Paricalcitol Versus Calcifediol for Treating Hyperparathyroidism in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Cruzado, Josep Ma.; Lauzurica, Ricard; Pascual Santos, Julio; Marcen, Roberto; Moreso, Francesc; Gutiérrez-Dalmau, Alex; Andrés, Amado; Hernández, Domingo; Torres, Armando; Beneyto, Maria Isabel; Melilli, Edoardo; Manonelles, Anna; Arias, Manuel; Praga, Manuel

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ekir.2017.08.016

Paricalcitol Versus Calcifediol for Treating Hyperparathyroidism in Kidney Transplant Recipients

License

Citation

Cruzado JM, Lauzurica R, Pascual J, Marcen R, Moreso F, Gutierrez-Dalmau A. et al. Paricalcitol Versus Calcifediol for Treating Hyperparathyroidism in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Kidney Int Rep. 2017 Sep 28;3(1):122-132. DOI: 10.1016/j.ekir.2017.08.016

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) and vitamin D deficiency are common at kidney transplantation and are associated with some early and late complications. This study was designed to evaluate whether paricalcitol was more effective than nutritional vitamin D for controlling SHPT in de novo kidney allograft recipients. METHODS: This was a 6-month, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial. Patients with pretransplantation iPTH between 250 and 600 pg/ml and calcium <10 mg/dl were randomized to paricalcitol (PAR) or calcifediol (CAL). The intention-to-treat population (PAR: n = 46; CAL: n = 47) was used for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with serum iPTH >110 pg/ml at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were bone mineral metabolism, renal function, and allograft protocol biopsies. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 19.6% of patients in the PAR group and 36.2% of patients in the CAL group (P = 0.07). However, there was a higher percentage of patients with iPTH <70 pg/ml in the PAR group than in the CAL group (63.4% vs. 37.2%; P = 0.03). No differences were observed in bone turnover biomarkers and bone mineral density. The estimated glomerular filtration rate was significantly higher in the CAL group than in the PAR group without differences in albuminuria. In protocol biopsies, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy tended to be higher in the PAR group than in the CAL group (48% vs. 23.8%; P = 0.09). Both medications were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Both PAR and CAL reduced iPTH, but PAR was associated with a higher proportion of patients with iPTH <70 pg/ml. These results do not support the use of PAR to treat posttransplantation hyperparathyroidism.