Skip to main content
Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Download PDF

Cholecalciferol effect on oxidative stress and novel predictors of inflammation in hemodialysis patients: a prospective randomized trial

Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences volume 10, Article number: 121 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Emerging evidence links vitamin D deficiency to oxidative stress (OS) and inflammation, posing ongoing risks to cardiovascular outcomes in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Despite this, current data are lacking regarding the optimal approach or schedule for administering vitamin D in this population. This study investigated the effectiveness of oral weekly versus oral monthly cholecalciferol supplementation on 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) levels, oxidative stress, inflammatory indicators, and secondary hyperparathyroidism in HD population. HD patients (N = 50) were randomly allocated to Group A (oral weekly 50,000 IU cholecalciferol) or Group B (oral monthly 200,000 IU cholecalciferol) for a 3 months duration. Serum levels of 25(OH)D, malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (HsCRP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) were assessed at baseline and upon completion of the study.

Results

A notable increase in serum 25(OH)D levels observed in both groups, with Group A showing a notably greater increase (p = 0.003). Group A demonstrated significant reductions in serum MDA and increases in SOD, along with declines in hsCRP and NLR levels, which were not observed in Group B. Moreover, Group A exhibited a greater drop in iPTH (ΔiPTH = − 30 pg/mL vs. − 3 pg/mL) compared to Group B. Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT05460338, registered 13/07/2022.

Conclusions

Weekly oral 50,000 IU cholecalciferol supplementation emerges as a tolerable, safe and effective approach for restoring vitamin D levels in HD patients, while concurrently mitigating inflammation, OS, and secondary hyperparathyroidism. This finding suggests that the more frequent the administration of oral cholecalciferol, the higher the efficiency observed.

Background

Vitamin D action seems to extend beyond its traditional reputation as a steroid hormone affecting skeletal tissues and regulating bone mineral metabolism. Recent studies have uncovered a range of diverse effects attributed to vitamin D, beyond its well-established functions [1, 2]. Growing evidence indicates that vitamin D may play a significant role in reducing both oxidative stress (OS) and inflammation in the body [3].

Over the last 20 years, researchers have identified oxidative stress as an emerging, non-conventional risk factor contributing to the advancement of chronic kidney disease (CKD) [4]. OS was shown to be prominent in CKD patients because of the increased production of pro-oxidants molecules, accompanied with the insufficient clearance oxidative products [5]. Hence, Hemodialysis (HD) patients in particular are in a chronic status of inflammation and OS. This is mostly due to the continuous loss of antioxidants throughout HD sessions and the activation of white blood cells, which triggers the release of additional reactive oxygen species (ROS) [6].

Indeed, cardiovascular diseases are responsible for nearly half of the death rates in the HD population, with systemic inflammation being one of the major leading mechanism underlined [7]. HD patients are commonly believed to experience chronic systemic inflammation, with a significant majority being vitamin D deficient [8]. Vitamin D deficiency in CKD is linked to elevated risks of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality [9]. In fact, the HD population are known to be more vulnerable to higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates [10]. Suboptimal concentrations of serum levels of 25(OH)D fail to mitigate OS and increases intracellular oxidative damage as well as the speed of cell apoptosis. Evidence suggests that inflammation is a known complication in HD population for which there is no established treatment strategy. However, inflammation has also been demonstrated to independently predict death in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients [11]. The chronic inflammatory status in the HD population maybe due to multiple factors, such as the uremic milieu, the effect of genetics and epigenetics, infections and the dialysis process itself [12]. Indeed, Vitamin D appears to regulate both inflammation and OS [13, 14]. The cardiovascular protection afforded by vitamin D intake can be attributed to its ability to downregulate parathyroid hormone [15]. However, other studies have shown that the pleiotropic roles of vitamin D on OS are beyond its effect on parathyroid hormone [16]. Experts define a deficient level of vitamin D as a serum 25(OH)D level below 20 ng/mL; while, insufficient levels of vitamin D are typically defined as 21 ng/mL to 29 ng/mL. However an optimal target of more than 30 ng/mL is recommended [17]. Serum levels which are less than 15 ng/mL are associated not only with increased mortality risk but also with progression to dialysis in pre-dialysis CKD patients [18]. Although both Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) [19] and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) [20], have recommended screening for low serum 25(OH)D levels in CKD and dialysis patients, data regarding appropriate treatment protocols or regimens for vitamin D supplementation in HD population remain limited.

This current study aimed to evaluate the impact of weekly vs. monthly regimens of native vitamin D (cholecalciferol) supplementation, on replenishing the 25(OH)D levels, managing hyperparathyroidism, and if either regimen can possess an effect on HD-derived OS and inflammation.

Methods

Study design

This study utilized a prospective, single-blinded, block randomized design and was conducted at an institutional hospital, specifically within the HD units. The research adhered to Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (revised in 2013). All patients provided written informed consent from the principal investigator prior to participating in this trial. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.

Patient eligibility

Patient eligibility criteria comprised individuals of both genders, aged 18 to 70 years, undergoing regular HD for a duration exceeding 3 months. Additionally, eligible candidates were required to maintain a stable clinical condition (controlled chronic condition), without hospitalization (no inpatient admission history) within the preceding 3 months, and exhibit 25(OH)D levels below 30 ng/ml.

