| Literature DB >> 35127748 |
Joanna Matuszkiewicz-Rowińska1, Paweł Kulicki1, Paweł Zebrowski1, Wiesław Klatko2, Antoni Sokalski3, Stanisław Niemczyk4, Magdalena Wypych-Birecka5, Jolanta Małyszko1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability of extrarenal tissues to convert 25(OH)D (calcidiol) into 1,25(OH)2D (calcitriol) and dependence of the conversion on substrate levels provide the rationale for supplementing vitamin D in dialysis patients who usually have severe depletion of both: 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D. The primary aim of the study was to compare effects of small doses of cholecalciferol (12,000 IU/week) with frequently used in Europe, small doses of alfacalcidol (1.5 μg/week) or placebo, given for 12 weeks, on serum 1,25(OH)2D in hemodialysis patients with 25(OH)D deficiency. Secondary outcomes were changes in serum calcium, phosphate, 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) and sclerostin during the treatment.Entities:
Keywords: 1; 25(OH)2D; alfacalcidol; cholecalciferol; hemodialysis; vitamin D
Year: 2022 PMID: 35127748 PMCID: PMC8814355 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.781191
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1The flow diagram of patients selection.
The clinical and biochemical parameters of the 81 patients who finally took part in the study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 67 ± 13 (25–91) | 67 | 59 | 77 |
| Dialysis vintage (months) | 51 ± 54 (7–276) | 36 | 16 | 65 |
| Time spent outside (hours/d) | 3.2 ± 1.1 (1.0–5.0) | 3.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 |
| 25(OH)D (ng/dl) | 13.4 ± 6.72 (3.0–29.4) | 11.9 | 8.46 | 17.5 |
| 1,25(OH)2D (pmol/l) | 12.9 ± 9.08 (2.61–38.7) | 8.84 | 6.94 | 16.1 |
| iPTH (pg/ml) | 347 ± 189 (112–904) | 300 | 212 | 410 |
| FGF23 (pg/ml) | 2 823 ± 5 647 (4.71–27 612) | 379 | 90.7 | 2 633 |
| Sclerostin (pmol/l) | 89.2 ± 46.7 (5.11–284) | 81.9 | 58.3 | 104 |
| Total calcium (mg/dl) | 8.73 ± 0.65 (7.10–10.2) | 8.76 | 8.3 | 9.2 |
| Phosphate (mg/dl) | 4.97 ± 1.14 (2.50–6.81) | 5.19 | 4.2 | 5.6 |
Changes in biochemical parameters during the treatment in three studied groups.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Before | 12.9 ± 6.7; | 11.7 ± 7.20; | 15.4 ± 5.97; |
| After | 31.3 ± 10.1; | 10.1 ± 5.76; | 13.1 ± 6.37; |
|
| |||
| Before | 13.8 ± 9.27; | 13.5 ± 10.1; | 11.5 ± 7.95; |
| After | 25.1 ± 14.23; 20.2 (6.31–70.6) | 18.5 ± 11.0; | 14.8 ± 10.3; |
|
| |||
| Before | 8.72 ± 0.74; | 8.69 ± 0.50; | 8.78 ± 0.68; |
| After | 8.82 ± 0.72; | 8.78 ± 0.61; | 8.67 ± 0.97; |
|
| |||
| Before | 4.81 ± 1.08; | 5.12 ± 1.20; | 4.99 ± 1.16; |
| After | 5.88 ± 1.97; | 5.30 ± 1.51; | 5.17 ± 1.42; |
|
| |||
| Before | 333 ± 187; | 355 ± 205; | 354 ± 183; |
| After | 417 ± 304; | 311 ± 216; | 425 ± 283; |
|
| |||
| Before | 2,130 ± 4,726; 363 (23.8–23 656) | 3,373 ± 6,742; | 3,044 ± 5,607; 679 (21.4–27 612) |
| After | 2,136 ± 3,153; 882 (24.6–12 880) | 3,257 ± 5,426; | 3,322 ± 5,524; 626 (6.28–20 788) |
|
| |||
| Before | 83.7 ± 52.5; | 93.7 ± 50.6; | 90.5 ± 37.1; |
| After | 73.4 ± 34.4; | 77.8 ± 40.7; | 68.5 ± 32.6; |
p <0.0001,
p <0.02.