Cureus 0012 00000010358
Cureus 0012 00000010358
Cureus 0012 00000010358
1. Internal Medicine, Memon Medical Institute Hospital, Karachi, PAK 2. Paediatrics, Dr Ruth K.M. Pfau
Civil Hospital Karachi / Dow Medical College, Karachi, PAK 3. Accident and Emergency, Memon Medical
Institute Hospital, Karachi, PAK
Abstract
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.
If left untreated, it has a significant detrimental impact on the patient’s QoL, their overall
health and healthcare costs. A study in pre-dialysis CKD patients found a significant increase (p
< 0.0001) in monthly treatment costs between CKD patients who had untreated anemia against
those without anemia. In a similar study involving patients with end-stage renal disease
(ESRD), who were undergoing dialysis, medical costs were found to be 8.9% higher for every
month of treatment when Serum Hb was less than 11 gm/dL [2].
While the treatment of anemia in CKD involves managing multiple causative factors as
highlighted above, the most significant factor is the deficiency of EPO. As a result, the use of
erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) since 1989 has significantly improved the
management of anemia [4]. The need for blood transfusions in CKD patients has gone down
significantly, whilst improving QoL and exercise capacity [5,6]. A study conducted in the United
States in 2005 indicated almost 99% of in-center haemodialysis (HD) patients receiving ESA.
The magnitude of the revolutionary change brought by these agents can also be estimated from
the fact that in 2004, EPO therapy totaled $1.8 billion - the single largest Medicare drug
expenditure in the United States [4,7].
The 2012 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines regarding anemia in
CKD present evidence and recommendations of varying strength. With regards to ESA therapy
in adult CKD patients, they strongly recommend against intentionally increasing Hb > 13.0
gm/dl, backed by high quality evidence. They suggest that ESA therapy should be initiated in
ESRD patients when Hb is between 9-10.0 gm/dl with an aim to keep it above 10 gm/dl but not
above 11.5 gm/dl, backed by low to moderate quality evidence [8]. In patients with non-dialysis
dependent, advanced CKD with Hb < 10.0 gm/dl, they suggest that the decision to treat using
ESAs should be weighed against various other factors but this is supported by low quality
evidence. These guidelines however, exhibit low to very low quality evidence when it comes to
recommendations about the type of ESA, dosing frequency, and their route of administration,
the last of which is the main focus of this review [8].
Since their inception, ESAs have undergone significant development and innovation, in line
with associated healthcare costs, pharmacokinetics, drug efficacy, side effect profiles and
dosing frequency as well as the route of administration. The ones commonly used include the
first generation erythropoietin-alfa and beta and the second generation agent Darbepoetin [4].
Their use, however, has come under serious scrutiny over the last two decades owing to certain
studies that showed an increase in overall mortality and adverse cardiovascular as well as
cerebrovascular events [9].
Target Hb levels secondary to ESA therapy remain a matter of controversy worldwide, with
higher Hb targets (>11.0 gm/dl) being tied to an increased risk of adverse events and no
significant improvement in QoL against that of partially corrected anemia, i.e., Hb (9.5 - 11.0)
gm/dl [8,10]. One rare outcome that gained significant attention was that of ESA-induced pure
red cell aplasia (PRCA) between 1998 and 2004, mainly associated with the subcutaneous (SC)
route of administration, and the exact cause of which is thought to be the production of anti-
EPO antibodies. However, this was found to be associated with one specific product of epoetin-
alfa “Eprex/Erypo” in Europe and was not associated at the same scale with other
subcutaneously administered epoetin products. This was appropriately dealt with by the
formulation of ESAs with a new structure [11,12].
Review
Results
Using the aforementioned searching strategy, we found a total of 41,271 articles, of which
35,419 were found to be duplicated (see Table 1). A total of 5,852 articles were therefore found
after the initial search.
