BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that if recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) is administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, a lower dose may be sufficient to maintain the hematocrit at a given level. METHODS: In a randomized, unblinded trial conducted at 24 hemodialysis units at Veterans Affairs medical centers, we assigned 208 patients who were receiving long-term hemodialysis and epoetin therapy to treatment with eithersubcutaneous or intravenous epoetin. The dose was initially reduced until the hematocrit was below 30 percent and then was gradually increased to a level that would maintain the hematocrit in the range of 30 to 33 percent for 26 weeks. We compared the average doses in the 26-week maintenance phase and the discomfort associated with the two routes of administration. RESULTS: For the 107 patients treated by the subcutaneous route, the average weekly dose of epoetin during the maintenance phase was 32 percent less than that for the 101 patients treated by the intravenous route (mean [+/-SD], 95.1+/-75.0 vs. 140.3+/-88.5 U per kilogram of body weight per week; P<0.001). Only one patient in the subcutaneous-therapy group withdrew from the study because of pain at the injection site, and 86 percent rated the pain associated with subcutaneous administration as ranging from absent to mild. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving hemodialysis, subcutaneous administration of epoetin can maintain the hematocrit in a desired target range, with an average weekly dose of epoetin that is lower than with intravenous administration.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that if recombinant humanerythropoietin (epoetin) is administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, a lower dose may be sufficient to maintain the hematocrit at a given level. METHODS: In a randomized, unblinded trial conducted at 24 hemodialysis units at Veterans Affairs medical centers, we assigned 208 patients who were receiving long-term hemodialysis and epoetin therapy to treatment with either subcutaneous or intravenous epoetin. The dose was initially reduced until the hematocrit was below 30 percent and then was gradually increased to a level that would maintain the hematocrit in the range of 30 to 33 percent for 26 weeks. We compared the average doses in the 26-week maintenance phase and the discomfort associated with the two routes of administration. RESULTS: For the 107 patients treated by the subcutaneous route, the average weekly dose of epoetin during the maintenance phase was 32 percent less than that for the 101 patients treated by the intravenous route (mean [+/-SD], 95.1+/-75.0 vs. 140.3+/-88.5 U per kilogram of body weight per week; P<0.001). Only one patient in the subcutaneous-therapy group withdrew from the study because of pain at the injection site, and 86 percent rated the pain associated with subcutaneous administration as ranging from absent to mild. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving hemodialysis, subcutaneous administration of epoetin can maintain the hematocrit in a desired target range, with an average weekly dose of epoetin that is lower than with intravenous administration.
Authors: Sameer Doshi; Wojciech Krzyzanski; Susan Yue; Steven Elliott; Andrew Chow; Juan José Pérez-Ruixo Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Charles L Bennett; Denis Cournoyer; Kenneth R Carson; Jerome Rossert; Stefano Luminari; Andrew M Evens; Francesco Locatelli; Steven M Belknap; June M McKoy; E Alison Lyons; Benjamin Kim; Rishi Sharma; Stacey Costello; Edwin B Toffelmire; George A Wells; Hans A Messner; Paul R Yarnold; Steven M Trifilio; Dennis W Raisch; Timothy M Kuzel; Allen Nissenson; Lay-Cheng Lim; Martin S Tallman; Nicole Casadevall Journal: Blood Date: 2005-08-11 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Daniel G Wright; Elizabeth C Wright; Andrew S Narva; Constance T Noguchi; Paul W Eggers Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Angel L M de Francisco; Gema Fernandez Fresnedo; Emilio Rodrigo; Celestino Piñera; Milagros Heras; Rosa Palomar; Juan C Ruiz; Manuel Arias Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.370