Gúia Nice

Clinical Practice Guideline
Anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease
Final Version: June 2017

Updated: February 2020
Review Date: June 2022
Authors:
Dr Ashraf Mikhail
Consultant Nephrologist, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board
Christopher Brown
Consultant Renal Pharmacist, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board
Jennifer Ann Williams

Renal Anaemia Nurse Specialist, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board
Vinod Mathrani
Consultant Physician, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board
Rajesh Shrivastava
Consultant Nephrologist, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board
Dr Jonathan Evans
Consultant Paediatric Nephrologist, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Ms. Hayleigh Isaac

Patient representative
Professor Sunil Bhandari

Consultant Nephrologist & Clinical Professor, Hull & East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust
Owain Brooks
Highly Specialised Renal Pharmacist, Swansea Bay Health Board
Endorsements
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has accredited the process used by the Renal
Association to produce its Clinical Practice Guidelines. Accreditation is valid for 5 years from January 2017.
More information on accreditation can be viewed at www.nice.org.uk/accreditation
Method used to arrive at a recommendation
The recommendations for the first draft of this guideline resulted from a collective decision reached by
informal discussion by the authors and, whenever necessary, with input from the Chair of the Clinical Practice
Guidelines Committee. If no agreement had been reached on the appropriate grading of a recommendation, a
vote would have been held and the majority opinion carried. However this was not necessary for this
guideline.
Conflicts of Interest Statement
All authors made declarations of interest in line with the policy in the Renal Association Clinical Practice
Guidelines Development Manual. Further details can be obtained on request from the Renal Association.
Renal Association Clinical Practice Guideline – Anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease – June 2017 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
2. Summary of Clinical Practice Guidelines on anaemia Chronic Kidney Disease .................................................. 6
3. Summary of Audit Measures on anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease ................................................................. 11
4. Rationale for Clinical Practice Guidelines on anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease ............................................. 12
5. Lay Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 49
6. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ 49
1. Introduction
This clinical practice guideline provides recommendations on the management of anaemia of chronic kidney
disease (ACKD) and serves as an update of the 5th edition module published online in 2010. The
recommendations in this update have been graded using the modified GRADE system to indicate both the
strength of each recommendation (strong or weak) and level of evidence for the recommendation (A-D) (1, 2).
As in the previous module The Renal Association (RA) endorses the NICE Guideline for anaemia management
in chronic kidney disease 2015(3) and adopts in this guideline update the nomenclature for classifying CKD from
the NICE Guideline for chronic kidney disease in adults 2014(4).
This guideline update covers the management of anaemia in adults, children and young people with anaemia
associated with CKD. While there is no universally accepted classification for categorising the population with
anaemia of CKD by age, this guideline adopts the classification set out in NICE Guideline (3) defined as follows:
 children: 0–13 years

 young people: 14–17 years
 adults: 18 years and over
For this guideline update systematic literature searches were undertaken to identify all published clinical
evidence relevant to the review questions. Databases were searched for all published papers between January
2009 and November 2016, using relevant medical subject headings, free-text terms and study-type filters
where appropriate. All searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PUBMED, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.
Data search used the following search terms:
 Anaemia and CKD

 Anaemia and dialysis
 Blood transfusion and dialysis
 Erythropoietin, EPO, ESA
 ESA Resistance
 Immunosuppression and anaemia
 Immunosuppression and EPO
 Immunosuppression and blood transfusion
 Iron deficiency
 Iron therapy
 Iron toxicity
 Pure red cell aplasia
 Anaemia and dialysis
 Renal anaemia
 Renal transplant and anaemia
 Renal transplant and blood transfusion
 Renal transplant and EPO
This guideline is an update on previous Renal Association guidelines published in November 2010. The search
covered the period from January 2009 to November 2016. The previous guidelines covered the periods prior
to the above dates. Articles not written in English were not assessed. Articles available in abstract forms;
letters; case reports; editorials or review articles were also excluded. Articles were assessed for relevance to
the guideline topic, eligibility for inclusion in the evidence base for that guideline and methodological quality.
Articles were considered of particular relevance if they were describing:
 Prospective randomised or quasi-randomised trials

 Controlled trials
 Meta-analysis of several trials
 Cochrane systematic reviews.
Where evidence was available from the above sources, recommendations were based on these publications.
Where there was a lack of evidence from high-quality studies, recommendations were based on current
consensus and that was made clear in the document:
We also reviewed all related guidelines including those listed below:

