Lipid profiles and vitamin D receptor polymorphisms in overweight/obese dialysis patients

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gokhan Bagci ◽  
Can Huzmeli ◽  
Binnur Bagci ◽  
Ferhan Candan ◽  
Lale Akkaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Vitamin D Receptor ◽  
Lipid Profiles ◽  
Dialysis Patients

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Sucroferric Oxyhydroxide and Sevelamer Carbonate on Vitamin D Receptor Agonist Bioactivity in Dialysis Patients

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart M. Sprague ◽  
Adrian C. Covic ◽  
Jürgen Floege ◽  
Markus Ketteler ◽  
Jaco Botha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Vitamin D Receptor ◽  
Phosphate Binders ◽  
Similar Degree ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Pharmacodynamic Effects ◽  
Sevelamer Carbonate ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Potential Interactions

Background: Many patients with chronic kidney disease are prescribed vitamin D receptor agonists (VDRAs) for the management of secondary hyperparathyroidism. Oral phosphate binders may interact with, and potentially reduce the therapeutic activity of, oral VDRAs. This post hoc analysis of a Phase 3 study evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects of the iron-based phosphate binder sucroferric oxyhydroxide (SFOH) and sevelamer (SEV) carbonate on VDRA activity in dialysis patients. Methods: One thousand and fifty nine patients were randomized to SFOH 1.0-3.0 g/day (n = 710) or SEV 2.4-14.4 g/day (n = 349) for up to 52 weeks. Potential interactions of SFOH and SEV with VDRAs were assessed using serum intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) concentrations as a pharmacodynamic biomarker. Three populations of SFOH- and SEV-treated patients were analyzed: Population 1 (n = 187), patients taking concomitant stable doses of oral VDRAs only; Population 2 (n = 250), patients taking no concomitant VDRAs; Population 3 (n = 68), patients taking concomitant stable doses of intravenous paricalcitol only. Populations were compared using a mixed-effects model to obtain the least squares mean change in iPTH from baseline to Week 52. Differences between treatment groups were also compared. Results: In Population 1, iPTH decreased from baseline to Week 52 in the SFOH group (-25.3 pg/ml) but increased in the SEV group (89.8 pg/ml) (p = 0.02). In Population 2, iPTH increased to a similar extent in both treatment groups. In Population 3, iPTH concentrations in both treatment groups decreased to a similar degree (-29.6 and -11.4 pg/ml for SFOH and SEV, respectively; p = 0.87). Conclusions: In contrast with SEV, SFOH did not appear to impact the iPTH-lowering effect of oral VDRAs.

scholarly journals Possible prevention of uremic nausea by vitamin D receptor activators in non-dialysis patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 825-834
Author(s):  
Masato Ikeda ◽  
Yoshimi Ueda ◽  
Yukio Maruyama ◽  
Keitaro Yokoyama ◽  
Takashi Yokoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Vitamin D Receptor ◽  
Dialysis Patients

scholarly journals BsmlPolymorphism of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene in Hyperparathyroid or Hypoparathyroid Dialysis Patients

1999 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacopo Tagliabue ◽  
Marco Farina ◽  
Enrico Imbasciati ◽  
Carlo Vergani ◽  
Giorgio Annoni
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Vitamin D Receptor ◽  
Receptor Gene ◽  
Vitamin D Receptor Gene ◽  
Dialysis Patients

scholarly journals Intravenous Vitamin D Receptor Activators in Dialysis Introduction Period

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eri Koshi-Ito ◽  
Daijo Inaguma ◽  
Shigehisa Koide ◽  
Kazuo Takahashi ◽  
Hiroki Hayashi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Vitamin D Receptor ◽  
Hazard Analysis ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Dialysis Initiation ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Early Introduction ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background Usage of vitamin D receptor activator (VDRA) for chronic kidney disease (CKD) including patients on dialysis patients has been controversial yet. It is unknown when to begin or discontinue VDRA therapy, the type of VDRA to administer, and the method of delivery, intravenous or oral for survival in CKD patients. Therefore, we examined whether intravenous or oral VDRA early after dialysis initiation affected mortality in incident dialysis patients. Methods The study database was derived from the Aichi Cohort Study of Prognosis in Patients Newly Initiated into Dialysis (AICOPP), a multicenter, prospective, cohort analysis of 1,520 consecutive patients who began dialysis at the 17 AICOPP group centers between October 2011 and September 2013. We excluded the 262 patients who died by March 2015, 15 patients were lost to follow-up, 241 patients with unconfirmed information about use of VDRA in March 2015, and 35 patients who discontinued VDRA between dialysis initiation and March 2015. Finally, 967 patients participated in the present study. We classified the participating patients into three groups according to the usage of VDRA in March 2015: no use of VDRA (NV group), oral VDRA (OV group), and intravenous VDRA (IV group) and compared their all-cause mortality. Results There were 104 deaths during the follow-up period (NV group, 27 cases; OV group, 53 cases; IV group, 24 cases). Significant differences between the cumulative survival rates were observed for the three groups (p = 0.010). The IV group was associated with low all-cause mortality compared to the NV group (Hazard ratio = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.24−0.89, p = 0.020) by multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis using the stepwise method. Conclusions Our study shows that early introduction of intravenous VDRA to patients on hemodialysis seems to be associated with better prognosis.Trial Registration The trial registration no. is UMIN 000007096, registered on January 18, 2012. 298words, Text: 2967 words

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document