PDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Perit Dial Int 19(6): 578-582 1999
© 1999 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, C.
Right arrow Articles by Kosorok, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, C.
Right arrow Articles by Kosorok, M.
Peritoneal Dialysis International, Vol 19, Issue 6, 578-582
Copyright © 1999 by International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis


Clinical Trial

Comparison of intraperitoneal and subcutaneous epoetin alfa in peritoneal dialysis patients

CA Johnson, M Wakeen, CA Taylor 3rd, SW Zimmerman, J Burkart, A Bhattacharya, and MR Kosorok

School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin, Madison 53706, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intraperitoneal (i.p.) and subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of epoetin alfa in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). DESIGN: A 32-week prospective, randomized, cross-over experimental design. SETTING: Two university-based outpatient PD centers. PATIENTS: Twenty adult PD patients receiving stable doses of s.c. epoetin alfa enrolled in the study. Thirteen patients completed 32 weeks of follow-up. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either s.c. or i.p. epoetin alfa at the start of the study. Dose adjustments were made to maintain baseline hematocrit +/- 3 percentage points. Following 16 weeks of treatment, patients crossed over to the other route of administration for an additional 16 weeks. Intraperitoneal epoetin alfa was administered into an empty peritoneal cavity for approximately 8 hours before resuming dialysis. End-of-study i.p. epoetin alfa doses required to maintain target hematocrit were given twice weekly (n = 1), once weekly (n = 11), or once every other week (n = 1). All patients received iron supplements to maintain or exceed prestudy iron parameters. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prior to the study, the primary outcome measure was defined as the difference in epoetin alfa dose between i.p. and s.c. administration. RESULTS: Thirteen patients completed the study. The area under the dosing-requirement curve for i.p. epoetin alfa was larger than for s.c. administration (p = 0.0029), and the slope of the 16-week dose-requirement curve was greater for i.p. administration (p = 0.017), suggesting greater dose stability for s.c. administration. Paired analysis indicated greater i.p. intrapatient dose requirements (p < 0.0001). The mean difference in s.c. versus i.p. doses was 5000 +/- 1510 units per week. Some patients required escalating i.p. doses to maintain target hematocrit values. Iron administration and iron stores were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal epoetin alfa may be a suitable alternative for some patients for whom s.c. dosing is undesirable. Large i.p. versus s.c. dosing differences noted in a few patients are unexplained, but may result from interpatient variability in i.p. epoetin alfa absorption. Intraperitoneal dosing into an empty peritoneum can be done safely and effectively.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Postgrad. Med. J.Home page
T Ng, G Marx, T Littlewood, and I Macdougall
Recombinant erythropoietin in clinical practice
Postgrad. Med. J., July 1, 2003; 79(933): 367 - 376.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multimed Inc. logo
Copyright © 1999 by Multimed Inc.