 European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) for Anaemia in CKD(5,6)
 Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) Guidelines for Management of anaemia in CKD(7),
 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Anaemia in Chronic
Kidney Disease(8)
 The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (ng8) (3).
Background
Anaemia is a common complication of CKD. It is associated with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure,
in addition to a reduction in exercise capacity and quality of life. The use of iron therapies and erythropoiesis
stimulating agents (ESAs) has allowed improvement in patients with anaemia of CKD. Newer therapies are
under study, but this guideline will not make recommendations on agents such as hypoxia inducible factor
stabilisers or hepcidin modulators as data remains preliminary and none of these agents have received a UK
marketing authorisation at the time of publication of this guideline.
References
1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and
strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336:924-926
2. Uhlig K, MacLeod A, Craig J et al. Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in
nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). Kidney Int
2006; 70:2058-2065
3. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, Royal College of Physicians. Guideline on anaemia
management in chronic kidney disease. 2015. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Available on
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG8/evidence (accessed 15/06/2017).
4. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, Royal College of Physicians. Guideline on
chronic kidney disease in adults: assessment and management 2014. National Institute for Clinical
Excellence. Available on http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg182 (accessed 15/06/2017).
5. Locatelli F, Aljama P, Barany P et al. Revised European best practice Guidelines for the management of
anaemia in patients with chronic renal failure. Nephrol.Dial.Transplant. 2004; 19 Suppl 2: ii1-47
6. Locatelli F, Bárány P, Covic A et al, ERA-EDTA ERBP Advisory Board. Kidney Disease: Improving Global
Outcomes guidelines on anaemia management in chronic kidney disease: a European Renal Best Practice
position statement. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Jun; 28(6):1346-59.
7. KDOQI; National Kidney Foundation Clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for
anaemia in chronic kidney disease in adults. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006 May; 47(5 Suppl 3):S16-85.
8. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anaemia in Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2012; 2:279-335.
2. Summary of Clinical Practice Guidelines on anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease
1. Evaluating and Diagnosing Anaemia in CKD (Guidelines 1.1 – 1.5)
Guideline 1.1 – Evaluation of anaemia - Screening for anaemia
We suggest that haemoglobin (Hb) levels should be routinely measured to screen for anaemia:
 at least annually in patients with CKD G3 and

 at least twice a year in patients with CKD G4-5 not on dialysis (2B)
Guideline 1.2 - Evaluation of anaemia – haemoglobin levels
We recommend that all patients with chronic anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) should be
investigated for the cause and possible treatment, irrespective of the grade of kidney disease or requirement
for renal replacement therapy if:
 their haemoglobin (Hb) levels are less than 110g/L (less than 105 g/L if younger than 2 years) or
 they develop symptoms attributable to anaemia
This is to ensure the correct diagnosis and management of anaemia. (1A)
Guideline 1.3 - Evaluation of anaemia - Renal function
We suggest that CKD should be considered as a possible cause of anaemia when the glomerular filtration rate
(GFR) is <60 ml/min/1.73m2. It is more likely to be the cause if the GFR is <30ml/min/1.73m2 (<45/min/1.73m2
in patients with diabetes) and no other cause, e.g. blood loss, folic acid or vitamin B12 deficiency, is identified.
(2B)
Guideline 1.4 - Evaluation of anaemia - Erythropoietin measurement
We recommend that measurement of erythropoietin levels should not routinely be considered for the
diagnosis or management of anaemia for patients with CKD. (1A)
Guideline 1.5 - Evaluation of anaemia – Baseline investigations
We recommend that initial clinical and laboratory evaluation of anaemia should be performed prior to
initiation of treatment for anaemia in CKD patients. (1A)
We recommend that laboratory evaluation should include the following tests (1B):
 Full blood count (FBC) including—in addition to the Hb concentration:

 red blood cell indices:
 mean corpuscular haemoglobin [MCH]
 mean corpuscular volume [MCV]
 mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration [MCHC])
 white blood cell count and differential count
 platelet count
 Absolute reticulocyte count to assess bone marrow responsiveness (if indicated).
 Test to determine iron status:
 percentage of hypochromic red blood cells (% HRC), but only if processing of blood sample is
possible within 6 hours or
 reticulocyte Hb count (CHr) or equivalent tests e.g. reticulocyte Hb equivalent or
 combination of transferrin saturation (TSAT) and serum ferritin if the above tests are not available
or the person has thalassemia or thalassemia trait
 Serum ferritin to assess iron stores.
 Plasma/serum C-reactive protein (CRP) to assess inflammation.
Based on the initial assessment we recommend in selected cases, the following tests may be useful to
diagnose the cause of anaemia (1B):
 Serum B12 and serum folate concentrations.

 Tests for haemolysis (plasma/serum levels of haptoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, bilirubin, Coombs’ test).
 Plasma/serum and/or urine protein electrophoresis.
 Hb electrophoresis.
 Free light chains and bone marrow examination.
2. Treatment of Anaemia with Iron Therapy Anaemia of CKD (Guidelines 2.1 – 2.4)
Guideline 2.1 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy – Iron repletion
We recommend that patients should be iron replete to achieve and maintain target Hb whether receiving ESAs
or not. (1B)
Iron repletion is usually defined as:
 %HRC <6% / CHr >29 pg / ferritin and TSAT (>100 microgram/L and >20%).
 For children, aim for a target ferritin level greater than 100 microgram/L for CKD patients on dialysis as well
as CKD patients not on ESA therapy. (ungraded)
Guideline 2.2 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron Therapy - Initiation of ESA and Iron Status:
We suggest that ESA therapy should not be initiated in the presence of absolute iron deficiency (ferritin <100
microgram/L) until this is corrected and anaemia persists. In patients with functional iron deficiency iron
supplements should be given prior to or when initiating ESA therapy. (2B)
Low serum ferritin is a useful marker to diagnose absolute iron deficiency. Normal or high serum ferritin values
(≥100 microgram/L) do not exclude iron deficiency, as it could be due to other causes as infection or
inflammation.
Guideline 2.3 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy - Route of Administration:
We suggest that oral iron will, in general, be sufficient to maintain and may be sufficient to attain the Hb
within targets in ESA treated CKD patients not yet requiring dialysis and in those on peritoneal dialysis (PD).
(2B)
For CKD patients not requiring haemodialysis, the choice between oral vs. parenteral iron depends on the
severity of iron deficiency, the previous response and side effects, the availability of venous access and the
need to initiate ESA therapy (2A).
In contrast most haemodialysis patients will require intravenous iron. (2A).

