Melissa Soohoo1,2,3, Yoshitsugu Obi4, Matthew B Rivara5, Scott V Adams6, Wei Ling Lau1, Connie M Rhee1, Csaba P Kovesdy7,8, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh1,2,3, Onyebuchi A Arah3,9,10, Rajnish Mehrotra5, Elani Streja1,2. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Harold Simmons Center for Kidney Disease Research and Epidemiology, University of California Irvine Medical Center, Orange, California, USA. 2. Nephrology Section, Tibor Rubin Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, California, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA. 5. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. 7. Nephrology Section, Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 8. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 9. Department of Statistics, College of Letters and Science, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, USA. 10. Section for Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorders (CKD-MBD) are prevalent in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Yet, there are limited and mixed evidence on the effects of different dialysis modalities involving longer treatment times or higher frequencies on CKD-MBD markers. METHODS: This cohort study used data from 132,523 incident dialysis patients treated with any of the following modalities: conventional thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis, nocturnal in-center hemodialysis (NICHD), home hemodialysis (HHD), or peritoneal dialysis (PD) from 2007 to 2011. We used marginal structural models fitted with inverse probability weights to adjust for fixed and time-varying confounding and informative censoring. We estimated the average effects of treatments with different dialysis modalities on time-varying serum concentrations of CKD-MBD markers: albumin-corrected calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) using pooled linear regression. RESULTS: Most of the cohort were exclusively treated with conventional in-center hemodialysis, while few were ever treated with NICHD or HHD. At the baseline, PD patients had the lowest mean and median values of PTH, while NICHD patients had the highest median values. During follow-up, compared to hemodialysis patients, patients treated with NICHD had lower mean serum PTH (19.8 pg/mL [95% confidence interval: 2.8, 36.8] lower), whereas PD and HHD patients had higher mean PTH (39.7 pg/mL [31.6, 47.8] and 51.2 pg/mL [33.0, 69.3] higher, respectively). Compared to hemodialysis patients, phosphate levels were lower for patients treated with NICHD (0.44 mg/dL [0.37, 0.52] lower), PD (0.15 mg/dL [0.12, 0.19] lower), or HHD (0.33 mg/dL [0.27, 0.40] lower). There were no clinically meaningful associations between dialysis modalities and concentrations of calcium or ALP. CONCLUSION: In incident dialysis patients, compared to treatment with conventional in-center hemodialysis, treatments with other dialysis modalities with longer treatment times or higher frequency were associated with different patterns of serum phosphate and PTH. Given the recent growth in the use of dialysis modalities other than hemodialysis, the associations between the treatment and the CKD-MBD markers warrant additional study.
INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorders (CKD-MBD) are prevalent in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. Yet, there are limited and mixed evidence on the effects of different dialysis modalities involving longer treatment times or higher frequencies on CKD-MBD markers. METHODS: This cohort study used data from 132,523 incident dialysis patients treated with any of the following modalities: conventional thrice-weekly in-center hemodialysis, nocturnal in-center hemodialysis (NICHD), home hemodialysis (HHD), or peritoneal dialysis (PD) from 2007 to 2011. We used marginal structural models fitted with inverse probability weights to adjust for fixed and time-varying confounding and informative censoring. We estimated the average effects of treatments with different dialysis modalities on time-varying serum concentrations of CKD-MBD markers: albumin-corrected calcium, phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) using pooled linear regression. RESULTS: Most of the cohort were exclusively treated with conventional in-center hemodialysis, while few were ever treated with NICHD or HHD. At the baseline, PD patients had the lowest mean and median values of PTH, while NICHD patients had the highest median values. During follow-up, compared to hemodialysis patients, patients treated with NICHD had lower mean serum PTH (19.8 pg/mL [95% confidence interval: 2.8, 36.8] lower), whereas PD and HHD patients had higher mean PTH (39.7 pg/mL [31.6, 47.8] and 51.2 pg/mL [33.0, 69.3] higher, respectively). Compared to hemodialysis patients, phosphate levels were lower for patients treated with NICHD (0.44 mg/dL [0.37, 0.52] lower), PD (0.15 mg/dL [0.12, 0.19] lower), or HHD (0.33 mg/dL [0.27, 0.40] lower). There were no clinically meaningful associations between dialysis modalities and concentrations of calcium or ALP. CONCLUSION: In incident dialysis patients, compared to treatment with conventional in-center hemodialysis, treatments with other dialysis modalities with longer treatment times or higher frequency were associated with different patterns of serum phosphate and PTH. Given the recent growth in the use of dialysis modalities other than hemodialysis, the associations between the treatment and the CKD-MBD markers warrant additional study.
Authors: K Kalantar-Zadeh; N Kuwae; D L Regidor; C P Kovesdy; R D Kilpatrick; C S Shinaberger; C J McAllister; M J Budoff; I B Salusky; J D Kopple Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2006-07-05 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Matthew B Rivara; Vanessa Ravel; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Elani Streja; Wei Ling Lau; Allen R Nissenson; Bryan Kestenbaum; Ian H de Boer; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Rajnish Mehrotra Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Bruce F Culleton; Michael Walsh; Scott W Klarenbach; Garth Mortis; Narine Scott-Douglas; Robert R Quinn; Marcello Tonelli; Sarah Donnelly; Matthias G Friedrich; Andreas Kumar; Houman Mahallati; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Braden J Manns Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Deborah L Zimmerman; Gihad E Nesrallah; Christopher T Chan; Michael Copland; Paul Komenda; Philip A McFarlane; Azim Gangji; Robert Lindsay; Jennifer MacRae; Robert P Pauly; David N Perkins; Andreas Pierratos; Jean-Philippe Rioux; Andrew Steele; Rita S Suri; Reem A Mustafa Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-04-13 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Geoffrey A Block; Preston S Klassen; J Michael Lazarus; Norma Ofsthun; Edmund G Lowrie; Glenn M Chertow Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Aminu K Bello; Ikechi G Okpechi; Mohamed A Osman; Yeoungjee Cho; Brett Cullis; Htay Htay; Vivekanand Jha; Muhammad A Makusidi; Mignon McCulloch; Nikhil Shah; Marina Wainstein; David W Johnson Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 42.439