Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Vitamin D resistance in chronic kidney disease (CKD)

  • Amay Parikh1,
  • Herbert S Chase2,
  • Linda Vernocchi1 and
  • Leonard Stern1Email author
BMC Nephrology201415:47

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-47

Received: 28 October 2013

Accepted: 12 March 2014

Published: 19 March 2014

Abstract

Background

Previous studies have shown that treatment with ergocalciferol in patients with CKD stage 3 + 4 is not effective with less than 33% of patients achieving a 25-OH vitamin D target of >30 ng/ml. The aim of this study was to test the response to cholecalciferol in CKD. We attempted to replete 25-OH vitamin D to a target level of 40–60 ng/ml using the response to treatment and PTH suppression as an outcome measure.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study identified patients (Stages 2–5 and Transplant) from 2001–2010 who registered at the Chronic Kidney Disease Clinic. Patients received cholecalciferol 10,000 IU capsules weekly as initial therapy. When levels above 40 ng/ml were not achieved, doses were titrated up to a maximum of 50,000 IU weekly. Active vitamin D analogs were also used in some Stage 4–5 CKD patients per practice guidelines. Patients reaching at least one level of 40 ng/mL were designated RESPONDER, and if no level above 40 ng/mL they were designated NON-RESPONDER. Patients were followed for at least 6 months and up to 5 years.

Results

352 patients were included with a mean follow up of 2.4 years. Of the CKD patients, the initial 25-OH vitamin D in the NON-RESPONDER group was lower than the RESPONDER group (18 vs. 23 ng/ml) (p = 0.03). Among all patients, the initial eGFR in the RESPONDER group was significantly higher than the NON-RESPONDER group (36 vs. 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) (p < 0.001). Over time, the eGFR of the RESPONDER group stabilized or increased (p < 0.001). Over time, the eGFR in the NON-RESPONDER group decreased toward a trajectory of ESRD. Proteinuria did not impact the response to 25-OH vitamin D replacement therapy. There were no identifiable variables associated with the response or lack of response to cholecalciferol treatment.

Conclusions

CKD patients treated with cholecalciferol experience treatment resistance in raising vitamin D levels to a pre-selected target level. The mechanism of vitamin D resistance remains unknown and is associated with progressive loss of eGFR. Proteinuria modifies but does not account for the vitamin D resistance.

Keywords

Cholecalciferol Vitamin D deficiency Parathyroid hormone Chronic kidney disease Kidney transplant

Background

Vitamin D [25(OH)D] insufficiency and secondary hyperparathyroidism is widely prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease [1] including patients who have received a renal transplant [2]. The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) guidelines recommend measuring PTH and initiating treatment of vitamin D insufficiency starting with CKD stage 3 [3].

Dietary intake of vitamin D may originate from either plant based sources (ergocalciferol, D2) or animal based sources (cholecalciferol, D3). The metabolic pathways of activating vitamin D2 or D3 are essentially the same. Active vitamin D2 and D3 both target the vitamin D receptor initiating vitamin D regulated gene transcription [4]. Achieving optimal levels of serum 25(OH) D remains a challenge in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Not only is 25-OH vitamin D purported to have its own beneficial effects, but metabolism to calcitriol has been shown to reduce PTH levels [1, 5]. The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) guidelines state that optimal 25(OH) D levels should be greater than 30 ng/mL and should be repleted with oral ergocalciferol [3] while the American Journal of Nutrition guidelines recommend levels greater than 40 ng/mL [6, 7]. There are no specific recommendations in the NKF/KDOQI guidelines regarding vitamin D insufficiency for kidney transplant recipients or patients receiving dialysis. There is not much data available to suggest exactly how much ergocalciferol should be administered [810] and whether such therapy impacts vitamin D and serum PTH concentrations. Zissman et al. studied the response to ergocalciferol for CKD Stages 3 and 4 [11]. They found a partial reduction in PTH for patients with Stage 3 CKD but not Stage 4 when repleted with ergocalciferol. Less than 33% of patients achieved a 25-vitamin D (Vit D) target of >30 ng/ml and 50% did not respond to treatment [11]. Al-Aly et al. found similar findings and noted a similar lack of response to ergocalciferol [5].

Cholecalciferol (D3) is presumably more potent than ergocalciferol (D2) [4, 12, 13]. The aim of this study was to test the response to cholecalciferol in CKD. Similar to that observed for ergocalciferol, suggested dosages for repletion vary [14, 15]. We attempted to replete 25-OH vitamin D levels to a target of 40–60 ng/mL using the response to treatment and PTH suppression as outcome measures. The working hypothesis for this study was that patients with more advanced CKD require significantly higher dosages to achieve the pre-selected blood level target. Patients with better kidney function would respond more readily to vitamin D supplementation compared to those with poorer function.