We have excluded patients with previous or current hypersensitivity to cholecalciferol, current or recent cholecalciferol intake, liver failure, any digestive malabsorption disease, or who had participated in another clinical trial 4 weeks prior to enrollment. Pregnant or breastfeeding females were also excluded.

Treatment intervention

Treatment intervention involved screening all HD patients at the unit to determine eligibility. Fifty qualifying HD patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Each of the fifty patients was assigned a code from 1 to 50. Subsequently, patients were then randomly assigned to either Group A or Group B in blocks of four patients. Six distinct blocks were assigned (AABB, BBAA, BABA, ABBA, BAAB). Random list of numbers was created using SPSS, to aid in the selection and allocation process across the six blocks.

Fifty HD patients were randomly assigned into the two following groups

Group A 25 HD patients (47.52 ± 12.87 years, 15 males:10 females) were on Oral 50.000 IU cholecalciferol, once in a week, for 3 months.

Group B 25 HD patients (47.2 ± 11.06 years, 14 males:11 females) were on Oral 200.000 IU cholecalciferol, once in a month, for 3 months.

A 3 months’ period of follow-up was done by the principal investigator.

All patients received their routine medications without any change throughout the 3 months’ study duration. Cholecalciferol 50.000 IU (Vidrop®) and cholecalciferol 200.000 IU (Devarol®) were both manufactured locally.

Both study groups had weekly follow-ups and were monitored weekly by the principal investigator for any adverse effects or side effects. A designated nurse at the HD unit was providing the patients with cholecalciferol at the end of the mid-week HD session. Patients in both groups had no change in their routine medications provided by the unit. Medications impacting Ca levels or PO4 levels such as PO4 chelators were monitored throughout the study period.

A complete patient history was documented at the initial visit by the principal investigator. All patients in both groups underwent comprehensive clinical testing before participating in the study, by the attending physician. Demographic data, baseline characteristics of patients, and their laboratory results were collected and recorded during the recruitment phase.

Sample size

The sample size was calculated based on 25(OH)D serum levels. Based on a prior study involving HD patients, it was hypothesized that a significant difference of 7.48 ng/mL could be achieved (assuming a difference of 9.99 ng/mL in Group A compared to 2.51 ng/mL in Group B), utilizing the Two-group T-test with a power of 95% and a 5% as alpha error. Ideally, the study should have included a total of 40 patients. However, 50 patients were enrolled in this study (25 patients in Group A and 25 patients in Group B), considering an anticipated dropout rate of at least 25% [21]. The sample size calculation was calculated using the GPower program.

Laboratory measurements

To assess baseline parameters, endpoint study parameters, and routine laboratory data, a 4 ml blood sample was collected from each patient before the mid-week HD session and prior to the administration of heparin. Patient sera were then subjected to centrifugation at 3000 rpm for a minimum of 10 min at 4 °C. Subsequently, the sera were frozen at − 80 °C.

The primary outcome was the increase in 25(OH)D serum levels.

Secondary outcomes: an increase in sodium dismutase (SOD) serum levels, a decrease in intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) serum levels, a decrease in malondialdehyde (MDA) serum levels, a decrease in high sensitivity C-reactive Protein (HsCRP) serum levels, a decrease in the neutrophil to lymphocyte (NLR) ration, a decrease in platelet to lymphocyte ration (PLR), an increase in calcium serum levels (Ca), and an increase in phosphate serum levels (PO4).

Blood samples were subjected to biochemical analysis at the Central labs of the institution before and after the study. The assessment of intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) levels utilized the Electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) technique. Serum levels 25(OH)D, MDA, HsCRP and SOD were all determined using the Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) technique.

The NLR was computated by dividing the absolute neutrophil count by the absolute lymphocyte count, and same for the PLR, by dividing the absolute platelet count by the absolute lymphocyte count.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were reported either by their mean and standard deviation (Mean ± SD) or by median and their interquartile range (Median (IQR)). Categorical data were illustrated as counts and corresponding percentages. A 95% confidence interval was employed with a margin of error set at 5%. Statistical analyses included paired or unpaired T tests for the data distributed normally. For nonnormally distributed data, paired samples were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; while, unpaired samples were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

A total of 216 maintenance HD patients were assessed for their eligibility to the study, at the HD units of the hospital. Fifty patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomized into the study groups. Enrollment and allocation data are presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram summarizing enrollment, allocation, follow-up, and analysis processes

Full size image

Baseline

Baseline data show no significant differences noted between the two study groups (Tables 1, 2).

Table 1 Baseline assessments and clinical data
Full size table
Table 2 Baseline and endpoint assessment of routine laboratory parameters
Full size table

Endpoint assessment

Cholecalciferol efficacy

Following the 3-month period, cholecalciferol administration provided a significant increase in 25(OH)D serum levels in both study groups. Group A exhibited a significantly greater increase compared to Group B (p = 0.003).

