BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Calciphylaxis remains a poorly understood life-threatening disorder with limited therapeutic options. Sodium thiosulfate (STS) has reported efficacy, thought to be because solubilizing calcium deposits promote clearance by hemodialysis (HD). Lack of rigorous pharmacokinetic studies makes it problematic for determining proper STS dosing given the expanding range of dialysis prescriptions and intensities. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The purpose of this study was to determine the dosing strategies for STS during different dialysis regimens. Given reported successes using an empiric 25 g, intravenous, 3 times per week after HD, simulations were performed to predict dosing guidelines for alternative, more or less intense dialysis to produce equivalent area under the curve drug exposure. The modeled prescriptions varied HD time from 12 to 40 h/wk over three to six sessions (Q(b) 200 to 400 ml/min, Q(d) 500 to 800 ml/min), and continuous venovenous hemodialysis at low flow rates (Q(b) 100 to 200 ml/min, Q(d) 35 to 50 ml/min), using high-flux polysulfone hemofilters. RESULTS: Simulations showed a marked variation in STS doses depending on HD frequency and duration. Blood and dialysate flows have a less prominent effect. Assuming no residual renal function, HD prescription permutations caused the dose to vary from 72 to 245 g/wk (70-kg adult), and the simulations provide specific guidelines for clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the success reported for one STS dosing regimen and assuming area under the curve exposure of STS is proportional to its effect, pharmacokinetic simulations can be used to calculate the dose for alternative, higher or lower intensity dialysis regimens. These strategies are imperative to assure adequate treatment for this mortal disease, as well as to avoid toxicity from excess dosing.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Calciphylaxis remains a poorly understood life-threatening disorder with limited therapeutic options. Sodium thiosulfate (STS) has reported efficacy, thought to be because solubilizing calcium deposits promote clearance by hemodialysis (HD). Lack of rigorous pharmacokinetic studies makes it problematic for determining proper STS dosing given the expanding range of dialysis prescriptions and intensities. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The purpose of this study was to determine the dosing strategies for STS during different dialysis regimens. Given reported successes using an empiric 25 g, intravenous, 3 times per week after HD, simulations were performed to predict dosing guidelines for alternative, more or less intense dialysis to produce equivalent area under the curve drug exposure. The modeled prescriptions varied HD time from 12 to 40 h/wk over three to six sessions (Q(b) 200 to 400 ml/min, Q(d) 500 to 800 ml/min), and continuous venovenous hemodialysis at low flow rates (Q(b) 100 to 200 ml/min, Q(d) 35 to 50 ml/min), using high-flux polysulfone hemofilters. RESULTS: Simulations showed a marked variation in STS doses depending on HD frequency and duration. Blood and dialysate flows have a less prominent effect. Assuming no residual renal function, HD prescription permutations caused the dose to vary from 72 to 245 g/wk (70-kg adult), and the simulations provide specific guidelines for clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the success reported for one STS dosing regimen and assuming area under the curve exposure of STS is proportional to its effect, pharmacokinetic simulations can be used to calculate the dose for alternative, higher or lower intensity dialysis regimens. These strategies are imperative to assure adequate treatment for this mortal disease, as well as to avoid toxicity from excess dosing.
Authors: Carlos Guido Musso; Paula Enz; Flavia Vidal; Rodolfo Gelman; Luis Di Giuseppe; Pablo Bevione; Leonardo Garfi; Ricardo Galimberti; Luis Algranati Journal: Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl Date: 2008-09
Authors: Sunny Eloot; An Torremans; Rita De Smet; Bart Marescau; Dirk De Wachter; Peter Paul De Deyn; Norbert Lameire; Pascal Verdonck; Raymond Vanholder Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Sunny Eloot; An Torremans; Rita De Smet; Bart Marescau; Peter Paul De Deyn; Pascal Verdonck; Raymond Vanholder Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Pauline M Snijder; Madina Baratashvili; Nicola A Grzeschik; Henri G D Leuvenink; Lucas Kuijpers; Sippie Huitema; Onno Schaap; Ben N G Giepmans; Jeroen Kuipers; Jan Lj Miljkovic; Aleksandra Mitrovic; Eelke M Bos; Csaba Szabó; Harm H Kampinga; Pascale F Dijkers; Eelke M Bos; Csaba Szabó; Harm H Kampinga; Pascale F Dijkers; Wilfred F A den Dunnen; Milos R Filipovic; Harry van Goor; Ody C M Sibon Journal: Mol Med Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 6.354
Authors: Sagar U Nigwekar; Daniela Kroshinsky; Rosalynn M Nazarian; Jeremy Goverman; Rajeev Malhotra; Vicki Ann Jackson; Mihir M Kamdar; David J R Steele; Ravi I Thadhani Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: P M Snijder; A R Frenay; R A de Boer; A Pasch; J L Hillebrands; H G D Leuvenink; H van Goor Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 8.739