4.6 Article

Dose-effect relations of loop- and thiazide-diuretics on calcium homeostasis: a randomized, double-blinded Latin-square multiple cross-over study in postmenopausal osteopenic women

期刊

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2362.2003.01103.x

关键词

bone; calcitrol; diuretics; humans; osteopenia; parathyroid hormones

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Thiazide diuretics (TDs) reduce whereas loop diuretics (LDs) increase urinary calcium. We studied the effects of different doses of a TD and LD on electrolytes, calcitropic hormones and biochemical bone markers. Subjects and methods In a five-period crossover study, comparing four active doses with placebo, 40 postmenopausal women with osteopenia were treated with different doses of LD bumetanide (n = 20, 0.5-2.0 mg per day) or TD bendroflumethiazide (n = 20, 2.5-10 mg per day). Each treatment period lasted 1 week. Results Urinary calcium decreased dose-dependently in response to the bendroflumethiazide. The best hypocalciuric effect was achieved by 5 mg day(-1) of bendroflumethiazide. Total plasma calcium levels increased, whereas ionised calcium at ambient pH-values decreased because of increased pH-values in response to the bendroflumethiazide. Plasma PTH levels did not change, whereas a slight dose-dependent increase occurred in plasma 1,25(OH)D-2 levels. As a marker of bone formation, plasma osteocalcin levels increased. Conversely, bumetanide dose-dependently increased renal calcium losses with a concomitant increase in plasma PTH and 1,25(OH)2D levels. Plasma osteocalcin levels increased and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase levels decreased dose-dependently. Conclusion Whether a LD or TD is chosen as diuretic therapy affects calcium homeostasis. The effects of LDs are potentially harmful to bone. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether long-term treatment with LDs causes osteoporosis. Until then, we suggest using, if possible, a TD rather than a LD as diuretic therapy in order not to risk deleterious effects on bone metabolism.

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

4.6
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