Group A exhibited a significantly larger increase in serum levels compared to Group B during the study period (p < 0.001); specifically, increases of + 16.23 ng/mL versus + 13.75 ng/mL, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3 Baseline and endpoint assessment of 25(OH)D, oxidative stress, and inflammatory parameters
Full size table

Regarding OS markers, Group A showed a greater significant decline in MDA serum levels (p < 0.001) overtime (a within group difference). After the completion of the study, and when comparing both groups, a significant decline in MDA levels was noticed in Group A, together with a significantly higher increase in serum SOD levels noted in Group A vs. Group B (p = 0.011). The baseline change in MDA serum levels was significant only in Group A, as well as the change in serum levels of SOD. For inflammatory markers, serum levels of HsCRP significantly declined in Group A overtime (p < 0.001). After the completion of the study, a significant decrease in HsCRP levels was observed exclusively in Group A (p = 0.019). The change from baseline in serum HsCRP levels was significantly greater in Group A than group B (p < 0.001).

NLR significantly declined throughout the study period in both groups. However, at endpoint assessment, a significant decrease in NLR was noted in Group A (p = 0.021) only. The change from baseline was greater in Group A (− 0.44 vs. − 0.11, p < 0.001). As for the PLR, no significant change was detected in both groups neither between groups nor overtime. However, a declining trend was noticed in both study groups, but did not attain statistical significance (Table 3).

Regarding serum iPTH levels, Group A showed a significant decrease over time (p = 0.001). While at endpoint, a significant reduction was noticed in Group A when compared to Group B (p = 0.02). Group A showed a significantly greater change from baseline (p = 0.006) compared to Group B (Table 3).

Cholecalciferol safety

Both dosage regimens of cholecalciferol, 50,000 IU per week and 200,000 IU per month, were well-tolerated by the patients, with no reports of adverse effects or safety concerns associated with the drugs. At the study's conclusion, no significant difference was observed in serum Ca and PO4 levels between the groups, as shown in Table 2.

In both groups, all patients maintained 25(OH)D levels within the safe range of < 100 ng/ml, and there were no reports of hypervitaminosis D. No adjustments to the dosages were necessary throughout the study (Table 3).

At endpoint, no significant differences were noted in serum Ca and serum PO4 levels between the groups (Table 2).

Additionally, all patients have maintained serum 25(OH)D levels within the safe range of less than 100 ng/ml, with no reported cases of hypervitaminosis D. Furthermore, there was no need for modification of vitamin D dosage during the study period, as detailed in Table 3.

Discussion

This study aimed to showcase the cholecalciferol’s pleiotropic effects, efficacy and safety of the two dosing schedules on OS and inflammation among the HD population. Thankfully, both dosages utilized in this study demonstrated no adverse effects on either serum Ca or PO4 levels. Additionally, none of the patients approached toxic levels of 25(OH)D, indicating the safety of the chosen dosing regimens.

At the end of study, both groups had a significant elevation in their 25(OH)D serum levels. However, the weekly regimen (Group A) was more favorable. A significant reduction of MDA, HsCRP, iPTH serum levels and NLR was noted only in the weekly regimen. Adding to the greater change from baseline (ΔiPTH = − 30 (− 0.92 to − 0.5), p = 0.001) that was noticed only in the weekly regimen as well.

The initial observation of the two groups in this study revealed that 94% of the patients were deficient in vitamin D; while, the remaining 6% were insufficient. Specifically, all patients in Group A, receiving weekly cholecalciferol intake, were initially 100% vitamin D deficient. However, over the course of the 12-week study period, these patients experienced a remarkable increase in their serum levels of 25(OH)D. Till the study completion, none of the patients in Group A remained deficient or insufficient in vitamin D.

Conversely, patients assigned to the monthly cholecalciferol regimen (Group B) began the study with 94% of them being deficient in vitamin D. However, at the endpoint, none of the patients in Group B remained deficient in vitamin D, marking a decrease from 94 to 0% deficiency. Additionally, only 6% of patients in Group B were classified as insufficient in vitamin D after the completion of the study. Yet, both study groups were well-matched concerning baseline 25(OH)D serum levels, α-calcidol doses, as well as Ca-based and non-Ca-based PO4 chelators.

This increase in 25(OH)D serum levels was in line with the previously published results [22,23,24,25]. Even with various dosing regimens and duration, none of these studies has reported toxicity.

It's notable to mention that even the utilization of cholecalciferol (100,000 IU/week) did not result in any toxicity concerning serum 25(OH)D, Ca, or PO4 levels [26, 27]. Monitoring cholecalciferol levels can be effectively accomplished through the assessment of serum 25(OH)D, which acts as the primary circulating form of vitamin D in the body[28].

This finding reinforces the widely recognized excellent safety profile of cholecalciferol utilization in the literature, as previously documented in literature [29, 30]. Monitoring cholecalciferol levels can be effectively accomplished through the assessment of serum 25(OH)D, which acts as the primary circulating form of vitamin D [31]. As cholecalciferol has long half-life; approximately 2 months [32], taking cumulative doses of cholecalciferol intermittently on a weekly or monthly basis results in similar 25(OH)D levels as taking the equivalent daily dosage when the body reaches a stable state [33, 34].

The two regimens used in this study were suggested because of their affordability and availability in the market. They are both locally manufactured and widely distributed and are often used in HD patients [35, 36], for the sake of better compliance and less frequent intake. Indeed, in the current study, both weekly and monthly doses were given by a designated nurse, which has resulted in a 100% adherence rate. The two doses adopted in this study have proved excellent results, with no cases of hypercalcemia reported. However, no study has figured out the optimum dose regimen in terms of the pleotropic actions of vitamin D on inflammation or OS.

