Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Comparative Effectiveness of Phosphate Binders in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

  • Nigar Sekercioglu ,

    nigars2003@yahoo.com

    Affiliation Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  • Lehana Thabane,

    Affiliations Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Department of Pediatrics and Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  • Juan Pablo Díaz Martínez,

    Affiliation Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  • Gihad Nesrallah,

    Affiliations Humber River Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  • Christopher J. Longo,

    Affiliation DeGroote School of Business, 4350 South Service Road, Burlington, Ontario, Canada

  • Jason W. Busse,

    Affiliations Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, The Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  • Noori Akhtar-Danesh,

    Affiliation Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  • Arnav Agarwal,

    Affiliation Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

  • Reem Al-Khalifah,

    Affiliation Division of Pediatric Endocrinology, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

  • Alfonso Iorio,

    Affiliations Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

  • Gordon H. Guyatt

    Affiliations Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Comparative Effectiveness of Phosphate Binders in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

  • Nigar Sekercioglu, 
  • Lehana Thabane, 
  • Juan Pablo Díaz Martínez, 
  • Gihad Nesrallah, 
  • Christopher J. Longo, 
  • Jason W. Busse, 
  • Noori Akhtar-Danesh, 
  • Arnav Agarwal, 
  • Reem Al-Khalifah, 
  • Alfonso Iorio
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) has been linked to poor health outcomes, including diminished quality and length of life. This condition is characterized by high phosphate levels and requires phosphate-lowering agents—phosphate binders. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effects of available phosphate binders on patient-important outcomes in patients with CKD-MBD.

Methods

Data sources included MEDLINE and EMBASE Trials from 1996 to February 2016. We also searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2016. Teams of two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full text reports to determine eligibility, and subsequently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias in eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible trials enrolled patients with CKD-MBD, randomized them to receive calcium (delivered as calcium acetate, calcium citrate or calcium carbonate), non-calcium-based phosphate binders (NCBPB) (sevelamer hydrochloride, sevelamer carbonate, lanthanum carbonate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide and ferric citrate), phosphorus restricted diet, placebo or no treatment, and reported effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization at ≥4 weeks follow-up. We performed network meta-analyses (NMA) for all cause-mortality for individual agents (seven-node analysis) and conventional meta-analysis of calcium vs. NCBPBs for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization. In the NMAs, we calculated the effect estimates for direct, indirect and network meta-analysis estimates; for both NMA and conventional meta-analysis, we pooled treatment effects as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effect models. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate the quality of evidence for each paired comparison.

Results

Our search yielded 1190 citations, of which 71 RCTs were retrieved for full review and 15 proved eligible. With 13 eligible studies from a prior review, we included 28 studies with 8335 participants; 25 trials provided data for our quantitative synthesis. Results suggest higher mortality with calcium than either sevelamer (NMA RR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.02 to 3.50], moderate quality evidence) or NCBPBs (conventional meta-analysis RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.21 to 2.56, moderate quality evidence). Conventional meta-analysis suggested no difference in cardiovascular mortality between calcium and NCBPBs (RR, 2.54 [95% CI, 0.67 to 9.62 low quality evidence). Our results suggest higher hospitalization, although non-significant, with calcium than NCBPBs (RR, 1.293 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.74, moderate quality evidence).

Discussion/Conclusions

Use of calcium results in higher mortality than either sevelamer in particular and NCBPBs in general (moderate quality evidence). Our results raise questions about whether administration of calcium as an intervention for CKD- MBD remains ethical. Further research is needed to explore the effects of different types of phosphate binders, including novel agents such as iron, on quality and quantity of life.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO CRD-42016032945

Introduction

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [1] are at higher risk of death, often due to cardiovascular disease [27]. CKD leads to hyperphoshatemia and a number of chronic disturbances of calcium-phosphate homeostasis collectively referred to as CKD mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). This constellation of metabolic abnormalities leads to arterial intimal and medial calcification that are associated with cardiovascular events [2], while abnormal bone turnover, architecture and mineralization result in reduced bone quality and density, with increased risk of fracture [2].

Phosphate has long been considered an important target for managing CKD-MBD and its sequelae. Because of the adverse impact of high serum phosphate levels on cardiovascular and bone outcomes and on survival [811], and because elevated serum phosphate is common in CKD patients, phosphate binders have a pivotal role in the management of CKD. Calcium—delivered as calcium acetate, calcium citrate or calcium carbonate—is less expensive, but more likely to cause hypercalcemia [811]. Non-calcium-based phosphate binders (NCBPB), sevelamer and lanthanum, are costlier but do not cause hypercalcemia [811].

Through different mechanisms, all phosphate binders prevent phosphate absorption from the gastrointestinal system [12]. Sevelamer is a resin-based binder with an anion exchange mechanism [13]. Lanthanum binds phosphate through its trivalent cation [13]. Recently, iron (e.g., ferric citrate and sucroferric oxyhydroxide) has also proved effective in lowering phosphate by impeding the absorption of phosphate in the stomach without evidence of toxicity [14,15]. The crucial question, however, is the relative impact of these agents on patient-important outcomes, particularly on mortality.