Methods

Patients

570 patients were identified from 2001 to 2010 who registered at the Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Clinic at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC). Patient data measurements were electronically extracted from the clinical data warehouse (CDW), the research database of the Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) of the New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH) system. Data extracted from this cohort included demographic information, serum creatinine, 25-OH and 1,25-OH vitamin D measurements, calcium, albumin, parathyroid hormone levels, proteinuria levels (24 hr. urine protein or protein/creatinine ratio) and other laboratory tests. Diabetes and hypertension status was assigned from ICD-9 coding.

Study design

Patients received vitamin D repletion with cholecalciferol 10,000 IU capsules weekly. Patients also received dietary counseling to reduce daily calcium intake to less than 500 mg and daily phosphate intake to less than 1000 mg. At each patient follow-up visit, the medication list was reviewed and compliance was confirmed. When levels of 25-OH vitamin D above 40 ng/mL were not achieved, doses were titrated upwards over 6 months to a maximum of 50,000 IU weekly. A step-wise protocol was followed to increase the dosage of cholecalciferol. Follow-up, repeat vitamin D levels, and dose adjustment as needed was performed at regular intervals concurrent with clinic visits at 1–4 month intervals. 25-OH vitamin D levels were measured by a chemiluminescent immunoassay (ARUP Laboratories; Salt Lake City, UT). The same laboratory and assay were used throughout the study period.

Responsiveness, as measured by the change in 25-OH vitamin D level, was the primary outcome measure. PTH suppression was a secondary outcome measure. Safety markers included hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. eGFR was calculated for patients using the 4 variable modified diet in renal disease (MDRD) equation and extracted creatinine and demographic values [16].

Study population

Patients who maintained 25-OH vitamin D levels ≥40 ng/mL and never fell below this level were designated REPLETE. When a patient’s 25-OH vitamin D level fell below 40 ng/mL, the patient was followed until a response was noted (i.e. 25-OH vitamin D level ≥ 40 ng/mL). A response was defined as achieving a level of at least 40 ng/mL in a period no less than 6 months. Patients achieving vitamin D levels of ≥40 ng/ml with cholecalciferol were designated as RESPONDER. If the vitamin D level did not reach 40, the patient was designated NON-RESPONDER. Patients were excluded who had only one measurement of 25-OH vitamin D during the study period, or who had no follow-up beyond 6 months.

Statistical analysis

Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical variables; t-test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test was used to compare continuous variables. Significance was defined at a 95% confidence level for two-tail measurement. Longitudinal effects of 25-OH vitamin D were analyzed by a linear mixed effect model with random intercept, which accounted for individual differences in the initial outcome value. Analysis was performed to adjust for varying follow-up times. A time adjusted variable was introduced to reduce observer bias which decreased the N. Repeated measures ANOVA was not utilized due to missing values, unequal time differences between data points, and the inability to adjust for a number of covariates.

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Columbia University Medical Center Institutional Review Board, FWA# 00002636, approved this protocol (IRB Protocol # AAAD8498) in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration from 8/6/09 to present. There was no interaction or intervention with any human subjects. This data is not publicly available. The IRB granted a waiver of consent for this retrospective cohort study.

Results

Of the 570 patients identified from 2000 to 2010 who were treated at the Chronic Kidney Disease Clinic, 127 were initially excluded (Figure 1). 8 patients were analyzed who consistently maintained 25-OH vitamin D levels > 40 ng/mL. These patients were designated REPLETE. Over the 10 year period, the 25-OH vitamin D level fell below 40 ng/mL in 221 patients, and was successfully repleted with cholecalciferol supplementation. These patients were designated RESPONDER. Supplementation with cholecalciferol failed to achieve a level of 40 ng/ml or greater in 169 patients who were designated NON-RESPONDER.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2369-15-47/MediaObjects/12882_2013_Article_752_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Table 1 shows the distribution of patients between 3 groups: CKD, post-transplant (TXP), and renal replacement therapy (RRT). Statistically significant differences between groups were observed in age (p < 0.001) and for hypertensive renal disease (p = 0.03).
Table 1

Demographics

 

CKD

Transplant

RRT

P value

N

309

43

46

 

Males

162 (52.4%)

24 (55.8%)

25 (54.4%)

0.90

Age

66·4 (14.2)

51·6 (11.9)

58.1 (17.5)

<0.001

Diabetes, only

1 (0.3%)

0 (0·0%)

0 (0.0%)

1.0

Hypertension, only

123 (39.8%)

25 (58.1%)

15 (32.6%)

0.03

Diabetic and hypertensive

171 (55.3%)

18 (41.9%)

29 (63.0%)

0.12

Non-diabetic and non-hypertensive

14 (4.5%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (4.4%)

0.44

Categorical variables are expressed as count (%); age as mean (SD); all other continuous variables as median (25th percentile-75th percentile).

Based on chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables; t-test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for continuous variables.

