Locatelli Francesco, Del Vecchio Lucia, De Nicola Luca, Minutolo Roberto
Past Director of the Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, ASST Lecco, Lecco, Italy.
Independent Researcher, Como, Italy.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021 Jul 23;36(8):1369-1377. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfaa034.
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are effective drugs to correct and maintain haemoglobin (Hb) levels, however, their use at doses to reach high Hb targets has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events, mortality and cancer. Presently used ESAs have a common mechanism of action but different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics. Accordingly, the mode of activation of the erythropoietin (EPO) receptor can exert marked differences in downstream events. It is unknown whether the various ESA molecules have different efficacy/safety profiles. The relative mortality and morbidity risks associated with the use of different types of ESAs remains poorly evaluated. Recently an observational study and a randomized clinical trial provided conflicting results regarding this matter. However, these two studies displayed several differences in patient characteristics and ESA molecules used. More importantly, by definition, randomized clinical trials avoid bias by indication and suffer less from confounding factors. Therefore they bring a higher degree of evidence. The scenario becomes even more complex when considering the new class of ESAs, called prolyl-hydroxylase domain (PHD) inhibitors. They are oral drugs that mimic exposure to hypoxia and stabilize hypoxia-inducible factor α. They profoundly differ from presently used ESAs, as they have multiple targets of action, including the stimulation of endogenous EPO synthesis, direct mobilization/absorption of iron and a higher reduction of hepcidin. Accordingly, they have the potential to be more effective in inflamed patients with functional iron deficiency, i.e. the setting of patients who are at higher risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in response to present ESA use. As for ESAs, individual PHD inhibitors differ in molecular structure and degree of selectivity for the three main PHD isoforms; their efficacy and safety profiles may therefore be different from that of presently available ESAs.
促红细胞生成素(ESA)是纠正和维持血红蛋白(Hb)水平的有效药物,然而,使用能达到高Hb目标的剂量与心血管不良事件、死亡率和癌症风险增加有关。目前使用的ESA具有共同的作用机制,但药代动力学和药效学特征不同。因此,促红细胞生成素(EPO)受体的激活模式可在下游事件中产生显著差异。尚不清楚各种ESA分子是否具有不同的疗效/安全性概况。与使用不同类型ESA相关的相对死亡率和发病率风险仍评估不足。最近一项观察性研究和一项随机临床试验在这个问题上给出了相互矛盾的结果。然而,这两项研究在患者特征和所使用的ESA分子方面存在若干差异。更重要的是,根据定义,随机临床试验可避免适应症偏倚,且受混杂因素影响较小。因此,它们提供了更高程度的证据。当考虑到称为脯氨酰羟化酶结构域(PHD)抑制剂的新型ESA时,情况变得更加复杂。它们是口服药物,可模拟缺氧暴露并稳定缺氧诱导因子α。它们与目前使用的ESA有很大不同,因为它们有多个作用靶点,包括刺激内源性EPO合成、直接动员/吸收铁以及更大程度地降低铁调素。因此,它们有可能在功能性缺铁的炎症患者中更有效,即那些在使用目前的ESA时心血管事件和死亡风险较高的患者群体。至于ESA,各个PHD抑制剂在分子结构和对三种主要PHD异构体的选择性程度上有所不同;因此,它们的疗效和安全性概况可能与目前可用的ESA不同。