Jamal et al. conducted a meta-analysis of 15 randomized control trials (RCTs) examining CBPBs versus NCBPBs in patients with hyperphosphatemia and CKD. The results suggest higher mortality with CBPBs than with NCBPBs[16]. Inferences from this review are limited because the review did not address individual NCBPBs and because of imprecision of the main finding: results were consistent with either a moderate relative reduction in mortality (23%) or a very small relative reduction (3%). Moreover, the quality appraisal was limited, reducing overall confidence in the estimates of effect and conclusions [16].

The objective of this systematic review was (1) to update the Jamal et al. systematic review[16] using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and (2) to provide estimates of effect of individual agents by combining direct and indirect estimates through a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

We registered our protocol with PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016032945). We adhered to the PRISMA NMA guidelines in drafting our manuscript (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/NetworkMetaAnalysis.aspx) (S1 File).

Eligibility criteria

We included studies that (1) enrolled adult patients (≥18 years of age) with chronic kidney disease, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2, including dialysis CKD patients (CKD stage 5D) and non-dialysis CKD patients (stages 3 through 5) [1, 17]; (2) randomized patients to a phosphate binder or a control. Phosphate binders included CBPBs (calcium acetate, calcium citrate or calcium carbonate) and NCBPDs (sevelamer hydrochloride, sevelamer carbonate, lanthanum carbonate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide or ferric citrate). A control included phosphorus restricted diet, placebo or no intervention; (3) reported at least one of the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization due to any cause; and (4) had a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks. We excluded studies that included pediatric patients if outcomes of adults were not reported separately.

Data sources and search strategy

We included all trials identified in a prior review and updated the search for the subsequent period [16]; specifically, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2013 until February 2016 without language restrictions. We also searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2016. We used controlled vocabulary and text words and restricted our search to RCTs. We scanned the bibliographies of all prior systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as all eligible primary studies for additional relevant articles. Our full search strategy is depicted in S2 File in supporting information.

Study selection

Teams of two reviewers independently screened each title and abstract. If either reviewer identified a citation as potentially relevant, we obtained the full text of the article. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of all studies that underwent full text evaluation. If we found more than one publication for a study, and if supplementary reports included eligible outcome measures not provided in the main report, we included complementary information from the second or third report.

Data abstraction

We extracted study data using a customized data collection form accompanied by a detailed instruction manual. We abstracted the following information from each study: author, year of publication, baseline characteristics of participants, number of participants in each arm at study onset and completion, trial duration and treatment effects. We recorded the last measurement if multiple measurements were provided during the follow-up period.

Risk of bias of included studies

Two independent reviewers used a modified version of the Cochrane risk for bias tool in order to assess the risk of bias on the basis of randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting (by comparing the methods and results sections of the manuscript) as well as stopping early for benefit [18]. Reviewers chose among response options of “definitely yes”, “probably yes”, “probably no”, and “definitely no” for each of the domains, with “definitely yes” and “probably yes” ultimately assigned low risk of bias and “definitely no” and “probably no” assigned high risk of bias [19]. For eligibility and risk of bias, reviewers resolved disagreements by discussion.

Quality assessment of bodies of evidence

Quality assessment of direct evidence.

We assessed the quality of evidence in effect estimates for each outcome as high, moderate, low or very low using the GRADE rating system [20]. In the GRADE system, RCTs begin as high quality evidence, but may be rated down by one or more of five categories of limitations [19]: risk of bias, precision, consistency, directness and publication bias [21].

Clinical heterogeneity was assessed in terms of differences in population, intervention, outcomes and settings (primary vs secondary vs tertiary care settings) and was used to judge directness. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots for the degree of proximity in point estimates and overlap in 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and by the Chi-Square test of homogeneity, and the I2 statistic for which 0–40% may be unimportant heterogeneity, 30–60% moderate, 50–90% substantial and 75–100% considerable heterogeneity [22].

With respect to precision, we assessed the width of the 95% CIs for inclusion of values that would alter clinical decision-making [23]. Publication bias was considered undetected unless the effect measure was asymmetrically distributed around the pooled effect [24, 25].

After considering these reasons for rating down, we judged the overall confidence in estimates of effect for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for each direct comparison as follows: ‘high’ quality of evidence (we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect); ‘moderate’ quality of evidence (we are moderately confident in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different); ‘low’ quality of evidence (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect); and ‘very low’ quality of evidence (we have very little confidence in the effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect) [19].

Quality assessment of indirect evidence.

We also applied the GRADE methodology to rate the confidence of indirect effect estimates. Indirect effect estimates are calculated from available ‘loops’ of evidence, which includes first order (based on a single common comparator treatment, the difference between the treatment A and B is based on comparisons of A and C as well as B and C, as with ) or higher order (more than one intervening treatment connecting the two interventions that constitute the comparison of interest) [26].

To judge the quality of the indirect comparison we chose the first order loop with the lowest variance in those without a common comparator. The quality of evidence rating for indirect comparisons was the lower of the ratings of quality for the two direct estimates that contribute to the first order loop of the indirect comparison. For instance, if one of the direct comparison was rated as low and other was rated as moderate evidence, we rated the quality of indirect evidence as low [27].

We also considered further rating down the quality of the indirect comparison for intransitivity. The transitivity assumption implies similarity of trials in terms of population, intervention (type and dosing frequency), settings and trial methodology. If the transitivity assumption was violated, we rated down indirect comparison one further level.

Quality assessment of NMA mixed estimates.

