Daniel G Wright1, Elizabeth C Wright2, Andrew S Narva3, Constance T Noguchi4, Paul W Eggers3. 1. Molecular Medicine Branch, daniel.wright@nih.gov. 2. Biostatistics Program, and. 3. Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Molecular Medicine Branch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) is used routinely to increase blood hemoglobin levels in patients with ESRD and anemia. Although lower doses of epoetin are required to achieve equivalent hemoglobin responses when administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, standard practice has been to administer epoetin to patients on hemodialysis intravenously. Randomized trials of alternative epoetin treatment regimens in patients with kidney failure have shown that risks of cardiovascular complications and death are related to the dose levels of epoetin used. Therefore, given the dose-sparing advantages of subcutaneous epoetin administration, the possibility that treatment of patients on hemodialysis with subcutaneous epoetin might be associated with more favorable outcomes compared with intravenous treatment was investigated. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A retrospective cohort study of 62,710 adult patients on hemodialysis treated with either intravenous or subcutaneous epoetin-α and enrolled in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ESRD Clinical Performance Measures Project from 1997 to 2005 was carried out. Risks of death and/or hospitalization for cardiovascular complications (adverse composite event outcomes) during 2 years of follow-up were determined in relationship to epoetin dose and route of administration (intravenous versus subcutaneous) by multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling adjusted for demographics and clinical parameters. RESULTS: Epoetin doses used to achieve equivalent hemoglobin responses in study patients were, on average, 25% higher when epoetin was administered intravenously rather than subcutaneously (as expected). Moreover, adverse composite event outcomes were found to be significantly more likely to occur during follow-up for patients on hemodialysis managed with intravenous rather than subcutaneous epoetin (adjusted hazard ratio for adverse events within 1 year [intravenous versus subcutaneous] was 1.11 [95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.18]). CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that treatment of patients on hemodialysis with subcutaneous epoetin is associated with more favorable clinical outcomes than those associated with intravenous epoetin treatment.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recombinant humanerythropoietin (epoetin) is used routinely to increase blood hemoglobin levels in patients with ESRD and anemia. Although lower doses of epoetin are required to achieve equivalent hemoglobin responses when administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, standard practice has been to administer epoetin to patients on hemodialysis intravenously. Randomized trials of alternative epoetin treatment regimens in patients with kidney failure have shown that risks of cardiovascular complications and death are related to the dose levels of epoetin used. Therefore, given the dose-sparing advantages of subcutaneous epoetin administration, the possibility that treatment of patients on hemodialysis with subcutaneous epoetin might be associated with more favorable outcomes compared with intravenous treatment was investigated. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A retrospective cohort study of 62,710 adult patients on hemodialysis treated with either intravenous or subcutaneous epoetin-α and enrolled in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ESRD Clinical Performance Measures Project from 1997 to 2005 was carried out. Risks of death and/or hospitalization for cardiovascular complications (adverse composite event outcomes) during 2 years of follow-up were determined in relationship to epoetin dose and route of administration (intravenous versus subcutaneous) by multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling adjusted for demographics and clinical parameters. RESULTS:Epoetin doses used to achieve equivalent hemoglobin responses in study patients were, on average, 25% higher when epoetin was administered intravenously rather than subcutaneously (as expected). Moreover, adverse composite event outcomes were found to be significantly more likely to occur during follow-up for patients on hemodialysis managed with intravenous rather than subcutaneous epoetin (adjusted hazard ratio for adverse events within 1 year [intravenous versus subcutaneous] was 1.11 [95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.18]). CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that treatment of patients on hemodialysis with subcutaneous epoetin is associated with more favorable clinical outcomes than those associated with intravenous epoetin treatment.
Authors: Denise M Hynes; Kevin T Stroupe; Joel W Greer; Domenic J Reda; Diane L Frankenfield; James S Kaufman; William G Henderson; William F Owen; Michael V Rocco; Jay B Wish; Jeffery Kang; John R Feussner Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Marc A Pfeffer; Emmanuel A Burdmann; Chao-Yin Chen; Mark E Cooper; Dick de Zeeuw; Kai-Uwe Eckardt; Jan M Feyzi; Peter Ivanovich; Reshma Kewalramani; Andrew S Levey; Eldrin F Lewis; Janet B McGill; John J V McMurray; Patrick Parfrey; Hans-Henrik Parving; Giuseppe Remuzzi; Ajay K Singh; Scott D Solomon; Robert Toto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven M Brunelli; Keri L Monda; John M Burkart; Matthew Gitlin; Peter J Neumann; Grace S Park; Margarita Symonian-Silver; Susan Yue; Brian D Bradbury; Robert J Rubin Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Charles L Bennett; Stefano Luminari; Allen R Nissenson; Martin S Tallman; Stephen A Klinge; Norene McWilliams; June M McKoy; Benjamin Kim; E Allison Lyons; Steve M Trifilio; Dennis W Raisch; Andrew M Evens; Timothy M Kuzel; Glen T Schumock; Steven M Belknap; Francesco Locatelli; Jerôme Rossert; Nicole Casadevall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-09-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Dana C Miskulin; Jing Zhou; Navdeep Tangri; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Courtney Cook; Patti L Ephraim; Deidra C Crews; Julia J Scialla; Stephen M Sozio; Tariq Shafi; Bernard G Jaar; L Ebony Boulware Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Daniela Mendes Chiloff; Danilo Candido de Almeida; Maria A Dalboni; Maria Eugênia Canziani; Sunil K George; Alshaimaa Mahmoud Morsi; Nadia El-Akabawy; Christopher D Porada; Marcelino Souza Durao; Abolfazl Zarjou; Graca Almeida-Porada; Miguel Angelo Goes Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2020-01-31
Authors: Steven Fishbane; Carol A Pollock; Mohamed El-Shahawy; Elizabeth T Escudero; Anjay Rastogi; Bui Pham Van; Lars Frison; Mark Houser; Maksym Pola; Dustin J Little; Nicolas Guzman; Pablo E Pergola Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Manuel Voigt; Michael Gebert; Ulrike Haug; Michael Hulko; Markus Storr; Adriana Boschetti-de-Fierro; Werner Beck; Bernd Krause Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-23 Impact factor: 4.379