In ESRD, the triad of secondary hyperparathyroidism, OS and inflammation is well-established [37]. This study has found that different dose regimens of cholecalciferol intake may affect secondary hyperparathyroidism differently. By assessing the iPTH levels at the end of the 12 weeks, there was a significant change between the two regimens (p = 0.02), favoring Group A. Adding to this, a better significant change from baseline (ΔiPTH = − 30 (− 0.92 to − 0.5) vs, − 3.0 (− 13.5 to 10), p = 0.006) over time, was also noted among patients in Group A only. This indicates that the weekly regimen of cholecalciferol is evidently superior to the monthly regimen. Indeed, cholecalciferol intake has been proved to elevate not only 25(OH)D serum levels, but also 1,25 (OH)2D levels [38,39,40,41]. This effect contributes to the reduction in PTH levels and bone markers [38]. While the 1α-hydroxylated vitamin D derivatives are more effective at controlling PTH levels, the main adverse effects are increased risk of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia [42], and the consequences on cardiovascular diseases. In the current study, the slight decrease in iPTH levels may be overshadowed by the elevated levels of ionized calcium, phosphate, fibroblast growth factor-23 and the possible development of parathyroid nodular hyperplasia [43]. However, other clinical studies have did not show any significant decrease in iPTH levels [22, 26].

A well-known marker of oxidative stress; Malondialdehyde (MDA), is a short chain aldehyde that acts by stimulating the expression of expression of white blood cell adhesion and other inflammatory molecules, leading to their accumulation in the sub-endothelial area. The process of taking up the oxidized molecules in the arterial walls by macrophages, forming foamy cells, is the key first step for developing atherosclerosis [44]. Higher levels of MDA indicate more systemic oxidation [45, 46]. On the other side, one of the most effective enzymatic antioxidants is Superoxide dismutase (SOD); the one that defends against oxidative damage by enzymatically converting molecules of O2 into H2O2. It’s worthy to mention that SOD is s the primary antioxidant enzyme that regulates OS during the progressive renal injury [47].

The initial findings of this study identified an initial elevation in baseline MDA levels, and a baseline reduction in SOD among both groups. This baseline increase in the MDA levels among HD patients was also shown previously [48,49,50,51], as well as the decrease in the SOD baseline levels [50,51,52]. It seems that ESRD is a chronic status of elevated OS [53].

Vitamin D plays a crucial role in downregulating nitric oxide (NO); a potent regulator of ROS, along with its role in upregulating the SOD. The utilization of vitamin D analogs and their effect on OS and inflammation were studied previously [37, 54, 55]. However, in this study, we are documenting that the weekly intake of 50.000 IU of the native form of vitamin D3; cholecalciferol, had a significant improvement on OS status among the HD population. This is noted through the reduction observed in MDA levels, and the elevation in SOD levels after its intake for 12 constitutive weeks. This was in agreement with Tmadon et al., who documented a statistical decrease in MDA levels (− 0.1 vs. + 0.1 μmol/l; p = 0·009), after the use of a bi-monthly 50.000 IU of vitamin D3 in diabetic HD patients, compared to a placebo group [35]. However, in our study, the monthly intake of cholecalciferol was not shown to be effective in dropping the MDA levels.

Several circulating markers and indicators of inflammation are used in order to monitor and follow-up this chronic inflammatory status. C-reactive protein (CRP), Interlukin-1 (IL-1), interlukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis alpha (TNF-alpha), paracalcitonin, ferritin and even cholesterol levels [12, 56, 57]. However, it is widely recognized that CRP is considered the gold standard among these inflammatory markers due it its proven accuracy and its low cost and availability [58]. HsCRP; being strongly linked to vascular diseases, has also been demonstrated to independently predict mortality in patients with ESRD [11].

Recently, there has been increasing evidence supporting that both NLR and PLR ratio act as inexpensive and readily available indicators of systemic inflammation across various disorders [59,60,61], and especially in HD patients [62, 63]. These not only indicate inflammation but also serve as indicators of worse prognosis in various conditions (eg. malignancies, CKD and myocardial function) [64].

As per the results of our study, elevated levels of HsCRP were noticed at the baseline assessment in both study groups. This is supporting previous studies assessing the inflammatory status in HD patients [12, 65, 66]. Adding to this, elevated baseline levels of NLR and PLR were noticed as well. This study confirms the strong relationship of inflammation with ESRD patients, and especially HD patients. Whether inflammation reduces vitamin D levels, or vitamin D can suppress inflammation is still an area of clinical controversy [14, 67,68,69,70]. In 2016, Akbas et al., has documented a significant association between PLR and NLR and with 25(OH)D in 4120 patients [71]. Two years later, in 2018, a high inverse correlation between decreased serum levels of 25(OH)D and inflammatory markers including HsCRP, NLR and PLR was stated by Haddad et al. [14]. The latter study has paved the way for us to assess the effect of cholecalciferol supplementation with two dosing regimens on such inflammatory markers. Our study has demonstrated a significant reduction in HsCRP levels following the administration of the weekly dose of cholecalciferol for 12 weeks. When it comes to NLR, both groups (Group A) and (Group B), had a significant difference after the 12 weeks’ study period. However, the change from baseline was higher in the weekly regimen group (ΔNLR − 0.44 vs − 0.11, p < 0.001). Lastly, for the effect of cholecalciferol intake on PLR, there was no statistical difference in both study groups.

