Back

Chronic Kidney Disease Mineral and Bone Disorder (CKD-MBD) Medication Titration Practices in Hemodialysis Patients in the US

Scialla, J. J.; Platt, A.; Wilson, J.; Hall, R.; Ephraim, P. L.; Weiner, D. E.; Boulware, L. E.; Pendergast, J.

2026-08-04 nephrology
10.64898/2026.08.02.26359426 medRxiv
Show abstract

Vitamin D sterols, phosphorus binders and calcimimetics are used to treat chronic kidney disease mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) in hemodialysis. With few randomized trials, providers may titrate agents differently reflecting equipoise and opportunities for clinical trials. We studied patients initiating in-center hemodialysis at Dialysis Clinic, Inc facilities from 2006-2015 and who remained on hemodialysis for [≥]90 days (n=23,549). Multinomial logit models assessed titration among users of each medication at the start of the month considering static and dynamic CKD-MBD laboratories. Similarly parameterized logistic models assessed treatment initiation. Differences across facilities were quantified as random effects and corresponding median odds ratios. We observed patterns of titration associated with CKD-MBD laboratories including albumin-corrected serum calcium (Ca), serum phosphorus and parathyroid hormone (PTH) and minimal impact of patient characteristics. Best fit models incorporated 3 months of lagged Ca and phosphorus values and linear splines for current Ca, phosphorus and PTH values. Absolute titration probabilities for vitamin D sterols and calcimimetics were influenced by all three CKD-MBD parameters, such that Ca and phosphorus values altered the threshold PTH at which escalation and de-escalation probabilities crossed. Median odds ratios indicated the greatest facility variation for vitamin D sterol titration. Providers titrate CKD-MBD medications based largely on the full CKD-MBD laboratory phenotype, including the recent serum Ca, phosphorus and PTH history. Facility variation suggests equipoise in titration of vitamin D sterols with opportunities for clinical trials.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.