-
The Australasian Journal of Dermatology Aug 2019Calciphylaxis is a rare but life-threatening condition, most commonly affecting patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease. No universally accepted therapy exists...
Calciphylaxis is a rare but life-threatening condition, most commonly affecting patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease. No universally accepted therapy exists so far. In an attempt to avoid surgical intervention with parathyroidectomy, which is of questionable efficacy and carries several risks, a number of noninvasive treatments have been trialled with variable success. These treatments are aimed at modifying risk factors for calciphylaxis, in particular hypercalcaemia, hyperphosphataemia and hyperparathyroidism. The aim of this review was to summarise the available evidence to determine the potential role of cinacalcet in the treatment of calciphylaxis in patients with chronic kidney disease. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively collected from the available English and non-English literature. Overall, there was a very high response rate (partial or complete) of calciphylaxis lesions to both cinacalcet monotherapy and cinacalcet as part of a combination therapy (83.4% and 82.8%, respectively). When examining complete response to treatment specifically, combination therapy with cinacalcet proved more efficacious than monotherapy (62.1% versus 41.7%). There was also an associated rapid reduction of intact parathyroid hormone over a period of 2-33 months in both groups. While there are limitations as to how our data can be interpreted due to the heterogeneity of the methods and follow-up of the included case reports and case series, prompt and consistent therapy including cinacalcet may help improve the disease outcome. Additional research needs to be performed in this area, to further define the optimal use of cinacalcet for the treatment of calciphylaxis.
Topics: Calciphylaxis; Calcium-Regulating Hormones and Agents; Cinacalcet; Combined Modality Therapy; Humans; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 30666627
DOI: 10.1111/ajd.12992 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone that is important for its role in calcium homeostasis to maintain skeletal health. Linear growth faltering and stunting remain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone that is important for its role in calcium homeostasis to maintain skeletal health. Linear growth faltering and stunting remain pervasive indicators of poor nutrition status among infants and children under five years of age around the world, and low vitamin D status has been linked to poor growth. However, existing evidence on the effects of vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among infants and children under five years of age has not been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of oral vitamin D supplementation on linear growth and other health outcomes among infants and children under five years of age.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, 14 other electronic databases, and two trials registries. We also searched the reference lists of relevant publications for any relevant trials, and we contacted key organisations and authors to obtain information on relevant ongoing and unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral vitamin D supplementation, with or without other micronutrients, compared to no intervention, placebo, a lower dose of vitamin D, or the same micronutrients alone (and not vitamin D) in infants and children under five years of age who lived in any country.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
Out of 75 studies (187 reports; 12,122 participants) included in the qualitative analysis, 64 studies (169 reports; 10,854 participants) contributed data on our outcomes of interest for meta-analysis. A majority of included studies were conducted in India, USA, and Canada. Two studies reported for-profit funding, two were categorised as receiving mixed funding (non-profit and for-profit), five reported that they received no funding, 26 did not disclose funding sources, and the remaining studies were funded by non-profit funding. Certainty of evidence varied between high and very low across outcomes (all measured at endpoint) for each comparison. Vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention (31 studies) Compared to placebo or no intervention, vitamin D supplementation (at doses 200 to 2000 IU daily; or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment) may make little to no difference in linear growth (measured length/height in cm) among children under five years of age (mean difference (MD) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 1.68; 3 studies, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably improves length/height-for-age z-score (L/HAZ) (MD 0.11, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.22; 1 study, 1258 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably makes little to no difference in stunting (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; 1 study, 1247 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, vitamin D supplementation results in little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria compared to placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 14.67; 2 studies, 68 participants; high-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation impacts the development of hypercalcaemia as the certainty of evidence was very low (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.90; 2 studies, 367 participants). Vitamin D supplementation (higher dose) versus vitamin D (lower dose) (34 studies) Compared to a lower dose of vitamin D (100 to 1000 IU daily; or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment), higher-dose vitamin D supplementation (200 to 6000 IU daily; or up to 600,000 IU bolus at enrolment) may have little to no effect on linear growth, but we are uncertain about this result (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.22 to 0.21; 5 studies, 283 participants), and it may make little to no difference in L/HAZ (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.86; 2 studies, 105 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated stunting. As regards adverse events, higher-dose vitamin D supplementation may make little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.35; 6 studies, 554 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in hypercalcaemia (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 5 studies, 986 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to lower-dose vitamin D supplementation. Vitamin D supplementation (higher dose) + micronutrient(s) versus vitamin D (lower dose) + micronutrient(s) (9 studies) Supplementation with a higher dose of vitamin D (400 to 2000 IU daily, or up to 300,000 IU bolus at enrolment) plus micronutrients, compared to a lower dose (200 to 2000 IU daily, or up to 90,000 IU bolus at enrolment) of vitamin D with the same micronutrients, probably makes little to no difference in linear growth (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.33 to 4.53; 1 study, 25 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies evaluated L/HAZ or stunting. In terms of adverse events, higher-dose vitamin D supplementation with micronutrients, compared to lower-dose vitamin D with the same micronutrients, may make little to no difference in developing hypercalciuria (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.48; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference in developing hypercalcaemia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90, 1.11; 2 studies, 126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies measured hyperphosphataemia and three studies measured kidney stones, but they reported no occurrences and therefore were not included in the comparison for these outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that oral vitamin D supplementation may result in little to no difference in linear growth, stunting, hypercalciuria, or hypercalcaemia, compared to placebo or no intervention, but may result in a slight increase in length/height-for-age z-score (L/HAZ). Additionally, evidence suggests that compared to lower doses of vitamin D, with or without micronutrients, vitamin D supplementation may result in little to no difference in linear growth, L/HAZ, stunting, hypercalciuria, or hypercalcaemia. Small sample sizes, substantial heterogeneity in terms of population and intervention parameters, and high risk of bias across many of the included studies limit our ability to confirm with any certainty the effects of vitamin D on our outcomes. Larger, well-designed studies of long duration (several months to years) are recommended to confirm whether or not oral vitamin D supplementation may impact linear growth in children under five years of age, among both those who are healthy and those with underlying infectious or non-communicable health conditions.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Body Height; Child, Preschool; Confidence Intervals; Growth; Growth Disorders; Humans; Hypercalcemia; Hypercalciuria; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Micronutrients; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin D; Vitamins
PubMed: 33305842
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012875.pub2