English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Aluminium (Al) toxicity was frequent in the 1980s in patients ingesting Al containing phosphate binders (Alucaps) whilst having HD using water potentially contaminated with Al. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of Al toxicity in HD patients receiving Alucaps but never exposed to contaminated dialysate water.    Methods  HD patients only treated with Reverse Osmosis(RO) treated dialysis water with either current or past exposure to Alucaps were given standardised DFO tests. Post-DFO serum Al level > 3.0 μmol/L was defined to indicate toxic loads based on previous bone biopsy studies.    Results  39 patients (34 anuric) were studied. Mean dose of Alucap was 3.5 capsules/d over 23.0 months. Pre-DFO Al levels were > 1.0 μmol/L in only 2 patients and none were > 3.0 μmol/L. No patients had a post DFO Al levels > 3.0 μmol/L. There were no correlations between the serum Al concentrations (pre-, post- or the incremental rise after DFO administration) and the total amount of Al ingested.  No patients had unexplained EPO resistance or biochemical evidence of adynamic bone.    Conclusions  Although this is a small study, oral aluminium exposure was considerable. Yet no patients undergoing HD with RO treated water had evidence of Al toxicity despite doses equivalent to 3.5 capsules of Alucap for 2 years. The relationship between the DFO-Al results and the total amount of Al ingested was weak (R 2  = 0.07) and not statistically significant. In an era of financial prudence, and in view of the recognised risk of excess calcium loading in dialysis patients, perhaps we should re-evaluate the risk of using Al-based phosphate binders in HD patients who remain uric.

Do oral aluminium phosphate binders cause accumulation of aluminium to toxic levels?