Efficacy and safety of paricalcitol in patients undergoing hemodialysis: a meta-analysis
Authors Liu Y, Liu LY, Jia Y, Wu MY, Sun YY, Ma FZ
Received 4 June 2018
Accepted for publication 8 November 2018
Published 28 March 2019 Volume 2019:13 Pages 999—1009
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Georgios D. Panos
Yang Liu,1 Ling-Yun Liu,2 Ye Jia,1 Mei-Yan Wu,1 Yan-Yan Sun,3 Fu-Zhe Ma1
1Department of Nephrology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China; 2Department of Andrology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China; 3Department of Nephrology, The Fourth Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
Background: The elevated calcium and phosphorus levels in patients undergoing hemodialysis may increase the risk of all-cause mortality. Paricalcitol, as a new vitamin D receptor activator (VDRA), seemed to be effective in reducing the calcium and phosphorus levels.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of paricalcitol with other VDRAs in patients undergoing hemodialysis.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science database were systematically reviewed.
Selection criteria: Studies that focused on the use of paricalcitol for hemodialysis patients were eligible for inclusion.
Data collection and analysis: Two independent investigators performed the literature search, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality. The outcomes were expressed with standard mean difference (SMD), HR, or risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI.
Results: Thirteen studies involving 112,695 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Among these studies, four studies were cohort studies and nine studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For cohort studies, they were regarded as being of high quality; for RCTs, only one was classified as being at low risk of bias; and the remaining eight studies were at being unclear risk of bias. Compared with other VDRAs, paricalcitol significantly improved the overall survival (HR =0.86, 95% CI: 0.80, 0.92; P<0.001) and reduced the intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) (SMD =-0.53, 95% CI: -0.90, -0.17; P=0.004). Paricalcitol offered similar effect with other VDRAs in the control of calcium (SMD =0.32, 95% CI: -0.04, 0.67; P=0.078) and phosphorus (SMD =0.06, 95% CI: -0.26, 0.37; P=0.727) levels. However, the serum change in calcium phosphate product was greater in the paricalcitol group than in the other VDRA group (SMD =2.13, 95% CI: 0.19, 4.07; P=0.031). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups (RR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.12; P=0.674).
Conclusion: Paricalcitol was crucial in reducing the mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Moreover, both paricalcitol and other VDRAs were effective in control of the serum iPTH, calcium, and phosphorus levels. Given the potential limitations in this study, more prospective large-scale, well-conducted RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Keywords: hemodialysis, paricalcitol, vitamin D receptor activator, meta-analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]