If both direct and indirect evidence were available, the NMA mixed estimate quality rating came from the higher quality of the two. We also considered coherence (degree of consistency between direct and indirect effect estimates) in our final quality rating. We examined the magnitude of the difference between direct and indirect effect estimates and the extent to which confidence intervals overlapped and rated down confidence the quality of the NMA effect if we found large incoherence defined as inconsistency between direct and indirect effect estimates.

Asymmetrical funnel plots indicate reporting biases due to publication bias or small study effect [24]. We employed the comparison-adjusted funnel plot using fixed effect models. The black dashed line indicates the estimated small-study effects line—also called the regression line.

Thus, the quality of evidence for each paired network comparison included assessment of transitivity (similarity between populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes of trials in the direct comparisons that contribute to the indirect comparison estimate); coherence (similarity between direct and indirect effects); and homogeneity (similarity of effect estimates between trials in direct comparisons).

Data synthesis and statistical analysis

For conventional meta-analyses (all individual paired comparisons and comparison of calcium versus NCBPBs for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and for hospitalization) we calculated risk rations (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects models. For our NMA, we synthesised the results from RCTs using the frequentist approach. The relevant analysis was a seven-node network meta-analysis (NMA) (sevelamer hydrochloride vs. calcium carbonate vs. lanthanum carbonate vs. iron vs. phosphorus restricted diet vs. placebo vs. sevelamer-plus-calcium-plus-magnesium). We report pooled RRs for direct, indirect and mixed network meta-analysis estimates and associated 95% CIs. We present the direct, indirect and network effect estimates. We summarized the overall network heterogeneity using the global test [28]. We used the inconsistency factor for the assessment of loop inconsistency in our triangular loop [2830]. The contribution plot indicates the contribution of each direct comparison to indirect and network estimates [28].

To estimate absolute benefit for statistically significant mortality benefit we used the median baseline risk of all studies with a calcium arm and applied the relative effect from the NMA mixed comparisons. We performed all analyses with Stata (StataCorp. 2013. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP) using the mvmeta command.

Results

Trial identification

Our updated search yielded 1190 citations, of which 71 were retrieved for full review; 15 RCTs proved eligible with 3576 (Fig 1). We included 13 RCTs from the previous systematic review [16]. Therefore, we included a total of 28 studies with 8335 participants; 25 provided data that allowed inclusion in our quantitative synthesis (Fig 1).

thumbnail
Fig 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram of Search Results.

From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Peferred Reporting Iterns tor Systematic Reviews and Mela-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.g001

Trial and population characteristics

S1 Table in the supporting information presents the characteristics of all eligible studies, of which 25 reported all-cause mortality [3158]. Seven of the 28 studies (25%) included non-dialysis patients. Year of publication ranged from 2002 to 2015. Most of the trials were multinational (11 studies) and all were multi-centre. The mean age of participants ranged from 47 to 69.

Our assessment indicated low risk of bias for missing data and selective reporting in about 75% of the trials; blinding was adequate in only about 25% of the studies (Fig 2 and S1 Fig in the supporting information).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Risk of bias assessment; outcome: all-cause mortality.

Legend: Our assessment indicated low risk of bias for missing data in about 75% of trials. The level of blinding was adequate in only about 25% of the studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.g002

Seven-node analysis

Fig 3 presents the network geometry of all-cause mortality and provides 8 direct and 13 indirect comparisons for seven interventions: sevelamer, lanthanum, iron, calcium, phosphorus restricted diet, sevelamer-plus-calcium-plus-magnesium and placebo. One trial compared three treatments [59]. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated I2 values from 0% to 81.6% (Table 1).

thumbnail
Fig 3. The network map of seven-node analysis; outcome: all-cause mortality.

Legend: Edges are weighted by precision.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.g003

thumbnail
Table 1. GRADE quality assessment of direct evidence of each pairwise treatment comparison for all-cause mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.t001

For the seven-node comparison, Table 1 presents direct comparisons that contributed to the NMA, Table 2 the indirect comparisons with the associated quality of evidence ratings, and Table 3 the summary of results and quality of evidence. Moderate quality of evidence suggests higher mortality with calcium versus sevelamer (NMA RR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.02 to 3.50]). Given a baseline mortality of 23% over a year this relative effect translates into an absolute mortality increase with calcium of 43 per 1000 (95% CI 23 to 80 more. Confidence intervals for all other comparisons included no effect. Fig 4 presents the confidence interval plot. S2 Fig in the supporting information depicts the contribution plot indicating the contribution of each direct comparison to indirect and network estimates.

thumbnail
Fig 4. The predictive interval consistency plot from the consistency model of seven-node analysis; outcome: all-cause mortality without a reference standard.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.g004

thumbnail
Table 2. GRADE confidence assessments of indirect estimates per pairwise treatment comparison for all-cause mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.t002

thumbnail
Table 3. Direct, indirect, and NMA estimates of all-cause mortality with 95% confidence intervals and GRADE assessments for each pairwise comparison within the network of seven phosphate binders.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.t003

S3 Fig depicts the comparison-adjusted funnel plot using random effect models. The comparison-adjusted funnel plot does not indicate the presence of small study effects.

Additionally, using visual interpretation, we compared RRs and 95% CIs from the consistency and inconsistency models (Table 3). The proximity of the RRs and overlap between 95% CIs were not satisfactory for the comparisons of calcium with sevelamer and iron with sevelamer. We therefore rated down quality of network evidence for incoherence.