Adding vitamin D to iron sulfate in female patients with iron deficiency anemia has significantly decreased PLR [72]; however, another recent study with vitamin D intake in diabetic patients did not exhibit a significant difference in both NLR and PLR, but a decreasing trend was documented [73].

The ameliorative beneficial effect of vitamin D on PLR may not have been detected in the current study, possibly due to the characteristics of the study population. Patients on HD are much more prone to have worse inflammatory status than other patients. Moreover, the 3 months’ study period was considered to be an insufficient period to promote a significant change in PLR. As several studies have pointed to the association between 25(OH)D levels, HsCRP, NLR and PLR, as the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the impact of native vitamin D on such inflammatory markers (NLR and PLR) in the HD population.

The efficiency of the weekly regimen of cholecalciferol over the monthly regimen is presumably due to the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cholecalciferol itself. This is resembled in different involvement of enzymatic compartment. In other words, the higher the efficiency, the lower the saturation of 25-hydoxylase enzyme or the lesser the induction of 24-hydroxylase enzymes. Both enzymes are vitamin D catabolizing enzymes. Moreover, greater production of 24,25 (OH)2D was shown to be related to the bolus based regimens, more than the daily regimens [74]. All together, these findings suggest that the more frequent the administration of oral cholecalciferol, the higher the efficiency observed. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether the observed benefits are sustained over time and how they impact long-term health outcomes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, weekly and monthly cholecalciferol seem to be safe and effective options to replenish serum levels of 25(OH)D in HD. However, weekly 50.000 IU cholecalciferol intake for 12 weeks has offered an amelioration of OS markers and inflammatory markers in our HD population. Same applies for secondary hyperparathyroidism, where a slight reduction in iPTH levels was shown only in Group A. Both NLR and PLR Both NLR and PLR are cost-effective and readily accessible indicators of inflammation that may be taken into consideration more often to assess and follow-up inflammation in HD patients.

Limitations

The study is not without limitations. First, the study period was limited only to 3 months. Longer duration studies are warranted in order to confirm the long-term effects of cholecalciferol. Second, the study took place in a public institutional tertiary setting, where a lot of resources such as calcimimetic agents and phosphate chelators are not covered by the standard public health insurance system. The need for better controlling options for persistent secondary hyperparathyroidism and hyperphosphatemia are warranted.

Availability of data and material

Data are available upon request.

Abbreviations

CKD:

Chronic kidney disease

CRP:

C-Reactive protein

ESRD:

End stage renal disease

HD:

Hemodialysis

HsCRP:

High sensitivity C-reactive protein

iPTH:

Intact parathormone

IL-1:

Interlukin-1

IL-6:

Interlukin-6

KDIGO:

Kidney disease improving global outcomes

KDOQI:

Kidney disease outcomes quality initiative

MDA:

Malondialdehyde

NLR:

Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio

NO:

Nitric oxide

OS:

Oxidative stress

PO4:

Phosphate

PLR:

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio

ROS:

Reactive oxygen species

Ca:

Serum calcium

SPSS:

Statistical package for social science

TNF-alpha:

Tumor necrosis alpha

SOD:

Superoxide dismutase

25(OH)D):

Vitamin D

References

  1. Marazziti D, Parra E, Palermo S, Barberi FM, Buccianelli B, Ricciardulli S, Cappelli A, Mucci F, Dell’Osso L (2021) Vitamin D: a pleiotropic hormone with possible psychotropic activities. Curr Med Chem 28:3843–3864

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giustina A, Lazaretti-Castro M, Martineau AR, Mason RS, Rosen CJ, Schoenmakers IJNRE (2024) A view on vitamin D: a pleiotropic factor? Nat Rev Endocrinol 20:202–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nasif WA, Mukhtar MH, El-Emshaty HM, Alwazna AH (2018) Redox state of human serum albumin and inflammatory biomarkers in hemodialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism during oral calcitriol supplementation for vitamin D. Open Med Chem J 12:98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Duni A, Liakopoulos V, Rapsomanikis K-P, Dounousi E (2017) Chronic kidney disease and disproportionally increased cardiovascular damage: does oxidative stress explain the burden? Oxidat Med Cell Long. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9036450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Locatelli F, Canaud B, Eckardt KU, Stenvinkel P, Wanner C, Zoccali C (2003) Oxidative stress in end-stage renal disease: an emerging threat to patient outcome. Nephrol Dial Transpl 18:1272–1280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Antić S, Draginić N, Nikolić T, Jeremić N, Petrović D (2019) Oxidative stress in hemodialysis patients: pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical consequences and basic principles of treatment. Serb J Exp Clin Res. https://doi.org/10.2478/sjecr-2019-0008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Francisco AL, Fresnedo GF, Rodrigo E, Piñera C, Amado J, Arias M (2002) Parathyroidectomy in dialysis patients. Kidney Int 61:S161–S166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kara AV, Soylu YE (2019) The relationship between vitamin D and inflammatory markers in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Int Urol Nephrol 51:1659–1665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mann MC, Hobbs AJ, Hemmelgarn BR, Roberts DJ, Ahmed SB, Rabi DM (2015) Effect of oral vitamin D analogs on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes among adults with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Kidney J 8:41–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Locatelli F, Del Vecchio L, Manzoni C (1998) Morbidity and mortality on maintenance haemodialysis. Nephron 80:380–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stenvinkel P (2005) Inflammation in end-stage renal disease–a fire that burns within. Cardiovasc Disorders Hemodial 149:185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nowak KL, Chonchol M (2018) Does inflammation affect outcomes in dialysis patients? Semin Dial 31(4):388–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/sdi.12686

