4.5 Article

Correcting anemia and native vitamin D supplementation in kidney transplant recipients: a multicenter, 2 x 2 factorial, open-label, randomized clinical trial

期刊

TRANSPLANT INTERNATIONAL
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 1212-1225

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.1111/tri.13885

关键词

allograft function; anemia; cancer; erythropoiesis-stimulating agents; kidney transplant; malignancy; vitamin D

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24890109] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study findings suggest that aggressive correction of anemia may help preserve allograft kidney function, while vitamin D supplementation did not significantly impact eGFR.
Anemia and vitamin D deficiency are associated with allograft failure, and hence, are potential therapeutic targets among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). We conducted a multicenter, two-by-two factorial, open-label, randomized clinical trial to examine the effects of anemia correction and vitamin D supplementation on 2-year change in eGFR among KTRs (CANDLE-KIT). We enrolled 153 patients with anemia and >1-year history of transplantation across 23 facilities in Japan, and randomly assigned them to either a high or low hemoglobin target (>12.5 vs. <10.5 g/dl) and to either cholecalciferol 1000 IU/day or control. This trial was terminated early based on the planned interim intention-to-treat analyses (alpha = 0.034). Among 125 patients who completed the study, 2-year decline in eGFR was smaller in the high vs. low hemoglobin group (i.e., -1.6 +/- 4.5 vs. -4.0 +/- 6.9 ml/min/1.73 m(2); P = 0.021), but did not differ between the cholecalciferol and control groups. These findings were supported by the fully adjusted mixed effects model evaluating the rate of eGFR decline among all 153 participants. There were no significant between-group differences in all-cause death or the renal composite outcome in either arm. In conclusion, aggressive anemia correction showed a potential to preserve allograft kidney function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据