Two-node analysis: Calcium-based phosphate binders versus non-calcium based phosphate binders

S4, S5 and S6 Figs present the results of our conventional meta-analysis of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization. Fifteen studies that randomized patients to calcium versus NCBPBs showed an increase in all-cause mortality with calcium (RR 1.760 [95%CI, 1.21 to 2.56], moderate quality evidence) (S4 Fig). The outcome of cardiovascular mortality was based on five studies and did not prove significant (RR, 2.54 [95% CI, 0.67 to 9.62; low quality of evidence) (S5 Fig). The results of 3 studies suggest higher, although non-significant, hospitalization with calcium than NCBPBs (RR, 1.28 [95% CI,0.94 to 1.74]; moderate quality of evidence) (S6 Fig). S2 Table presents the GRADE evidence profile associated with these results.

Discussion

Summary of main results

The results of this NMA provide moderate quality evidence that calcium causes higher rates of mortality versus sevelamer among CKD-MBD patients (NMA RR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.02to 3.50]). This is consistent with our finding of an increase in mortality with calcium versus NCBPB in general from a conventional meta-analysis, and translates into an absolute increase in mortality of 43 cases per 1000 (95% CI 23 to 80 more). Although not statistically significant, conventional meta-analysis results also suggest an increase in cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization with calcium versus NCBPBs.

Underlying hypothesis related to the link between type of phosphate binders and the cardiovascular risk

Vascular smooth muscle cells can assume an osteoblast phenotype through phosphorous mediated and non-phosphorous mediated systems [2,6264]. This leads to an increase in vascular stiffness, afterload, and promotes left ventricular hypertrophy [2, 6062]. Elevated calcium, parathyroid hormone and parathyroid hormone-like peptides provoke and promote the abnormal calcification process and cardiovascular diseases[63, 64]. Calcium-based phosphate binders can cause hypercalcemia and contribute to cardiovascular calcification[13]. This condition eventually leads to cardiovascular mortality which is the leading cause of death in patients with CKD[65, 66]. Recently, a systematic review of the 11 RCTs including 1501 patients found that lanthanum reduced the incidence of hypercalcemia relative to calcium [67].

Comparative effectiveness studies of NCBPBs have used calcium as the comparator [16]. While our meta-analysis, and that of Jamal et el. suggests increased all-cause mortality with calcium compared with NCBPBs [16], this apparent benefit may be due to harmful effects of calcium, rather than beneficial effects with NCBPBs. The harmful effect of calcium is consistent with the role of calcium in the pathophysiology of vascular calcification [63, 64] and is also supported by studies in the general population suggesting increased cardiovascular risk with higher levels of calcium exposure [68].

Whether the increase in mortality with calcium versus NCBPBs represents a harmful effect of calcium versus no treatment for hyperphosphatemia, or a beneficial effect of NCBPBs, should ideally be informed by trials of NCBPBs versus placebo, no treatment, or a phosphorus restricted diet. Unfortunately, our NMA provides little information in this regard: although we were able to adduce estimates, the confidence intervals are sufficiently wide as to be uninformative (Table 3).

Thus, additional evidence is required to address this issue. Potential benefits of NCBPBs may be particularly difficult to prove in the context of a moderate-sized randomized trial. Since vascular medial calcification is a result of cellular differentiation, the degree to which it is reversible is likely limited. Long nocturnal hemodialysis, for example, provides excellent biochemical control and can induce negative calcium and phosphorus balance, but does not consistently promote regression of vascular calcification [6971]. Therefore, in clinical trials with relatively short follow-up, and high attrition rates, one might not expect to see significant reversal of established vascular calcification or major effects on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

Consistency of our findings with the existing evidence

Our finding that calcium leads to increased mortality versus NCBPBs is congruent with results reported with previous systematic reviews using head-to-head comparisons [16]. Although there are strong associations between calcium, phosphate and parathyroid hormone with survival and cardiovascular events, these measures may simply represent vigilance of care and are not necessarily causally related to these outcomes [72, 73]. A recent systematic review examined the correlation between CKD-MBD biochemical markers and mortality and indicated a significant negative correlation between parathyroid hormone and all-cause mortality [74]. Nevertheless, the correlation between serum calcium and phosphorus concentration and mortality did not prove significant [74].

Strengths and limitations of this study

Strengths of our review include explicit eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search, and independent duplicate assessment of eligibility. Our analysis incorporates the latest developments in NMA statistical analysis and we applied the recently developed GRADE approach to NMA that included assessment of transitivity assumptions for indirect evidence as well as coherence for combining direct and indirect evidence. This is the first systematic review and network meta-analysis that includes iron-based phosphate binders.

The main weakness of our study was limited statistical power for a number of comparisons. With the exception of sevelamer, we were unable to establish the impact of individual NCBPBs on all-cause mortality in relation to calcium, nor were we able to inform the impact of any NCBPB on mortality relative to placebo, or phosphorus diet restriction.

As previously mentioned, inadequate follow-up time in some of the trials was another weakness of our data. Overall, the lack of long-term outcome data of patients with CKD-MBD necessitates conduct of large RCTs with longer follow-up. Another option would be observational studies with longer follow-up that capture mortality if long-term RCTs are unfeasible.

