Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42170845›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2026

Early erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in preterm or low-birthweight infants.

Kia Anarna, Michelle Fiander, Souvik Mitra, Supported by the Cochrane Neonatal Group

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Kia AnarnaDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Michelle FianderCochrane Neonatal Group, Burlington, VT, USA.
Souvik MitraDivision of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7477-7264
Supported by the Cochrane Neonatal Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationalePreterm and low-birthweight infants are at risk of anemia due to a variety of factors, including low levels of erythropoietin. They may therefore benefit from erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). However, controversy remains about their effectiveness and safety, not only in reducing blood transfusions but also in improving clinical outcomes.

objectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of early administration of ESAs in preterm or low-birthweight infants. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, DOAJ, and trial registries to 31 March 2025, and checked the reference lists of studies and systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early (initiated before eight days of life) ESAs (erythropoietin or darbepoetin) to placebo or no intervention among preterm (< 37 weeks' gestation) or low-birthweight (< 2500 g) infants. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included mortality during initial hospital stay (all-cause mortality), moderate to severe neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 18 to 26 months' corrected age, proportion of infants exposed to one or more red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and severe intraventricular hemorrhage (sIVH). RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS

methodsWe performed data collection and analyses according to the methods of Cochrane Neonatal (fixed-effect meta-analysis using the inverse-variance method). We analyzed categorical data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), and reported the 95% confidence interval (CI) on all estimates. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 37 studies (n = 6724), five (n = 3052) of which are new. Two studies (n = 752) investigated darbepoetin, and 35 studies (n = 5972) investigated erythropoietin. SYNTHESIS OF

resultsESAs compared to placebo or no intervention Mortality: ESAs probably result in little to no difference in mortality during initial hospital stay (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 24 studies, 5217 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis suggests that early use of erythropoietin probably results in little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 23 studies, 4505 participants), and early use of darbepoetin probably results in little to no difference in mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.43; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 712 participants). NDI: ESAs may reduce moderate to severe NDI at 18 to 26 months' corrected age (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; I² = 86%; 3 studies, 1707 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis suggests that early use of erythropoietin may reduce moderate to severe NDI at 18 to 26 months' corrected age (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.95; I² = 93%; 2 studies, 1239 participants), while early use of darbepoetin may result in little to no difference in moderate to severe NDI at 18 to 26 months' corrected age (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.28; I² not applicable; 1 study, 468 participants). Transfusions: ESAs may reduce the proportion of infants exposed to one or more RBC transfusions (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83; I² = 56%; 21 studies, 3507 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis suggests that erythropoietin may reduce the proportion of infants exposed to one or more RBC transfusions (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.84; I² = 56%; 20 studies, 2795 participants); darbepoetin may reduce the proportion of infants exposed to one or more RBC transfusions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 712 participants). ROP (any stage): ESAs result in little to no difference in incidence of ROP (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00; I² = 0%; 14 studies, 3844 participants; high-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis suggests the use of either erythropoietin (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 3230 participants) or darbepoetin (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 614 participants) results in little to no difference in incidence of ROP. NEC (any stage): ESAs probably reduce the incidence of NEC (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87; I² = 0%; 20 studies, 5749 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis suggests that early use of erythropoietin probably reduces the incidence of NEC (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; I² = 0%; 19 studies, 5041 participants), while early use of darbepoetin probably results in little to no difference in incidence of NEC (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.15; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 708 participants). sIVH (grade ≥ 3): ESAs probably reduce the incidence of sIVH (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89; I² = 43%; 9 studies, 2458 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis suggests that early use of erythropoietin probably reduces the incidence of sIVH (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; I² = 47%; 9 studies, 2396 participants), while early use of darbepoetin probably results in little to no difference in incidence of sIVH (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41; I² not applicable; 1 study, 62 participants). Of note, the test for subgroup differences between erythropoietin and darbepoetin revealed no evidence of a difference for the outcomes of mortality, moderate to severe NDI, NEC, sIVH, ROP, and the proportion of infants exposed to RBC transfusion. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for inconsistency, imprecision, and high risk of bias in the included studies. AUTHORS'

conclusionsEarly use of ESAs probably results in little to no difference in mortality (moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce moderate to severe NDI at 18 to 26 months' corrected age (low-certainty evidence); has little to no effect on ROP (high-certainty evidence); may reduce the proportion of infants exposed to one or more RBC transfusions (low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces both NEC and sIVH (moderate-certainty evidence). Given the benefits of ESAs, future research should focus on cost-effectiveness, equity, feasibility of implementation, and acceptability to different stakeholders of the routine use of erythropoietin or darbepoetin among preterm or low-birthweight infants.

fundingNo funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via 10.1002/14651858.CD004863; 10.1002/14651858.CD004863.pub2; 10.1002/14651858.CD004863.pub3; 10.1002/14651858.CD004863.pub4; 10.1002/14651858.cd004863.pub5; 10.1002/14651858.CD004863.pub6.

Indexed as

Anemia, NeonatalHematinicsInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, PrematureAnemiaBiasDarbepoetin alfaEnterocolitis, NecrotizingErythrocyte TransfusionErythropoietinHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant, Premature, DiseasesNeurodevelopmental DisordersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDarbepoetin alfaErythropoietinHematinics

Identifiers

PMID42170845
PMCPMC13195741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.