When offering intravenous iron therapy to people not receiving in-centre haemodialysis, consider high dose,
low frequency (HD/LF) IV iron as the treatment of choice for adults and young people when trying to achieve
iron repletion, taking into account all of the following:
 the availability of venous access

 preferences of the person with anaemia of CKD or, where appropriate, their family or carers
 nursing and administration costs
 cost of local drug supply
 provision of resuscitation facilities
Guideline 2.4 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy - Upper limit for iron therapy
For non-haemodialysis patients; we recommend that serum ferritin should not exceed 800 μg /L in patients
treated with iron, and to achieve this iron management should be reviewed when the ferritin is >500 μg /L.
(1B)
For haemodialysis patients; we recommend that proactive high-dose IV iron sucrose 400 mg every month (or
equivalent) should be given unless ferritin > 700 μg/L or TSAT>40% (1A).
3. Treatment with Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (Guidelines 3.1 – 3.11)
Guideline 3.1 - Treatment of Anaemia - Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents
We recommend that treatment with Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs) should be offered to patients
with anaemia of CKD who are likely to benefit in terms of quality of life and physical function and to avoid
blood transfusion; especially in patients considered suitable for transplantation. (1B)
Guideline 3.2 - Treatment of Anaemia - Choice of ESA
We recommend that the decision on the choice of ESA is based on local availability of ESAs. (1B)
Guideline 3.3 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Target Hb:
We suggest that patients with CKD on ESA therapy should achieve Hb between:
 100 and 120 g/L in adults, young people and children aged 2 years and older (2B)
 95 and 115 g/L in children younger than 2 years of age (reflecting the lower normal range in that age
Guideline 3.4 - Treatment of Anaemia without ESA therapy - Target Hb
We suggest that this Hb target range applies exclusively to patients receiving ESA and are not intended to
apply to the treatment of iron deficiency in patients receiving iron therapy without the use of ESAs. (2B)
Guideline 3.5 - Treatment of Anaemia - Initial ESA dose
We recommend that the initial ESA dose should be determined by the patient's Hb level, the target Hb level,
the observed rate of increase in Hb level and clinical circumstances. (2B)
Guideline 3.6 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Route of administration:
We suggest that the route of ESA administration should be determined by the CKD grade, treatment setting,
efficacy, safety, and class of ESA used; subcutaneous (SC) route is the access of choice in non-haemodialysis
patients, while convenience may favour intravenous (IV) administration in haemodialysis patients. (2B)
Guideline 3.7 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Frequency of administration
We suggest that the frequency of administration should be determined by the CKD grade, treatment setting
and class of ESA. Less frequent administration using long acting ESAs may be the treatment of choice in non–
haemodialysis patients. (2B).
Guideline 3.8 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA Therapy - ESA dose adjustments
We recommend that adjustments to ESA doses should be considered when Hb is <105 or >115 g/L in adults,
young people and children aged 2 years and older, in order to balance the benefit and safety to patients given
the current evidence base.
These thresholds for intervention should achieve a population distribution centred on a mean of 110 g/L with a
range of 100-120 g/L. (2B)
In children younger than 2 years to keep the Hb level within the aspirational range, do not wait until Hb
levels are outside the aspirational range before adjusting treatment (for example, take action when Hb levels
are within 5 g/L of the range's limits).
We suggest that ESA doses should ideally be decreased rather than withheld when a downward adjustment of
Hb level is desirable (2B)
Guideline 3.10 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA Therapy
We suggest that ESA administration in ESA-dependent patients should continue during acute illness, surgical
procedures or any other cause of hospitalisation, unless there is a clear contra-indication such as accelerated
hypertension. (2B)
Guideline 3.11 – Caution in prescribing ESA in certain CKD patients sub-group:
We suggest exerting extreme caution while prescribing ESA therapy in CKD patients with a history of stroke, or
malignancy, particularly in those with active malignancy when cure is the anticipated outcome. (2C)
4. Monitoring of Therapy (Guidelines 4.1 – 4.7)
Guideline 4.1 - Monitoring of treatment - Hb during ESA therapy
We suggest that Hb concentration should be monitored every 2-4 weeks in the correction phase and every 1-3
