+/-0.05 vs 1.21+/-0.2 mmol/l, ns; slope=-21.7+/-11.4 vs -17.3+/-8.4, ns). Bone formation parameters were reduced in all patients [osteoid surface (OS/BS)=from 57.1+/-21.6 to 41.6+/-26%, P<0.05 for responders, and from 76.7+/-12 to 47.1+/-15%, P<0.001 in non-responders], but non-responders had increased bone resorption [eroded surface (ES/BS)=7.1+/-3.4 vs 16.6+/-4.9, P<0.05].
CONCLUSION: Calcitriol had non-uniform effects on parathyroid function and bone remodelling in uraemic patients. Non-responders exhibited a decoupled remodelling process that could further influence mineral balance or possibly also bone structure. To avoid such undesirable effects, early identification of non-responder patients is crucial when using calcitriol for the treatment of 2HPT.