Conclusions and Future Directions

CKD-MBD is a systematic condition defined by an increase in cardiovascular calcifications and bone fragility [75]. A consensus exists regarding the need for CKD-MBD treatment to maintain guideline recommended targets for calcium, phosphorus and parathyroid hormone in the presumption that meeting these targets will improve quality and quantity of life [76].

Our systematic review suggests that calcium, as compared to NCBPBs in general and sevalamer in particular, increases all-cause mortality among CKD-MBD patients. Future studies should start at earlier stages of CKD, before irreversible calcification is established.

The finding of higher mortality with calcium than alternative phosphate binders, and the possibility that this increase in mortality represents an adverse effect of calcium rather than any benefit with NCBPB, raises serious questions about the advisability, and perhaps the ethical acceptability, of calcium administration in patients with CKD-MBD.

Supporting Information

S1 Fig. Risk of bias assessment; outcome: all-cause mortality.

Low risk of bias for missing data and selective reporting in about 75% of the trials.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.s001

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Contribution plot of phosphate binders for CKD-MBD; outcome: all-cause mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.s002

(TIF)

S3 Fig. The comparison-adjusted funnel plot for the phosphate binder network; outcome: all-cause mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.s003

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Forest plot, calcium-based versus non-calcium-based phosphate binders; outcome: all-cause mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.s004

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Forest plot, calcium based vs. non-calcium based phosphate binders; outcome: cardiovascular mortality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.s005

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Forest plot, calcium based vs. non-calcium based phosphate binders; outcome: hospitalization.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.s006

(TIF)

S2 Table. GRADE quality assessments of direct evidence per pairwise treatment comparison for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization due to any reason.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156891.s010

(DOCX)

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: NS GG JB LT AI NAD CJL AA RA GN JPDM. Analyzed the data: NS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: NS LT GG AI. Wrote the paper: NS. Critically revised the manuscript: NS GG JB LT NAD CJL AI AA RA GN JPDM. Read and approved the final manuscript: NS GG JB LT NAD CJL AI AA RA GN JPDM. Interpretation of data: NS GG JB LT AI NAD CJL AA RA GN JPDM.

