Search

Abstract Background Renal hyperparathyroidism is a disease entity that is complex and poorly understood. Although there are guidelines regarding how to manage this patient group, evidence is scarce. Therefore, this survey-based study aims to map the physicians’ attitude in terms of preference for management of renal hyperparathyroidism and the influence of patient and respondent factors. Methods A survey was sent to Dutch societies of nephrology, endocrinology, and surgeons with interest in endocrine surgery. The survey consisted of eight case vignettes of renal hyperparathyroidism patients who were on hemodialysis and suitable for kidney transplantation, and varied in one of three patient variables import for decision making: age (40 vs. 65 years), parathyroid hormone (40 vs. 90 pmol/L), and serum calcium level (2.25 vs. 2.8 mmol/L). For each case, respondents could choose between maintaining conservative treatment (active vitamin D metabolites), calcimimetics, or subtotal parathyroidectomy as their treatment of choice. Categorical multilevel logistic models were used to investigate the association of patient and respondent variables with treatment preference. The influence of patient variables was determined independently of each other and by means of logistic regression the probabilities of treatment choice were calculated. Results In total, 115 surveys were included in the analysis. In 6 out of 8 cases, less than two-thirds of respondents agreed on the most favoured treatment. Among patient characteristics, the main disincentive for respondents not to choose conservative therapy was an elevated serum calcium level (subtotal parathyroidectomy vs conservative OR 93.1, 95%-CI: 48.39–179.07 and calcimimetics vs conservative OR 31.2 95%-CI: 18.58–52.30). Additionally, the most significant treatment differences were found between medical specialties and the experience of the respondents, expressed as the amount of cases the physician was involved in during the past year. Conclusions Elevated serum calcium levels were widely recognized and the prime reason for respondents to abandon conservative treatment. However, considerable disagreement in treatment preferences remained throughout the cases, demonstrating the current literature available being inconclusive in guiding physicians. Therefore, a high-quality trial comparing subtotal parathyroidectomy to medical treatment is needed to determine optimal treatment.

Background: To date, there is no satisfactory treatment for patients with calcium and vitamin D supplementation refractive hypoparathyroidism. Parathyroid allotransplantation by design is a one-time cure through its restoration of the parathyroid function and, therefore, could be the solution. A systematic literature review is conducted in the present paper, with the aim of outlining the possibilities of parathyroid allotransplantation and to calculate its efficacy. Additionally, various transplantation characteristics are linked to success. Methods: This review is carried out according to the PRISMA statement and checklist. Relevant articles were searched for in medical databases with the most recent literature search performed on 9 December 2021. Results: In total, 24 articles involving 22 unique patient cohorts were identified with 203 transplantations performed on 148 patients. Numerous types of (exploratory) interventions were carried out with virtually no protocols that were alike: there was the use of (non-) cryopreserved parathyroid tissue combined with direct transplantation or pretreatment using in vitro techniques, such as culturing cells and macro-/microencapsulation. The variability increased further when considering immunosuppression, graft histology, and donor–recipient compatibility, but this was found to be reported in its entirety by exception. As a result of the large heterogeneity among studies, we constructed our own criterium for transplantation success. With only the studies eligible for our assessment, the pooled success rate for parathyroid allotransplantation emerged to be 46% (13/28 transplantations) with a median follow-up duration of 12 months (Q1–Q3: 8–24 months). Conclusions: Manifold possibilities have been explored around parathyroid allotransplantation but are presented as a double-edged sword due to high clinical diverseness, low expertise in carrying out the procedure, and unsatisfactory study quality. Transplantations carried out with permanent immunosuppression seem to be the most promising, but, in its current state, little could be said about the treatment efficacy with a high quality of evidence. Of foremost importance in pursuing the answer whether parathyroid allotransplantation is a suitable treatment for hypoparathyroidism, a standardized definition of transplantation success must be established with a high-quality trial.