Tillmann F P, Schmitz M, Jäger M, Krauspe R, Rump L C
Klinik für Nephrologie, Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Int Urol Nephrol. 2016 Feb;48(2):279-86. doi: 10.1007/s11255-015-1133-7. Epub 2015 Oct 26.
Bone mineral density (BMD) has been reported to increase without specific treatment in long-term renal transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ibandronate on BMD and kidney function in long-term renal transplant recipients as compared to a control group. Furthermore, we searched for a gender-specific treatment effect of ibandronate on BMD.
In a retrospective, matched case-control study 60 stable renal transplant recipients were included on long-term follow-up. The patient cohort was divided into two groups. The control group (n = 30) comprised patients with close-to-normal bone mineral density who did not receive ibandronate treatment and the treatment group (n = 30) comprised patients with reduced bone mineral density who received ibandronate treatment. The groups were matched for sex, age at the time of renal transplantation, use of steroids, renal transplant function and time lag between the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) measurements and renal transplantation. Patients of the treatment group were treated with 12.0 ± 6.7 g ibandronate. Treatment cycles lasted 19.3 ± 11.0 months. The first bone mineral density testing was performed 55.3 ± 60.2 months after renal transplantation followed by a second measurement 26.8 ± 12.1 months later.
Both groups did not differ in absolute (g/cm(2)) or relative (%) changes in BMD at the lumbar spine (0.033 ± 0.079 vs. 0.055 ± 0.066 g/cm(2), p = 0.217 and 3.6 ± 7.8 vs. 6.4 ± 8.1 %, p = 0.124) or femoral neck (0.013 ± 0.106 vs. 0.025 ± 0.077 g/cm(2), p = 0.647 and 3.2 ± 13.6 vs. 5.0 ± 13.1 %, p = 0.544) over the study period. There was no correlation of ibandronate dosages with changes in BMD (LS: r = -0.089; p = 0.639 and FN: r =+0.288; p = 0.445). We could neither determine a negative effect of ibandronate on renal transplant function over the study period, estimated via the CKD-EPI formula (-2.9 ± 7.6 vs. -2.7 ± 10.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2), p = 0.900) nor a gender-specific action of ibandronate on bone mass changes.
Ibandronate treatment was safe with respect to renal transplant function but did not result in a significant additive improvement in bone mineral density as compared to the untreated control group. A gender-specific action of ibandronate on BMD at the LS or FN could not be determined either.
据报道,长期肾移植受者在未接受特殊治疗的情况下骨矿物质密度(BMD)会增加。本研究的目的是评估与对照组相比,伊班膦酸钠对长期肾移植受者骨矿物质密度和肾功能的影响。此外,我们还探究了伊班膦酸钠对骨矿物质密度的性别特异性治疗效果。
在一项回顾性配对病例对照研究中,纳入了60名接受长期随访的稳定肾移植受者。患者队列被分为两组。对照组(n = 30)包括骨矿物质密度接近正常且未接受伊班膦酸钠治疗的患者,治疗组(n = 30)包括骨矿物质密度降低且接受伊班膦酸钠治疗的患者。两组在性别、肾移植时的年龄、类固醇的使用、肾移植功能以及双能X线吸收法(DEXA)测量与肾移植之间的时间间隔方面进行了匹配。治疗组患者接受了12.0 ± 6.7 g伊班膦酸钠治疗。治疗周期持续19.3 ± 11.0个月。首次骨矿物质密度检测在肾移植后55.3 ± 60.2个月进行,随后在26.8 ± 12.1个月后进行第二次测量。
在研究期间,两组在腰椎骨矿物质密度的绝对(g/cm²)或相对(%)变化方面无差异(0.033 ± 0.079 vs. 0.055 ± 0.066 g/cm²,p = 0.217;3.6 ± 7.8 vs. 6.4 ± 8.1%,p = 0.124),在股骨颈骨矿物质密度变化方面也无差异(0.013 ± 0.106 vs. 0.025 ± 0.077 g/cm²,p = 0.647;3.2 ± 13.6 vs. 5.0 ± 13.1%,p = 0.544)。伊班膦酸钠剂量与骨矿物质密度变化之间无相关性(腰椎:r = -0.089;p = 0.639;股骨颈:r = +0.288;p = 0.445)。通过CKD - EPI公式估计,在研究期间我们既未发现伊班膦酸钠对肾移植功能有负面影响(-2.9 ± 7.6 vs. -2.7 ± 10.6 mL/min/1.73 m²,p = 0.900),也未发现伊班膦酸钠对骨量变化有性别特异性作用。
就肾移植功能而言,伊班膦酸钠治疗是安全的,但与未治疗的对照组相比,并未使骨矿物质密度有显著的额外改善。也未确定伊班膦酸钠对腰椎或股骨颈骨矿物质密度有性别特异性作用。