4.3 Article

Effectiveness and Cost-Efficacy of Phosphate Binders in Hemodialysis

期刊

ANNALS OF NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 315-319

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000331988

关键词

Sevelamer; Calcium-containing phosphate binder; Mortality; Bone metabolism; Cardiovascular calcification

资金

  1. DIMDI (Deutsches Institut fur Medizinische Dokumentation und Informatik)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Worldwide, incidence rates of chronic renal insufficiency have clearly increased over the past decade, especially in people of older age. Hyperphosphatemia is the strongest independent risk factor for mortality in renal patients. In order to reduce serum phosphate concentrations to recommended values, phosphate binders (P binders) are used to bind ingested phosphate in the digestive tract. Besides the traditional therapies with calcium and aluminium salts, sevelamer and lanthanum represent recent developments on the market. The purpose of the present health technology assessment (HTA) report was to compare the effectiveness and safety of different P binders in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Methods: Based on a systematic literature search followed by a two-part selection process with predefined criteria 18 publications were included in the assessment. Results: All P binders effectively controlled serum phosphate, calcium and parathyroid hormone concentrations. The numbers of hypercalcemic episodes were higher when using calcium-containing P binders compared to sevelamer and lanthanum. Regarding mortality rate, cardiovascular calcification and bone metabolism no definite conclusions could be drawn; however, sevelamer seemed to be more effective than calcium in certain patient subgroups, such as older patients and patients with preexisting arterial calcification. Conclusions: From a medical point of view, sevelamer showed superiority over calcium-containing P binders at least for special indications. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.3
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