References

  1. 1. Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E, Kausz AT, Levin A, Steffes MW, et al. National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Annals of internal medicine. 2003;139(2):137–47. Epub 2003/07/16. pmid:12859163.
  2. 2. Moe SM. Vascular calcification and renal osteodystrophy relationship in chronic kidney disease. European Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2006;36:51–62. pmid:16884398
  3. 3. Ibels LS, Alfrey AC, Huffer WE, Craswell PW, Anderson JT, Weil R 3rd. Arterial calcification and pathology in uremic patients undergoing dialysis. Am J Med. 1979;66(5):790–6. Epub 1979/05/01. pmid:443254.
  4. 4. Cheung AK, Sarnak MJ, Yan G, Dwyer JT, Heyka RJ, Rocco MV, et al. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks in chronic hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2000;58(1):353–62. Epub 2000/07/08. pmid:10886582.
  5. 5. Sanchez-Perales C, Vazquez Ruiz de Castroviejo E, Garcia-Cortes MJ, Biechy Mdel M, Gil-Cunquero JM, Borrego-Hinojosa J, et al. Valvular calcifications at the start of dialysis predict the onset of cardiovascular events in the course of follow-up. Nefrologia. 2015;35(2):157–63. Epub 2015/08/25. pmid:26300509.
  6. 6. Rebic D, Rasic S, Hamzic-Mehmedbasic A, Dzemidzic J, Kurtalic E. Valvular calcification and left ventricular modifying in peritoneal dialysis patients. Ren Fail. 2015:1–7. Epub 2015/08/15. pmid:26275111.
  7. 7. Wilkieson TJ, Rahman MO, Gangji AS, Voss M, Ingram AJ, Ranganath N, et al. Coronary artery calcification, cardiovascular events, and death: a prospective cohort study of incident patients on hemodialysis. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2015;2:29. Epub 2015/08/14. pmid:26269747; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4534029.
  8. 8. Block GA, Hulbert-Shearon TE, Levin NW, Port FK. Association of serum phosphorus and calcium x phosphate product with mortality risk in chronic hemodialysis patients: a national study. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;31(4):607–17. Epub 1998/04/08. pmid:9531176.
  9. 9. Schwarz S, Trivedi BK, Kalantar-Zadeh K, Kovesdy CP. Association of disorders in mineral metabolism with progression of chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;1(4):825–31. Epub 2007/08/21. pmid:17699293.
  10. 10. O'Seaghdha CM, Hwang SJ, Muntner P, Melamed ML, Fox CS. Serum phosphorus predicts incident chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(9):2885–90. Epub 2011/02/05. pmid:21292817; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3175050.
  11. 11. Voormolen N, Noordzij M, Grootendorst DC, Beetz I, Sijpkens YW, van Manen JG, et al. High plasma phosphate as a risk factor for decline in renal function and mortality in pre-dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22(10):2909–16. Epub 2007/05/23. pmid:17517792.
  12. 12. Cernaro V, Santoro D, Lacquaniti A, Costantino G, Visconti L, Buemi A, et al. Phosphate binders for the treatment of chronic kidney disease: role of iron oxyhydroxide. International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease. 2016;9:11–9. Epub 2016/02/20. pmid:26893577; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4749089.
  13. 13. Locatelli F, Del Vecchio L, Violo L, Pontoriero G. Phosphate binders for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis: a comparison of safety profiles. Expert opinion on drug safety. 2014;13(5):551–61. Epub 2014/04/08. pmid:24702470.
  14. 14. Cozzolino M, Funk F, Rakov V, Phan O, Teitelbaum I. Preclinical Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Safety of Sucroferric Oxyhydroxide. Current drug metabolism. 2014;15(10):953–65. Epub 2015/02/07. pmid:25658128.
  15. 15. Lee CT, Wu IW, Chiang SS, Peng YS, Shu KH, Wu MJ, et al. Effect of oral ferric citrate on serum phosphorus in hemodialysis patients: multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Nephrol. 2015;28(1):105–13. Epub 2014/05/21. pmid:24840781.
  16. 16. Jamal SA, Vandermeer B, Raggi P, Mendelssohn DC, Chatterley T, Dorgan M, et al. Effect of calcium-based versus non-calcium-based phosphate binders on mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet (London, England). 2013;382(9900):1268–77. Epub 2013/07/23. pmid:23870817.
  17. 17. Group. KDIGOKCW. KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney inter. 2013;(3):1–150.
  18. 18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, (Statistics in Society). 2009;172(1):137–59. Epub 2009/04/22. pmid:19381330; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2667312.
  19. 19. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;336(7650):924–6. Epub 2008/04/26. pmid:18436948; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2335261.
  20. 20. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490. Epub 2004/06/19. pmid:15205295; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC428525.
  21. 21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):158–72. Epub 2012/05/23. pmid:22609141.
  22. 22. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1294–302. Epub 2011/08/02. pmid:21803546.
  23. 23. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(12):1283–93. Epub 2011/08/16. pmid:21839614.
  24. 24. Chaimani A, Salanti G. Using network meta-analysis to evaluate the existence of small-study effects in a network of interventions. Research Synthesis Methods. 2012;3(2):161–76. pmid:26062088
  25. 25. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1277–82. Epub 2011/08/02. pmid:21802904.
  26. 26. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in medicine. 2002;21(16):2313–24. Epub 2002/09/05. pmid:12210616.
  27. 27. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;349:g5630. pmid:25252733
  28. 28. Chaimani A, Higgins JPT, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10). pmid:24098547; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3789683.
  29. 29. Cosmai L, Gallieni M, Porta C. Renal toxicity of anticancer agents targeting HER2 and EGFR. J Nephrol. 2015;28(6):647–57.
  30. 30. Ng KP, Arnold J, Sharif A, Gill P, Townend JN, Ferro CJ. Cardiovascular actions of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JRAAS—Journal of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System. 2015;16(3):599–613.
  31. 31. Barreto DV, Barreto Fde C, de Carvalho AB, Cuppari L, Draibe SA, Dalboni MA, et al. Phosphate binder impact on bone remodeling and coronary calcification—results from the BRiC study. Nephron Clinical practice. 2008;110(4):c273–83. Epub 2008/11/13. pmid:19001830.