TABLE 1: Results of the initial literature search, carried out on 15th August 2020, on
the PubMed Database using combinations of different MeSH terms and regular
keywords
ESRD: End-stage renal disease; MeSH: Medical Subject Heading
These were then further filtered for articles that were pertinent to the confines of this review by
another search carried out using “EndNote X9 ®”, a citation management software, by utilizing
a comprehensive list of relevant MeSH terms and regular keywords (see Table 2). Ultimately we
were able to narrow down our search to 160 articles that we felt were pertinent to the scope of
this review. Out of 160 articles, 38 full-text publications were then chosen for discussion in this
literature review, with the merit of selection being individual article relevance and
comprehensiveness.
ESRD Erythropoietin
TABLE 2: A comprehensive list of various MeSH terms and regular keywords used for
filtering relevant articles after the initial search, using “EndNote X9 ®”
ESRD: End-stage renal disease; MeSH: Medical Subject Heading
Discussion
The major factors that govern the route of ESA administration include the patient’s stage of
CKD, efficacy considerations, the type of ESA used, dosing frequency, convenience, healthcare
costs, and drug safety and tolerability [8,12]. This literature review aims to discuss the existing,
relevant literature for these factors with respect to the route of ESA administration and to
define areas that need further exploration.
Dosing Frequency
Numerous studies and trials have documented evidence strongly suggestive of the advantages
Serial Study
Author/Year Population Relevant Conclusive Points
Number Design
128 adult HD patients selected from five Mean dose at stabilization of Hb levels, time
Muirhead et dialysis centers, 45 patients withdrew due to achieve target Hb levels and time to
1 al. / 1992 Clinical Trial to various reasons. 45 patients were in the stabilization of Hb levels of rHuEPO were all
[13] subcutaneous group (SC) and 38 in the significantly lower in the SC compared to the
intravenous (IV) group. IV group.
62,710 adult HD patients enrolled in the IV epoetin doses were on average 25%
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid higher than the SC dose for achieving
Comparative
Services ESRD Clinical Performance equivalent haemoglobin responses in study
Wright et al. Study
2 Measures Project from 1997 to 2005 were patients. Adverse outcomes on follow-up
/ 2015 [14] (retrospective
treated with epoetin, of which 57,602 were also found to be significantly more
cohort)
patients received IV and 5108 received SC likely in HD patients receiving IV rather than
epoetin. SC epoetin.
414 adult HD patients participated in this The mean weekly, weight-adjusted dose of
study, which was essentially a wide-scale IV epoetin was found to be 20.2% higher, on
Comparative policy implementation for a change from average, than the baseline SC dosage. This
Moist et al. / Study the maintenance SC epoetin was most pronounced at 6 and 12 months of
4
2006 [16] (prospective administration route to the IV route. All follow-up. Patients receiving epoetin 3 times
cohort) patients were shifted simultaneously to the per week increased from 19.6% at baseline,
IV route. 111 patients withdrew from the with SC administration, to 79.5% at 12
study due to various reasons. months of IV epoetin.
44 adult chronic HD patients from a The outcomes showed that most chronic,
dialysis unit, already on IV Epogen (r- stable HD patients can maintain stable
HuEPO, Epoetin-alfa), were selected for hematocrit and Hb concentrations at once
this study and subjected to an approved weekly SC EPO doses that are one-third of
treatment protocol comprised of 3 phases the required weekly IV dose thereby lending
Parker et al.
7 Clinical Trial with different routes and doses of Epogen support to its safety and efficacy. Patient
/ 1997 [19]
administration. 27 patients completed the safety, serum biochemistry, blood pressure
protocol over 22 months. 135 “control” and red blood cell indices were also
subjects were matched during the protocol monitored during the study, with no
from another group of dialysis patients significant differences in any variable
refusing to opt for SC r-HuEPO. between the control and experimental group.
As with any other drug, recombinant Human EPO (r-HuEPO) or epoetin carries with it a certain
set of side effects. While both IV and SC share some of these adverse effects, the extent and
frequency differ between the two (see Table 4). Common to both routes include injection site
pain sensation, the development of hypertension, arteriovenous fistulae thrombosis, an
increased overall risk of thrombotic and cardiovascular as well as cerebrovascular events,
hyperkalemia, depletion of iron stores, flu-like symptoms, a prolonged duration of dialysis and
rarely, PRCA and seizures [9,11,12,20].
