These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparisons between oral and intraperitoneal 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 therapy in children treated with peritoneal dialysis.
    Author: Jones CL, Vieth R, Spino M, Ledermann S, Kooh SW, Balfe J, Balfe JW.
    Journal: Clin Nephrol; 1994 Jul; 42(1):44-9. PubMed ID: 7923966.
    Abstract:
    Recent studies in adults have suggested that parenteral 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (1,25[OH]2D3) may have advantages over oral therapy in the management of renal osteodystrophy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were clear differences between oral and IP 1,25(OH)2D3 treatments in children who did not pose a treatment problem. Seven children (5 males, 2 females, aged 1.8 to 16 years, median 4.8 years) undergoing peritoneal dialysis were initially treated with oral 1,25(OH)2D3 for a one month equilibration period They were randomly assigned to 3 months of either oral or intraperitoneal (IP) therapy with 1,25(OH)2D3 followed by 3-months-treatment using the alternative route. No significant differences in serum creatinine, phosphate, or parathyroid hormone concentrations were found between the different routes of administration in the patients. No significant differences in height standard deviation scores or renal osteodystrophy scores were found over the six-month study. Paired oral and IP pharmacokinetic studies were performed on these 7 patients and 2 other children who had been treated for at least 2 months using either oral or IP 1,25(OH)2D3. Serum was taken prior to one of the usual 1,25(OH)2D3 doses and 0.5, 1.5, 3, 6, and 24 h afterward. The highest measured concentrations of 1,25(OH)2D3 were found at 1.5 h for both oral and IP treatments (mean Cmax [SD]: oral 116 [23] pmol/l, IP 121 [24] pmol/l, p > 0.05). The AUC's for oral and IP therapy were similar (1701 [276] and 1645 [301] pmol/h/l, respectively). In the paired pharmacokinetic studies no significant differences were found between oral and IP treatments for the serum half life (27.4 [11.6] h and 19.2 [8.1] h, respectively) and total body clearance (15.3 [2.1] h and 18.4 [3.3] h, respectively) of 1,25(OH)2D3. In children who respond appropriately to oral 1,25(OH)2D3 there is no biological advantage to the use of IP 1,25(OH)2D3.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]