Conversion from subcutaneous to intravenous erythropoietin in a hemodialysis population

Erythropoietin Administration for Anemia Due to Chronic Kidney Disease - Subcutaneous OR Intravenous, What Do We Know So Far?

The prevalence of anemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is almost twice that of the normal population and its severity increases exponentially as the disease worsens, dramatically affecting the quality of an individual’s life. The advent of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) in the 1980s saw a revolutionary change in the treatment of anemia in CKD patients, drastically improving quality of life (QoL), overall health and reducing the need for blood transfusions. Numerous ESAs have been developed ever since and are in current use, with the primary routes of administration being intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) injections. Their use, however, has stirred significant controversy over the last two decades. Additionally, despite numerous studies and trials, the latest international recommendations for their use do not provide clear cut guidance with well-grounded evidence on the recommended route of administration for different sets of patients. Instead, this decision has mainly been left up to the physician’s discretion, whilst keeping certain key factors in mind. This review shall summarize, discuss and compare the findings of previous studies on various factors governing the two aforementioned routes of administration and identify areas that need further exploration.

Economic Benefits of Switching From Intravenous to Subcutaneous Epoetin Alfa for the Management of Anemia in Hemodialysis Patients

Background:

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents including epoetin alfa have been a mainstay of anemia management in patients with chronic kidney disease. Although the standard practice has been to administer epoetin alfa to patients on hemodialysis (HD) intravenously (IV), subcutaneous (SQ) epoetin alfa is longer acting and achieve the same target hemoglobin level to be maintained at a reduced dose and cost.

Objective:

The primary objective of this study was to determine the economic benefits of change in route of epoetin alfa administration from IV to SQ in HD patients. The secondary objectives were (1) to determine the differences in epoetin alfa doses at the pre-switch (IV) and post-switch period (SQ) and (2) to determine serum hemoglobin concentration, transferrin saturation, ferritin level, IV iron dose and cost in relationship to route of epoetin alfa administration.

Design:

This retrospective observational study included patients who transitioned from IV to SQ epoetin alfa.

Setting:

Two HD sites in southern Saskatchewan (Regina General Hospital, and Wascana Dialysis Unit, Regina) and 2 sites in northern Saskatchewan (St. Paul’s [SPH] Hospital, and SPH Community Renal Health Center, Saskatoon).

Patients:

The study includes 215 patients who transitioned from IV to SQ and were alive at the end of 12-month follow-up period.

Measurements:

We calculated the dose and cost of different routes of epoetin alfa administration/patient month. Also, serum hemoglobin, markers of iron stores (transferrin saturation and ferritin), IV iron dose, and cost were determined in relation to route of epoetin alfa administration.

Methods:

Data were gathered from 6 months prior (IV) to 12 months after switching treatment to SQ. The paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare variables between pre-switch (IV) and post-switch (SQ) period.

Results:

The median cost (interquartile range) of epoetin alfa/patient-month decreased from (CAD508.3 [CAD349-CAD900.8]) pre-switch (IV) to (CAD381.2 [CAD247-CAD681]) post-switch (SQ) (P < .001), a decrease of 25%. The median epoetin alfa dose/patient-month reduced from (38 500 [25 714.3-64 166.5] international unit) pre-switch to (26 750.3 [17 362.6-48 066] IU) post-switch (P < .001), a decrease of 30.51%. The mean hemoglobin concentration (± standard deviation) for patients in both periods remained stable (103.3 ± 9.2 vs 104.3 ± 13.3 g/L, P = .34) and within the target range. There were no significant differences in transferrin saturation, ferritin, and IV iron dose and cost between the 2 study periods.

Limitations:

We were unable to consistently obtain information across all the sites on hospitalizations, inflammatory markers, nutritional status, and gastrointestinal bleeding. In addition, as our study sample was subject to survival bias, we cannot generalize our study results to other populations.

Conclusions:

We have shown that administering epoetin alfa SQ in HD patients led to a 30.51% reduction in dose and 25% reduction in cost while achieving equivalent hemoglobin levels. Given the cost sparing advantages without compromising care while achieving comparable hemoglobin levels, HD units should consider converting to SQ mode of administration.

Trial registration:

The study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry as it was a retrospective chart review and exempted from review by the Research Ethics Board of the former Regina Qu’Appelle Health Region.

The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC) are the three most frequently used injection routes in medication administration. Comparative studies of SC versus IV, IM versus IV, or IM versus SC have been sporadically conducted, and some new findings are completely different from the dosage recommendation as described in prescribing information. However, clinicians may still be ignorant of such new evidence-based findings when choosing treatment methods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of SC, IV, and IM administration in head-to-head comparative studies.

RESULTS

"SC better than IV" involves trastuzumab, rituximab, antitumor necrosis factor medications, bortezomib, amifostine, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, recombinant interleukin-2, immunoglobulin, epoetin alfa, heparin, and opioids. "IV better than SC" involves ketamine, vitamin K1, and abatacept. With respect to insulin and ketamine, whether IV has advantages over SC is determined by specific clinical circumstances. "IM better than IV" involves epinephrine, hepatitis B immu-noglobulin, pegaspargase, and some antibiotics. "IV better than IM" involves ketamine, morphine, and antivenom. "IM better than SC" involves epinephrine. "SC better than IM" involves interferon-beta-1a, methotrexate, human chorionic gonadotropin, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, hydrocortisone, and morphine. Safety, efficacy, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics are four principles governing the choice of injection route. Safety and efficacy must be the preferred principles to be considered (eg, epinephrine should be given intramuscularly during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis). If the safety and efficacy of two injection routes are equivalent, clinicians should consider more about patient preference and pharmacoeconomics because patient preference will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction, while pharmacoeconomic concern will help alleviate nurse shortages and reduce overall health care costs. Besides the principles, the following detailed factors might affect the decision: patient characteristics-related factors (body mass index, age, sex, medical status [eg, renal impairment, comorbidities], personal attitudes toward safety and convenience, past experience, perception of current disease status, health literacy, and socioeconomic status), medication administration-related factors (anatomical site of injection, dose, frequency, formulation characteristics, administration time, indication, flexibility in the route of administration), and health care staff/institution-related factors (knowledge, human resources).

CONCLUSION

This updated review of findings of comparative studies of different injection routes will enrich the knowledge of safe, efficacious, economic, and patient preference-oriented medication administration as well as catching research opportunities in clinical nursing practice.

Administration of the same dose of epoetin-beta intravenously and subcutaneously to patients with renal anaemia

OBJECTIVE

Subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of erythropoietin (EPO) is recommended over the intravenous (i.v.) route to reduce doses and costs. Optimal iron treatment is important for the optimal EPO effect. This study investigated whether the haemoglobin (Hb) level of a single patient could be preserved with the same dose of EPO given i.v. as given s.c.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One-hundred and forty-five haemodialysis patients with the same weekly EPO dose s.c. for 3 months and a stable Hb (maximum fluctuation of 1 mmol/l) were randomized in a crossover study to group A (4 months i.v. then 4 months s.c. EPO) or group B (4 months s.c. then 4 months i.v. EPO, with unchanged EPO dose). Ferritin had to be 300-800 μg/l or transferrin saturation ≥ 20%. Patients with a fall in Hb >1 mmol/l were withdrawn.

RESULTS

Ferritin and transferrin saturation remained within the target range, and mean Hb in the range of 1 mmol/l. Mean EPO doses were unchanged in both groups, and no difference was found between the dropouts due to Hb fall >1 mmol/l in the i.v. and s.c. groups during the first period of the trial.

CONCLUSION

In iron-replete haemodialysis patients the same EPO dose given intravenously is just as effective as given subcutaneously.