Background and objectives

Studies suggest an association between elevated serum alkaline phosphatase (AP) and increased mortality in hemodialysis patients, but the effect of existing therapies on AP is not fully understood. We assessed the effects of cinacalcet on AP in a secondary analysis of controlled trial data.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

This was a post hoc analysis of data from three 26-wk randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials and a 26-wk double-blind, placebo-controlled extension trial that investigated cinacalcet in secondary hyperparathyroidism treatment in dialysis patients. Hemodialysis patients (n = 890) with intact parathyroid hormone >or=300 pg/ml and serum calcium >or=8.4 mg/dl received cinacalcet plus standard therapy or standard therapy alone for up to 52 wk. Total, not bone-specific, AP was assessed (proportion of cinacalcet/control subjects achieving a >or=20% or any AP reduction from baseline; the proportion of subjects with AP >or=120 U/L) at baseline; the end of titration; and study weeks 26, 42, and 52.

Results

At 52 wk, a greater proportion of cinacalcet-treated patients had either a >or=20% (39 versus 18%) or any (58 versus 36%) AP reduction compared with control subjects, respectively. The likelihood of achieving either a >or=20% or any AP reduction (determined by relative proportion) was 2.33 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 3.61) and 1.74 (95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.31), respectively, at week 52. Cinacalcet treatment tended toward a decreased percentage of patients with AP >or=120 U/L (baseline, 42.6%; week 52, 30.6%) compared with control (35.0 to 48.6%, respectively).

Conclusions

In this combined analysis of controlled trials of patients who were receiving hemodialysis, cinacalcet lowered total serum AP.

There is a general sense that most outcomes trials in patients receiving dialysis failed to yield statistically significant benefits, in contrast to many cardiovascular (CV) trials in the general population. It is unknown whether methodologic reasons caused this discrepancy. We performed a systematic MEDLINE search for randomized trials with mortality end points of the 42 compounds most commonly used for CV indications. In total, 115 trials were selected for review. We further reviewed 9 mortality end point trials in patients receiving dialysis. The CV trials in populations not receiving dialysis enrolled from 66 to 33,357 participants with an average of 4,910; 59% of the trials showed statistically significant results. The average hazard ratio (HR) was 0.77, ranging from 0.10 to 1.65; 10 drugs had ≥5 published trials each. In the population receiving dialysis, most drugs were studied in single trials; the average number of patients was 1,500 with a range of 127 to 3,883. The average HR was 0.77 and ranged from 0.06 to 1.30. Only 22% of the trials showed statistically significant results. The limitations listed in the general population and dialysis studies were similar. In conclusion, no apparent methodologic issues were detected (other than sample size) that could justify the lower frequency of randomized trials with statistically significant results in patients receiving dialysis. The most obvious difference was the paucity of trials with each drug in the dialysis cohorts; this lowers the chances of at least 1 trial being successful.