Winkelmayer Wolfgang C, Chang Tara I, Mitani Aya A, Wilhelm-Leen Emilee R, Ding Victoria, Chertow Glenn M, Brookhart M Alan, Goldstein Benjamin A
Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX; Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA.
Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA.
Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Jul;66(1):106-13. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2015.02.339. Epub 2015 May 2.
Adequately powered studies directly comparing hard clinical outcomes of darbepoetin alfa (DPO) versus epoetin alfa (EPO) in patients undergoing dialysis are lacking.
Observational, registry-based, retrospective cohort study; we mimicked a cluster-randomized trial by comparing mortality and cardiovascular events in US patients initiating hemodialysis therapy in facilities (almost) exclusively using DPO versus EPO.
SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Nonchain US hemodialysis facilities; each facility switching from EPO to DPO (2003-2010) was matched for location, profit status, and facility type with one EPO facility. Patients subsequently initiating hemodialysis therapy in these facilities were assigned their facility-level exposure.
DPO versus EPO.
All-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality; composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke.
Unadjusted and adjusted HRs from Cox proportional hazards regression models.
Of 508 dialysis facilities that switched to DPO, 492 were matched with a similar EPO facility; 19,932 (DPO: 9,465 [47.5%]; EPO: 10,467 [52.5%]) incident hemodialysis patients were followed up for 21,918 person-years during which 5,550 deaths occurred. Almost all baseline characteristics were tightly balanced. The demographics-adjusted mortality HR for DPO (vs EPO) was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.00-1.13) and was materially unchanged after adjustment for all other baseline characteristics (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.12). Cardiovascular mortality did not differ between groups (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94-1.16). Nonfatal outcomes were evaluated among 9,455 patients with fee-for-service Medicare: 4,542 (48.0%) in DPO and 4,913 (52.0%) in EPO facilities. During 10,457 and 10,363 person-years, 248 and 372 events were recorded, respectively, for strokes and MIs. We found no differences in adjusted stroke or MI rates or their composite with cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.25).
Nonrandom treatment assignment, potential residual confounding.
In incident hemodialysis patients, mortality and cardiovascular event rates did not differ between patients treated at facilities predominantly using DPO versus EPO.
缺乏足够有力的研究来直接比较接受透析治疗的患者使用达比加群酯(DPO)与促红细胞生成素(EPO)的硬性临床结局。
基于注册登记的观察性回顾性队列研究;我们通过比较在美国几乎专门使用DPO与EPO的设施中开始接受血液透析治疗的患者的死亡率和心血管事件,模拟了一项整群随机试验。
美国非连锁血液透析设施;每个从EPO转换为DPO的设施(2003 - 2010年)在地理位置、盈利状况和设施类型方面与一个使用EPO的设施进行匹配。随后在这些设施中开始接受血液透析治疗的患者被指定为其设施水平的暴露情况。
DPO与EPO。
全因死亡率、心血管死亡率;心血管死亡、非致命性心肌梗死(MI)和非致命性中风的复合指标。
来自Cox比例风险回归模型的未调整和调整后的风险比(HR)。
在508个转换为DPO的透析设施中,492个与类似的使用EPO的设施相匹配;19932名(DPO组:9465名[47.5%];EPO组:10467名[52.5%])新发血液透析患者随访了21918人年,在此期间发生了5550例死亡。几乎所有基线特征都紧密平衡。DPO(对比EPO)经人口统计学调整后的死亡率HR为1.06(95%置信区间,1.00 - 1.13),在对所有其他基线特征进行调整后基本不变(HR,1.05;95%置信区间,0.99 - 1.12)。两组间心血管死亡率无差异(HR,1.05;95%置信区间,0.94 - 1.16)。在9455名享受按服务收费医疗保险的患者中评估了非致命性结局:DPO设施中有4542名(48.0%),EPO设施中有4913名(52.0%)。在10457和10363人年期间,分别记录了248例和372例中风和心肌梗死事件。我们发现调整后的中风或心肌梗死发生率或其与心血管死亡的复合指标没有差异(HR,1.10;95%置信区间,0.96 - 1.25)。
非随机治疗分配,潜在的残余混杂因素。
在新发血液透析患者中,主要使用DPO的设施与主要使用EPO的设施治疗的患者之间,死亡率和心血管事件发生率没有差异。