0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Comparative Effect of Oral Pulse and Intravenous Calcitriol Treatment in Hemodialysis Patients: The Effect on Serum IL-1 and IL-6 Levels and Bone Mineral Density

      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

          Introduction: Increased serum levels of bone-resorptive cytokines such as interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) have been implicated for changes in bone remodeling in hemodialysis patients. In this prospective randomized study, we aimed to compare the effect of oral and intravenous (IV) pulse calcitriol on serum levels of IL-1β and IL-6. Patients and Methods: Twenty-eight hemodialysis patients were included and consecutively randomized to receive either oral (n = 14, M/F = 7/7, mean age 42 ± 15 years) or IV pulse (n = 14, M/F = 6/8, mean age 38 ± 14 years) calcitriol treatment. No difference was found between groups for age, sex distribution, primary renal disease, mean time on hemodialysis and baseline biochemical parameters including serum levels of IL-1β and IL-6. Results: The percent fall of intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) was significantly less with oral compared to IV calcitriol between 0 and the 3rd month (32 ± 21 vs. 56 ± 28%, p = 0.03). However, the percent fall in iPTH at the 6th month of the therapy was not different in the oral group compared to the IV group (57 ± 22 vs. 73 ± 24%, p = 0.12). The increase in bone mineral densities was higher in the IV group than the oral group. Oral and IV calcitriol caused a significant fall in IL-1β (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03, respectively) and IL-6 levels (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively) at the 6th month of treatment. The percent fall in serum IL-6 levels at the 6th month was significantly greater in the IV compared to the oral group (61 ± 18 vs. 36 ± 33%, p = 0.04), while the percent changes in serum IL-1β levels were similar. Conclusion: IV calcitriol therapy has a greater suppression of PTH at the 3rd month of the therapy. Despite no difference in serum PTH levels at the 6th month, IV therapy has a greater increase in bone mineral densities and a greater decrease in serum IL-6 levels. These findings suggest IV calcitriol treatment has a superior effect on bone remodeling by influencing the levels of bone-resorptive cytokines as compared to the oral therapy group, beyond its suppressive effect on iPTH.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          NEF
          Nephron
          10.1159/issn.1660-8151
          Nephron
          S. Karger AG
          1660-8151
          2235-3186
          2002
          February 2002
          30 January 2002
          : 90
          : 2
          : 188-194
          Affiliations
          aDivision of Nephrology and bDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Internal Medicine and cDepartment of Biochemistry, Selcuk University, Faculty of Medicine and dDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
          Article
          49041 Nephron 2002;90:188–194
          10.1159/000049041
          11818704
          © 2002 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.

          Page count
          Figures: 2, Tables: 3, References: 38, Pages: 7
          Product
          Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/49041
          Categories
          Original Paper

          Comments

          Comment on this article