4.6 Article

Anaemia management in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients: a multicentre prospective study in renal clinics

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 28, 期 12, 页码 3035-3045

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gft338

关键词

anaemia; chronic kidney disease; ESA; iron deficiency; iron therapy

资金

  1. Roche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge on anaemia management in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (ND-CKD) patients regularly followed in renal clinics is scarce although being essential to identifying areas of therapeutic improvement. We prospectively evaluated anaemia management in two visits, performed 6 months apart, in 755 prevalent ND-CKD stage 3b-5 patients followed in 19 nephrology clinics from 6 months. Anaemia was defined as severe (Hb 11 g/dL) or mild (Hb: 1113.5 in males and 1112 g/dL in females); iron deficiency (ID) was defined as transferrin saturation (TSAT) 20 and/or ferritin 100 ng/mL. Primary endpoint was the change of anaemia and ID prevalence between baseline and 6-month visit. Secondary endpoint was the prevalence of clinical inertia to either ESA or iron supplementation, that is, the lack of ESA or iron prescription despite Hb 11 g/dL or ID. Age was 69 13 years and GFR 27.5 10.0 mL/min/1.73 m(2); male gender, diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease were 57.2, 30.1 and 30.1, respectively. Prevalence of severe and mild anaemia was 18.0 and 44.0 at baseline and remained unchanged at Month 6 (19.3 and 43.2). ID was prevalent at both visits (60.1 and 60.9). Clinical inertia to ESA was similar at baseline and at Month 6 (39.6 and 34.2, respectively, P 0.487) and it was less frequent than clinical inertia to iron therapy (75.7 and 72.0, respectively). This study shows that anaemia prevalence is unexpectedly high in the setting of tertiary nephrology care. This was due to a persistent clinical inertia in the anaemia management, remarkable for iron supplementation and less critical, but still significant, for ESA treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据