Table 2 shows the distribution of patients by vitamin D status. Of the 309 CKD patients, 54.7% of CKD patients are RESPONDER compared to 42.7% NON-RESPONDER (p < 0.001). 81.4% of the 43 TXP patients were RESPONDER compared to 18.6% NON-RESPONDER. Among all patients, unadjusted initial values for eGFR, Albumin, Phosphate, and 1, 25-OH vitamin D were significantly different between the RESPONDER and NON-RESPONDER groups. In the patients with CKD stages 3–5, the unadjusted initial mean eGFR and 25-OH vitamin D were lower in the NON-RESPONDER compared to the RESPONDER (p < 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively). Table 3 shows the initial values of the subset of patients for whom proteinuria data was available. Significant differences in initial mean 25-OH vitamin D (p = 0.02) and mean proteinuria (p < 0.004) were noted.
Table 2

Primary and secondary outcomes

 

Non-responder

Responder

Replete

P Value(responder vs. non-responders)

N

169

221

8

 

Males

86 (50.9%)

119 (53.9%)

6 (75.0%)

0.56

Age

62.5 (15·5)

64.9 (14·9)

64.5 (18·0)

0.12

Diabetes, only

0 (0.0%)

1 (0.45%)

0 (0.0%)

1.0

Hypertension, only

62 (36.7%)

97 (43.9%)

4 (50.0%)

0.15

Diabetic and hypertensive

102 (60.4%)

113 (51.1%)

3 (37.5%)

0.07

Non-diabetic and non-hypertensive

5 (3.0%)

10 (4.5%)

1 (12.5%)

0.43

CKD

132 (78.1%)

169 (76.5%)

8 (100.0%)

<0.001

Transplant

8 (4.7%)

35 (15.8%)

0 (0.0%)

RRT

29 (17.2%)

17 (7.7%)

0 (0.0%)

eGFR

30.0 (22.0)

36·0 (27.0)

 

<0.001

PTH

99.0 (137.0)

86·5(102.0)

 

0.08

Albumin

3.9 (0.6)

4·3 (0.4)

 

<0.001

Initial mean phosphate

3.8 (1.1)

3·5 (0.9)

 

<0.001

Initial mean 1,25-OH vitamin D

20.5 (18.0)

30.0 (19.0)

 

<0.001

For CKD stages 3–5 only

Initial mean eGFR

28·3 (11.5)

31·5 (11.2)

 

0.0253

Initial mean 25-OH vitamin D

18·3 (9.0)

23·6 (9.1)

 

<0.001

Categorical variables are expressed as count (%); age as mean (SD); all other continuous variables as median (25th percentile-75th percentile).

Based on chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables; t-test or Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for continuous variables.

At time of 25-vitamin D grouping.

Prior to 25-vitamin D grouping.

The boldface items indicate values less than 0.05.

Table 3

Outcomes by group

 

Non-responder

Responder

P value

*Initial Mean 25VitD

19 ng/mL

23 ng/mL

0.02

*Initial Mean Proteinuria

1.47 g/day

0.89 g/day

<0.004

*Initial Mean eGFR (ml/min/1·73 m2)

27

31

0.09

*Initial PTH

110 pg/mL

100 pg/mL

0.38

*Not adjusted for follow-up time. Closely concurrent lab values were measured with initial 25-OH Vitamin D.

The boldface items indicate values less than 0.05.

Figure 2 depicts the relationship between log eGFR versus time in the RESPONDER and NON-RESPONDER groups for patients where the 25-OH vitamin D was below 40 ng/mL for CKD patients Stage 3–5 (N = 240) and treatment was initiated. In this model adjusted for Age, Sex, Race, Diabetes status and Hypertension status, the initial eGFR is not different between the NON-RESPONDER and RESPONDER groups (p = 0.77). Over the follow-up time the eGFR for NON-RESPONDER (N = 108) is lower and declines over time (coefficient −0.007) compared to RESPONDER with a higher eGFR which increases over time (coefficient 0.004) (p < 0.001). No differences in the distribution of CKD stages between the two groups were noted (p = 0.21).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2369-15-47/MediaObjects/12882_2013_Article_752_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Log eGFR over time by group for CKD Stages 3–5. Log eGFR over Time by Group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. N = 108 Non-responders and 132 Responders. No differences in the distribution of CKD stages between the two groups were noted (p = 0.21).

Figure 3 depicts the relationship between PTH versus time in the RESPONDER and NON-RESPONDER groups for patients where the 25-OH vitamin D was below 40 ng/mL for CKD patients Stage 3–5 (N = 212) and treatment was initiated. There is no difference in PTH over time between the NON-RESPONDER and RESPONDER (p = NS). Similarly, there is no difference between 1, 25-OH vitamin D levels versus time and 25-OH vitamin D when the level was below 40 for CKD patients Stage 3–5 and treatment was initiated (figure not shown).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2369-15-47/MediaObjects/12882_2013_Article_752_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Log PTH over time by group for CKD Stages 3–5. Log PTH over Time by Group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. N = 93 Non-responders and 119 Responders. There is no difference in PTH between the Non-Responders and Responders over time (p = NS).