months for stable patients in the maintenance phase.
More frequent monitoring will depend on clinical circumstances. (2B)
Guideline 4.2 - Monitoring of treatment - Iron therapy
We recommend regular monitoring of iron status (every 1-3 months) in patients receiving intravenous iron to
avoid toxicity (2B): a serum ferritin consistently greater than 800 microgram/L with no evidence of
inflammation (normal CRP) may be suggestive of iron overload. (1B)
Guideline 4.3 - Monitoring during Intravenous Iron Administration
We recommend that resuscitative medication and personnel trained to evaluate and resuscitate anaphylaxis
should be present at each administration of intravenous iron. (1A)
Guideline 4.4 - Parenteral iron & infection:
We suggest avoiding parenteral iron therapy in patients with active infection (2B)
Guideline 4.5 - Monitoring of treatment - Resistance to ESA therapy
We recommend that inadequate response (‘resistance’) to ESA therapy is defined as failure to reach the target
Hb level despite SC epoetin dose >300 IU/kg/week (450 IU/kg/week IV epoetin), or darbepoetin dose >1.5
microgram/kg/week. Hyporesponsive patients who are iron replete should be screened clinically and by
investigations for other common causes of anaemia. (1A)
Guideline 4.6- Evaluation for ESA Induced Pure Red Cell Aplasia (PRCA)
 We do not recommend routine screening for anti-erythropoietin antibodies among CKD patients regularly
treated with erythropoiesis stimulating agents. (2A)
 We recommend that the diagnosis of ESA induced PRCA should be considered whenever a patient receiving
long term ESA therapy (more than 8 weeks) develops all the following (2A):
 a sudden decrease in Hb concentration at the rate of 5 to 10g/L per week OR requirement of
transfusions at the rate of approximately 1 to 2 per week,
 normal platelet and white cell counts,
 absolute reticulocyte count less than 10,000/µl
 We recommend that all ESA therapy should be stopped in patients who develop ESA induced PRCA. (2A)
 We recommend that patients who remain transfusion dependent after withdrawing ESA therapy should be
treated with immunosuppressant medications guided by the level of anti EPO antibodies. (2A)
Guideline 4.7 - Monitoring of treatment - Hypertension during ESA therapy
We recommend that blood pressure should be monitored in all patients receiving ESAs and, if present,
hypertension be treated by volume removal and/or anti-hypertensive drugs. (1A)
5. Anaemia of CKD: Blood Transfusion (Guidelines 5.1 – 5.3)
Guideline 5.1 - Blood Transfusion
We recommend that in patients with anaemia of CKD, especially those in whom renal transplantation is an
option, red blood cell transfusion should be avoided where possible to minimise the risk of allosensitisation.
(1A)
We recommend if red blood cell transfusion becomes essential (usually in the setting of acute blood loss,
acute haemolysis or severe sepsis) transfusions should be based on policies set by local transfusion guidelines
rather than Hb targets for ESA therapy in chronic anaemia of CKD. (1B)
Guidelines 5.3- Blood transfusion
We recommend that renal transplant recipients, or those on the transplant waiting list or patients on
immunosuppressive therapy should receive only Hepatitis E negative blood components. (2B)
6. Anaemia of CKD: Post Transplant Anaemia (Guideline 6.1)
We suggest that the treatment guidelines for anaemia in renal transplant patients should be similar to those
for CKD patients not on dialysis. (2B)
3. Summary of Audit Measures on anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease
1. Proportion of CKD patients with eGFR < 30ml/min (using 4 variable MDRD or CKD-EPI) method with an
annual Hb level.
2. Proportion of patients starting an ESA without prior measurement of %HRC or CHr (or serum ferritin
and TSAT).
3. Proportion of patients on renal replacement therapy with Hb level < 100 g/L who are not prescribed an ESA
4. Each renal unit should audit the type, route and frequency of administration and weekly dose of ESA
prescribed
5. The proportion of CKD Grade 4-5 patients with Hb 100-120 g/L
6. The proportion of patients treated with an ESA with Hb > 120 g/L
7. Mean (median) ESA dose in patients maintained on ESA therapy
8. Each renal unit should monitor ESA dose adjustments
9. Proportion of patients with serum ferritin levels < 100 microgram/L at start of treatment with ESA
10. Proportion of pre-dialysis and PD patients receiving iron therapy; type: oral vs. parenteral
11. Proportion of HD patients receiving IV iron
12. Prevalence of resistance to ESA among renal replacement therapy patients
13. Proportion of HD patients who received a blood transfusion within the past year
4. Rationale for clinical practice guidelines for anaemia of CKD
1. Anaemia of CKD (Guidelines 1.1 – 1.6)
Guideline 1.1 – Evaluation of anaemia - Screening for anaemia
We suggest that haemoglobin (Hb) levels should be routinely measured to screen for anaemia:
 at least annually in patients with CKD G3 and

