Randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of oral paricalcitol with oral calcitriol in dialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral paricalcitol with oral calcitriol for treating secondary hyperparathyroidism. METHODS: We conducted the first multicenter open-labelled parallel group randomized controlled trial in 66 patients on dialysis. Patients were randomized to paricalcitol or calcitriol at a 3:1 dose ratio and adjusted to maintain intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) level between 150-300 pg/mL, serum calcium ≤2.74 mmol/L and calcium-phosphate product ≤5.63 mmol(2) /L(2). The primary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved >30% reduction in iPTH. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, 22 (61.1%) patients in the paricalcitol and 22 (73.3%) in the calcitriol group had achieved the primary end-point (P-value = 0.29). The cumulative proportion of patients who achieved the end-point at 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks were 50%, 80.6% and 86.1%, respectively, in paricalcitol and 53.3%, 86.7% and 86.7%, respectively, in the calcitriol group (P-value = 0.67). Median time to the end-point was 6 weeks in both groups. There were no significant differences in iPTH level at any time during the study. The median reduction in iPTH at 24 weeks was 48.4% in the paricalcitol group and 41.9% in the calcitriol group (P-value = 0.6). The median maximal iPTH reduction was 77.1% (paricalcitol) and 83.7% (calcitriol), P-value = 0.3. Serum calcium and incidence of hypercalcaemia did not differ between groups. 16.7% of patients in both groups had at least one episode of hypercalcaemia (serum calcium >2.74 mmol/L). Other adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that oral paricalcitol has similar efficacy and safety to oral calcitriol.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".