Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Editorials
You have accessRestricted Access

Getting Out of the Phosphate Bind: Trials to Guide Treatment Targets

Robert E. Olivo and Julia J. Scialla
CJASN June 2017, 12 (6) 868-870; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.04380417
Robert E. Olivo
*Department of Medicine and
†Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julia J. Scialla
*Department of Medicine and
†Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • Biophysical Phenomena
  • Phosphates

Treatment of serum phosphate has been a mainstay in the care of patients with ESRD on hemodialysis (HD) practically since its inception. Initially, treatment was justified on the basis of phosphate balance, with the recognition that phosphate removal by thrice-weekly dialysis was inadequately matched to dietary intake (1). Growing evidence of epidemiologic associations between circulating phosphate and mortality and adverse vascular effects of phosphate in experimental models strengthened this paradigm (2,3). With this rationale, intensive phosphate management with binders was widely adopted in practice and bolstered by clinical guidelines that advocated near-normalization of circulating phosphate on the basis of low-quality evidence (4,5). Unfortunately, mortality among patients on HD has remained stubbornly high (www.usrds.org), causing many to question the efficacy and possible opportunity costs of an intense focus on phosphate management in the HD unit. According to Medicare Part D data, phosphate binders are among the most widely prescribed dialysis-related drugs in the United States (6), in use by >80% of patients (the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study [DOPPS] Practice Monitor; www.dopps.org). Despite this ubiquity, there are essentially no adequately powered clinical outcome studies determining the effectiveness of phosphate binders or the benefits of phosphate reduction more globally.

Where conducted, most prior outcome trials in phosphate management have evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different binder classes, leaving the question of overall effectiveness unanswered (7). This void largely reflects the challenge of conducting placebo-controlled trials after a standard of care has been broadly accepted. For many analogous risk factors, such as BP, trials have led to increasingly intensive treatment targets over time (8). In contrast, liberalizing established treatment targets for phosphate will require consensus in the field that the established standard is poorly justified and that randomization to targets outside of guideline recommendations is ethical. Whether patients and providers will accept and achieve these targets is unknown and a potential barrier to conducting needed outcome trials.

In this issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, Wald et al. (9) provide such evidence in a pilot randomized, controlled trial evaluating the feasibility of intensive versus liberalized phosphate goals and help usher in a new era of evidence-based phosphate management. In the Two Phosphate Targets in ESRD (TARGET) Trial, they studied 104 adult patients with prevalent ESRD from five centers across Canada with a median dialysis vintage of 3 years. All patients were receiving dialysis up to four times weekly and had a serum phosphorus of 4.03–7.75 mg/dl (1.3–2.5 mmol/L phosphate), despite use of calcium carbonate with meals. Participants were randomized to intensive (goal serum phosphorus: 2.33–4.66 mg/dl or 0.75–1.50 mmol/L) or liberalized (goal serum phosphorus: 6.20–7.75 mg/dl or 2.0–2.5 mmol/L) targets for a 26-week period, with phosphate management achieved via calcium carbonate withdrawal or titration. The small number of participants also using noncalcium-based binders at baseline could continue use, but they were not titrated. Dialysis time was not changed during the study.

At completion, serum phosphorus decreased by a mean of 1.24 mg/dl (0.40 mmol/L phosphate) in the intensive compared with the liberalized group. The study was powered to detect this difference in serum phosphate between groups but not clinical outcomes. There were no meaningful changes in intact parathyroid hormone, dialysate calcium prescriptions with HD, or the dose of activated vitamin D analogs between arms, and there were no differences in patient-reported quality of life or clinical outcomes.

Although it may seem obvious that more aggressive titration of phosphate binders would effectively lower phosphate, there are important lessons in the details. For instance, although there was good separation of serum phosphate across groups on average, many individual patients did not obtain the treatment target. In the liberalized group, only 27.5% of participants achieved a phosphorus >6.20 mg/dl (>2.0 mmol/L phosphate), with the achieved mean level in the liberal arm only minimally higher than current guideline ranges. If future studies aim to test the noninferiority of more liberal phosphate management, it will be important for an adequate number of individuals to achieve the liberal target levels. If not, the safety of this more liberal approach could remain in question. A phosphate binder washout period before randomization would facilitate selection of participants who achieve the liberal target range off binders and help ensure that randomized liberal targets are met.

Surprisingly, approximately one half of patients in the intensive group of the TARGET Trial achieved their phosphate targets with calcium carbonate alone, and most participants in the liberal phosphate target group achieved their target or lower without use of binders at all (9). This may not reflect the dialysis population more broadly, where use of two high-dose binders is often necessary (10). The challenges in achieving goal phosphate ranges reminds us that phosphate itself is a complex target. In addition to binders, phosphate is influenced by diet, dialytic clearance, intracellular shifts, circadian variation, and additional treatments, such as vitamin D and calcimimetics. Studies in humans and animals show plateauing and even rising of serum phosphate concentrations during the later phase of dialysis (11,12). Phosphorus magnetic resonance imaging in pigs suggested that this rise is due to inorganic phosphate generation or release from an intracellular source, where the vast majority of phosphate is sequestered (11). Studies such as these challenge a simplistic view of serum phosphate as a barometer of external phosphate balance and help emphasize why outcome trials are desperately needed. Although the risk associated with higher phosphate is remarkably consistent in the observational literature, these studies predominantly evaluate phosphate levels, not treatments (3). Trials that randomize the approach to treat phosphate intensively or liberally, as piloted here, could plausibly deviate from observational results if the risk associated with higher phosphate is not causal and instead, is a marker of difficult to measure health variables, such as intracellular or bone phosphate mobilization.

