ArticleAmerican journal of nephrology2026
Prognostic Relevance of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent Dose Requirements in PIVOTAL and Its Implications for the Potential Mechanisms of Intravenous Iron Benefit in Maintenance Haemodialysis Patients.
Article in American journal of nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDecreased erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) requirements might explain the benefits of high-dose intravenous (IV) iron in PIVOTAL. However, as iron can be beneficial via non-erythropoietic pathways, higher iron doses might relate to better outcomes independently of ESA doses. This post hoc analysis examines whether reductions in ESA exposure were associated with the benefits of IV iron, and whether IV iron doses remained associated with outcomes after accounting for ESA exposure and haemoglobin (Hb) levels in PIVOTAL.
methodsWe analysed data from 2,141 participants in the PIVOTAL trial. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality (ACM) or nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or heart failure hospitalization.
resultsBaseline median (IQR) ESA dose was 8,000 (5,000, 10,000) IU/week and similar in both treatment arms. Over 24 (10, 33) months, 658 (31%) patients met the primary endpoint, and ACM occurred in 515 (24%) patients. In adjusted Cox models, higher baseline ESA doses (per 10,000 IU/week) were associated with increased risks (primary endpoint: HR: 1.31 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16, 1.49], p < 0.001; ACM: HR: 1.33 [95% CI: 1.15, 1.53], p < 0.001) in reactive patients. Over time, proactive patients had lower ESA (25,980 [17,320, 43,300] vs. 34,640 [25,980, 56,290] IU/month) and higher iron (250 [193, 300] vs. 127 [88, 171] mg/month) doses. In adjusted Cox models with time-varying covariates, higher ESA doses (≥34,640 IU/month) were associated with increased risks (primary endpoint: HR: 1.58 [95% CI: 1.34, 1.86], p < 0.001; ACM: HR: 1.83 [95% CI: 1.51, 2.20], p < 0.001), while higher iron doses (≥200 mg/month) were linked to reduced risks (primary endpoint: HR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.92], p = 0.002; ACM: HR: 0.78 [0.65, 0.93], p = 0.001) in the total population.
conclusionLower ESA requirements predicted better outcomes in PIVOTAL, but higher IV iron doses remained associated with better outcomes even after accounting for ESA dose requirements and Hb levels. These findings suggest that some of the benefits of proactive IV iron in PIVOTAL may not be fully mediated by reductions in ESA exposure alone, supporting the possibility of non-erythropoietic mechanisms.
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.