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wimalawansa SJ (2019) Vitamin D deficiency: effects on oxidative stress, epigenetics, gene regulation, and aging. Biology 8:30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Haddad Kashani H, Seyed Hosseini E, Nikzad H, Soleimani A, Soleimani M, Tamadon MR, Keneshlou F, Asemi Z (2018) The effects of vitamin D supplementation on signaling pathway of inflammation and oxidative stress in diabetic hemodialysis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Front Pharmacol 9:50

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gadeau A-P, Chaulet H, Daret D, Kockx M, Daniel-Lamazière J-M, Desgranges C (2001) Time course of osteopontin, osteocalcin, and osteonectin accumulation and calcification after acute vessel wall injury. J Histochem Cytochem 49:79–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tanaka M, Tokunaga K, Komaba H, Itoh K, Matsushita K, Watanabe H, Kadowaki D, Maruyama T, Otagiri M, Fukagawa M (2011) Vitamin D receptor activator reduces oxidative stress in hemodialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism. Ther Apher Dial 15:161–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Souberbielle J-C, Body J-J, Lappe JM, Plebani M, Shoenfeld Y, Wang TJ, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Cavalier E, Ebeling PR, Fardellone P (2010) Vitamin D and musculoskeletal health, cardiovascular disease, autoimmunity and cancer: Recommendations for clinical practice. Autoimmun Rev 9:709–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jean G, Souberbielle JC, Chazot C (2017) Vitamin D in chronic kidney disease and dialysis patients. Nutrients 9:328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification (2002). Am J Kidney Dis 39

  20. Kidney D, Improving GOKC-M, Work G (2017) KDIGO 2017 clinical practice guideline update for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Supplem 7:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bansal B, Bansal SB, Mithal A, Kher V, Marwaha R, Singh P, Irfan N (2014) A randomized controlled trial of cholecalciferol supplementation in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 18:655

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tokmak F, Quack I, Schieren G, Sellin L, Rattensperger D, Holland-Letz T, Weiner SM, Rump LC (2008) High-dose cholecalciferol to correct vitamin D deficiency in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transpl 23:4016–4020

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Jean G, Souberbielle J-C, Chazot C (2009) Monthly cholecalciferol administration in haemodialysis patients: a simple and efficient strategy for vitamin D supplementation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24:3799–3805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Matias PJ, Jorge C, Ferreira C, Borges M, Aires I, Amaral T, Gil C, Cortez J, Ferreira A (2010) Cholecalciferol supplementation in hemodialysis patients: effects on mineral metabolism, inflammation, and cardiac dimension parameters. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5:905–911

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Alshahawey M, El Wakeel L, Elsaid T, Sabri NA (2021) The impact of cholecalciferol on markers of vascular calcification in hemodialysis patients: a randomized placebo controlled study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 31:626–633

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wasse H, Huang R, Long Q, Singapuri S, Raggi P, Tangpricha V (2012) Efficacy and safety of a short course of very-high-dose cholecalciferol in hemodialysis. Am J Clin Nutr 95:522–528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Carvalho JTG, Schneider M, Cuppari L, Grabulosa CC, Aoike DT, Redublo BMQ, Batista MC, Cendoroglo M, Moyses RM, Dalboni MA (2017) Cholecalciferol decreases inflammation and improves vitamin D regulatory enzymes in lymphocytes in the uremic environment: a randomized controlled pilot trial. PLoS ONE 12:e0179540

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hollis BW (2005) Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels indicative of vitamin D sufficiency: implications for establishing a new effective dietary intake recommendation for vitamin D. J Nutr 135:317–322

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Holick M (2007) Vitamin D deficiency. N Engl J Med 357:266–281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hughes M, Baylink D, Jones P, Haussler MR (1976) Radioligand receptor assay for 25-hydroxyvitamin D2/D3 and 1 alpha, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D2/D3. J Clin Investig 58:61–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jean G, Terrat J-C, Vanel T, Hurot J-M, Lorriaux C, Mayor B, Chazot C (2008) Daily oral 25-hydroxycholecalciferol supplementation for vitamin D deficiency in haemodialysis patients: effects on mineral metabolism and bone markers. Nephrol Dial Transpl 23:3670–3676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vieth R (2005) The pharmacology of vitamin D, including fortification strategies. Vitamin D 2:995–1015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Noe S, Heldwein S, Pascucchi R, Oldenbüttel C, Wiese C, Von Krosigk A, Jägel-Guedes E, Jäger H, Mayer W, Spinner CD (2017) Cholecalciferol 20 000 IU once weekly in HIV-positive patients with low vitamin D levels: result from a cohort study. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care 16:315–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Takács I, Tóth BE, Szekeres L, Szabó B, Bakos B, Lakatos PJ (2017) Randomized clinical trial to comparing efficacy of daily, weekly and monthly administration of vitamin D 3. Endocrine 55:60–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tamadon MR, Soleimani A, Keneshlou F, Mojarrad MZ, Bahmani F, Naseri A, Kashani HH, Hosseini ES, Asemi Z (2018) Clinical trial on the effects of vitamin D supplementation on metabolic profiles in diabetic hemodialysis. Horm Metab Res 50:50–55

