15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Call for Papers: Green Renal Replacement Therapy: Caring for the Environment

      Submit here before July 31, 2024

      About Blood Purification: 3.0 Impact Factor I 5.6 CiteScore I 0.83 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Impact of Long-Term Cinacalcet, Ibandronate or Teriparatide Therapy on Bone Mineral Density of Hemodialysis Patients: A Pilot Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Insufficient evidenced-based information is available for the treatment of osteoporosis in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Methods: In 102 HD patients, bone mineral density (BMD) was measured twice 16 ± 3 months apart. In the second BMD measurement 66 of them had a femoral neck (FN) T-score <–2.5. Of these 66 patients, 38 consented to a bone biopsy. Depending on both the bone biopsy findings and parathyroid hormone levels, patients were assigned to treatment groups. Eleven patients with osteitis fibrosa and iPTH >300 pg/ml received cinacalcet, 11 with osteitis fibrosa and iPTH <300 pg/ml received ibandronate, 9 with adynamic bone disease received teriparatide, and 7 with mild abnormalities received no treatment. A third BMD measurement was done after an average treatment period of 13–16 months. We compared the annual percent change of FN and lumbar spine (LS) BMD before and during treatment. Results: FN and LS BMD decreased significantly in the cinacalcet group, with an annual change of 3.6 and 3.4% before treatment to –4.2% (p = 0.04) and –7.7% (p = 0.02) during treatment, respectively. In the teriparatide group, FN and LS BMD increased, although not significantly, with an annual change of –5.4 and –2.6% before treatment to 2.7 and 4.9% during treatment, respectively. In both the ibandronate and the no treatment groups, BMD change rate remained negative during the whole study. Conclusions: Teriparatide administration improved BMD in HD patients with adynamic bone disease, although these results did not reach statistical significance. In HD patients with osteitis fibrosa, ibandronate did not improve BMD while cinacalcet reduced BMD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis.

          In 1994, the World Health Organization published diagnostic criteria for osteoporosis. Since then, many new technologies have been developed for the measurement of bone mineral at multiple skeletal sites. The information provided by each assessment will describe the clinical characteristics, fracture risk and epidemiology of osteoporosis differently. Against this background, there is a need for a reference standard for describing osteoporosis. In the absence of a true gold standard, this paper proposes that the reference standard should be based on bone mineral density (BMD) measurement made at the femoral neck with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). This site has been the most extensively validated, and provides a gradient of fracture risk as high as or higher than that of many other techniques. The recommended reference range is the NHANES III reference database for femoral neck measurements in women aged 20-29 years. A similar cut-off value for femoral neck BMD that is used to define osteoporosis in women can be used for the diagnosis of osteoporosis in men - namely, a value for BMD 2.5 SD or more below the average for young adult women. The adoption of DXA as a reference standard provides a platform on which the performance characteristics of less well established and new methodologies can be compared.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Parathyroid hormone and teriparatide for the treatment of osteoporosis: a review of the evidence and suggested guidelines for its use.

            All therapies currently recommended for the management of osteoporosis act mainly to inhibit bone resorption and reduce bone remodeling. PTH and its analog, teriparatide [recombinant human PTH(1-34)], represent a new class of anabolic therapies for the treatment of severe osteoporosis, having the potential to improve skeletal microarchitecture. Significant reductions in both vertebral and appendicular fracture rates have been demonstrated in the phase III trial of teriparatide, involving elderly women with at least one prevalent vertebral fracture before the onset of therapy. However, there is as yet no evidence that the antifracture efficacy of PTH will be superior to the bisphosphonates, whereas cost-utility estimates suggest that teriparatide is significantly more expensive. Teriparatide should be considered as treatment for postmenopausal women and men with severe osteoporosis, as well as for patients with established glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis who require long-term steroid treatment. Teriparatide should also be considered for the management of individuals at particularly high risk for fractures, including subjects who are younger than age 65 and who have particularly low bone mineral density measurements (T scores < or = 3.5). Teriparatide therapy is not recommended for more than 2 yr, based, in part, on the induction of osteosarcoma in a rat model of carcinogenicity. Total daily calcium intake from both supplements and dietary sources should be limited to 1500 mg together with adequate vitamin D intake (< or =1000 U/d). Monitoring of serum calcium may be safely limited to measurement after 1 month of treatment; mild hypercalcemia may be treated by withdrawing dietary calcium supplements, reducing the dosing frequency of PTH, or both. At present, concurrent therapy with antiresorptive therapy, particularly bisphosphonates, should be avoided, although sequential therapy with such agents may consolidate the beneficial effects upon the skeleton after PTH is discontinued.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Increased incidence of hip fractures in dialysis patients with low serum parathyroid hormone.

              To study the complications of renal osteodystrophy in patients with end-stage renal disease, we reviewed the incidence of hip fractures in our outpatient dialysis population from 1988 to 1998. One thousand two hundred seventy-two patients were treated for a total of 4,039 patient-years; 56 hip fractures were documented during this period. The incidence of hip fractures was many times greater in the dialysis patients than in the general population in each of the age-, race-, and sex-matched subgroups. The 1-year mortality rate from the hip fracture event was nearly two and a half times greater in the dialysis patients compared with the general population. The incidence of hip fractures in the first half of the decade was similar to that observed in the second half. When parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels were evaluated, we determined that patients with lower serum PTH levels were more likely to sustain a hip fracture than patients with higher PTH levels (P: < 0.006). In addition, we determined that patients with lower PTH levels had an earlier mortality than patients with higher PTH levels (P: < 0.03). We conclude that despite more aggressive therapy directed toward bone health in our dialysis patients in recent years, the incidence of hip fractures and their devastating morbidity and mortality remained unchanged over the past decade. Lower PTH levels may predispose to earlier mortality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJN
                Am J Nephrol
                10.1159/issn.0250-8095
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                0250-8095
                1421-9670
                2012
                September 2012
                31 August 2012
                : 36
                : 3
                : 238-244
                Affiliations
                aDepartment of Nephrology, Papageorgiou General Hospital, and bDepartment of Nephrology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Hippokration General Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece; cDepartments of Neurological Surgery and Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Wash., USA; dDepartment of Nephrology, Medical School, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece
                Author notes
                *Efstathios Mitsopoulos, Department of Nephrology, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Ring Road New Efkarpia, GR–56403 Thessaloniki (Greece), Tel. +30 693 798 3244, E-Mail mitsopouloss@yahoo.com
                Article
                341864 Am J Nephrol 2012;36:238–244
                10.1159/000341864
                22948280
                205f9071-7fcd-47db-aa48-486ef973a313
                © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                History
                : 10 May 2012
                : 11 July 2012
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Original Report: Patient-Oriented, Translational Research

                Cardiovascular Medicine,Nephrology
                Bisphosphonates,Bone mineral density,Chronic hemodialysis,Calcimimetics,Teriparatide,Renal osteodystrophy,Osteoporosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article