Frequency of administration of recombinant human erythropoietin for anaemia of end-stage renal disease in dialysis patients.

Abstract

Although the benefits of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHu EPO) administration in dialysis patients have been demonstrated the optimal frequency regimen has not as yet been established. Treatment with rHu EPO is expensive, there is therefore a need for optimising the efficiency of its administration. The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of different frequency regimens of rHu EPO administration in dialysis patients in terms of i) effectiveness (correction of anaemia, quality of life and freedom from adverse events) ii) efficiency (optimal resource use) of different rHu EPO dose regimen policies. We searched MEDLINE (1980 to May Week 3 2001), EMBASE (1984 to Week 24 2001), BIOSIS (1985 to January 1997), CINAHL (1982 to October 1997), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 1997), CHEMABS (1984 to November 1996), SIGLE (1980 to June 1996), CRIB (10th edition, 1995), UK NRR (14th consolidation, September 1996), RSC ( 1980 to February 1997), HealthSTAR (1995 to October 1997), IBSS (1984 to July 1997), NEED (July 1997) and reference lists of relevant articles. We contacted biomedical companies and investigators in the field and we hand searched Kidney International (including all supplements but excluding all conference proceedings except for 1994) July 1983 to May 1997 inclusive. The Internet was also searched on: August 1997. We had also identified some studies from a previous broad search for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to the management of end-stage renal disease. Date of the most recent search: June 2001. All randomised or quasi randomised controlled trials comparing different frequencies of rHu EPO administration in dialysis patients. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing haemodialysis and CAPD patients and also subcutaneous and intravenous administration. Only published data were used. Data were abstracted by a single investigator on to a standard form. The data abstracted were relevant to the predetermined outcome measures: measures of correction of anaemia, rHu EPO dose, quality of life measures, adverse events, number of withdrawals from study, mortality. Where appropriate, a summary relative risk (RR) was calculated for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria. When once a week administration was compared with twice weekly there was no significant difference in the ability to maintain the target haemoglobin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.40). Mean haemoglobin after twelve weeks of therapy was not different between the two groups (WMD -0.21g/dl, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.56). No difference was found in mean haemoglobin or haematocrit at the end of any studies which compared once with thrice weekly administration of rHu EPO (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.06). A single study which compared once with more that thrice weekly administration showed no significant difference in mean haemoglobin at the end of the maintenance phase (mean difference -0.2g/dl, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.25). The dosage of erythropoietin required by those on haemodialysis receiving rHu EPO once weekly was just significantly more (WMD 12.0 U/kg, 95% CI 0.24 to 23.76) than those receiving it twice weekly but the confidence interval is wide. No such difference was found for CAPD patients nor when the results were combined (WMD 5.15 U/kg, 95% CI -3.74 to 14.05). The result was not significant when comparing once weekly with thrice weekly administration (WMD 10.00 U/kg, 95% CI -80.87 to 100.87). There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events between any of the groups studies. There is no significant difference between once weekly versus thrice weekly subcutaneous administration of rHu EPO. Once weekly administration of rHu EPO would require an additional 12U/kg/week for patients on haemodialysis, however this is based on one very small study. The cost of this additional hRu EPO nee, however this is based on one very small study. The cost of this additional hRu EPO needs to assessed, in particular with regard to patient preference and compliance.