Efficacy of oral powder compared with chewable tablets for lanthanum carbonate administration in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lanthanum carbonate (LC) has been administered in a chewable tablet form for patients with hyperphosphatemia undergoing dialysis. However, some patients have difficulty chewing the tablets. LC oral powder has recently been released in Japan. The purpose of this study was to clarify the efficacy of LC oral powder form compared with that of chewable tablet form. The efficacy and safety of LC oral powder was retrospectively assessed in hemodialysis patients who switched from chewable tablet form to oral powder form without dose modification. Thirty-six patients (mean age, 66.8 ± 10.5 years; male, 64%; 39% with diabetes; mean duration of dialysis treatment, 99.2 ± 95.6 months) were enrolled in this study between June and July of 2012. Changes in clinical data and adverse events after the switch to oral powder form were investigated. The average dose of LC was 1180 ± 520 mg/day. Serum phosphorus levels were significantly decreased after the switch from chewable tablet form to oral powder form (5.3 ± 1.7 mg/dL at baseline vs. 4.9 ± 1.2 mg/dL at after 1 month after, P = 0.038). In contrast, no significant differences were observed in serum calcium and parathyroid hormone levels. Furthermore, no significant differences were evident in weight gain after the switch to oral powder form (2.5 ± 1.2 kg at baseline vs. 2.4 ± 1.1 kg at 1 month after the switch, P = 0.29). No serious adverse events were recorded. Our results suggest that LC is more effective in oral powder form than chewable tablet form for hemodialysis patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".