Publication:
Mineral and bone disease in CKD and kidney transplantation: controversies, gaps, and a path forward

dc.contributor.coauthorDrueke, T. B.
dc.contributor.coauthorMassy, Z. A.
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.kuauthorKanbay, Mehmet
dc.contributor.kuauthorAktaş, Özgür
dc.contributor.kuauthorÇöpür, Sidar
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSCHOOL OF MEDICINE
dc.date.accessioned2026-09-09T13:52:31Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.description.abstractThe pathophysiology of chronic kidney disease (CKD)-related mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) extends far beyond simple mineral imbalances. Evolving from the traditional understanding of secondary hyperparathyroidism, the conceptual framework has recently been updated to recognize 2 distinct but overlapping clinical syndromes: CKD-associated osteoporosis, which encompasses the significantly increased fracture risk and microarchitectural deterioration in this population; and CKD-associated cardiovascular disease, which accounts for vascular and structural cardiac abnormalities, including medial vascular calcification. Unlike traditional osteoporosis, the 2 clinical syndromes emerge from intricate interactions between declining kidney function and dysregulated mineral metabolism. The early rise in fibroblast growth factor–23 (FGF-23) levels; progressive phosphate retention; diminished vitamin D activation; secondary hyperparathyroidism; and uremic toxin accumulation, particularly uric acid and indoxyl sulfate, orchestrate profound disruptions in osteocyte, osteoblast, and osteoclast function. The complex interaction amplifies in the dialysis population, where protein-energy wasting affects most patients; and intensifies following kidney transplantation because of glucocorticoid, immunosuppressive, and anticoagulant treatments. Consequently, fracture rates in patients with CKD exceed those of age-matched controls by >4-fold, with patients on dialysis therapy facing a ≤ 8-fold increased risk. Available diagnostic and predictive tools need to be improved to adequately identify at-risk patients. The usefulness of additional, more recent biomarkers such as FGF-23, a-Klotho, and various bone turnover parameters remains a matter of debate. Bone biopsy, considered as the diagnostic gold-standard, remains impractical in routine practice. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) cannot provide information on the type of renal osteodystrophy. Moreover, it demonstrates limitations in the presence of severe vascular calcifications. Trabecular bone scores (TBS) emerge as potential progress in noninvasive bone imaging, showing modest superiority over traditional densitometry in predicting fracture risks among secondary osteoporosis populations, yet large clinical trials with long-term follow-up are required. Therapeutic management spans from parathyroidectomy to pharmacological interventions with bisphosphonates, denosumab, teriparatide, romosozumab, whereas agents such as burosumab remain investigational, with no published clinical trials in this population. However, therapeutic nihilism persists, with most high-risk patients not receiving bone-targeted therapy despite accumulating safety data. Transforming care demands abandoning therapeutic nihilism, embracing personalized risk stratification, and conducting trials in populations historically excluded from bone health research.
dc.description.harvestedfromManual
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.readpublishN/A
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.description.sponsorshipThe figures are crafted at BioRender.com . No figures were adapted, reproduced, or modified from any previously published source. Data Availability Statement During the study no new data were created or analyzed. Author Contributions Conception or design of the work was by MK, OA, and SC. The literature search and screening was by SC and OA. Draftting of the manuscript was by OA, SC, and MK. Generation of figures and tables was by OA and SC. Review of the manuscript for intellectual content was by MK, ZAM, and TD. All the authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
dc.description.versionPublished Version
dc.identifier.ScopusPercentile88
dc.identifier.ScopusQuartileQ1
dc.identifier.WoSPercentile89.2
dc.identifier.WoSQuartileQ1
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ekir.2026.106662
dc.identifier.embargoN/A
dc.identifier.endpage106662
dc.identifier.grantnoN/A
dc.identifier.issn2468-0249
dc.identifier.issue9
dc.identifier.pubmed42438722
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105043889257
dc.identifier.startpage106662
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ekir.2026.106662
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/35084
dc.identifier.volume11
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001822602500001
dc.keywordsBurosumab
dc.keywordsChronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder
dc.keywordsFibroblast growth factor-23
dc.keywordsOsteoporosis
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherElsevier BV
dc.relation.affiliationKoç University
dc.relation.collectionKoç University Institutional Repository
dc.relation.ispartofKidney International Reports
dc.subjectBurosumab
dc.subjectChronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder
dc.subjectFibroblast growth factor-23
dc.subjectOsteoporosis
dc.titleMineral and bone disease in CKD and kidney transplantation: controversies, gaps, and a path forward
dc.typeReview
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e

Files