Serial Study
Author/Year Population Relevant Conclusive Points
Number Design
13 chronic haemodialysis patients, At the end of the first month of the switch to SC
who remained hypertensive after rHuEPO, there was a significant drop in pre-
being on long term (>12 months), dialysis mean arterial pressure as opposed to
thrice weekly, post HD IV rHuEPO baseline pressures, prior to the switch. The
therapy were selected for this study, number of hypertensive patients reduced from
with hypertension being defined as 13 at the time of baseline recording to 8 at the
elevated blood pressure that end of the six-month trial. In the remaining 8
necessitated the use of anti- hypertensive patients, the severity dropped
Navarro et al. hypertensive medications. These significantly as was measured by a
5 Clinical Trial
/ 1995 [25] patients were switched to SC EPO “therapeutical score” that assessed
thrice weekly for 6 months, whilst hypertensive severity from the antihypertensive
keeping the total weekly SC dose at power of the drugs used to control it. This study
two-third of the weekly IV rHuEPO shows better control of hypertension with the
dose. Their blood pressure was SC route of administration in ESRD patients
monitored prior to each HD session.
Drug-associated Costs
Patients with severe anemia secondary to CKD < Hb 9.0 gm/dl and those with advanced CKD,
for example those on regular HD, need prolonged periods of ESA therapy to improve their QoL,
to prevent anemia-related symptoms, and to minimize the need for blood transfusion [8]. This
can incur significant recurring costs on individuals and on healthcare systems. Dealing with
this by employing a cost effective yet efficacious means of ESA therapy is therefore crucial (see
Table 5).
Transitioning from SC to
86 adult HD patients, already on SC EPO-alfa treatment, IV EPO alpha in HD
Comparative
Galliford et were switched simultaneously to IV EPO-alfa, at the same patients requires a dose
Study
2 al. / 2005 weekly dose as their SC administration, for a period of 6 increase of around one-
(prospective
[17] months. Monthly Red cell indices, weekly EPO dosages and third, possibly resulting in
cohort)
other parameters were monitored during the study. an annual increase in
cost of £ 1500 per patient.
Administering epoetin
Two hundred and fifteen patients aged more than 18 years,
alpha subcutaneously
receiving in-center HD for at least 6 months at 4 HD centers.
resulted in a dose
Patients suffering from anemia of CKD requiring epoetin alfa
Retrospective reduction from IV to SC of
Prasad et al. therapy, and on IV epoetin alfa therapy for at least 6 months,
4 Observational 30.51% and 25%
/ 2020 [28] were switched to SC EPO-alfa. Data was collected from 6
Study reduction in EPO costs,
months prior to 12 months after the switch. Primary outcome
being equally effecting at
was the assessment of epoetin-alfa cost per patient per
maintaining Hb levels in
month before and after the policy change.
patients on HD.
Drug Efficacy
There are various factors that underpin ESA efficacy, i.e., the dose needed to attain a certain
12 adult, chronic, stable HD After first dosing with IV EPO, plasma EPO levels
patients, already under treatment were found to have a mean (±S.D.) half-life of 5.4 ±
with a thrice weekly IV rcEPO, were 1.70 hours compared to initial SC EPO administration
subjected to treatment scheme using with a mean(± S.D) absorption time being 22 ± 11
regimes of IV and SC rcEPO and an average bioavailability of 44% (28-100%).
Brockmöller
Prospective recombinant human EPO (rcEPO) With continuous long-term treatment with IV EPO,
1 et al. / 1992
study injections in discrete phases to elimination half-life reduced by 15% to around 5
[31]
assess pharmacokinetics and hours, possibly a reflection of an increase in
therapeutic response to both routes. hematocrit. The study suggests that the SC route be
Serum analyses were carried out at more effective due to prolonged plasma rcEPO
specific time intervals for achieving elevation following SC administration, with the exact
the goals of this study. mechanism being unclear.
