The efficacy and safety of sevelamer and lanthanum versus calcium-containing and iron-based binders in treating hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It remains unclear which phosphate binders should be preferred for hyperphosphatemia management in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing sevelamer or lanthanum with other phosphate binders in CKD. Results: Fifty-one trials (8829 patients) were reviewed. Compared with calcium-based binders, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly lower with sevelamer {risk ratio [RR] 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-1.08]} and lanthanum [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.18-3.00)], but risk of bias was concerning. Compared with calcium-based binders, sevelamer reduced the risk of hypercalcemia [RR 0.27 (95% CI 0.17-0.42)], as did lanthanum [RR 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.32)]. Sevelamer reduced hospitalizations [RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.31-0.81)], but not lanthanum [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.34-1.93)]. The presence/absence of other clinically relevant outcomes was infrequently reported. Compared with calcium-based binders, sevelamer reduced serum calcium, low-density lipoprotein and coronary artery calcification, but increased intact parathyroid hormone. The clinical relevance of these changes is unknown since corresponding clinical outcomes were not reported. Lanthanum had less favorable impact on biochemical parameters. Sevelamer hydrochloride and sevelamer carbonate were similar in three studies. Sevelamer was similar to lanthanum (three studies) and iron-based binders (three studies). Conclusion: Sevelamer was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality and significantly lower hospitalization rates and hypercalcemia compared with calcium-based binders. However, differences in important outcomes, such as cardiac events, fractures, calciphylaxis, hyperchloremic acidosis and health-related quality of life remain understudied. Lanthanum and iron-based binders did not show superiority for any clinically relevant outcomes. Future studies that fail to measure clinically important outcomes (the reason why phosphate binders are prescribed in the first place) will be wasteful.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".