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Daroux M, Shenouda M, Bacri J-L, Lemaitre V, Vanhille P, Bataille P (2013) Vitamin D2 versus vitamin D3 supplementation in hemodialysis patients: a comparative pilot study. J Nephrol 26:152–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wu C-C, Chang J-H, Chen C-C, Su S-B, Yang L-K, Ma W-Y, Zheng C-M, Diang L-K, Lu K-C (2011) Calcitriol treatment attenuates inflammation and oxidative stress in hemodialysis patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism. Tohoku J Exp Med 223:153–159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Jean G, Souberbielle J-C, Chazot CJ (2009) Monthly cholecalciferol administration in haemodialysis patients: a simple and efficient strategy for vitamin D supplementation. Nephrol Dial Transpl 24:3799–3805

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Massart A, Debelle FD, Racapé J, Gervy C, Husson C, Dhaene M, Wissing KM, Nortier JL (2014) Biochemical parameters after cholecalciferol repletion in hemodialysis: results from the VitaDial randomized trial. Am J Kidney Dis 64:696–705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Stubbs JR, Idiculla A, Slusser J, Menard R, Quarles LD (2010) Cholecalciferol supplementation alters calcitriol-responsive monocyte proteins and decreases inflammatory cytokines in ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol 21:353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jean G, Terrat J, Vanel T, Hurot J, Lorriaux C, Mayor B, Chazot CJNCP (2008) Evidence for persistent vitamin D 1-alpha-hydroxylation in hemodialysis patients: evolution of serum 1, 25-dihydroxycholecalciferol after 6 months of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol treatment. Nephron Clin Pract 110:58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Slatopolsky E, Weerts C, Thielan J, Horst R, Harter H, Martin KJ (1984) Marked suppression of secondary hyperparathyroidism by intravenous administration of 1, 25-dihydroxy-cholecalciferol in uremic patients. J Clin Invest 74:2136–2143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Hewitt NA, O’Connor AA, O’Shaughnessy DV, Elder GJ (2013) Effects of cholecalciferol on functional, biochemical, vascular, and quality of life outcomes in hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8:1143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Candan F, Gültekin F, Candan F (2002) Effect of vitamin C and zinc on osmotic fragility and lipid peroxidation in zinc-deficient haemodialysis patients. Cell Biochem Funct 20:95–98

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kundoor N, Mohanty S, Narsini RK, Kumar TN (2017) Pro-oxidants and antioxidants levels in chronic renal failure patients treated by dialysis. Asian J Pharmaceu Res Health Care 9:71–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Puvvada RC (2020) Association of vitamin C status in diabetes mellitus: prevalence and predictors of vitamin C deficiency. Fut J Pharmac Sci 6:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  47. Marjani A, Velayeti J, Mansourian AR, Dahmardeh N (2017) Evaluation of oxidative stress and thyroid hormone status in hemodialysis patients in Gorgan. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 61:278–284

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Tajbakhsh R, Qorbani M, Mehrpour G, Rahimzadeh M, Azimzadeh MM, Mirmiranpour H (2017) Effect of hemodialysis on oxidants and antioxidant factors in chronic renal failure. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 28:507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Trimarchi H, Mongitore M, Baglioni P, Forrester M, Freixas E, Schropp M, Pereyra H, Alonso M (2003) N-acetylcysteine reduces malondialdehyde levels in chronic hemodialysis patients–a pilot study. Clin Nephrol 59:441–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Xu G, Luo K, Liu H, Huang T, Fang X, Tu W (2015) The progress of inflammation and oxidative stress in patients with chronic kidney disease. Ren Fail 37:45–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Alshahawey M, Shaheen SM, Elsaid T, Sabri NA (2019) Effect of febuxostat on oxidative stress in hemodialysis patients with endothelial dysfunction: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. Int Urol Nephrol 51:1649–1657

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tucker PS, Scanlan AT, Dalbo VJ (2015) Chronic kidney disease influences multiple systems: describing the relationship between oxidative stress, inflammation, kidney damage, and concomitant disease. Oxidat Med Cell Long. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/806358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. San A, Fahim M, Campbell K, Hawley CM, Johnson DW (2018) The role of oxidative stress and systemic inflammation in kidney disease and its associated cardiovascular risk. Novel Prospects In Oxidative Nitrosative Stress 8:3

    Google Scholar 

  54. Izquierdo MJ, Cavia M, Muñiz P, de Francisco AL, Arias M, Santos J, Abaigar P (2012) Paricalcitol reduces oxidative stress and inflammation in hemodialysis patients. BMC Nephrol 13:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sepidarkish M, Farsi F, Akbari-Fakhrabadi M, Namazi N, Almasi-Hashiani A, Hagiagha AM, Heshmati J (2019) The effect of vitamin D supplementation on oxidative stress parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Pharmacol Res 139:141–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Heidari B (2013) C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in hemodialysis patients. Casp J Intern Med 4:611–616

