4.7 Article

An international observational study suggests that artificial intelligence for clinical decision support optimizes anemia management in hemodialysis patients

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 90, Issue 2, Pages 422-429

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2016.03.036

Keywords

anemia; chronic kidney disease; erythropoietin; hemodialysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Managing anemia in hemodialysis patients can be challenging because of competing therapeutic targets and individual variability. Because therapy recommendations provided by a decision support system can benefit both patients and doctors, we evaluated the impact of an artificial intelligence decision support system, the Anemia Control Model (ACM), on anemia outcomes. Based on patient profiles, the ACM was built to recommend suitable erythropoietic-stimulating agent doses. Our retrospective study consisted of a 12-month control phase (standard anemia care), followed by a 12-month observation phase (ACM-guided care) encompassing 752 patients undergoing hemodialysis therapy in 3 NephroCare clinics located in separate countries. The percentage of hemoglobin values on target, the median darbepoetin dose, and individual hemoglobin fluctuation (estimated from the intrapatient hemoglobin standard deviation) were deemed primary outcomes. In the observation phase, median darbepoetin consumption significantly decreased from 0.63 to 0.46 mg/kg/month, whereas on-target hemoglobin values significantly increased from 70.6% to 76.6%, reaching 83.2% when the ACM suggestions were implemented. Moreover, ACM introduction led to a significant decrease in hemoglobin fluctuation (intrapatient standard deviation decreased from 0.95 g/dl to 0.83 g/dl). Thus, ACM support helped improve anemia outcomes of hemodialysis patients, minimizing erythropoietic-stimulating agent use with the potential to reduce the cost of treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available