Management of mineral metabolism in hemodialysis patients: discrepancy between interventions and perceived causes of failure

Pasquale Esposito, Teresa Rampino, Marilena Gregorini, Carmine Tinelli, Annalisa De Silvestri, Fabio Malberti, Rosanna Coppo, Antonio Dal Canton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Mineral and bone disorders (MBD) in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD) are a major clinical complication. Current therapeutic strategies do not attain the expected results. The Italian audit on mineral metabolism was implemented to investigate MBD management through a “patient-oriented” approach.

Methods: Clinical and laboratory data pertinent to MBD from 509 prevalent adult patients on chronic HD were recorded and examined (audit), after which individual strategies were elaborated to improve MBD control. Their effectiveness was evaluated 6 months after the audit (Post-6).

Results: The audit disclosed poor MBD control in a high percentage of patients (56 %). Low compliance to treatment was the major determinant of failure (in 43.5 % of cases). Logistic regression showed a direct correlation between high degree of compliance and the achievement of therapeutic targets, e.g. parathyroid hormone: odds ratio (OR) 2.48, p = 0.015. In contrast, a minority of the proposed interventions (14.7 %) included strategies to improve patient compliance. At Post-6, despite a significant increase in drug prescription (p 

Conclusions: Low compliance with treatment is a major, but still neglected, cause of failure in the achievement of MBD control in HD patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)689-697
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Nephrology
Volume27
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 25 2014

Keywords

  • Clinical audit
  • Compliance
  • Hemodialysis
  • Mineral disorders
  • Quality improvement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Management of mineral metabolism in hemodialysis patients: discrepancy between interventions and perceived causes of failure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this