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Sharma A, Mittal S, Aggarwal R, Chauhan MK (2020) Diabetes and cardiovascular disease: inter-relation of risk factors and treatment. Fut J Pharmac Sci 6:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jofré R, Rodriguez-Benitez P, López-Gómez JM, Pérez-Garcia R (2006) Inflammatory syndrome in patients on hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 17:S274–S280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Shaarawy A, Baki AH, Teama NM, Abdel-Halim R, Eldin-Fahim N, Sultan R (2018) Neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio is an easy non expensive marker of inflammation in hemodialysis patients. J Clin Exp Nephrol 3:19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Catabay C, Obi Y, Streja E, Soohoo M, Park C, Rhee CM, Kovesdy CP, Hamano T, Kalantar-Zadeh K (2017) Lymphocyte cell ratios and mortality among incident hemodialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 46:408–416

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bilir B, Isyar M, Yilmaz I, Varol Saracoglu G, Cakmak S, Dogan M, Mahirogullari M (2015) Evaluation of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a marker of inflammatory response in septic arthritis. Eur J Inflamm 13:196–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Pineault J, Lamarche C, Bell R, Lafrance J-P, Ouellet G, Leblanc M, Pichette V, Bezzaoucha S, Vallée M (2017) Association of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio with inflammation and erythropoietin resistance in chronic dialysis patients. Can J Kidney Health Dis 4:2054358117735563

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ahbap E, Sakaci T, Kara E, Sahutoglu T, Koc Y, Basturk T, Sevinc M, Akgol C, Kayalar AO, Ucar ZA (2016) Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-tolymphocyte ratio in evaluation of inflammation in end-stage renal disease. Clin Nephrol 85:199–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Yaprak M, Turan MN, Dayanan R, Akın S, Değirmen E, Yıldırım M, Turgut F (2016) Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts mortality better than neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in hemodialysis patients. Int Urol Nephrol 48:1343–1348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Snaedal S, Qureshi AR, Lund SH, Germanis G, Hylander B, Heimbürger O, Carrero JJ, Stenvinkel P, Bárány P (2016) Dialysis modality and nutritional status are associated with variability of inflammatory markers. Nephrol Dial Transpl 31:1320–1327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Alshahawey M, Shahin SM, Elsaid TW, Sabri NA (2017) Effect of febuxostat on the endothelial dysfunction in hemodialysis patients: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. Am J Nephrol 45:452–459

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Adorini L, Penna G (2008) Control of autoimmune diseases by the vitamin D endocrine system. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 4:404–412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Henriksen VT, Rogers VE, Rasmussen GL, Trawick RH, Momberger NG, Aguirre D, Barker T (2014) Pro-inflammatory cytokines mediate the decrease in serum 25 (OH) D concentrations after total knee arthroplasty? Med Hypotheses 82:134–137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Shab-Bidar S, Neyestani TR, Djazayery A, Eshraghian MR, Houshiarrad A, Kalayi A, Shariatzadeh N, Khalaji N, Aa G (2012) Improvement of vitamin D status resulted in amelioration of biomarkers of systemic inflammation in the subjects with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 28:424–430

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Vickers NJ (2017) Animal communication: when i’m calling you, will you answer too? Curr Biol 27:R713–R715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Akbas EM, Gungor A, Ozcicek A, Akbas N, Askin S, Polat M (2016) Vitamin D and inflammation: evaluation with neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio. Arch Med Sci 12:721–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Al-Nimer M, HamaSalih R (2019) Effects of Vitamin D3 supplementation on the hematological indices in women presented with iron deficiency anemia: an open-labeled clinical trial. J Pharmac Negat Results 10:47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Jankar DS, Wingkar KC, Kanetkar SV, Bodhe CD (2021) Study of vitamin D supplementation on selected hematological and inflammatory parameters in type 2 diabetes mellitus with vitamin D deficiency. J Datta Meghe Inst Med Sci Univ 16:138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ketha H, Thacher TD, Oberhelman SS, Fischer PR, Singh RJ, Kumar R (2018) Comparison of the effect of daily versus bolus dose maternal vitamin D3 supplementation on the 24, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 to 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 ratio. Bone 110:321–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge all the patients who participated in this research for their cooperation during the study period.

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Mona Alshahawey, Lamia Mohamed El Wakeel, Nagwa Ali Sabri & Radwa Maher Elborolossy

  2. Nephrology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Tamer Wahid Elsaid

Authors
  1. Mona Alshahawey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lamia Mohamed El Wakeel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tamer Wahid Elsaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nagwa Ali Sabri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Radwa Maher Elborolossy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by MA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by MA and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mona Alshahawey.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT05460338. A written informed consent was provided to the patients, by the principal investigator, prior to their participation in the trial. The ethics committee for experimental and clinical studies at Faculty of Pharmacy, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt revised and approved the study protocol (REC: RHDIRB2020110301, 03/17/2022).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare they have no financial interests. All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alshahawey, M., El Wakeel, L.M., Elsaid, T.W. et al. Cholecalciferol effect on oxidative stress and novel predictors of inflammation in hemodialysis patients: a prospective randomized trial. Futur J Pharm Sci 10, 121 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-024-00696-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-024-00696-0

Keywords