Cargando…
Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients
This study aimed to evaluate the difference in patient survival according to the type of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) treatment used in the Korean hemodialysis (HD) population. This retrospective study analyzed the laboratory data from a national HD quality assessment program and the claim...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9861937/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36675553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020625 |
_version_ | 1784874966680862720 |
---|---|
author | Kang, Seok Hui Kim, Bo Yeon Son, Eun Jung Kim, Gui Ok Do, Jun Young |
author_facet | Kang, Seok Hui Kim, Bo Yeon Son, Eun Jung Kim, Gui Ok Do, Jun Young |
author_sort | Kang, Seok Hui |
collection | PubMed |
description | This study aimed to evaluate the difference in patient survival according to the type of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) treatment used in the Korean hemodialysis (HD) population. This retrospective study analyzed the laboratory data from a national HD quality assessment program and the claims of Korea. Included participants were divided into three groups according to the type of ESA used during the 6 months of each assessment period as follows: the EP group (n = 38,043, epoetin-α or epoetin-β), the DP group (n = 10,054, darbepoetin-α), and the MR group (2253, continuous erythropoietin receptor activator). The ESA doses in the EP, DP, and MR groups were 6451 ± 3586, 5959 ± 3857, and 3877 ± 2275 unit/week, respectively. The erythropoiesis resistance indexes (ERIs) in the three groups were 10.7 ± 6.7, 9.9 ± 7.6, and 6.3 ± 4.1 IU/kg/g/dL, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves revealed similar rates of patient survival among the three groups (p = 0.530). A multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the hazard ratios in the DP group and MR group were 1.00 (p = 0.853) and 0.87 (p < 0.001), respectively, compared to that of the EP group. The hazard ratio in the MR group was 0.87 (p = 0.001) compared to that of the DP group. Our study shows that the MR group had comparable or better patient survival than the EP and DP groups in the multivariate analysis. However, the ESA doses and ERI were considerably different among the three groups. It was difficult to determine whether the better patient survival in the MR group originated from the ESA type, ESA dose, ERI, or other hidden factors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9861937 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98619372023-01-22 Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients Kang, Seok Hui Kim, Bo Yeon Son, Eun Jung Kim, Gui Ok Do, Jun Young J Clin Med Article This study aimed to evaluate the difference in patient survival according to the type of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) treatment used in the Korean hemodialysis (HD) population. This retrospective study analyzed the laboratory data from a national HD quality assessment program and the claims of Korea. Included participants were divided into three groups according to the type of ESA used during the 6 months of each assessment period as follows: the EP group (n = 38,043, epoetin-α or epoetin-β), the DP group (n = 10,054, darbepoetin-α), and the MR group (2253, continuous erythropoietin receptor activator). The ESA doses in the EP, DP, and MR groups were 6451 ± 3586, 5959 ± 3857, and 3877 ± 2275 unit/week, respectively. The erythropoiesis resistance indexes (ERIs) in the three groups were 10.7 ± 6.7, 9.9 ± 7.6, and 6.3 ± 4.1 IU/kg/g/dL, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves revealed similar rates of patient survival among the three groups (p = 0.530). A multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the hazard ratios in the DP group and MR group were 1.00 (p = 0.853) and 0.87 (p < 0.001), respectively, compared to that of the EP group. The hazard ratio in the MR group was 0.87 (p = 0.001) compared to that of the DP group. Our study shows that the MR group had comparable or better patient survival than the EP and DP groups in the multivariate analysis. However, the ESA doses and ERI were considerably different among the three groups. It was difficult to determine whether the better patient survival in the MR group originated from the ESA type, ESA dose, ERI, or other hidden factors. MDPI 2023-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9861937/ /pubmed/36675553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020625 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Kang, Seok Hui Kim, Bo Yeon Son, Eun Jung Kim, Gui Ok Do, Jun Young Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients |
title | Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients |
title_full | Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients |
title_short | Comparison of Patient Survival According to Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Type of Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients |
title_sort | comparison of patient survival according to erythropoiesis-stimulating agent type of treatment in maintenance hemodialysis patients |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9861937/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36675553 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020625 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kangseokhui comparisonofpatientsurvivalaccordingtoerythropoiesisstimulatingagenttypeoftreatmentinmaintenancehemodialysispatients AT kimboyeon comparisonofpatientsurvivalaccordingtoerythropoiesisstimulatingagenttypeoftreatmentinmaintenancehemodialysispatients AT soneunjung comparisonofpatientsurvivalaccordingtoerythropoiesisstimulatingagenttypeoftreatmentinmaintenancehemodialysispatients AT kimguiok comparisonofpatientsurvivalaccordingtoerythropoiesisstimulatingagenttypeoftreatmentinmaintenancehemodialysispatients AT dojunyoung comparisonofpatientsurvivalaccordingtoerythropoiesisstimulatingagenttypeoftreatmentinmaintenancehemodialysispatients |