Two groups of adult, chronic, and After IV rhEPO injections at the lower dose, the mean
stable HD patients were enrolled. half-life was found to be 5.4 ± 0.90 hrs, while at the
Group 1 was already under higher dose it was around 7.60 hrs. Peak serum EPO
maintenance treatment with IV levels (Cmax ) after IV dosing were found to be 20
recombinant human EPO (rhEPO)
times that of SC Cmax. Peak serum EPO levels after
thrice weekly. Group 2 included
Nielsen / Clinical ESRD patients not previously SC dosing were reached on an average of 27.3 ± 8.6
2 hrs. Mean bioavailability was also found to be a
1990 [32] Trial treated with rhEPO. Both groups
were subjected to IV and SC rhEPO meager 14.1% after SC dosing. Despite the data, the
50 U/kg for group 1 and 150 U/kg for administration may be more efficacious than IV
group 2. Pharmacokinetic studies dosing though more work is needed in this area and
were then carried out using serum patients with SC administration need to be closely
patients who were treated with IV different between Group I and II. IV rhEPO
maintenance therapy for 3 months 8.75 (7.29 - 11.68) hours, in Group I, but fell
and thereafter 10 patients from this significantly after 3 months, i.e. in Group II, to 6.80
Neumayer group, making up group II, were hours. SC rhEPO peak levels, though 5% that of IV
Clinical
3 et al. / 1989 subject to another bolus dose of IV levels, were attained between 18-24 hours after
Trial
[33] rhEPO at the end of these 3 months. administration, with a mean half-life of 11.2 (7.0-13.9)
Group III was made up of 9 hrs. SC bioavailability was also low at around 25%.
additional patients who were treated The study questions the benefit of reaching high peak
with a single SC rhEPO dose. serum levels immediately after IV administration and
8 stable peritoneal dialysis (PD) only 5% of the IV route. Peak plasma concentrations
patients participated in a (C max) were attained at a mean of 9.4 ± 1.90 hrs for
randomized, single-dose, three-way the IP route, compared to a much slower time for SC,
cross-over study with Continuous at 17.1 ± 5.0 hours. However, SC bioavailability,
Ambulatory PD (CAPH) being 22.81%, was twice that of IP EPO, 11.4%. Compared
Ateshkadi carried throughout the study. to the IP route, the SC route had a significantly higher
Clinical
4 et al. / 1993 Patients were already using EPO or area-under-the-curve (AUC) between 0 and 96 hours
Trial
[34] candidates for it. They were given a after administration. The study also found the
single average dose of 99.1 U/kg of potential effect of EPO administration into a “dry” or
intraperitoneal (IP), IV, and SC empty peritoneum for greater efficacy via this route,
rhEPO. Pharmacokinetics of the albeit significantly lesser than the SC route.
three routes were compared using Administration strategies involving a more prolonged
serum analysis studies. EPO absorption with a relatively low Cmax may
enable more efficacy of rhEPO.
8 adult, stable, chronic CAPD administration was at 18 hours and had a mean
patients were enrolled. Each patient bioavailability of 21.5% (11.3 - 36.0%). The study
Macdougall found that t1/2 for IV EPO in CAPD patients was not
Clinical was administered intraperitoneal
5 et al. / 1989
Trial (IP), IV, and SC rhEPO at a set dose significantly different from those on HD. The findings
[35]
for each route. The doses were of the study also suggest that high serum peaks of
spaced by 4 weeks. EPO are of little therapeutic value for effective
erythropoiesis. As a result, it suggests that SC route
of administration may be more beneficial in both
CAPD and HD patients. The bioavailability of this
route, however, is governed by a complex interplay
of injection site, drug composition and systemic
factors.