Randomizing the phosphate approach by focusing on the target level assumes that the primary benefit of phosphate binders is via overt phosphate reduction. However, phosphate binders may affect more than circulating phosphate concentrations, including phosphate regulatory hormones and other risk factors (13,14). Recent meta-analyses show poor correlation between achieved phosphate levels and outcomes in small trials to date (7). Alternative trial designs that randomize participants to different drug doses, such as placebo or low- or high-potency phosphate binding, could more directly evaluate the effects of treatment with binders. This paradigm would align with changes in management of other risk factors, such as lipids, in which newer guidelines advocate management of statin intensity according to drug and dose as opposed to the prior focus on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets (15).

Furthermore, although evidence in the field is generally limited, some meta-analyses support better outcomes with noncalcium- versus calcium-based phosphate binders (13,16). In this trial, all patients were treated with calcium carbonate as a binder. Although calcium-based binders are more common in Canada, where the study was conducted, noncalcium-based binders predominate in the United States (the DOPPS Practice Monitor; www.dopps.org). Binding potency, tolerability, and cost of calcium- and noncalcium-based binders differ (10,13). Furthermore, alternative payment models in the United States may affect adherence to binders and limit the achievable difference (6). Pilot studies in the United States and other practice environments may help establish the broader generalizability of this randomized study.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the authors have taken a critical step toward evidence-based phosphate management in ESRD. They have conclusively shown the feasibility of achieving distinct phosphate targets rapidly and sustainably, with a difference in serum phosphate across groups that is anticipated to be clinically meaningful. They use a pragmatic design with a low-touch intervention that should scale to a much larger outcomes trial. Most importantly, they remind us that, although the rationale for a plausible benefit of phosphate binding in ESRD is sound, definite outcomes studies are critically needed. Effectively testing the dogma surrounding phosphate management in HD requires a willingness of the nephrology community to consider liberalizing phosphate management, thereby enabling large controlled studies and avoiding the treatment crossover and dropout that has hampered other trials in mineral metabolism (17,18). This study shows that distinct phosphate targets are feasible and provides hope for these definitive studies. The nephrology community should strongly support efforts to develop evidence for phosphate management by conducting appropriately powered outcomes trials.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants T32DK007731, K23DK095949, and R01DK111952 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • See related article, “Two phosphAte taRGets in End-stage renal disease Trial (TARGET): A Randomized Controlled Trial,” on pages 965–973.

  • Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Slatopolsky E,
    2. Bricker NS
    : The role of phosphorus restriction in the prevention of secondary hyperparathyroidism in chronic renal disease. Kidney Int 4: 141–145, 1973
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Scialla JJ,
    2. Wolf M
    : Roles of phosphate and fibroblast growth factor 23 in cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Nephrol 10: 268–278, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Palmer SC,
    2. Hayen A,
    3. Macaskill P,
    4. Pellegrini F,
    5. Craig JC,
    6. Elder GJ,
    7. Strippoli GF
    : Serum levels of phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and calcium and risks of death and cardiovascular disease in individuals with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 305: 1119–1127, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group: KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl 113: S1–S130, 2009
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    National Kidney Foundation: K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for bone metabolism and disease in chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis 42[4 Suppl 3]: S1–S201, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Yusuf AA,
    2. Howell BL,
    3. Powers CA,
    4. St Peter WL
    : Utilization and costs of medications associated with CKD mineral and bone disorder in dialysis patients enrolled in medicare part D. Am J Kidney Dis 64: 770–780, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Palmer SC,
    2. Teixeira-Pinto A,
    3. Saglimbene V,
    4. Craig JC,
    5. Macaskill P,
    6. Tonelli M,
    7. de Berardis G,
    8. Ruospo M,
    9. Strippoli GF
    : Association of drug effects on serum parathyroid hormone, phosphorus, and calcium levels with mortality in CKD: A meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis 66: 962–971, 2015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Pfeffer MA,
    2. McMurray JJ
    : Lessons in uncertainty and humility - clinical trials involving hypertension. N Engl J Med 375: 1756–1766, 2016
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Wald R,
    2. Rabbat C,
    3. Girard L,
    4. Garg A,
    5. Tennankore K,
    6. Tyrwhitt J,
    7. Smyth A,
    8. Rathe-Skafel A,
    9. Gao P,
    10. Mazzetti A,
    11. Bosch J,
    12. Yan A,
    13. Parfrey P,
    14. Manns B,
    15. Walsh M
    : Two phosphAte taRGets in End-stage renal disease Trial (TARGET): A randomized controlled trial. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 965–973, 2017
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Waheed AA,
    2. Pedraza F,
    3. Lenz O,
    4. Isakova T
    : Phosphate control in end-stage renal disease: Barriers and opportunities. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28: 2961–2968, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lemoine S,
    2. Fournier T,
    3. Kocevar G,
    4. Belloi A,
    5. Normand G,
    6. Ibarrola D,
    7. Sappey-Marinier D,
    8. Juillard L
    : Intracellular phosphate dynamics in muscle measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy during hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 27: 2062–2068, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. DeSoi CA,
    2. Umans JG
    : Phosphate kinetics during high-flux hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 4: 1214–1218, 1993
    OpenUrlAbstract
  13. ↵
    1. Palmer SC,
    2. Gardner S,
    3. Tonelli M,
    4. Mavridis D,
    5. Johnson DW,
    6. Craig JC,
    7. French R,
    8. Ruospo M,
    9. Strippoli GF
    : Phosphate-binding agents in adults with CKD: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Kidney Dis 68: 691–702, 2016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Van Buren PN,
    2. Lewis JB,
    3. Dwyer JP,
    4. Greene T,
    5. Middleton J,
    6. Sika M,
    7. Umanath K,
    8. Abraham JD,
    9. Arfeen SS,
    10. Bowline IG,
    11. Chernin G,
    12. Fadem SZ,
    13. Goral S,
    14. Koury M,
    15. Sinsakul MV,
    16. Weiner DE
    ; Collaborative Study Group: The phosphate binder ferric citrate and mineral metabolism and inflammatory markers in maintenance dialysis patients: Results from prespecified analyses of a randomized clinical trial. Am J Kidney Dis 66: 479–488, 2015
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Stone NJ,
    2. Robinson JG,
    3. Lichtenstein AH,
    4. Bairey Merz CN,
    5. Blum CB,
    6. Eckel RH,
    7. Goldberg AC,
    8. Gordon D,
    9. Levy D,
    10. Lloyd-Jones DM,
    11. McBride P,
    12. Schwartz JS,
    13. Shero ST,
    14. Smith SC Jr..,
    15. Watson K,
    16. Wilson PW,
    17. Eddleman KM,
    18. Jarrett NM,
    19. LaBresh K,
    20. Nevo L,
    21. Wnek J,
    22. Anderson JL,
    23. Halperin JL,
    24. Albert NM,
    25. Bozkurt B,
    26. Brindis RG,
    27. Curtis LH,
    28. DeMets D,
    29. Hochman JS,
    30. Kovacs RJ,
    31. Ohman EM,
    32. Pressler SJ,
    33. Sellke FW,
    34. Shen WK,
    35. Smith SC Jr..,
    36. Tomaselli GF
    ; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice Guidelines. Circulation 129[Suppl 2]: S1–S45, 2014
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Patel L,
    2. Bernard LM,
    3. Elder GJ
    : Sevelamer versus calcium-based binders for treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 232–244, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Suki WN,
    2. Zabaneh R,
    3. Cangiano JL,
    4. Reed J,
    5. Fischer D,
    6. Garrett L,
    7. Ling BN,
    8. Chasan-Taber S,
    9. Dillon MA,
    10. Blair AT,
    11. Burke SK
    : Effects of sevelamer and calcium-based phosphate binders on mortality in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 72: 1130–1137, 2007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Chertow GM,
    2. Block GA,
    3. Correa-Rotter R,
    4. Drüeke TB,
    5. Floege J,
    6. Goodman WG,
    7. Herzog CA,
    8. Kubo Y,
    9. London GM,
    10. Mahaffey KW,
    11. Mix TC,
    12. Moe SM,
    13. Trotman ML,
    14. Wheeler DC,
    15. Parfrey PS
    ; EVOLVE Trial Investigators: Effect of cinacalcet on cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing dialysis. N Engl J Med 367: 2482–2494, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 12 (6)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 12, Issue 6
June 07, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Getting Out of the Phosphate Bind: Trials to Guide Treatment Targets
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Getting Out of the Phosphate Bind: Trials to Guide Treatment Targets
Robert E. Olivo, Julia J. Scialla
CJASN Jun 2017, 12 (6) 868-870; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04380417

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Getting Out of the Phosphate Bind: Trials to Guide Treatment Targets
Robert E. Olivo, Julia J. Scialla
CJASN Jun 2017, 12 (6) 868-870; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.04380417
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Opportunities for Improvement in Quality of Care of PD-Related Peritonitis in Children
  • Assessing Genetic Risk for IgA Nephropathy
  • Optimizing Utilization of Kidneys from Hepatitis C–Positive Kidney Donors
Show more Editorials

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Two phosphAte taRGets in End-stage renal disease Trial (TARGET): A Randomized Controlled Trial
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • Biophysical Phenomena
  • phosphates

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire