4.6 Article

Iron-Magnesium Hydroxycarbonate (Fermagate): A Novel Non-Calcium-Containing Phosphate Binder for the Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02630608

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: This phase II study tested the safety and efficacy of fermagate, a calcium-free iron and magnesium hydroxycarbonate binder, for treating hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: A randomized, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group study compared two doses of fermagate (1 g three times daily or 2 g three times daily with placebo). Sixty-three patients who had been on a stable hemodialysis regimen for >= 3 mo were randomized to the treatment phase. Study medication was administered three times daily just before meals for 21 d. The primary endpoint was reduction in serum phosphate over this period. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, mean baseline serum phosphate was 2.16 mmol/L. The fermagate 1- and 2-g three-times-daily treatment arms were associated with statistical reductions in mean serum phosphate to 1.71 and 1.47 mmol/L, respectively. Adverse event (AE) incidence in the 1-g fermagate arm was statistically comparable to the placebo group. The 2-g arm was associated with a statistically higher number of patients reporting AEs than the 1-g arm, particularly gastrointestinal AEs, as well as a higher number of discontinuations, complicating interpretation of this dose's efficacy. Both doses were associated with elevations of prehemodialysis serum magnesium levels. Conclusions: The efficacy and tolerability of fermagate were dose dependent. Fermagate showed promising efficacy in the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic hemodialysis patients as compared with placebo in this initial phase II study. The optimal balance between efficacy and tolerability needs to be determined from future dose-titration studies, or fixed-dose comparisons of more doses.

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