 at least twice a year in patients with CKD G4-5 not on dialysis (2B)
Audit Measure
Proportion of CKD patients with eGFR < 30ml/min (using 4 variable MDRD or CKD-EPI) method with an annual
Hb level.
Rationale
There is insufficient literature to suggest the ideal frequency of Hb testing in CKD patients who are not on ESA
therapy. Alternatively data from clinical trials have shown that the rate of Hb decline in these patients is
gradual one (1, 2). In a Canadian study to assess the effect of ESA therapy on left ventricular mass in patients
with CKD (2) 172 patients were assigned to either receive therapy with erythropoietin α subcutaneously to
maintain or achieve Hb level targets of 120 to 140 g/L, or to the control/delayed treatment group with mean
Hb levels of 90 ± 5 g/L. During 2 years follow up a significant proportion of patients eventually required ESA
therapy. However, among those who did not require ESA therapy, mean Hb values remained relatively stable
throughout the study period. Hb level should be measured at least monthly in CKD G5 haemodialysis patients
and every three months in CKD G5 peritoneal dialysis patients.
KDIGO 2012 guidelines suggest measurement of Hb at least annually in patients with CKD G3, at least twice
per year in patients with CKD G4–5ND and at least every 3 months in patients with CKD G5HD and CKD G5 PD.
For those treated with an ESA, they recommend measuring Hb concentration when clinically indicated and at
least every 3 months in patients with CKD G3–5ND and CKD G5PD and at least monthly in patients with CKD
G5HD(3)
References
1. Roger SD, McMahon LP, Clarkson A, et al. Effects of early and late intervention with epoetin α on left
ventricular mass among patients with chronic kidney disease (stage 3 or 4): Results of a randomized clinical
trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:148-156.
2. Levin A, Djurdjev O, Thompson C, et al. Canadian randomized trial of haemoglobin maintenance to prevent
or delay left ventricular mass growth in patients with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis 2005; 46:799-811.
3. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anaemia in Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2012;2:279-33
Guideline 1.2 - Evaluation of anaemia - Haemoglobin level
We recommend that all patients with chronic anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease should be
investigated for the cause and possible treatment, irrespective of the grade of kidney disease or requirement
for renal replacement therapy if:
 their haemoglobin (Hb) levels are less than 110g/L (less than 105 g/L if younger than 2 years) or
 they develop symptoms attributable to anaemia
This is to ensure the correct diagnosis and management of anaemia. (1A)
Rationale
The Renal Association (RA) and Royal College of Physicians endorse the NICE Guidelines for Chronic Kidney
Disease: Managing Anaemia(1). The reader is referred to these guidelines as well as the European Renal Best
Practice (ERBP) for Anaemia in CKD(2,3) and the KDOQI(4) Guidelines for management of anaemia in CKD. The
KDIGO website (www.kdigo.org) (5) is a useful site of reference for comparison of evidence based guidelines
internationally.
Anaemia is defined as having a Hb value below the established cut off defined by the World Health
Organisation(4). Different defined groups have different cut offs. For adults:
 Men and postmenopausal women Hb<130g/L

 Premenopausal women Hb<120g/L
In 2006, KDOQI modified this definition by giving a single criterion for diagnosing anaemia in adult males (Hb
<135 g/L, regardless of age) because the decrease in Hb among males aged >60 years is often attributable to
associated co-morbidities(4), while KDIGO suggest a diagnosis of anaemia in adults with CKD when the Hb
concentration is <130 g/L in males and <120 g/L in females(5).
Anaemia is defined as a haemoglobin concentration less than the 5th percentile for age. Hb levels vary by age,
and many laboratories use adult norms as references; therefore, the patient's Hb level must be compared with
age-based norms to diagnose anaemia(6).
In addition to gender, age and pregnancy other factors influence Hb level including smoking, altitude, race and
genetic disorders (thalassemia and sickle cell disease). In CKD a patient‘s anaemia should be defined using
these same criteria. The degree of renal impairment affects the likelihood of any patient developing anaemia.
Although current treatment with ESAs is not recommended unless Hb falls consistently below 110g/L, other
causes of anaemia should be excluded in patients with Hb below normal range. The current definition for
anaemia applies to adult patients older than 18 years, of all races and ethnic groups, and living at relatively
low altitude (<1,000 m or 3,000 ft.) (7). With increasing altitude, endogenous erythropoietin production is
increased; as a result, Hb concentration can be expected to increase by about 6 g/L in women and 9 g/L in men
for each 1,000m of altitude above sea level(8).
References
2. Locatelli F, Aljama P, Barany P et al. Revised European Best Practice Guidelines for the management of
anaemia in patients with chronic renal failure. Nephrol.Dial.Transplant. 2004; 19 Suppl 2: ii1-47
3. Locatelli F, Bárány P, Covic A, et al. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines on anaemia
management in chronic kidney disease: a European Renal Best Practice position statement. Nephrol Dial
Transplant. 2013 Jun;28(6):1346-59.
4. KDOQI; National Kidney Foundation Clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for
anaemia in chronic kidney disease in adults. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006 May; 47(5 Suppl 3):S16-85.
5. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anaemia in Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2012;2:279-335.
6. Oski FA, Brugnara C, Nathan DG. A diagnostic approach to the anaemic patient. In: Nathan and Oski's
Haematology of Infancy and Childhood. 6th ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders; 2003:409–418
7. World Health Organisation. Iron deficiency anaemia, assessment, prevention and control: a guide for
programme managers. 2001.
8. Beall CM, Goldstein MC. Haemoglobin concentration of pastoral nomads permanently resident at 4,850-
5,450 meters in Tibet. Am J Phys Anthropol 1987; 73:433-438.
Guideline 1.3 - Evaluation of anaemia - Renal function
We suggest that CKD should be considered as a possible cause of anaemia when the glomerular filtration rate
(GFR) is <60 ml/min/1.73m2. It is more likely to be the cause if the GFR is <30ml/min/ 1.73m2 (<45 ml/min/
1.73m2 in patients with diabetes) and no other cause, e.g. blood loss, folic acid or vitamin B12 deficiency, is
identified. (2B)
Audit measure
Proportion of CKD patients with eGFR < 30ml/min (using 4 variable MDRD or CKD-EPI) with an annual Hb level.
Rationale
The prevalence of anaemia in patients with CKD increases as the GFR progressively falls(2). NHANES III data
demonstrate a prevalence of anaemia of 1%, 9% and 33% in CKD patients with an eGFR of 60, 30 and
15ml/min/1.73m2 respectively(2). UK data of > 112,000 unselected patients in the general population showed a
population prevalence of CKD G3-G5 of 4.9%(3). In these patients the prevalence of gender specific anaemia
(<120 g/L men: < 110 g/L women) was 12%.
Anaemia is more prevalent among patients with diabetes. In addition, anaemia of CKD develops earlier in
patients with diabetes compared with non-diabetics(4-8). In a cross-sectional study involving over 800 patients
with diabetes, anaemia has been found to be two to three times more prevalent in patients with diabetes
compared with the general population at all levels of GFR(9).
References
1. http://www.renal.org/eGFRcalc/GFR.pl. (Accessed 15/06/2017)