Figure 4 illustrates the Log Proteinuria over Time by Group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Proteinuria increases for 11 months in the NON-RESPONDER and decreases for 21 months in the RESPONDER. Figure 5 shows the Log eGFR vs. Log Proteinuria by Group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. For all levels of proteinuria, the eGFR is lower in the NON-RESPONDER compared to the RESPONDER group.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2369-15-47/MediaObjects/12882_2013_Article_752_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Log Proteinuria over time by group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1·73 m 2 . Log Proteinuria over Time by Group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. N = 69 Non-responders and 76 Responders. (p < 0.05). Proteinuria increases for 11 months in Non-responders. Proteinuria decreases for 21 months in Responders.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2369-15-47/MediaObjects/12882_2013_Article_752_Fig5_HTML.jpg
Figure 5

Log eGFR vs. log proteinuria by group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60. Log eGFR vs. Log Proteinuria by Group for CKD patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. N = 47 Non-responders and N = 45 Responders. For all levels of proteinuria, eGFR is lower in the Non-responders.

Discussion

Vitamin D insufficiency is highly prevalent in the CKD population. Across the United States prevalence ranges up to 70% [1]. This is consistent with our study in which 98% of all patients studied had vitamin D levels less than 40 ng/mL. Zisman suggested target levels of vitamin D inadequately suppress PTH in patients with CKD especially those with more advanced impairment in kidney function [11]. In the absence of published, definitive evidence based guidelines, our clinical practice guideline was to target vitamin D to levels of 40–60 ng/mL. This target was chosen based on a review of consensus opinions in the nephrology and endocrine communities [17, 18]. We noted that this was exceedingly difficult to achieve in our population, which included both CKD and post-transplant patients.

One aim of our study was to demonstrate that cholecalciferol is a more potent vitamin D precursor therapy in CKD patients compared to ergocalciferol, which was used in previous studies [11]. What we uncovered is a new concept of vitamin D treatment resistance in CKD which we suggest is associated with a progressive decline in renal function over time. Our study has demonstrated that CKD patients treated with cholecalciferol, similar to ergocalciferol, experience treatment resistance in raising vitamin D levels to a pre-selected target level. Although multiple studies have suggested that cholecalciferol is more potent [19, 20], we could not find evidence that the response to treatment with cholecalciferol is any better than with ergocalciferol. We did however, find two distinct groups in our population: 1) those who responded to treatment (RESPONDER) and 2) those who did not (NON-RESPONDER). Among all the patients, initial laboratory values which were unadjusted for follow-up for the NON-RESPONDER group were significant for a lower initial eGFR, higher PTH, lower albumin, higher phosphate, and lower 1, 25-OH vitamin D.

Similar to other studies with ergocalciferol, our population received a vigorous supplementation protocol with cholecalciferol. This regimen resulted in a significant increase in vitamin D levels only for a specific population: RESPONDER. This group has unique characteristics compared to those whose levels did not increase to the pre-selected target level of greater than 40 ng/mL. In the CKD Stage 3–5 group, unadjusted initial mean eGFR and 25-OH vitamin D levels were higher in the RESPONDER group. When adjusted for time for CKD patients with an eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 the initial eGFR in RESPONDER and NON-RESPONDER groups is indistinguishable (Figure 2). The data suggests that the eGFR for the RESPONDER group stabilizes or increases over time, whereas the NON-RESPONDER group has a progressively worsening eGFR. This association however may represent the possibility that RESPONDER group overall had a better health status (i.e. higher albumin, lower phosphorus, higher initial eGFR). Adherence to the treatment regimen may possibly distinguish the RESPONDER and NON-RESPONER groups. However, compliance was assessed for all clinic patients on each visit and this effect is unlikely to be caused by non-adherence.

There are numerous hypotheses as to why one group might respond or not respond. Timing of administration or changes in intestinal absorption could account for a difference. In our study, transplant patients have a lower prevalence of NON-RESPONDER compared to the CKD population which may indicate that “healthy kidneys” play a role. Traditionally, calcidiol (25-OH vitamin D) levels are thought to be indicative of vitamin D body stores and correlate with nutritional status, whereas calcitriol (1, 25-OH vitamin D) levels are typically preserved despite the nutritional state [2123].

It is possible that proteinuria with the loss of vitamin D binding protein may account for both the low levels of vitamin D observed and the vitamin D resistance in CKD [2426]. Others have reported a favorable effect of vitamin D repletion on nephrotic range proteinuria [27, 28]. Our data shows that response to treatment with cholecalciferol is associated with a lower initial level of proteinuria (Table 3) and a better preservation of eGFR (Figure 2). For any given level of proteinuria, the eGFR is lower in the NON-RESPONDER compared to the RESPONDER group (Figure 4). Our 3-way mixed model demonstrates that proteinuria modifies the time relationship between eGFR and the RESPONDER vs. NON-RESPONDER groups (p = 0.03), however it does not predict the change in eGFR over time. Proteinuria modifies, but does not account for, the vitamin D resistance.

