Hypoxia inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors: what a meta-analysis could tell us

NDT Plus Pub Date : 2023-09-11 DOI:10.1093/ckj/sfad229
Francesco Locatelli, Carmine Zoccali
{"title":"Hypoxia inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors: what a meta-analysis could tell us","authors":"Francesco Locatelli, Carmine Zoccali","doi":"10.1093/ckj/sfad229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Meta-analyses offer an estimate of the overall effect size and help address the inconsistency in findings across studies. The risk is the overemphasis on statistical significance while underrepresenting or misinterpreting clinical significance. There's also a lack of standardized methods for quantifying and reporting clinical significance and these measures are often missing or inconsistently reported in many meta-analyses, making it difficult for readers to determine the clinical relevance of the findings. A major merit of Minutolo's meta-analysis is to formally evaluate efficacy and safety of Hypoxia Inducible Factor Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitors (HIF-PHI) as class and as single agents in comparison with ESA, by selecting from only phase-3 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared HIF-PHIs with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in dialysis and non-dialysis patients. From a clinical perspective, the primary evaluation in this meta-analysis should have been the percentage of patients able to reach and maintain the target haemoglobin (Hb) levels throughout the trials but only a few RCTs selected this primary end point. Any claimed superiority of one drug over another should consider the selected doses. The amount of iron administered to patients, their iron stores and level of inflammation are important confounding factors that affect the reliability of any comparison.","PeriodicalId":18987,"journal":{"name":"NDT Plus","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NDT Plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfad229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Meta-analyses offer an estimate of the overall effect size and help address the inconsistency in findings across studies. The risk is the overemphasis on statistical significance while underrepresenting or misinterpreting clinical significance. There's also a lack of standardized methods for quantifying and reporting clinical significance and these measures are often missing or inconsistently reported in many meta-analyses, making it difficult for readers to determine the clinical relevance of the findings. A major merit of Minutolo's meta-analysis is to formally evaluate efficacy and safety of Hypoxia Inducible Factor Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitors (HIF-PHI) as class and as single agents in comparison with ESA, by selecting from only phase-3 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared HIF-PHIs with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in dialysis and non-dialysis patients. From a clinical perspective, the primary evaluation in this meta-analysis should have been the percentage of patients able to reach and maintain the target haemoglobin (Hb) levels throughout the trials but only a few RCTs selected this primary end point. Any claimed superiority of one drug over another should consider the selected doses. The amount of iron administered to patients, their iron stores and level of inflammation are important confounding factors that affect the reliability of any comparison.
缺氧诱导因子脯氨酸羟化酶抑制剂:荟萃分析可以告诉我们的
荟萃分析提供了对总体效应大小的估计,并有助于解决研究结果的不一致性。风险在于过分强调统计学意义而低估或曲解临床意义。也缺乏标准化的方法来量化和报告临床意义,这些措施在许多荟萃分析中经常缺失或不一致,这使得读者难以确定研究结果的临床相关性。Minutolo荟萃分析的一个主要优点是,通过仅从3期随机临床试验(rct)中选择HIF-PHI与促红细胞生成药物(ESA)在透析和非透析患者中的比较,正式评估了缺氧诱导因子脯氨酸羟化酶抑制剂(HIF-PHI)作为类药和单药与ESA的疗效和安全性。从临床角度来看,本荟萃分析的主要评估应该是在整个试验中能够达到并维持目标血红蛋白(Hb)水平的患者百分比,但只有少数随机对照试验选择了这一主要终点。任何声称一种药物优于另一种药物的都应考虑所选择的剂量。给病人的铁的量,他们的铁储存和炎症水平是影响任何比较可靠性的重要混杂因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信