MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2347202824 · doi:10.3109/0886022x.2016.1172468

Cinacalcet versus standard treatment for chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2347202824 on OpenAlexaff
Nigar Sekercioglu, Jason W. Busse, M. Fatih Sekercioglu, Arnav Agarwal, Shaun Shaikh, Luciane Cruz Lopes, Reem A. Mustafa, Gordon Guyatt, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueRenal Failure · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonWestern UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCinacalcetMedicineKidney diseaseMeta-analysisInternal medicineRelative riskConfidence intervalParathyroidectomyMEDLINEHypercalciuriaIntensive care medicineParathyroid hormoneSecondary hyperparathyroidism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorders (CKD-MBD) have been associated with poor health outcomes, including diminished quality and length of life. Standard management for CKD-MBD includes phosphate restricted diet, vitamin D and phosphate binders. Persistently elevated parathyroid hormone levels may require the addition of cinacalcet hydrochloride (cinacalcet), which sensitizes calcium receptors in the parathyroid gland. PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review is to compare, in patients with CKD-MBD the effect of cinacalcet versus standard treatment on patient-important outcomes, including parathyroidectomy, fractures, hospitalizations due to cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and intermediate outcomes, in particular Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative targets. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from 1996 to June 2015. Teams of two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full text reports to determine eligibility, and subsequently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias in eligible trials. We calculated the effect estimates (risk ratios or mean differences) and 95% confidence intervals, as well as statistical measures of variability in results across studies using random effect models. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate quality of evidence about estimates of effect on an outcome-by-outcome basis for all outcomes. We presented our results with a GRADE summary table. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials including 8311 CKD patients proved eligible. The results left considerable uncertainty regarding the impact of cinacalcet on reducing fractures (relative risk [RR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-2.60; heterogeneity: p = 0.03, I(2)= 78%; very low quality evidence), and indicated that cinacalcet did not reduce hospitalizations due to cardiovascular events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85-1.02, moderate quality of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.07; heterogeneity p= 0.61, high quality evidence) or all-cause mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.04; heterogeneity: p= 0.98, I(2)= 0%; moderate quality evidence). Cinacalcet reduced the need for parathyroidectomy (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.42; heterogeneity: p= 0.70, I(2)= 0%; absolute effect 55 fewer per 1000 [95% CI 61 fewer to 45 fewer], high quality of evidence). The most common adverse event associated with cinacalcet therapy was gastrointestinal side effects. Cinacalcet increased nausea (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.46-3.21, absolute effect 158 more per 1000 [95% CI 82 more to 302 more]) and vomiting (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.66-2.80, absolute effect 63 more per 1000 [95% CI 109 more to 171 more]). Cinacalcet treatment increased the rate of hypocalcemia (RR 6.0, 95% CI 3.65-9.87; heterogeneity: p= 0.71, I(2)= 0%, absolute effect 20 more per 1000 [95% CI 11 more to 36 more], high quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of clinicians participating in these studies, cinacalcet decreased the rate of parathyroidectomy but had no influence on mortality. Patients and clinicians can trade of the benefit of fewer parathyroidectomies against the adverse effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.038
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenal FailureSame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207