Hormonal regulation and dysregulation are the hallmark features of CKD. The target of the hormonal dysregulation is centered on maintaining the serum calcium and phosphate concentrations in what we think is a normal target range well into the advanced stages of CKD. Reductions in 1,25-OH vitamin D are the single most prevalent abnormality characterizing CKD [29, 30]. Concurrent with this reduction is the progressive elevation of FGF23, a hormone produced in the osteocyte of bone whose regulation has remained elusive [31, 32]. PTH elevations are also progressive in CKD as a consequence of the reductions in 1,25-OH vitamin D over time. However, treatment with vitamin D also elevates FGF23 levels by virtue of a well described feedback loop [33]. High FGF23 levels have been shown to be a marker of poor patient outcome in both CKD and ESRD [3436]. However, a recent animal study in a CKD model showed that targeted reduction in FGF23 resulted in increased mortality further complicating our understanding of this complex physiology [37]. In large data base studies of patients with CKD and ESRD, treatment with vitamin D has been shown to promote a survival advantage [3842]. Calcitriol in high dose has been shown to promote vascular calcification in animal models of CKD [4345] and a recent meta-analysis suggests that low-dose paricalcitol may do the same [46]. Thus the clinician in practice is faced with the clinical conundrum and safety concern of how much vitamin D to administer to patients with vitamin D insufficiency and to aim for what vitamin D target level in order to achieve the best clinical outcome. In our current understanding of this complex system, treatment with 25 vitamin D precursors and active vitamin D analogues is initiated to target PTH primarily to limit the progressive bone injury that occurs with elevated PTH levels. The PTH target is also a matter of much debate in the nephrology community [47].

The understanding of the interaction between active and inactive forms of vitamin D and PTH has improved immensely with the identification of FGF-23 [48], Klotho [49, 50], and CYP27B1 [51]. Some have suggested that high doses of vitamin D supplementation similar to what was administered in our study induce the catabolic cytochrome P-450 enzyme CYP24A1 [52]. This may explain why high dose vitamin D supplementation and previous attempts of vitamin D repletion at lower dosage have failed [53]. Another potential mechanism which enhances vitamin D catabolism relates to the progressive elevation of the phosphaturic FGF23 noted in CKD. Both the administration of vitamin D and an elevated FGF23 in CKD have the potential to hyper-catabolize vitamin D in all forms. Therefore, an elevated FGF-23 may limit the response to a preselected vitamin D target level (i.e. vitamin D resistance) through this hypercatabolism mechanism.

Limitations of the study include the retrospective nature of the study design. Despite our best efforts to ascertain medication compliance, some patients may still have not taken their cholecalciferol. Seasonal differences were not investigated due to the long follow-up period of each patient. Cumulative doses of cholecalciferol given were not available. Weight, changes in weight, or the role of obesity in both groups was not ascertained. Given the low numbers of patients receiving home hemodialysis (3), outpatient center hemodialysis (23), and peritoneal dialysis (20) in our study, they were grouped together as renal replacement therapy and excluded from the study analysis. Conclusions could not adequately be drawn regarding these groups however the benefits of supplementation have been previously suggested in the PD population [6]. Information regarding malabsorption syndromes (such as by gastric bypass) of the patients in the study are unknown.

Multiple non-renal associations have been described between vitamin D: cardiovascular disease [54], immune function [55], asthma [56], cancer [57], and autoimmune diseases [58]. Low 25-OH vitamin D has also been suggested as a marker of mortality in the critical care setting [59]. Whether vitamin D becomes a marker of nutrition or of something more, monitoring of blood levels and targeted replacement therapy in the CKD population may give a hint of future CKD status. Our study is unable to identify suitable markers that could advance the state of knowledge and distinguish which patients will be in a future RESPONDER group and which will not.

Conclusion

The clinical implications of a replete 25-OH vitamin D level remain unknown. Responders appear to stabilize or increase their eGFR over time, however the Non-Responders display a deterioration of eGFR over time. Proteinuria modifies the response to cholecalciferol initially but does not predict the change in eGFR over time. The mechanism of the treatment resistance (RESPONDER vs. NON-RESPONDER) is also unknown and could be caused by a change in vitamin D metabolism (decreased synthesis or increased catabolism). Both of these effects could be mediated by the progressive increase of FGF-23 levels observed in CKD. Further research is necessary to test this hypothesis and to identify predictive variables that could be used for prognostic guidance.

