RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The ability of extrarenal tissues to convert 25(OH)D (calcidiol) into 1,25(OH)2D (calcitriol) and dependence of the conversion on substrate levels provide the rationale for supplementing vitamin D in dialysis patients who usually have severe depletion of both: 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D. The primary aim of the study was to compare effects of small doses of cholecalciferol (12,000 IU/week) with frequently used in Europe, small doses of alfacalcidol (1.5 µg/week) or placebo, given for 12 weeks, on serum 1,25(OH)2D in hemodialysis patients with 25(OH)D deficiency. Secondary outcomes were changes in serum calcium, phosphate, 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone (PTH), fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) and sclerostin during the treatment. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, partly double-blind (cholecalciferol vs. placebo) study. Out of 522 patients dialyzed in 5 centers in the Mazovian Province, 93 gave informed consent and met the inclusion criteria: any vitamin D metabolites and calcimimetics naïve; no history of liver or intestinal disease; serum 25(OH)D <20 ng/ml, iPTH <1,000 ->110 pg/ml, calcium <10.2, and phosphate <6.8 mg/dl. The subjects were stratified by serum iPTH, then randomized into 3 groups according to the treatment. RESULTS: To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing head-to-head these drugs in the hemodialysis population. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline. 81 patients completed the study. Cholecalciferol normalized serum 25(OH)D, with a mean rise from 12.9 ± 6.7 to 31.3 ± 10.1 ng/ml (p < 0.0001). This was accompanied by a marked increase of 1,25(OH)2D from 13.8 ± 9.3 to 25.1 ± 14.2 pmol/l (p < 0.0001). A rise in serum 1,25(OH)2D was also observed in alfacalcidol treated patients, however much smaller (from 13.5 ± 10.1 to 18.5 ± 11.0 pmol/l; p = 0.02). Neither cholecalciferol nor alfacalcidol treatment resulted in significant changes in serum PTH and the remaining parameters. CONCLUSIONS: In most patients, treatment with cholecalciferol in a 12,000 IU/week dose permits safe correction of 25(OH)D deficiency and is more effective than 1.5 µg/week dose of alfacalcidol in rising serum 1,25(OH)2D. This, together with a lack of influence on circulating iPTH the usefulness of such small alfacalcidol doses in hemodialysis patients is debatable.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The usefulness of FRAX in predicting major bone fractures in patients with end-stage kidney disease on maintenance hemodialysis treatment has been confirmed in previous studies. For meaningful clinical use, the prognostic and intervention FRAX thresholds need to be established. METHODS: The primary aim of our study was to calculate the optimal cut-off point of FRAX for the best prediction of an increased bone fracture risk in dialysis patients and additionally, to propose its intervention threshold, indicating the need for antifracture pharmacological treatment. The study included 718 hemodialysis patients, who were followed up for two years. Thirty low-energy major bone fractures were diagnosed during the study period. We used the Polish version of FRAX (without the DXA examination) and some particular variables of the FRAX calculator. The optimal cut-off point for prediction of an increased major bone fracture risk was based on the analysis of the sensitivity and specificity curves of FRAX. RESULTS: The analysis revealed FRAX >5% (sensitivity of 70.0%, specificity of 69.8%) as the prognostic threshold for major bone fractures. Its sensitivity for bone fracture prediction was significantly higher, but specificity lower than those of FRAX ≥10%, used in general Polish population. The reason for this can be an underestimation of bone fracture risk with FRAX in dialysis patients. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the FRAX prognostic threshold for identification of an increased risk of major bone fractures in hemodialysis patients is >5%. We propose to use this specific value of FRAX as an intervention threshold for pharmacological antifracture treatment in hemodialysis patients.
