AI Article Synopsis

  • Chronic kidney disease often leads to renal anemia, which can severely affect patient health; Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) like Eprex and Aranesp are used to manage this condition.
  • A study involving 127 Egyptian hemodialysis patients was conducted to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two ESAs over a six-month period.
  • Results showed that Aranesp was more effective in achieving target hemoglobin levels, had a similar safety profile to Eprex, and was more cost-effective, making it a better option for treating anemia in these patients.

Article Abstract

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) often results in renal anemia, impacting the well-being of patients and causing various negative consequences. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) offer promising solutions for managing anemia in CKD. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness, safety profile, and cost-effectiveness of short-acting (Eprex) and long-acting (Aranesp) ESAs.

Method: This comparative prospective cohort cost-effectiveness study was carried out over 6 months among adult Egyptian hemodialysis patients of either gender. Participants were categorized into two groups based on the type of ESA administered: the Eprex group, receiving epoetin alfa, and the Aranesp group, receiving darbepoetin alfa. These two treatment groups' efficacy, safety, and cost were analyzed and compared.

Results: Of 127 hemodialysis patients, 60 (47.2%) received Eprex, while 67 (52.8%) were treated with Aranesp. Target hemoglobin (Hb) was achieved by 50.6% of patients in the Eprex group versus 63.4% in the Aranesp group, with a significant difference ( < 0.001). Both treatment groups exhibited a similar safety profile, while Aranesp was considered the cost-saving protocol.

Conclusion: In hemodialysis Egyptian patients, Aranesp with extended dosing intervals proved to be more effective in achieving target Hb with comparable adverse effect profiles, a substantial cost-saving strategy, and offered time-saving advantages for medical staff workload compared to Eprex.

Trial Registration: The Clinicaltrial.gov registration ID is NCT05699109 (26/01/2023).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10985414PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5339/qmj.2024.16DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hemodialysis patients
12
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents
8
egyptian hemodialysis
8
safety profile
8
eprex group
8
group receiving
8
aranesp group
8
patients
6
aranesp
6
short versus
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!