Abbreviations

CKD: 

Chronic kidney disease

NKF: 

National kidney foundation

KDOQI: 

Kidney disease outcomes quality initiative

PTH: 

Parathyroid hormone

ICD-9: 

International classification of diseases ninth revision

eGFR: 

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

MDRD: 

Modified diet in renal disease

TXP: 

Transplant

RRT: 

Renal replacement therapy

FGF23: 

Fibroblast growth factor 23.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Statistical analysis was performed by Emilia Bagiella, PhD (Columbia University) and Helena Chang (Columbia University).

Results were presented at American Society of Nephrology (ASN) Renal Week 2010 in Denver, CO and ASN Renal Week 2011 in Philadelphia, PA.

This study was supported by a generous donation from the Nortillo Foundation. The funding source has had no role in the writing or any other aspect of the manuscript. No payment has been received to write this article.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Nephrology, Columbia University
(2)
Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University

References

  1. LaClair RE, Hellman RN, Karp SL, Kraus M, Ofner S, Li Q, Graves KL, Moe SM: Prevalence of calcidiol deficiency in CKD: a cross-sectional study across latitudes in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005, 45 (6): 1026-1033. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.02.029.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Stavroulopoulos A, Cassidy MJ, Porter CJ, Hosking DJ, Roe SD: Vitamin D status in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2007, 7 (11): 2546-2552. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.01978.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for bone metabolism and disease in chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003, 42 (4 Suppl 3): S1-S201.
  4. Bodyak N, Ayus JC, Achinger S, Shivalingappa V, Ke Q, Chen YS, Rigor DL, Stillman I, Tamez H, Kroeger PE, Wu-Wong RR, Karumanchi SA, Thadhani R, Kang PM: Activated vitamin D attenuates left ventricular abnormalities induced by dietary sodium in Dahl salt-sensitive animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007, 104 (43): 16810-16815. 10.1073/pnas.0611202104.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Aly Z, Qazi RA, Gonzalez EA, Zeringue A, Martin KJ: Changes in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and plasma intact PTH levels following treatment with ergocalciferol in patients with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007, 50 (1): 59-68. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2007.04.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Heaney RP, Holick MF: Why the IOM recommendations for vitamin D are deficient. J Bone Miner Res. 2011, 26 (3): 455-457. 10.1002/jbmr.328.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Holick MF: The vitamin D epidemic and its health consequences. J Nutr. 2005, 135 (11): 2739S-2748S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Shah BR, Finberg L: Single-day therapy for nutritional vitamin D-deficiency rickets: a preferred method. J Pediatr. 1994, 125 (3): 487-490. 10.1016/S0022-3476(05)83303-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Adams JS, Kantorovich V, Wu C, Javanbakht M, Hollis BW: Resolution of vitamin D insufficiency in osteopenic patients results in rapid recovery of bone mineral density. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999, 84 (8): 2729-2730.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Malabanan A, Veronikis IE, Holick MF: Redefining vitamin D insufficiency. Lancet. 1998, 351 (9105): 805-806.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Zisman AL, Hristova M, Ho LT, Sprague SM: Impact of ergocalciferol treatment of vitamin D deficiency on serum parathyroid hormone concentrations in chronic kidney disease. Am J Nephrol. 2007, 27 (1): 36-43. 10.1159/000098561.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Trang HM, Cole DE, Rubin LA, Pierratos A, Siu S, Vieth R: Evidence that vitamin D3 increases serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D more efficiently than does vitamin D2. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998, 68 (4): 854-858.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Houghton LA, Vieth R: The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006, 84 (4): 694-697.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ: Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003, 77 (1): 204-210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD: Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed adverse effect level. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001, 73 (2): 288-294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF, Feldman HI, Kusek JW, Eggers P, Van Lente F, Greene T, Coresh J, Ckd EPI: A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 150 (9): 604-612. 10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Holick MF, Binkley NC, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Gordon CM, Hanley DA, Heaney RP, Murad MH, Weaver CM: Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011, 96 (7): 1911-1930. 10.1210/jc.2011-0385.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Tuohimaa P, Tenkanen L, Ahonen M, Lumme S, Jellum E, Hallmans G, Stattin P, Harvei S, Hakulinen T, Luostarinen T, Dillner J, Lehtinen M, Hakama M: Both high and low levels of blood vitamin D are associated with a higher prostate cancer risk: a longitudinal, nested case–control study in the Nordic countries. Int J Cancer. 2004, 108 (1): 104-108. 10.1002/ijc.11375.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Heaney RP, Recker RR, Grote J, Horst RL, Armas LA: Vitamin D(3) is more potent than vitamin D(2) in humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011, 96 (3): E447-E452. 