2. Cheng CK, Chan J, Cembrowski GS, van Assendelft OW. Complete blood count reference interval diagrams
derived from NHANES III: stratification by age, sex, and race. Lab Hematol 2004; 10: 42-53.
3. de Lusignan S, Chan T, Stevens P et al. Identifying patients with chronic kidney disease from general
practice computer records. Fam Pract 2005; 22: 234-241.
4. Guralnik JM, Eisenstaedt RS, Ferrucci L, et al. Prevalence of anaemia in persons 65 years and older in the
United States: Evidence for a high rate of unexplained anaemia. Blood 2004; 104:2263-2268.
5. Ishimura E, Nishizawa Y, Okuno S et al. Diabetes mellitus increases the severity of anaemia in non-dialyzed
patients with renal failure. J Nephrol 1998; 11:83-86.
6. Bosman DR, Winkler AS, Marsden JT et al. Anaemia with erythropoietin deficiency occurs early in diabetic
nephropathy. Diabetes Care 2001;24:495-499.
7. Thomas MC, MacIsaac RJ, Tsalamandris C et al. Unrecognized anaemia in patients with diabetes: A cross-
sectional survey. Diabetes Care 2003; 26:1164-1169.
8. Thomas MC, MacIsaac RJ, Tsalamandris C et al. The burden of anaemia in type 2 diabetes and the role of
nephropathy: A cross-sectional audit. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19:1792-1797.
9. El-Achkar TM, Ohmit SE, McCullough PA et al. Higher prevalence of anaemia with diabetes mellitus in
moderate kidney insufficiency: The Kidney Early Evaluation Program. Kidney Int 2005; 67:1483-1488.
Guideline 1.4 - Evaluation of anaemia - Erythropoietin measurement
We recommend that measurement of erythropoietin levels should not routinely be considered for the
diagnosis or management of anaemia for patients with CKD. (1A)
Rationale
In renal anaemia, serum erythropoietin (EPO) levels are lower than appropriate for the degree of anaemia. In
CKD patients with anaemia, erythropoietin titres are not lower but may be equal to or even higher than in
normal non-anaemic individuals(1-3). Measurement of erythropoietin level is very rarely helpful.
References
1. Erslev AJ, Besarab A. The rate and control of baseline red cell production in haematologically stable patients
with uraemia. J Lab Clin Med 1995; 126(3):283-6.
2. Naets JP, Garcia JF, Tousaaint C, et al. Radioimmunoassay of erythropoietin in chronic uraemia or nephric
patients. Scand J Haematol 1986;37:390-394.
3. Ross RP, McCrea JB, Besarab A. Erythropoietin response to blood loss in haemodialysis patients in blunted
but preserved. ASAIO J 1994; 40:M880-M885.
Guideline 1.5 - Evaluation of anaemia – Baseline investigations
We recommend that initial clinical and laboratory evaluation of anaemia should be performed prior to
initiation of treatment for anaemia in CKD patients. (1A)
We recommend that laboratory evaluation should include the following tests (1B):
 Full blood count (FBC) including—in addition to the Hb concentration:

 red blood cell indices:
 mean corpuscular haemoglobin [MCH]
 mean corpuscular volume [MCV]
 mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration [MCHC])
 white blood cell count and differential count
 platelet count
 Absolute reticulocyte count to assess bone marrow responsiveness (if indicated).
 Test to determine iron status:
 percentage of hypochromic red blood cells (% HRC), but only if processing of blood sample is possible
within 6 hours or
 reticulocyte Hb count (CHr) or equivalent tests e.g. reticulocyte Hb equivalent or
 combination of transferrin saturation (TSAT) and serum ferritin if the above tests are not available or
the person has thalassemia or thalassemia trait
 Serum ferritin to assess iron stores.
 Plasma/serum C-reactive protein (CRP) to assess inflammation.
Based on the initial assessment we recommend in selected cases, the following tests may be useful to
diagnose the cause of anaemia (1B):
 Serum B12 and folate concentrations.