Route of Administration and Stage of CKD (Non-Dialysis Dependent and Patients on Peritoneal
Dialysis vs Haemodialysis Patients)
Non-dialysis CKD patients with preserved GFR, or those undergoing peritoneal dialysis, benefit
from SC administration of ESAs, considering that it's least invasive and can be carried out
without any monitoring. Furthermore, intraperitoneal administration in patients on
continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD), can dilute ESA concentration, limiting its
use [34,35]. The advantage of IV administration lies in the fact that it can be conveniently
administered during the process of haemodialysis. Numerous studies have shown that SC doses
of ESAs in non-dialysis dependent and patients on peritoneal dialysis, were found to effectively
increase Hb concentrations and were well-tolerated and may even be more efficacious than IV
EPO formulations in HD patients as well [36,37]. However, more work needs to be done
comparing the efficacy of SC versus IV EPO administration in non-dialysis and patients on
continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (see Table 7). The use of EPO in HD patients has
been covered under other sections.
Serial Study
Author/date Population Main Points
Number Design
TABLE 7: A comparison of the different routes of ESA administration with the stage of
CKD (Non-dialysis dependent AND Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis vs Haemodialysis
patients)
HD: Haemodialysis, PD: Peritoneal Dialysis, CAPD: Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis, SC: Subcutaneous, IV: Intravenous,
Hb: Haemoglobin, EPO: Erythropoietin, r-HuEPO: Recombinant Human Erythropoietin, ESRD: End-stage Renal Disease, CKD:
Chronic Kidney Disease, QoL: Quality of Life
Between the two routes, convenience depends on factors like the stage of CKD, the dose and
dosage frequency, the type of ESA being used, ease-of-use, the type of dialysis being utilized,
the associated healthcare costs, and patient satisfaction.
For non-HD patients, the SC route may be more generally convenient due to the lack of a
continuous IV access, the ease of self administration, comparatively lower dosage, less frequent
hospital visits, a reduced dosing frequency and ultimately reduced costs. Even in HD patients,
the SC route has been tied to similar advantages and may therefore be more beneficial overall as
compared to the IV route, despite the obvious convenience that an arteriovenous fistula
confers to IV EPO administration [13-17, 19, 26-28, 31-35]. This may be particularly beneficial
in low-income countries where affordability and access to newer, longer acting ESAs may be
difficult [40]. Evidence lending support to the efficacy, cost effectiveness and safety of the SC
The convenience of use for the IV formulation in HD has its possible roots in the preference for
its use by HD Staff. This may be due to the routine use of the IV route by HD staff [16] as well as
the issue of pain or ‘stinging’ or discomfort at the injection site associated with the initial use
of SC epoetin-alfa which some studies have cited in the past [42]. The KDIGO guidelines have
also cited ‘pain’ secondary to SC administration, in terms of using short-acting ESAs, as a
reason to prefer IV EPO administration, referring to the results of a single centre trial of 30
patients [8, 26]. In a randomized, un-blinded trial carried out by Kaufman et al. among 208
patients, 86% of the 107 candidates who received SC epoetin injections reported experiencing
pain as none to mild [43]. Similar findings were found in a multi-center randomized, double-
blind, prospective study among 90 ESRD patients already on HD, who were subjected to
different regimes of IV and SC EPO treatment. None of the patients treated SC complained of
injection site pain nor were there any identifiable local adverse reactions [23]. Nonetheless the
pain reported in previous studies has mainly been tied to the citrate component of the epoetin-
alfa buffered solution that is administered SC to patients [44]. However, it has largely been
controlled by replacement of the citrate preservative with Benzyl Alcohol saline and other
newly developed stabilizer solutions, using large gauge needles, and smaller volume doses, all
of which were highly effective in reducing pain whilst maintaining drug efficacy [43, 45, 46].
ESA can generally be classified as short-acting or long-acting. The former usually refers to the
1st generation ESAs like Epoetin-alfa and beta while the latter normally refers to 2nd
generation ESAs and beyond, including formulations like Darbepoetin-alfa and continuous
erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A) [4]. The choice of ESA depends on factors like drug
availability, affordability, patient preference, and local policies. Each of these agents also has
its own unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles [4, 8]. In this review we shall
only discuss common ESA types from the first and second generations (see Table 8).
