Yi Zhang1, Mae Thamer, James Kaufman, Dennis Cotter, Miguel A Hernán. 1. *Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute (MTPPI), Bethesda, MD †VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY Departments of ‡Epidemiology §Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health ∥Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials found that use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to target normal hematocrit (Hct) levels (>39%) compared with 27%-34.5% increases cardiovascular risk and mortality among chronic kidney disease patients. However, the effects of the most widely used Hct target in the past 2 decades, 34.5%-39%, have never been examined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 2 Hct target strategies-30.0%-34.5% (low) and 34.5%-39.0% (mid) in a high-risk population: elderly dialysis patients with significant comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational data from the US Renal Data System were used to emulate a randomized trial in which patients were assigned to either Hct strategy. Follow-up started after completing 3 months of hemodialysis and ended 6 months later. We conducted the observational analogs of intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Inverse-probability weighting was used to adjust for measured time-dependent confounding by indication. SUBJECTS: A total of 22,474 elderly patients with both diabetes and cardiovascular disease who initiated hemodialysis in 2006-2008. MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HRs) and survival probabilities for all-cause mortality and a composite cardiovascular and mortality endpoint. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat HR (95% confidence interval) for mid versus low Hct strategy was 1.05 (0.99-1.11) for all-cause mortality and 1.03 (0.98-1.08) for the composite endpoint. The per-protocol HR (95% confidence interval) for mid versus low Hct strategy was 0.98 (0.78-1.24) for all-cause mortality and 1.00 (0.81-1.24) for the composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Among hemodialysis patients, we did not find differences in 6-month survival or cardiovascular risk between clinical strategies that target Hct at 30.0%-34.5% versus 34.5%-39.0%.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials found that use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents to target normal hematocrit (Hct) levels (>39%) compared with 27%-34.5% increases cardiovascular risk and mortality among chronic kidney diseasepatients. However, the effects of the most widely used Hct target in the past 2 decades, 34.5%-39%, have never been examined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 2 Hct target strategies-30.0%-34.5% (low) and 34.5%-39.0% (mid) in a high-risk population: elderly dialysis patients with significant comorbidities. RESEARCH DESIGN: Observational data from the US Renal Data System were used to emulate a randomized trial in which patients were assigned to either Hct strategy. Follow-up started after completing 3 months of hemodialysis and ended 6 months later. We conducted the observational analogs of intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Inverse-probability weighting was used to adjust for measured time-dependent confounding by indication. SUBJECTS: A total of 22,474 elderly patients with both diabetes and cardiovascular disease who initiated hemodialysis in 2006-2008. MEASURES: Hazard ratios (HRs) and survival probabilities for all-cause mortality and a composite cardiovascular and mortality endpoint. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat HR (95% confidence interval) for mid versus low Hct strategy was 1.05 (0.99-1.11) for all-cause mortality and 1.03 (0.98-1.08) for the composite endpoint. The per-protocol HR (95% confidence interval) for mid versus low Hct strategy was 0.98 (0.78-1.24) for all-cause mortality and 1.00 (0.81-1.24) for the composite outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Among hemodialysis patients, we did not find differences in 6-month survival or cardiovascular risk between clinical strategies that target Hct at 30.0%-34.5% versus 34.5%-39.0%.
Authors: Elena Birman-Deych; Amy D Waterman; Yan Yan; David S Nilasena; Martha J Radford; Brian F Gage Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: A Besarab; W K Bolton; J K Browne; J C Egrie; A R Nissenson; D M Okamoto; S J Schwab; D A Goodkin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard A Hirth; Marc N Turenne; John R C Wheeler; Tammie A Nahra; Kathryn K Sleeman; Wei Zhang; Joseph A Messana Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Yuka Kiyota; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Carolyn C Cannuscio; Jerry Avorn; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Lauren E Cain; Michael S Saag; Maya Petersen; Margaret T May; Suzanne M Ingle; Roger Logan; James M Robins; Sophie Abgrall; Bryan E Shepherd; Steven G Deeks; M John Gill; Giota Touloumi; Georgia Vourli; François Dabis; Marie-Anne Vandenhende; Peter Reiss; Ard van Sighem; Hasina Samji; Robert S Hogg; Jan Rybniker; Caroline A Sabin; Sophie Jose; Julia Del Amo; Santiago Moreno; Benigno Rodríguez; Alessandro Cozzi-Lepri; Stephen L Boswell; Christoph Stephan; Santiago Pérez-Hoyos; Inma Jarrin; Jodie L Guest; Antonella D'Arminio Monforte; Andrea Antinori; Richard Moore; Colin Nj Campbell; Jordi Casabona; Laurence Meyer; Rémonie Seng; Andrew N Phillips; Heiner C Bucher; Matthias Egger; Michael J Mugavero; Richard Haubrich; Elvin H Geng; Ashley Olson; Joseph J Eron; Sonia Napravnik; Mari M Kitahata; Stephen E Van Rompaey; Ramón Teira; Amy C Justice; Janet P Tate; Dominique Costagliola; Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 9.685
Authors: Yu-Han Chiu; Jorge E Chavarro; Barbra A Dickerman; JoAnn E Manson; Kenneth J Mukamal; Kathryn M Rexrode; Eric B Rimm; Miguel A Hernán Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 8.472