Hiroaki Ogata1, Masafumi Fukagawa2, Hideki Hirakata3, Tatsuo Kagimura4, Tadao Akizawa5. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Chigasaki-chuo 35-1, Tsuzuki, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 224-8503, Japan. ogatah@med.showa-u.ac.jp. 2. Division of Nephrology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, Japan. 3. Fukuoka Renal Clinic, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka, Japan. 4. The Translational Research Center for Medical Innovation, Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation at Kobe, Chuo-ku, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan. 5. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Showa University School of Medicine, Shinagawa, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is predictive of cardiovascular events. We assessed whether a non-calcium-based phosphate binder, lanthanum carbonate (LC), could delay CAC progression compared with a calcium-based phosphate binder, calcium carbonate (CC), in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: This was a subsidiary of the LANDMARK study, which is a multicenter, open-label, randomized control study comparing LC and CC for cardiovascular events among Japanese hemodialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia who were at risk of vascular calcification. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LC or CC. The changes in the total Agatston score of CAC 2 years from baseline were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the changes in the total Agatston score at 1 year from baseline and the changes in serum phosphate, corrected calcium, and intact parathyroid hormone concentrations. RESULTS: Of 239 patients, 123 comprised the full analysis set. The median daily drug dose (mg) was 750 [interquartile range (IQR), 750‒1500] in the LC group and 3000 (IQR, 3000‒3000) in the CC group; it remained constant throughout the study period. There was no significant difference in the change in total Agatston score from baseline to 2 years between the LC and CC groups [368 (95% confidence interval, 57-680) in the LC group vs. 611 (105-1118) in the CC group; difference, 243 (- 352-838)]. CONCLUSIONS: LC-based treatment for hyperphosphatemia did not delay CAC for 2 years compared with CC-based treatment in hemodialysis patients with at least one risk factor for vascular calcification.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is predictive of cardiovascular events. We assessed whether a non-calcium-based phosphate binder, lanthanum carbonate (LC), could delay CAC progression compared with a calcium-based phosphate binder, calcium carbonate (CC), in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: This was a subsidiary of the LANDMARK study, which is a multicenter, open-label, randomized control study comparing LC and CC for cardiovascular events among Japanese hemodialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia who were at risk of vascular calcification. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LC or CC. The changes in the total Agatston score of CAC 2 years from baseline were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the changes in the total Agatston score at 1 year from baseline and the changes in serum phosphate, corrected calcium, and intact parathyroid hormone concentrations. RESULTS: Of 239 patients, 123 comprised the full analysis set. The median daily drug dose (mg) was 750 [interquartile range (IQR), 750‒1500] in the LC group and 3000 (IQR, 3000‒3000) in the CC group; it remained constant throughout the study period. There was no significant difference in the change in total Agatston score from baseline to 2 years between the LC and CC groups [368 (95% confidence interval, 57-680) in the LC group vs. 611 (105-1118) in the CC group; difference, 243 (- 352-838)]. CONCLUSIONS: LC-based treatment for hyperphosphatemia did not delay CAC for 2 years compared with CC-based treatment in hemodialysis patients with at least one risk factor for vascular calcification.
Authors: Antonio Bellasi; Laura Kooienga; Geoffrey A Block; Emir Veledar; David M Spiegel; Paolo Raggi Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.902