Dataset Information

Sevelamer Versus Calcium-Based Binders for Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in CKD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

People with CKD stages 3-5 and on dialysis (5D) have dramatically increased mortality, which has been associated with hyperphosphatemia in many studies. Oral phosphate binders are commonly prescribed to lower serum phosphate. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of the noncalcium-based binder (non-CBB) sevelamer versus CBBs in CKD stages 3-5D.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

Randomized, controlled trials comparing sevelamer with CBBs were identified through MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Patient-level outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and mortality, hospitalization, and adverse effects. Intermediate outcomes included vascular calcification and bone changes. Biochemical outcomes included serum phosphate, calcium, parathyroid hormone, lipids, and hypercalcemia. We conducted and reported this review according to Cochrane guidelines.

Results

We included 25 studies to March 31, 2015 with 4770 participants (88% on hemodialysis). Patients receiving sevelamer had lower all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.32 to 0.93), no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular mortality (n=2712; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.64), and an increase in combined gastrointestinal events of borderline statistical significance (n=384; RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.08). For biochemical outcomes, patients receiving sevelamer had lower total serum cholesterol (mean difference [MD], -20.2 mg/dl; 95% CI, -25.9 to -14.5 mg/dl), LDL-cholesterol (MD, -21.6 mg/dl; 95% CI, -27.9 to -15.4 mg/dl), and calcium (MD, -0.4 mg/dl; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2 mg/dl) and a reduced risk of hypercalcemia (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.48). End of treatment intact parathyroid hormone was significantly higher for sevelamer (MD, 32.9 pg/ml; 95% CI, 0.1 to 65.7 pg/ml). Serum phosphate values showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

Patients with CKD stages 3-5D using sevelamer have lower all-cause mortality compared with those using CBBs. Because of a lack of placebo-controlled studies, questions remain regarding phosphate binder benefits for patients with CKD stages 3-5 and not on dialysis.

SUBMITTER: Patel L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4741042 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sevelamer Versus Calcium-Based Binders for Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in CKD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Patel Leena L Bernard Lisa M LM Elder Grahame J GJ

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20151214 2

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>People with CKD stages 3-5 and on dialysis (5D) have dramatically increased mortality, which has been associated with hyperphosphatemia in many studies. Oral phosphate binders are commonly prescribed to lower serum phosphate. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of the noncalcium-based binder (non-CBB) sevelamer versus CBBs in CKD stages 3-5D.<h4>Design, setting, participants, & measurements</h4>Randomized, controlled trials comparing sevelamer with CBBs were i ...[more]

PMID: 26668024

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common compressive neuropathy of the median nerve. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus open carpal tunnel release remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic compared with open carpal tunnel release provides better symptom relief, validated outcome scores, short- and long-term strength, and/or digital sensibility; entails a differential risk of complications such as nerve injury, scar tenderness, pillar pain, and reoperation; allows an earlier return to work; and takes less operative time. METHODS:The English-language literature was searched using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials that compared endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic quality was assessed with the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Symptom relief, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) scores, strength, digital sensibility, complications, reoperation, interval to return to work, and operative time were analyzed. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials containing 1859 hands were included. RESULTS:Endoscopically treated patients showed similar symptom relief and BCTQ scores; better early recovery of grip strength (mean difference [MD], 3.03 kg [0.08-5.98]; p = 0.04) and pinch strength (MD, 0.77 kg [0.33-1.22]; p < 0.001) but no advantage after 6 months; lower risk of scar tenderness (risk ratio [RR], 0.53 [0.35-0.82]; p = 0.005); higher risk of nerve injury (RR, 2.84 [1.08-7.46]; p = 0.03), most of which were transient neurapraxias. Similar risk of pillar pain and reoperation; an earlier return to work (MD, -8.73 days [-12.82 to -4.65]; p < 0.001); and reduced operative time (MD, -4.81 minutes [-9.23 to -0.39]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS:High-level evidence from randomized controlled trials indicates that endoscopic release allows earlier return to work and improved strength during the early postoperative period. Results at 6 months or later are similar according to current data except that patients undergoing endoscopic release are at greater risk of nerve injury and lower risk of scar tenderness compared with open release. While endoscopic release may appeal to patients who require an early return to work and activities, surgeons should be cognizant of its elevated incidence of transient nerve injury amid its similar overall efficacy to open carpal tunnel release. Additional research is required to define the learning curve of endoscopic release and clarify the influence of surgeon volume on its safety.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.ResultsForty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).ConclusionLA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Dataset Information

Sevelamer Versus Calcium-Based Binders for Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in CKD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background and objectives

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Sevelamer Versus Calcium-Based Binders for Treatment of Hyperphosphatemia in CKD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets