4.7 Article

Assessment of erythropoietin for treatment of anemia in chronic kidney failure-ESRD patients

期刊

BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 44-48

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2016.04.041

关键词

Erythropoietin; Anemia; ESRD; Ferritin; Iron; Dialysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objective: Currently there is an inadequate data regarding effective management of anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who are on dialysis. In CKD patients' anemia mainly develops from decreased renal synthesis of erythropoietin (EPO) and iron deficiency. Our current study focused to effective management of anemia in CKD patients'. Study design: Prospective observational case series study. Methods: Eligible patients were assigned to three study groups according to initial hemoglobin level i.e. Group I having Hb level below 11 g/dL, Group II with Hb level of 11-13 g/dL, and Group III with Hb level more than 13 g/dL. Intravenous dosing of ESA's calculated according to the range of 150-300 IU or equivalent microgram quantity per kilogram body weight was administered to patients in divided doses per week; alone or in combination with iron supplements. Results: Study population (n = 163; 100%), of which 124 subjects (76%) patients were treated with erythropoietin and iron supplements; rest of 39 (24%) patients were treated with only erythropoietin. The estimation of hemoglobin content revealed Group I (98 patients) Hb were increased significantly from 9.0 +/- 1.2 g/dl at baseline to 10.9 +/- 1.7 g/dl. No significant changes in Group II and Group III were observed. Conclusions: Study suggests use of erythropoietin along with iron for treatment of renal failure associated anemia is more beneficial for CKD patients having low Hb. Also study conclude the use of lower than normal dose (150-300 IU) of ESA is appropriate when hemoglobin reaches 11 g/dl in hemodialysis patients. (C) 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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