Randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of oral paricalcitol with oral calcitriol in dialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism.

AIM: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral paricalcitol with oral calcitriol for treating secondary hyperparathyroidism. METHODS: We conducted the first multicenter open-labelled parallel group randomized controlled trial in 66 patients on dialysis. Patients were randomized to paricalcitol or calcitriol at a 3:1 dose ratio and adjusted to maintain intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) level between 150-300 pg/mL, serum calcium ≤2.74 mmol/L and calcium-phosphate product ≤5.63 mmol(2) /L(2). The primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved >30% reduction in iPTH. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, 22 (61.1%) patients in the paricalcitol and 22 (73.3%) in the calcitriol group had achieved the primary end-point (P-value = 0.29). The cumulative proportion of patients who achieved the end-point at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks were 50%, 80.6% and 86.1%, respectively, in paricalcitol and 53.3%, 86.7% and 86.7%, respectively, in the calcitriol group (P-value = 0.67). Median time to the end-point was 6 weeks in both groups. There were no significant differences in iPTH level at any time during the study. The median reduction in iPTH at 24 weeks was 48.4% in the paricalcitol group and 41.9% in the calcitriol group (P-value = 0.6). The median maximal iPTH reduction was 77.1% (paricalcitol) and 83.7% (calcitriol), P-value = 0.3. Serum calcium and incidence of hypercalcaemia did not differ between groups. 16.7% of patients in both groups had at least one episode of hypercalcaemia (serum calcium >2.74 mmol/L). Other adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that oral paricalcitol has similar efficacy and safety to oral calcitriol.

Clinical effectiveness of a Malaysian-manufactured CAPD product: A randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical effectiveness of a new peritoneal dialysis (PD) product with polyvinyl chloride-containing tubing (Stay Safe Link®, SSL) with the plastic-free alternative (Stay Safe®, STS) in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). METHOD: A multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted. Adult patients receiving CAPD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to SSL or STS. The primary outcome was the rate of peritonitis after 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 472 subjects were randomised (SSL, n = 233; STS, n = 239). One subject in each group was excluded from the analysis as they withdrew consent before the first dialysis dose. Four hundred and seventy subjects (SSL, n = 232; STS, n = 238) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority between two groups was established as no significant difference was found in peritonitis rate (incident rate ratio: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65-1.28). No significant difference was detected in weekly Kt/V (p = 0.58) and creatinine clearance (p = 0.55). However, the average ultrafiltration volume was significantly lower in SSL, with a mean difference of 93 ml (p < 0.01). SSL also demonstrated a 2.57-times higher risk of device defect than STS (95% CI: 1.77-3.75). CONCLUSION: SSL was non-inferior in peritonitis rate compared to plastic-free STS over 1 year in patients requiring CAPD. There was no difference in the delivered dialysis dose, but there was a higher rate of device defects with SSL.