Goodkin D A, Gimenez L F, Graber S E, Van Stone J C, Egrie J C, Okamoto D M
Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-1789, USA.
Clin Nephrol. 1999 Jun;51(6):367-72.
BACKGROUND, SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A previous study of epoetin alfa dose requirements [Paganini et al. 1995] among hemodialysis patients who were switched from thrice weekly intravenous (i.v.) to thrice weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) administration showed that the weekly epoetin alfa dose requirement decreased by 18.5% after 13 to 16 weeks s.c. treatment and 26.5% after 21 to 24 weeks, without significant change in hematocrit. There was patient-to-patient variation in response, however, and 39% of the patients required the same or greater doses of epoetin alfa after the change from i.v. to s.c. administration. The present study reexamines the database to compare hematocrit stability between the two routes of administration.
During 4 weeks of i.v. epoetin alfa administration, the pooled standard deviation (SD) for the patients' (n = 72) weekly hematocrit measurements was 1.40, compared with weeks 13 to 16 of s.c. epoetin alfa administration when the SD was 1.66 (p < 0.01). Among 41 patients who completed 24 weeks of s.c. therapy, the pooled SD for the 4 weeks of i.v. treatment was 1.37 compared with 2.02 during weeks 21-24 of s.c. treatment (p < 0.01). Sixty-eight percent of patients had lower hematocrit SD during 4 weeks of i.v. therapy than during the 4 weeks of s.c. therapy (p = 0.03).
These data suggest that hematocrits may be more stable when epoetin alfa is administered i.v. rather than s.c. to patients on dialysis. These results would be expected since 100% of i.v.-administered epoetin alfa reaches the systemic circulation compared with 18% to 80% bioavailability of s.c.-administered epoetin alfa. Within-patient variation in s.c. epoetin alfa absorption may be related to non-uniformity of adipose tissue, blood supply, lymphatic drainage, and other factors at sequential injection sites, and may explain the variability in hematocrit after s.c. administration.
背景、研究对象与方法:先前一项关于接受血液透析患者促红细胞生成素α剂量需求的研究[帕加尼尼等人,1995年]显示,从每周三次静脉注射改为每周三次皮下注射的患者,皮下治疗13至16周后,促红细胞生成素α每周剂量需求降低了18.5%,21至24周后降低了26.5%,而血细胞比容无显著变化。然而,患者之间的反应存在差异,39%的患者从静脉注射改为皮下注射后,促红细胞生成素α的剂量相同或更高。本研究重新审视了数据库,以比较两种给药途径的血细胞比容稳定性。
在静脉注射促红细胞生成素α的4周内,患者(n = 72)每周血细胞比容测量的合并标准差(SD)为1.40,而在皮下注射促红细胞生成素α的第13至16周,该标准差为1.66(p < 0.01)。在完成24周皮下治疗的41例患者中,静脉注射治疗4周的合并标准差为1.37,而皮下治疗第21至24周为2.02(p < 0.01)。68%的患者在静脉注射治疗4周期间的血细胞比容标准差低于皮下治疗4周期间(p = 0.03)。
这些数据表明,对于接受透析的患者,静脉注射促红细胞生成素α时血细胞比容可能比皮下注射更稳定。由于静脉注射的促红细胞生成素α 100%进入体循环,而皮下注射的促红细胞生成素α生物利用度为18%至80%,因此可以预期会出现这些结果。皮下注射促红细胞生成素α时患者体内吸收的差异可能与连续注射部位的脂肪组织、血液供应、淋巴引流及其他因素的不均匀性有关,这可能解释了皮下注射后血细胞比容的变异性。