10.1210/jc.2010-2230.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Armas LA, Hollis BW, Heaney RP: Vitamin D2 is much less effective than vitamin D3 in humans. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004, 89 (11): 5387-5391. 10.1210/jc.2004-0360.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Felsenfeld AJ, Rodriguez M: Phosphorus, regulation of plasma calcium, and secondary hyperparathyroidism: a hypothesis to integrate a historical and modern perspective. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999, 10 (4): 878-890.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmidt-Gayk H, Bouillon R, Roth HJ: Measurement of vitamin D and its metabolites (calcidiol and calcitriol) and their clinical significance. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 1997, 227: 35-45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Slatopolsky E, Brown A, Dusso A: Pathogenesis of secondary hyperparathyroidism. Kidney Int Suppl. 1999, 73: S14-S19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Robinson AB, Thierry-Palmer M, Gibson KL, Rabinovich CE: Disease activity, proteinuria, and vitamin D status in children with systemic lupus erythematosus and juvenile dermatomyositis. J Pediatr. 2012, 160 (2): 297-302. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.08.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Fowlkes JL, Bunn RC, Cockrell GE, Clark LM, Wahl EC, Lumpkin CK, Thrailkill KM: Dysregulation of the intrarenal vitamin D endocytic pathway in a nephropathy-prone mouse model of type 1 diabetes. Exp Diabetes Res. 2011, 2011: 269378-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Thrailkill KM, Jo CH, Cockrell GE, Moreau CS, Fowlkes JL: Enhanced excretion of vitamin D binding protein in type 1 diabetes: a role in vitamin D deficiency?. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011, 96 (1): 142-149. 10.1210/jc.2010-0980.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhlmann A, Haas CS, Gross ML, Reulbach U, Holzinger M, Schwarz U, Ritz E, Amann K: 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 decreases podocyte loss and podocyte hypertrophy in the subtotally nephrectomized rat. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2004, 286 (3): F526-F533. 10.1152/ajprenal.00316.2003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Agarwal R, Acharya M, Tian J, Hippensteel RL, Melnick JZ, Qiu P, Williams L, Batlle D: Antiproteinuric effect of oral paricalcitol in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2005, 68 (6): 2823-2828. 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.00755.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pavik I, Jaeger P, Ebner L, Wagner CA, Petzold K, Spichtig D, Poster D, Wuthrich RP, Russmann S, Serra AL: Secreted Klotho and FGF23 in chronic kidney disease Stage 1 to 5: a sequence suggested from a cross-sectional study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013, 28 (2): 352-359. 10.1093/ndt/gfs460.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Russo D, Battaglia Y: Clinical significance of FGF-23 in patients with CKD. Int J Nephrol. 2011, 2011: 364890-View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Silver J, Naveh-Many T: FGF-23 and secondary hyperparathyroidism in chronic kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2013, 9 (11): 641-649. 10.1038/nrneph.2013.147.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kovesdy CP, Quarles LD: Fibroblast growth factor-23: what we know, what we don't know, and what we need to know. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013, 28 (9): 2228-2236. 10.1093/ndt/gft065.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu S, Tang W, Fang J, Ren J, Li H, Xiao Z, Quarles LD: Novel regulators of Fgf23 expression and mineralization in Hyp bone. Mol Endocrinol. 2009, 23 (9): 1505-1518. 10.1210/me.2009-0085.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Negri AL: Fibroblast growth factor 23: associations with cardiovascular disease and mortality in chronic kidney disease. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014, 46 (1): 9-17. 10.1007/s11255-012-0370-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kendrick J, Cheung AK, Kaufman JS, Greene T, Roberts WL, Smits G, Chonchol M: FGF-23 associates with death, cardiovascular events, and initiation of chronic dialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011, 22 (10): 1913-1922. 10.1681/ASN.2010121224.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Jean G, Terrat JC, Vanel T, Hurot JM, Lorriaux C, Mayor B, Chazot C: High levels of serum fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-23 are associated with increased mortality in long haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009, 24 (9): 2792-2796. 10.1093/ndt/gfp191.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Shalhoub V, Shatzen EM, Ward SC, Davis J, Stevens J, Bi V, Renshaw L, Hawkins N, Wang W, Chen C, Tsai MM, Cattley RC, Wronski TJ, Xia X, Li X, Henley C, Eschenberg M, Richards WG: FGF23 neutralization improves chronic kidney disease-associated hyperparathyroidism yet increases mortality. J Clin Investig. 2012, 122 (7): 2543-2553. 10.1172/JCI61405.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Shoben AB, Rudser KD, de Boer IH, Young B, Kestenbaum B: Association of oral calcitriol with improved survival in nondialyzed CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008, 19 (8): 1613-1619. 10.1681/ASN.2007111164.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Kovesdy CP, Ahmadzadeh S, Anderson JE, Kalantar-Zadeh K: Association of activated vitamin D treatment and mortality in chronic kidney disease. Arch Intern Med. 2008, 168 (4): 397-403. 