 Tests for haemolysis (plasma/serum levels of haptoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, bilirubin, Coombs’ test).
 Plasma/serum and/or urine protein electrophoresis.
 free light chains and bone marrow examination.
 Hb electrophoresis.
Rationale
Although relative erythropoietin deficiency is common among patients with anaemia and CKD, other potential
causes should be identified or excluded. A clinical and laboratory evaluation of the cause of anaemia should
precede initiation of ESA therapy.
The recommended laboratory evaluation aims at assessing:
 The degree and cause of anaemia,

 Bone marrow responsiveness, and
 Iron stores and iron availability for erythropoiesis.
Anaemia due to causes other than erythropoietin deficiency should be suspected when:
 The severity of the anaemia is disproportionate to the deficit in renal function,

 There is evidence of iron deficiency,
 There is evidence of haemolysis, or
 There is evidence of bone marrow disorder as manifest by leucopoenia and/or thrombocytopenia.
a.) Assessment of anaemia severity
In CKD patients not yet requiring dialysis and in those on peritoneal dialysis (PD), the timing of the blood
sample draw is not critical because plasma volume in these patients remains relatively constant. In
haemodialysis (HD) patients one issue remains to be clarified. Haemoglobin concentrations are routinely
measured in dialysis patients before dialysis. This potentially leads to lower haematocrit values as a result of
dilution from fluid overload prior to ultrafiltration and an underestimate to actual haemoglobin value.
Interdialytic weight gain contributes to a decrease in Hb level, whereas intradialytic ultrafiltration leads to an
increase in Hb level. Thus, a pre-dialysis sample underestimates the euvolaemic Hb level, whereas a post
dialysis sample over-estimates the euvolaemic Hb. Indeed changes on haematocrit can vary from the start to
the end of dialysis by up to 6% depending of the volume of ultrafiltration. In a study of 68 stable HD patients
receiving erythropoietin subcutaneously, average mean pre-dialysis Hb was 10 g/L lower than average post
dialysis Hb(1). There was a strong linear inverse correlation between percentage of change in Hb and
haematocrit (Hct) values and percentage of change in body weight. In another study of 49 stable HD patients,
among all pre-HD and post-HD Hb values, levels measured at the end of short dialysis intervals were closest to
the mean Hb value of the week, derived from calculation of the area under the curve for the readings of the
week(2). In unit based haemodialysis patients receiving thrice weekly dialysis, Hb monitoring performed prior
to a mid-week haemodialysis session would minimise Hb variability due to the longer inter-dialytic interval
between the last treatment of one week and the first of the next.
References
1. Movilli E, Pertica N, Camerini C et al. Pre dialysis versus post dialysis haematocrit evaluation during
erythropoietin therapy. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 39:850-853.
2. Bellizzi V, Minutolo R, Terracciano V et al. Influence of the cyclic variation of hydration status on
haemoglobin levels in haemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2002; 40:549-555.
b.) Assessment of Bone Marrow Responsiveness
In general, anaemia of CKD is normochromic and normocytic and is morphologically indistinguishable from the
anaemia of chronic illness. Initial assessment of anaemia in CKD patients should aim at identifying other
factors that may influence the response to treatment.
In addition to Hb, other indices of the FBC report may provide important clinical information:
 Macrocytosis could be due to folate or vitamin B12 deficiency.

 In addition to anaemia of CKD, microcytosis could be due to iron deficiency or haemoglobinopathies.
 Macrocytosis with leucopoenia or thrombocytopenia could be due to several factors such as alcohol intake,
nutritional deficit (vitamin B12 or folate deficiency), or myelodysplasia.
 Serum folate is more prone to variation and can be affected by the patient’s diet immediately prior to
blood being taken, alcohol, trauma and other factors therefore occasionally red cell folate may need to be
measured where serum folate is equivocal.
 Haemolysis is suggested by the presence of macrocytosis, high lactate dehydrogenase and positive Coombs
test.
 The normal absolute reticulocyte count ranges from 40,000 to 50,000 cells/μL. Although it has a significant
inter-patient variability, this test may be useful as a semi-quantitative marker of erythropoietic activity.
c) Evaluating Iron Status in Anaemic Patients with CKD
The aim of evaluating iron status is to assess:
1. Iron level in tissue stores and

