2014
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-27
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of oral and intravenous Alfacalcidol in chronic hemodialysis patients

Abstract: BackgroundActivated vitamin D is the mainstay of treatment for secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in chronic hemodialysis patients. However, the optimal route of administration is still debated. The aim of our study was to compare efficacy of oral vs intravenous (IV) administration of alfacalcidol in hemodialysis. A secondary objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness advantage of oral administration.MethodsEighty-eight chronic hemodialysis patients receiving IV alfacalcidol three times a week were in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Jean et al suggested that 10–30 µg/day of vitamin D supplementation is sufficient enough to correct most vitamin D deficiencies in patients on hemodialysis, without any evident toxicity 2. In fact, oral administration has several advantages, including significant cost-effectiveness, and optimal compliance over intravenous administration 32. All of the included studies utilized oral administration of vitamin D3; however, the doses varied widely among the studies (6000–200,000 IU/week).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Jean et al suggested that 10–30 µg/day of vitamin D supplementation is sufficient enough to correct most vitamin D deficiencies in patients on hemodialysis, without any evident toxicity 2. In fact, oral administration has several advantages, including significant cost-effectiveness, and optimal compliance over intravenous administration 32. All of the included studies utilized oral administration of vitamin D3; however, the doses varied widely among the studies (6000–200,000 IU/week).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another small study from Canada examined the conversion from intravenous to oral alfacalcidol and noted that, in addition to effective PTH control, the oral administration was associated with an annual cost saving of CAD 2,246 per patient and an annual nursing time reduction of 25 days [55]. Thus, the last paradigm shift in the treatment of SHPT, the replacement of parenteral VDRA with the less expensive oral forms in ESRD, clearly triggered by our more comprehensive understanding of the mineral metabolism and of the fundamental role of calcimimetics in its management, became apparent only when the bundled payment model in US dialysis entered into effect.…”
Section: Another Paradigm Shift In Vdra Use For Shptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surviving patients having completed the loading dose received a mean (± SD) of 9.68 (± 9.14) bevacizumab injections over a mean period of 18.3 (± 18.6) months (mean ± SD interval between injections: 55.6 ± 50.6 days). Patients, living at the end of follow-up, who treatment, planned to be iterative, is associated with compliance issues [23][24][25][26][27]. The compliance of neovascular AMD patients to therapy in real life has been poorly studied [28,29].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%