22 research outputs found

    Treatment of hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients: The Calcium Acetate Renagel Evaluation (CARE Study)

    Get PDF
    Treatment of hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients: The Calcium Acetate Renagel Evaluation (CARE Study).BackgroundHyperphosphatemia underlies development of hyperparathyroidism, osteodystrophy, extraosseous calcification, and is associated with increased mortality in hemodialysis patients.MethodsTo determine whether calcium acetate or sevelamer hydrochloride best achieves recently recommended treatment goals of phosphorus ≤5.5mg/dL and Ca × P product ≤55mg2/dL2, we conducted an 8-week randomized, double-blind study in 100 hemodialysis patients.ResultsComparisons of time-averaged concentrations (weeks 1 to 8) demonstrated that calcium acetate recipients had lower serum phosphorus (1.08mg/dL difference, P = 0.0006), higher serum calcium (0.63mg/dL difference, P < 0.0001), and lower Ca × P (6.1mg2/dL2 difference, P = 0.022) than sevelamer recipients. At each week, calcium acetate recipients were 20% to 24% more likely to attain goal phosphorus [odds ratio (OR) 2.37, 95% CI 1.28–4.37, P = 0.0058], and 15% to 20% more likely to attain goal Ca × P (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.20–3.86, P = 0.0097). Transient hypercalcemia occurred in 8 of 48 (16.7%) calcium acetate recipients, all of whom received concomitant intravenous vitamin D. By regression analysis hypercalcemia was more likely with calcium acetate (OR 6.1, 95% CI 2.8–13.3, P < 0.0001). Week 8 intact PTH levels were not significantly different. Serum bicarbonate levels were significantly lower with sevelamer hydrochloride treatment (P < 0.0001).ConclusionCalcium acetate controls serum phosphorus and calcium-phosphate product more effectively than sevelamer hydrochloride. Cost-benefit analysis indicates that in the absence of hypercalcemia, calcium acetate should remain the treatment of choice for hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients

    The relationship of unsafe sexual behavior and the characteristics of sexual partners of HIV infected and HIV uninfected adolescent females

    No full text
    Purpose: To compare characteristics of sexual relationships in HIV infected and HIV uninfected female adolescents and their association with condom use. Methods: HIV infected and uninfected subjects, aged 13–19 years, were enrolled in a prospective HIV study from 15 sites in 13 U.S. cities. Baseline data on demographic information, substance use, sexual behavior, partner information, and condom use were collected through direct and computer-assisted interviews from currently sexually active females. Univariate, multiple logistic regression, and repeated measures analyses were employed. Results: Data from 153 HIV infected and 90 HIV uninfected female subjects showed, on average, that current partners were 4–6 years older. In multivariate analysis, HIV infected subjects were older (OR = 1.37; 95% CI: 1.04–1.81), had more lifetime partners (OR = 2.23; 95% CI: 1.03–4.82), initiated consensual vaginal sex earlier (OR = .74; 95% CI: .58–.95), perceived partner to also be HIV infected (OR = 7.46; 95% CI: 3.2–17.4), and had less unprotected sex (OR = .27; 95% CI: .16–.45). Length of relationship was associated with more unprotected sex for both HIV infected and uninfected subjects (OR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.27–5.27, OR = 4.13; 95% CI: 1.31–13.05, respectively). Mean partner age difference was greater among HIV infected than for HIV uninfected (OR = 1.06; 95%CI: 1.01–1.12); this greater age difference for HIV infected females was associated with less protection (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.03–1.15). HIV disclosure influenced condom use: without disclosure, less condom use was reported (OR = 6.8; 95% CI: 2.29–20.24) controlling for perception that partner was also HIV infected (OR = 1.1; 95% CI: 1.02–1.21). Conclusions: Because age differential influenced reported condom use, more research, particularly qualitative, is needed into the dynamics of these relationships. Prevention efforts must address partners, particularly older ones

    Adjusted regressions for main effects model (experimental condition, race/ethnicity, education, income and covariates) for each outcome.

    No full text
    1/<p>Coef. = Coefficient; <b><sup>2/</sup></b>OR = odds ratio; <b><sup>3/</sup></b>Ref = text-only condition; <b><sup>4/</sup></b>Ref = white; <b><sup>5/</sup></b>Ref = >300% federal poverty level; <b><sup>6/</sup></b>Ref = college or more; <b><sup>7/</sup></b>Ref = Opt-in panel; <b><sup>8/</sup></b>Ref = time to smoke - >5 minutes of waking; <b><sup>9/</sup></b>Ref = Ever quit – No; <b><sup>10/</sup></b>Ref = readiness to quit - >30 days; <b><sup>11/</sup></b>Ref = Male; <b><sup>12/</sup></b>Ref = 60 years old or more; <b><sup>13/</sup></b>Ref = West; <b><sup>14/</sup></b>Ref = Not married.</p
    corecore