10.1001/archinternmed.2007.110.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Teng M, Wolf M, Ofsthun MN, Lazarus JM, Hernan MA, Camargo CA, Thadhani R: Activated injectable vitamin D and hemodialysis survival: a historical cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005, 16 (4): 1115-1125. 10.1681/ASN.2004070573.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Teng M, Wolf M, Lowrie E, Ofsthun N, Lazarus JM, Thadhani R: Survival of patients undergoing hemodialysis with paricalcitol or calcitriol therapy. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349 (5): 446-456. 10.1056/NEJMoa022536.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Kuwae N, Regidor DL, Kovesdy CP, Kilpatrick RD, Shinaberger CS, McAllister CJ, Budoff MJ, Salusky IB, Kopple JD: Survival predictability of time-varying indicators of bone disease in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2006, 70 (4): 771-780. 10.1038/sj.ki.5001514.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Niederhoffer N, Bobryshev YV, Lartaud-Idjouadiene I, Giummelly P, Atkinson J: Aortic calcification produced by vitamin D3 plus nicotine. J Vasc Res. 1997, 34 (5): 386-398. 10.1159/000159247.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Niederhoffer N, Lartaud-Idjouadiene I, Giummelly P, Duvivier C, Peslin R, Atkinson J: Calcification of medial elastic fibers and aortic elasticity. Hypertension. 1997, 29 (4): 999-1006. 10.1161/01.HYP.29.4.999.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lopez I, Aguilera-Tejero E, Mendoza FJ, Almaden Y, Perez J, Martin D, Rodriguez M: Calcimimetic R-568 decreases extraosseous calcifications in uremic rats treated with calcitriol. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006, 17 (3): 795-804. 10.1681/ASN.2005040342.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Han T, Rong G, Quan D, Shu Y, Liang Z, She N, Liu M, Yang B, Cheng G, Lv Y, Stern L: Meta-analysis: the efficacy and safety of paricalcitol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism and proteinuria in chronic kidney disease. BioMed Res Int. 2013, 2013: 11-Google Scholar
  47. Pontoriero G, Cozzolino M, Locatelli F, Brancaccio D: CKD patients: the dilemma of serum PTH levels. Nephron Clin Pract. 2010, 116 (4): c263-c268. 10.1159/000318787.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kocelak P, Olszanecka-Glinianowicz M, Chudek J: Fibroblast growth factor 23–structure, function and role in kidney diseases. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2012, 21 (3): 391-401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Komaba H, Fukagawa M: Vitamin D and secreted Klotho: a long-awaited panacea for vascular calcification?. Kidney Int. 2012, 82 (12): 1248-1250. 10.1038/ki.2012.338.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Komaba H, Fukagawa M: The role of FGF23 in CKD–with or without Klotho. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2012, 8 (8): 484-490. 10.1038/nrneph.2012.116.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Bailey R, Cooper JD, Zeitels L, Smyth DJ, Yang JH, Walker NM, Hypponen E, Dunger DB, Ramos-Lopez E, Badenhoop K, Nejentsev S, Todd JA: Association of the vitamin D metabolism gene CYP27B1 with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2007, 56 (10): 2616-2621. 10.2337/db07-0652.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Masuda S, Byford V, Arabian A, Sakai Y, Demay MB, St-Arnaud R, Jones G: Altered pharmacokinetics of 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 in the blood and tissues of the 25-hydroxyvitamin D-24-hydroxylase (Cyp24a1) null mouse. Endocrinology. 2005, 146 (2): 825-834. 10.1210/en.2004-1116.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Vande Griend JP, McQueen RB, Linnebur SA, Vondracek SF: Prescription ergocalciferol dosing for vitamin D repletion: a retrospective evaluation. Pharmacotherapy. 2012, 32 (2): 135-141. 10.1002/PHAR.1052.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Gonzalez-Parra E, Rojas-Rivera J, Tunon J, Praga M, Ortiz A, Egido J: Vitamin D receptor activation and cardiovascular disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012, 27 (Suppl 4): iv17-iv21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Arnson Y, Itzhaky D, Mosseri M, Barak V, Tzur B, Agmon-Levin N, Amital H: Vitamin D inflammatory cytokines and coronary events: a comprehensive review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2013, 45 (2): 236-247. 10.1007/s12016-013-8356-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Mai XM, Langhammer A, Camargo CA, Chen Y: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D Levels and incident asthma in adults: the HUNT study. Am J Epidemiol. 2012, 176 (12): 1169-1176. 10.1093/aje/kws235.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland FC: Vitamin D for cancer prevention: global perspective. Ann Epidemiol. 2009, 19 (7): 468-483. 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.03.021.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Agmon-Levin N, Theodor E, Segal RM, Shoenfeld Y: Vitamin D in systemic and organ-specific autoimmune diseases. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2013, 45 (2): 256-266. 10.1007/s12016-012-8342-y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Shelley BG, Quasim T, Kinsella J, Talwar D, McMillan DC: Low-serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D reflects severity of illness in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2012, 40 (8): 2530-10.1097/CCM.0b013e318256b7ed. author reply 2530–2532View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/15/47/prepub

Copyright

© Parikh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.