ArticleQatar medical journal2024
Short versus long-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia management in Egyptian hemodialysis patients.
Article in Qatar medical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05699109 (Short Versus Long-Acting Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents for Anemia Management in Egyptian Hemodialysis Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Short Versus Long-Acting Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents for Anemia Management in Egyptian Hemodialysis Patients
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic 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
methodThis 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.
resultsOf 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 (
conclusionIn 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 registrationThe Clinicaltrial.gov registration ID is NCT05699109 (26/01/2023).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.