↓ Skip to main content

Short-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in predialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Short-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in predialysis patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011690.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deirdre Hahn, Christopher I Esezobor, Noha Elserafy, Angela C Webster, Elisabeth M Hodson

Abstract

The benefits of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients have been previously demonstrated. However, the efficacy and safety of short-acting epoetins administered at larger doses and reduced frequency as well as of new epoetins and biosimilars remains uncertain. This review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of different routes, frequencies and doses of epoetins (epoetin alpha, epoetin beta and other short-acting epoetins) for anaemia in adults and children with CKD not receiving dialysis. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 12 September 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing different frequencies, routes, doses and types of short-acting ESAs in CKD patients. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and four authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. We identified 14 RCTs (2616 participants); nine studies were multi-centre and two studies involved children. The risk of bias was high in most studies; only three studies demonstrated adequate random sequence generation and only two studies were at low risk of bias for allocation concealment. Blinding of participants and personnel was at low risk of bias in one study. Blinding of outcome assessment was judged at low risk in 13 studies as the outcome measures were reported as laboratory results and therefore unlikely to be influenced by blinding. Attrition bias was at low risk of bias in eight studies while selective reporting was at low risk in six included studies.Four interventions were compared: epoetin alpha or beta at different frequencies using the same total dose (six studies); epoetin alpha at the same frequency and different total doses (two studies); epoetin alpha administered intravenously versus subcutaneous administration (one study); epoetin alpha or beta versus other epoetins or biosimilars (five studies). One study compared both different frequencies of epoetin alpha at the same total dose and at the same frequency using different total doses.Data from only 7/14 studies could be included in our meta-analyses. There were no significant differences in final haemoglobin (Hb) levels when dosing every two weeks was compared with weekly dosing (4 studies, 785 participants: MD -0.20 g/dL, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.07), when four weekly dosing was compared with two weekly dosing (three studies, 671 participants: MD -0.16 g/dL, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.10) or when different total doses were administered at the same frequency (four weekly administration: one study, 144 participants: MD 0.17 g/dL 95% CI -0.19 to 0.53).Five studies evaluated different interventions. One study compared epoetin theta with epoetin alpha and found no significant differences in Hb levels (288 participants: MD -0.02 g/dL, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.21). One study found significantly higher pain scores with subcutaneous epoetin alpha compared with epoetin beta. Two studies (165 participants) compared epoetin delta with epoetin alpha, with no results available since the pharmaceutical company withdrew epoetin delta for commercial reasons. The fifth study comparing the biosimilar HX575 with epoetin alpha was stopped after patients receiving HX575 subcutaneously developed anti-epoetin antibodies and no results were available.Adverse events were poorly reported in all studies and did not differ significantly within comparisons. Mortality was only detailed adequately in four studies and only one study included quality of life data. Epoetin alpha given at higher doses for extended intervals (two or four weekly) is non-inferior to more frequent dosing intervals in maintaining final Hb levels with no significant differences in adverse effects in non-dialysed CKD patients. However the data are of low methodological quality so that differences in efficacy and safety cannot be excluded. Further large, well designed, RCTs with patient-centred outcomes are required to assess the safety and efficacy of large doses of the shorter acting ESAs, including biosimilars of epoetin alpha, administered less frequently compared with more frequent administration of smaller doses in children and adults with CKD not on dialysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 21 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 31 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,796,245
of 14,692,315 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,496
of 11,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,324
of 377,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,692,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.