Serial Author /
Study Type Population Relevant Conclusive Points
Number Year
TABLE 8: A general comparison of some commonly used 1st and 2nd Generation
Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents, based on previous clinical trails
HD: Haemodialysis, SC: Subcutaneous, IV: Intravenous, Hb: Haemoglobin, EPO: Erythropoietin, rHuEPO: Recombinant Human
Erythropoietin, ESRD: End-stage Renal Disease, rcEPO: Recombinant Human Erythropoietin, t1/2 : drug half-life, ESA: Erythropoiesis
Stimulating Agent
Limitations
As no review or study is perfect, this literature review has an important set of limitation: papers
were excluded if they were published in a language other than English, study types that met our
exclusion criteria like commentaries or animal-based studies were excluded, our focus was
mainly limited to studies based on adult CKD patients, and we mainly covered 1st and 2nd
generation ESAs in our review. Additionally, the majority of studies in anemic CKD patients
included in this review pertain to HD dependent ESRD patients. While significant efforts were
made to review a broad range of publications from different years, it is still pertinent to
mention the selection bias that may be present in this review with regards to the articles chosen
for review and their relevance. Future research work that corrects these limitations may very
well lead to different outcomes or impressions on the reader.
Additional Information
Disclosures
Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors
declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial
support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships:
All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the
previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.
Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or
activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
References
1. Stauffer ME, Fan T: Prevalence of anemia in chronic kidney disease in the United States . PloS
ONE. 2014, 9:e84943. 10.1371/journal.pone.0084943
2. Smith RE Jr: The clinical and economic burden of anemia . Am J Manag Care. 2010, 16:59-66.
3. Mehdi U, Toto RD: Anemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease . Diabetes Care. 2009,
32:1320-1326. 10.2337/dc08-0779
4. Hayat A, Haria D, Salifu MO: Erythropoietin stimulating agents in the management of anemia
of chronic kidney disease. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2008, 2:195-200. 10.2147/ppa.s2356
5. Tanhehco YC, Berns JS: Red blood cell transfusion risks in patients with end-stage renal
disease. Semin Dial. 2012, 25:539-544. 10.1111/j.1525-139X.2012.01089.x
6. Biggar P, Kim GH: Treatment of renal anemia: erythropoiesis stimulating agents and beyond .
Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2017, 36:209-223. 10.23876/j.krcp.2017.36.3.209
7. Thamer M, Zhang Y, Kaufman J, Cotter D, Dong F, Hernán MA: Dialysis facility ownership and
epoetin dosing in patients receiving hemodialysis. JAMA. 2007, 297:1667-1674.
10.1001/jama.297.15.1667
8. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Anemia Work Group. KDIGO clinical
practice guideline for anemia in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Inter Suppl. 2012, 2:279-335.
9. Bennett CL, Spiegel DM, Macdougall IC, et al.: A review of safety, efficacy, and utilization of
erythropoietin, darbepoetin, and peginesatide for patients with cancer or chronic kidney
disease: a report from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions (SONAR). Semin Thromb
Hemost. 2012, 38:783-796. 10.1055/s-0032-1328884
10. Patel TV, Robinson K, Singh AK: Is it time to reconsider subcutaneous administration of
epoetin?. Nephrol News Issues. 2007, 21:57.
11. Pollock C, Johnson DW, Hörl WH, et al.: Pure red cell aplasia induced by erythropoiesis-
stimulating agents. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008, 3:193-199. 10.2215/CJN.02440607
12. Besarab A: Optimizing anaemia management with subcutaneous administration of epoetin .
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005, 20:10-15. 10.1093/ndt/gfh1098
13. Muirhead N, Churchill DN, Goldstein M, et al.: Comparison of subcutaneous and intravenous
recombinant human erythropoietin for anemia in hemodialysis patients with significant
comorbid disease. Am J Nephrol. 1992, 12:303-310. 10.1159/000168464