  32. 32. Block GA, Fishbane S, Rodriguez M, Smits G, Shemesh S, Pergola PE, et al. A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ferric citrate for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia and reduction of serum phosphate in patients with CKD Stages 3–5. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2015;65(5):728–36. Epub 2014/12/04. pmid:25468387.
  33. 33. Block GA, Raggi P, Bellasi A, Kooienga L, Spiegel DM. Mortality effect of coronary calcification and phosphate binder choice in incident hemodialysis patients. Kidney international. 2007;71(5):438–41. Epub 2007/01/04. pmid:17200680.
  34. 34. Block GA, Wheeler DC, Persky MS, Kestenbaum B, Ketteler M, Spiegel DM, et al. Effects of phosphate binders in moderate CKD. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN. 2012;23(8):1407–15. Epub 2012/07/24. pmid:22822075; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3402292.
  35. 35. Chertow GM, Burke SK, Raggi P. Sevelamer attenuates the progression of coronary and aortic calcification in hemodialysis patients. Kidney international. 2002;62(1):245–52. Epub 2002/06/26. pmid:12081584.
  36. 36. de Francisco AL, Leidig M, Covic AC, Ketteler M, Benedyk-Lorens E, Mircescu GM, et al. Evaluation of calcium acetate/magnesium carbonate as a phosphate binder compared with sevelamer hydrochloride in haemodialysis patients: a controlled randomized study (CALMAG study) assessing efficacy and tolerability. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association—European Renal Association. 2010;25(11):3707–17. Epub 2010/06/10. pmid:20530499; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc2957591.
  37. 37. Di Iorio B, Bellasi A, Russo D. Mortality in kidney disease patients treated with phosphate binders: a randomized study. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology: CJASN. 2012;7(3):487–93. Epub 2012/01/14. pmid:22241819.
  38. 38. Di Iorio B, Molony D, Bell C, Cucciniello E, Bellizzi V, Russo D, et al. Sevelamer versus calcium carbonate in incident hemodialysis patients: results of an open-label 24-month randomized clinical trial. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2013;62(4):771–8. Epub 2013/05/21. pmid:23684755.
  39. 39. Floege J, Covic AC, Ketteler M, Rastogi A, Chong EM, Gaillard S, et al. A phase III study of the efficacy and safety of a novel iron-based phosphate binder in dialysis patients. Kidney international. 2014;86(3):638–47. Epub 2014/03/22. pmid:24646861; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4150998.
  40. 40. Kakuta T, Tanaka R, Hyodo T, Suzuki H, Kanai G, Nagaoka M, et al. Effect of sevelamer and calcium-based phosphate binders on coronary artery calcification and accumulation of circulating advanced glycation end products in hemodialysis patients. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2011;57(3):422–31. Epub 2011/01/18. pmid:21239096.
  41. 41. Lee CT, Wu IW, Chiang SS, Peng YS, Shu KH, Wu MJ, et al. Effect of oral ferric citrate on serum phosphorus in hemodialysis patients: multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Journal of nephrology. 2015;28(1):105–13. Epub 2014/05/21. pmid:24840781.
  42. 42. Lee YK, Choi HY, Shin SK, Lee HY. Effect of lanthanum carbonate on phosphate control in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients in Korea: a randomized prospective study. Clinical nephrology. 2013;79(2):136–42. Epub 2012/12/06. pmid:23211335.
  43. 43. Lewis JB, Sika M, Koury MJ, Chuang P, Schulman G, Smith MT, et al. Ferric citrate controls phosphorus and delivers iron in patients on dialysis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: JASN. 2015;26(2):493–503. Epub 2014/07/26. pmid:25060056; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4310662.
  44. 44. Ohtake T, Kobayashi S, Oka M, Furuya R, Iwagami M, Tsutsumi D, et al. Lanthanum carbonate delays progression of coronary artery calcification compared with calcium-based phosphate binders in patients on hemodialysis: a pilot study. Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. 2013;18(5):439–46. Epub 2013/04/26. pmid:23615577.
  45. 45. Qunibi W, Moustafa M, Muenz LR, He DY, Kessler PD, Diaz-Buxo JA, et al. A 1-year randomized trial of calcium acetate versus sevelamer on progression of coronary artery calcification in hemodialysis patients with comparable lipid control: the Calcium Acetate Renagel Evaluation-2 (CARE-2) study. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2008;51(6):952–65. Epub 2008/04/22. pmid:18423809.
  46. 46. Russo D, Miranda I, Ruocco C, Battaglia Y, Buonanno E, Manzi S, et al. The progression of coronary artery calcification in predialysis patients on calcium carbonate or sevelamer. Kidney international. 2007;72(10):1255–61. Epub 2007/09/07. pmid:17805238.
  47. 47. Sadek T, Mazouz H, Bahloul H, Oprisiu R, El Esper N, El Esper I, et al. Sevelamer hydrochloride with or without alphacalcidol or higher dialysate calcium vs calcium carbonate in dialysis patients: an open-label, randomized study. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association—European Renal Association. 2003;18(3):582–8. Epub 2003/02/14. pmid:12584283.
  48. 48. Suki WN. Effects of sevelamer and calcium-based phosphate binders on mortality in hemodialysis patients: results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of renal nutrition: the official journal of the Council on Renal Nutrition of the National Kidney Foundation. 2008;18(1):91–8. Epub 2007/12/20. pmid:18089452.
  49. 49. Takahara Y, Matsuda Y, Takahashi S, Shigematsu T. Efficacy and safety of lanthanum carbonate in pre-dialysis CKD patients with hyperphosphatemia: a randomized trial. Clinical nephrology. 2014;82(3):181–90. Epub 2014/08/01. pmid:25079863.
  50. 50. Takei T, Otsubo S, Uchida K, Matsugami K, Mimuro T, Kabaya T, et al. Effects of sevelamer on the progression of vascular calcification in patients on chronic haemodialysis. Nephron Clinical practice. 2008;108(4):c278–83. Epub 2008/04/25. pmid:18434749.
  51. 51. Toussaint ND, Lau KK, Polkinghorne KR, Kerr PG. Attenuation of aortic calcification with lanthanum carbonate versus calcium-based phosphate binders in haemodialysis: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Nephrology (Carlton, Vic). 2011;16(3):290–8. Epub 2011/02/24. pmid:21342323.
