Trial reportPharmacoEconomics1995
A decision analysis comparing three dosage regimens of subcutaneous epoetin in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.
Trial report in PharmacoEconomics, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The use of consensus methods and expert panels in pharmacoeconomic studies. Practical applications and methodological shortcomings.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epoetin (recombinant human erythropoietin; EPO) therapy adds a significant cost to the management of end-stage renal disease, the majority of the extra expense being attributable to its acquisition cost. In a Japanese multicentre, randomised, prospective study, a significant dose-dependent response was documented with epoetin given subcutaneously (SC) once a week or once every 2 weeks to patients receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Three different dosages were studied over 5 months in patients with a haematocrit (Hct) of 0.28 or less, namely 6000U (107 U/kg), 9000U (167 U/kg) and 12,000U (211 U/kg). Epoetin was given weekly for the first 2 months until the target Hct value of 0.33 was reached. The rates of response were 81, 85 and 100% with the 6000U, 9000U and 12,000U regimens, respectively. Subsequently, responders were maintained at the target Hct for an additional 3 months, with the administration frequency eventually being reduced to fortnightly or 4-weekly. Patients in the epoetin 6000U and 9000U groups who did not respond after 2 months' treatment underwent induction and maintenance with the 12,000U regimen. During the maintenance phase, patients receiving the epoetin 6000U and 9000U dosages required weekly (54 and 64%, respectively) or fortnightly (46 and 36%, respectively) injections. Patients receiving the 12,000U regimen were found to require weekly (9%), fortnightly (73%) or 4-weekly (18%) injections. Using these data, we performed a decision analysis that quantitatively incorporated the probability of attaining and maintaining target Hct levels in all patients (i.e. the effectiveness of epoetin), and direct costs as a function of both cumulative doses and injections required in all 3 strategies over 5 months. Decision analysis indicated that the most cost-effective SC epoetin strategy in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis is epoetin 6000U weekly for 2 months, followed by maintaining the target Hct with weekly or 2-weekly epoetin 6000U for the next 3 months. Nonresponders should restart epoetin therapy using the 12,000U strategy. The 9000U and 12,000U strategies were associated with similar costs, because the economic advantages associated with the lower administration frequency of the 9000U regimen compared with the 6000U regimen were offset by its higher cumulative acquisition cost. In other words, decision analysis indicated that the most cost-effective strategy was to use the lowest effective dose, reserving the highest dosage for patients who do not respond after 2 months. The superiority of this strategy was confirmed by a sensitivity analysis performed on the cost of drug administration, which was varied from zero to $US60 per dose.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Indexed as
Identifiers
10155331What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.