Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2003
[Critical appraisal of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic renal failure].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sesso Ricardo, Ferraz Marcos B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in patients with chronic renal failure (CRF) the effectiveness and the costs of sevelamer, a cationic polymer calcium- and aluminum-free, that is a new gastrointestinal phosphate binder.
METHODS: Literature review and critical appraisal of six clinical trials about the effectiveness and two economic studies of sevelamer in CRF patients.
RESULTS: Sevelamer is an effective phosphate binder (used in a mean daily dose of 3.5 g three times per day with meals) and with similar effect as that obtained with calcium salts, without the adverse manifestations of the latter (elevation of calcium x phosphorus product, hypercalcemia, vascular and cardiac calcifications, etc.). Moreover, sevelamer reduced serum LDL cholesterol in around 30%. Despite the greater direct costs of sevelamer compared with calcium salts, the total costs may be lower due to the reduction of costs with clinical complications and hospitalizations.
CONCLUSIONS: Sevelamer has important therapeutic value in CRF patients with hyperphosphatemia. Economic analyses should be performed in our setting to define the cost-effectiveness relationship of sevelamer.
METHODS: Literature review and critical appraisal of six clinical trials about the effectiveness and two economic studies of sevelamer in CRF patients.
RESULTS: Sevelamer is an effective phosphate binder (used in a mean daily dose of 3.5 g three times per day with meals) and with similar effect as that obtained with calcium salts, without the adverse manifestations of the latter (elevation of calcium x phosphorus product, hypercalcemia, vascular and cardiac calcifications, etc.). Moreover, sevelamer reduced serum LDL cholesterol in around 30%. Despite the greater direct costs of sevelamer compared with calcium salts, the total costs may be lower due to the reduction of costs with clinical complications and hospitalizations.
CONCLUSIONS: Sevelamer has important therapeutic value in CRF patients with hyperphosphatemia. Economic analyses should be performed in our setting to define the cost-effectiveness relationship of sevelamer.