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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kang, Seok Hui, Kim, Bo Yeon, Son, Eun Jung, Kim, Gui Ok, Do, Jun Young
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