It is known that in the presence of even subtle kidney dysfunction an intensive prevention of cardiovascular risk is required. Apart from the conventional factors which contribute to cardiovascular disease (CVD), there are also some specific conditions of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) population such as oxidative stress of uremia and dialysis (D). However, hyperphosphatemia, hypercalcemia, and elevated calcium-phosphorus product remain as major contributors to the development of vascular calcification (VC) in this population, as part of the systemic complication known as mineral and bone disorders (MBD) in CKD patients. Importantly, the retention of phosphate remains as main culprit in the pathogenesis of CKD—MBD. Over the years, various treatment options for phosphate removal and controlling mineral metabolism, bone health, VC and CVD have failed, mainly through an over-suppression of PTH, development of ABD and promotion of VC and mortality.

Although KDOQI and KDIGO published CKD—MBD guidelines has clearly stated where calcium-based phosphate binders should not be used in D patients (hypercalcemia and low PTH) and where non calcium-containing phosphate binders are preferred (patients with severe vascular and/or other soft tissue calcifications), the greatest controversy and disagreements within the nephrological community still exists upon the cost-effectiveness of non calcium binder (sevelamer) use. Indeed, despite the evidence and recognised trend towards both a decrease in VC and CVD associated with sevelamer use, it is still an ongoing matter of debate. The magnitude of this controversy is increased when the issue of advanced medical and/or budgetary evaluation related to the implementation of clinical guidelines for CKD—MBD treatment is considered. Despite advocated use of sevelamer across a range of common clinical scenarios in CKD, its widespread utilization is challenged as exceeding what would usually be considered good value for money. If so, it is questionable whether the recommendations and suggestions from the guidelines should be followed, and further, do we need guidelines and innovative drugs for treatment of hyperphosphatemia? While awaiting the answer, as clinicians we should proceed with a treatment to “do no harm”, trying to at least limit the calcium exposure of our dialysis patients.

Discussion
No comments yet...Be the first to comment.

 CONNOTEA  CITEULIKE FACEBOOK LINKED IN