Influence of pH on in vitro disintegration of phosphate binders

Hyperphosphatemia, a common complication in patients with end-stage renal disease, is treated with oral phosphate-binding medications that restrict phosphorus absorption from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Impaired product performance, such as failure to disintegrate and/or dissolve in the GI tract, could limit the efficacy of the phosphate binder. Disintegration may be as important as dissolution for predicting in vitro product performance for medications that act locally on the GI tract, such as phosphate binders. Furthermore, patients with end-stage renal disease have a wide range in GI pH, and pH can influence a product's performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of pH on in vitro disintegration of phosphate binders. Fifteen different commercially available phosphate binders (seven calcium carbonate tablet formulations, two calcium acetate tablet formulations, three aluminum hydroxide capsule formulations, and three aluminum hydroxide tablet formulations) were studied using the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) standard disintegration apparatus. Phosphate binders were tested in simulated gastric fluid (pH 1.5), distilled water (pH 5.1), and simulated intestinal fluid (pH 7.5). Product failure was defined as two or more individual tablets or capsules failing to disintegrate completely within 30 minutes. Results indicate that 9 of the 15 phosphate binders tested showed statistically significant differences in disintegration time (DT) based on pH. The percentage of binders that passed the disintegration study test in distilled water, gastric fluid, and intestinal fluid were 80%, 80%, and 73%, respectively. The findings of this study show that the disintegration of commercially available phosphate binders is highly variable. The pH significantly affected in vitro disintegration in the majority of phosphate binders tested; how significantly this affects in vivo performance has yet to be studied.     

Comparing outcomes in renal replacement therapy: how should we correct for case mix?

The need to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical practice to justify expensive therapy in the face of financial constraints in all areas of health care delivery makes it necessary to identify groups of patients who are likely to benefit most from treatment. Various risk stratification methods have been used for analyzing survival probabilities for patients receiving renal replacement therapy. Complicated risk stratification methods produce large numbers of risk groups of small sizes, which makes comparison between individual centers difficult. We compared three simple methods of risk stratification, that divided patients into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups, in a cohort of 1,407 patients who commenced renal replacement therapy in five European countries during a 7-year period. Method 1 considered age (>55 years) and diabetes alone; method 2 used a higher age limit (>70 years) and comorbid illnesses, including those other than diabetes; and method 3 used only the number of comorbidities (none, 1, or > or =2) for stratification. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed for comparison between risk groups and Cox's regression model used to assess strength of relationship with mortality. Although patient survival was significantly different between the low-, medium-, and high-risk groups using all three methods, Cox's regression analysis showed that method 2 provided the greatest discrimination between risk groups. In predicting mortality, method 2 (based on comorbidities and age) showed the highest sensitivity and specificity (84% and 80%, respectively) compared with method 1 (80% and 74%) and method 3 (64% and 82%). Validation of this approach in other populations in a prospective study is required before this method, which takes into account the influences of both age and comorbidity for risk stratification, can be used for comparing survival data and for presenting results of renal replacement therapy.