Skip to main content
. 2014 Dec 8;2014(12):CD010590. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010590.pub2
Methods
  • Study design: RCT

  • Study duration: NS

Participants
  • Setting: 16 dialysis centres

  • Country: Germany, Czech Republic, Russia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia

  • Stage of CKD: HD

  • Number: epoetin beta (181), no treatment (181)

  • Mean age ± SD (years): NS

  • Sex (M/F): 162/200

  • Other characteristics: mean packed volume ≤ vol% or requiring at least one blood transfusion in the 4 weeks before randomisation

  • Exclusion criteria: acute decompensated ESKD; septicaemia; acute infections; iron deficiency; therapy involving cytostatic agents; hormone preparations (except thyroid therapy, contraceptives, and insulin) or immunosuppressants; malignant growth; acute liver disease; uncontrolled hypertension; epilepsy; pregnancy; folic acid, or vitamin B12 deficiency; haemolytic‐uraemic syndrome; thrombocytosis(> 500,000 mm³) and participation within the last 4 weeks

Interventions Treatment group
  • Epoetin beta

    • SC starting at 20 U/kg body weight 3 times/wk until HCT 30% to 35% reached for 12 months


Control group
  • No treatment


Iron supplementation
  • NS

Outcomes Primary trial outcome
  • Safety


Outcomes extracted for meta‐analysis
  • All‐cause mortality

  • Major adverse cardiovascular events

  • Hypertension

  • Dialysis vascular access thrombosis

Notes
  • Funding: Boehringer Mannheim GmbH.

  • Trials registration: not applicable

  • Contact with authors: not contacted

Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes High risk Open label
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes High risk 34/181 (19%) lost in epoetin alfa group and 39/181 (21.5%) lost in control group. As this is > 10% this was judged to be high risk
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Major cardiovascular event data available
Other bias High risk Industrial sponsor on authorship