  52. 52. Urena-Torres P, Prie D, Keddad K, Preston P, Wilde P, Wan H, et al. Changes in fibroblast growth factor 23 levels in normophosphatemic patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3 treated with lanthanum carbonate: results of the PREFECT study, a phase 2a, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. BMC nephrology. 2014;15:71. Epub 2014/06/03. pmid:24885942; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4107721.
  53. 53. Wada K, Wada Y. Evaluation of aortic calcification with lanthanum carbonate vs. calcium-based phosphate binders in maintenance hemodialysis patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis: official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy. 2014;18(4):353–60. Epub 2014/01/15. pmid:24417760.
  54. 54. Wilson R, Zhang P, Smyth M, Pratt R. Assessment of survival in a 2-year comparative study of lanthanum carbonate versus standard therapy. Current medical research and opinion. 2009;25(12):3021–8. Epub 2009/10/23. pmid:19845495.
  55. 55. Wuthrich RP, Chonchol M, Covic A, Gaillard S, Chong E, Tumlin JA. Randomized clinical trial of the iron-based phosphate binder PA21 in hemodialysis patients. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology: CJASN. 2013;8(2):280–9. Epub 2012/11/06. pmid:23124782; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3562865.
  56. 56. Xu J, Zhang YX, Yu XQ, Liu ZH, Wang LN, Chen JH, et al. Lanthanum carbonate for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD 5D: multicenter, double blind, randomized, controlled trial in mainland China. BMC nephrology. 2013;14:29. Epub 2013/02/06. pmid:23379590; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3570485.
  57. 57. Yokoyama K, Akiba T, Fukagawa M, Nakayama M, Sawada K, Kumagai Y, et al. A randomized trial of JTT-751 versus sevelamer hydrochloride in patients on hemodialysis. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association—European Renal Association. 2014;29(5):1053–60. Epub 2014/01/01. pmid:24376274.
  58. 58. Yokoyama K, Hirakata H, Akiba T, Fukagawa M, Nakayama M, Sawada K, et al. Ferric citrate hydrate for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in nondialysis-dependent CKD. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology: CJASN. 2014;9(3):543–52. Epub 2014/01/11. pmid:24408120; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc3944759.
  59. 59. Spasovski G. Advances in pharmacotherapy for hyperphosphatemia in renal disease. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16(17):2589–99.
  60. 60. Jono S, McKee MD, Murry CE, Shioi A, Nishizawa Y, Mori K, et al. Phosphate regulation of vascular smooth muscle cell calcification. Circ Res. 2000;87(7):E10–7. Epub 2000/09/29. pmid:11009570.
  61. 61. Lee WH, Hsu PC, Chu CY, Chen SC, Lee HH, Lee MK, et al. Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate and Systolic Time Intervals in Risk Stratification for Increased Left Ventricular Mass Index and Left Ventricular Hypertrophy. Medicine. 2016;95(10):e2917. Epub 2016/03/11. pmid:26962788.
  62. 62. Shroff RC, McNair R, Figg N, Skepper JN, Schurgers L, Gupta A, et al. Dialysis accelerates medial vascular calcification in part by triggering smooth muscle cell apoptosis. Circulation. 2008;118(17):1748–57. Epub 2008/10/08. pmid:18838561.
  63. 63. Yang H, Curinga G, Giachelli CM. Elevated extracellular calcium levels induce smooth muscle cell matrix mineralization in vitro. Kidney Int. 2004;66(6):2293–9. Epub 2004/12/01. pmid:15569318.
  64. 64. Jono S, Nishizawa Y, Shioi A, Morii H. Parathyroid hormone-related peptide as a local regulator of vascular calcification. Its inhibitory action on in vitro calcification by bovine vascular smooth muscle cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1997;17(6):1135–42. Epub 1997/06/01. pmid:9194765.
  65. 65. Granata A, Clementi A, Virzi GM, Brocca A, de Cal M, Scarfia VR, et al. Cardiorenal syndrome type 4: From chronic kidney disease to cardiovascular impairment. European journal of internal medicine. 2016. Epub 2016/03/11. pmid:26961461.
  66. 66. System USRD. USRDS 2013 Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Bethesda, MD2013.
  67. 67. Zhai CJ, Yang XW, Sun J, Wang R. Efficacy and safety of lanthanum carbonate versus calcium-based phosphate binders in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(3):527–35. pmid:25399356.
  68. 68. Bolland MJ, Grey A, Reid IR. Calcium supplements and cardiovascular risk: 5 years on. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety. 2013;4(5):199–210. PMC4125316. pmid:25114781
  69. 69. Chan CT, Lovren F, Pan Y, Verma S. Nocturnal haemodialysis is associated with improved vascular smooth muscle cell biology. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation: official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association—European Renal Association. 2009;24(12):3867–71. Epub 2009/09/19. pmid:19762602.
  70. 70. Kooienga L. Phosphorus balance with daily dialysis. Seminars in dialysis. 2007;20(4):342–5. Epub 2007/07/20. pmid:17635826.
  71. 71. Toussaint N, Boddington J, Simmonds R, Waldron C, Somerville C, Agar J. Calcium phosphate metabolism and bone mineral density with nocturnal hemodialysis. Hemodialysis international International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis. 2006;10(3):280–6. Epub 2006/06/30. pmid:16805890.
  72. 72. Wu HC, Lee LC, Wang WJ. Associations among time-average mineral values, mortality and cardiovascular events in hemodialysis patients. Renal failure. 2015;37(10):343–53. Epub 2015/09/17. pmid:26375759.
  73. 73. Tagawa M, Hamano T, Nishi H, Tsuchida K, Hanafusa N, Fukatsu A, et al. Mineral Metabolism Markers Are Associated with Myocardial Infarction and Hemorrhagic Stroke but Not Ischemic Stroke in Hemodialysis Patients: A Longitudinal Study. PloS one. 2014;9(12):e114678. Epub 2014/12/11. pmid:25494334; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPmc4262415.
  74. 74. Association of Drug Effects on Serum Parathyroid Hormone, Phosphorus, and Calcium Levels With Mortality in CKD: A Meta-analysis. American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2015;20(15):00633–2.
  75. 75. Moe S, Drueke T, Cunningham J, Goodman W, Martin K, Olgaard K, et al. Definition, evaluation, and classification of renal osteodystrophy: a position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int. 2006;69(11):1945–53. pmid:16641930.
  76. 76. Cunningham J, Locatelli F, Rodriguez M. Secondary hyperparathyroidism: pathogenesis, disease progression, and therapeutic options. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(4):913–21. pmid:21454719.