PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15126650

Improving phosphate-binder therapy as a way forward.

Alastair J Hutchison
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Aluminium- or calcium-based phosphate-binding agents traditionally have been used to treat hyperphosphataemia in patients with end-stage renal disease. Although these agents effectively lower serum phosphorus levels, they are associated with serious side effects. Aluminium-based agents are associated with bone toxicity, renal osteodystrophy and encephalopathy, and calcium-based agents increase the risk of hypercalcaemia and cardiovascular calcification. Consequently, there remains a need for new, safe and effective non-calcium-, non-aluminium-based alternative treatments. Fortunately, several new agents are now available or are in the late stages of development, including sevelamer hydrochloride and lanthanum carbonate. Although sevelamer hydrochloride represents a step forward in the management of hyperphosphataemia, it has several drawbacks and is far from being the ideal phosphate binder. Lanthanum carbonate is the most recent non-calcium, non-aluminium phosphate binder to be developed for the treatment of hyperphosphataemia. Animal studies have shown it to be as effective as aluminium, without the associated toxicity. In clinical studies, lanthanum carbonate significantly reduced serum phosphorus levels, compared with placebo. It shows a similar efficacy to calcium carbonate in controlling serum phosphorus levels, but requires lower doses. In addition, lanthanum carbonate is at least as well tolerated as calcium carbonate, but is not associated with hypercalcaemia. Importantly, it has a positive effect on bone histology, with no evolution towards low bone turnover. Lanthanum carbonate, therefore, moves closer to the ideal phosphate binder.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicEpoxy CompoundsHumansKidney Failure, ChronicLanthanumPhosphatesPhosphorus Metabolism DisordersPolyaminesPolyethylenesSevelamerJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alastair J Hutchison. 2004. Improving phosphate-binder therapy as a way forward.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt%2Fgfh1004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2008

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2007

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