Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15910687›Full record

Trial reportBMC nephrology2005

Comparison of two recombinant erythropoietin formulations in patients with anemia due to end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis: a parallel, randomized, double blind study.

Jorge F Pérez-Oliva, Martha Casanova-González, Idrian García-García, Pedro J Porrero-Martín, Carmen M Valenzuela-Silva, Tairí Hernández-Montero, Marcia Lagarde-Ampudia, Yuri Casanova-Kutsareva, Yisel Avila-Albuerne, Alicia Vargas-Batista and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC nephrology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Erythropoietin prolongs graft survival in mice by counteracting trained immunity.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Erythropoietin pharmacology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2007
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jorge F Pérez-OlivaHemodialysis Department, National Institute of Nephrology, Havana, Cuba. jfpolivd@infomed.sld.cu
Martha Casanova-González
Idrian García-García
Pedro J Porrero-Martín
Carmen M Valenzuela-Silva
Tairí Hernández-Montero
Marcia Lagarde-Ampudia
Yuri Casanova-Kutsareva
Yisel Avila-Albuerne
Alicia Vargas-Batista
Hailen Bobillo-López
Raúl Herrera-Valdés
Pedro A López-Saura
Bioequivalence Study of Erythropoietin Group
Cuban Neuroscience Center · CUInstituto de Hematología e Inmunología · CU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecombinant human erythropoietin (EPO) is used for the treatment of last stage renal anemia. A new EPO preparation was obtained in Cuba in order to make this treatment fully nationally available. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety properties of two recombinant EPO formulations in patients with anemia due to end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis.

methodsA parallel, randomized, double blind study was performed. A single 100 IU/Kg EPO dose was administered subcutaneously. Heberitro (Heber Biotec, Havana, formulation A), a newly developed product and Eprex (CILAG AG, Switzerland, formulation B), as reference treatment were compared. Thirty-four patients with anemia due to end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis were included. Patients had not received EPO previously. Serum EPO level was measured by enzyme immunoassay (EIA) during 120 hours after administration. Clinical and laboratory variables were determined as pharmacodynamic and safety criteria until 216 hours.

resultsBoth groups of patients were similar regarding all demographic and baseline characteristics. EPO kinetics profiles were similar for both formulations; the pharmacokinetic parameters were very close (i.e., AUC: 4667 vs. 4918 mIU.h/mL; Cmax: 119.1 vs. 119.7 mIU/mL; Tmax: 13.9 vs. 18.1 h; half-life, 20.0 vs. 22.5 h for formulations A and B, respectively). The 90% confidence intervals for the ratio between both products regarding these metrics were close to the 0.8-1.25 range, considered necessary for bioequivalence. Differences did not reach 20% in any case and were not determined by a formulation effect, but probably by a patients' variability effect. Concerning pharmacodynamic features, a high similitude in reticulocyte counts increments until 216 hours and the percentage decrease in serum iron until 120 hours was observed. There were no differences between formulations regarding the adverse events and their intensity. The more frequent events were pain at injection site (35.3%) and hypertension (29%). Additionally, further treatment of the patients with the study product yielded satisfactory increases in hemoglobin and hematocrit values.

conclusionThe formulations are comparable. The newly developed product should be acceptable for long-term application.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnemiaDouble-Blind MethodEpoetin AlfaErythropoietinFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHematinicsHematocritHemoglobinsHumansKidney Failure, ChronicMaleMiddle AgedRecombinant ProteinsEpoetin AlfaErythropoietinHematinicsHemoglobinsRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID15910687
PMCPMC1164417
OpenAlexW1600783343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.