2. The adequacy of iron utilisation for erythropoiesis.
Serum ferritin level is the only available blood marker of storage iron. There are several tests to assess
adequacy of iron for erythropoiesis: TSAT, MCV, MCH, percentage of hypochromic red blood cells (HRC) and
reticulocyte Hb content (CHr) or Ret-Hb.
Tests limitations
 HRC estimation is a useful test for assessment of iron availability but is limited by the effect of sample
storage time and need for special analysers. Long sample storage time (> 6 hours) may spuriously increase
HRC. Because a fresh sample is needed, this measure may not be practical in routine clinical practice.
 If using percentage of hypochromic red blood cells from a fresh sample is not possible, reticulocyte Hb
content (CHr) or Ret-Hb could be a suitable alternative.
 If testing for CHr (or Ret-Hb) is not feasible, it is preferable to test ferritin and TSAT together because the
combination provides an important insight into erythropoiesis, iron storage and iron availability to bone
marrow.
 Low serum ferritin is diagnostic of iron deficiency. High serum ferritin, in addition to expressing the
adequacy of iron stores, could be due to inflammatory conditions. TSAT is influenced by nutritional status,
timing and inflammation. TSAT is also limited by high day to day variations.
In patients with CKD not on dialysis, serum ferritin levels less than 25 ng/mL in males and less than 12 ng/mL in
females suggest depletion of iron stores as a cause of anaemia; but serum ferritin level is less reliable in the
evaluation of iron stores in HD patients, because ferritin level is affected by other factors in addition to iron
storage status. In relatively healthy HD patients, before widespread use of IV iron therapy, the finding of a
ferritin level less than 50 ng/mL was not uncommon(1) and was associated with absent bone marrow iron in
approximately 80% of patients(2). However, in HD patients with several co-morbidities, absent iron stores may
still be found at ferritin levels approaching or even exceeding 200 ng/mL(3).
Iron-deficiency is most likely to contribute to anaemia when TSAT results are less than 20%. However, the
clinical utility of TSAT is impaired by the absence of a diagnostic threshold above which deficient iron
utilisation can be excluded as a cause of anaemia(4).
There is little information in literature to guide the approach to CKD patients who show laboratory evidence of
iron deficiency. Nevertheless, given the high prevalence of GI blood loss due to variety of causes in this patient
population, deciding on a subsequent management plan, including endoscopy, depends on the clinical
presentation. This supports the recommendation that CKD patients who present with anaemia and iron
deficiency should undergo careful clinical assessment prior to the initiation of anaemia therapy(5-7).
Reduced iron availability for erythropoiesis can manifest as low mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and mean
corpuscular Hb (MCH), but given the relatively long lifespan of circulating erythrocyte, this test will not reflect
the existing availability of iron at the time of testing. Testing the reticulocytes for their Hb content (CHr or Ret-
He) may allow more accurate estimation of iron availability, because reticulocytes are present in the
circulation for 4-5 days, so give a discrete population to study. Reduced red cell Hb can be reflective of
reduced haem availability or globin. Therefore, the red cell analyte values (%HRC, CHr, Ret-He) may be
affected by the presence of haemoglobinopathies(4).
References
1. Fishbane S, Lynn RI. The efficacy of iron dextran for the treatment of iron deficiency in haemodialysis
patients. Clin Nephrol 1995; 44:238-240.
2. Fernandez-Rodriguez AM, Guindeo-Casasus MC, Molero-Labarta T et al. Diagnosis of iron deficiency in
chronic renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34:508-513.
3. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Hoffken B, Wunsch H, Fink H et al FC. Diagnosis of iron deficiency anaemia in renal failure
patients during the post-erythropoietin era. Am J Kidney Dis 1995; 26:292-299.
4. KDOQI guidelines on anaemia management:
http://www2.kidney.org/professionals/KDOQI/guidelines_anemia/guide1.htm (accessed 15/06/2017.
5. Coban E, Timuragaoglu A, Meric M. Iron deficiency anaemia in the elderly: Prevalence and endoscopic
evaluation of the gastrointestinal tract in outpatients. Acta Haematol 2003; 110:25-28.
6. Ioannou GN, Rockey DC, Bryson CL et al. Iron deficiency and gastrointestinal malignancy: A population-
based cohort study. Am J Med 2002; 113:276-280.
7. Ioannou GN, Spector J, Scott K, et al. Prospective evaluation of a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and
management of iron deficiency anaemia. Am J Med 2002; 113:281-287.
Guideline 2.1 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy – Iron repletion
We recommend that patients should be iron replete to achieve and maintain target Hb whether receiving ESAs
or not. (1B)
Iron repletion in is usually defined as:
 %HRC <6% / CHr >29 pg / ferritin and TSAT (>100 microgram/L and >20%).
 For Children, aim for a target ferritin level greater than 100 microgram/L for CKD patients on dialysis as well
as CKD patients not on ESA Therapy. (ungraded)
Rationale
A definition of adequate iron status(1) is:
 a serum ferritin
 200-500 microgram/L in HD patients,
 100-500 microgram/L in non-HD patients and
 Either <6% hypochromic red cells (HRC), or reticulocyte Hb content >29 pg.
 TSAT>20%
The aim of iron treatment targets is to optimise anaemia therapy while minimising potential toxicity. Therapy
targets aim at:
1. Minimising the ESA dose required to maintain target Hb levels in patients on ESA therapy and;
2. Maximising the Hb level and minimising the need to initiate ESA therapy to achieve target-range Hb levels in
patients not on ESA therapy.
Increasing the Hb in anaemic patients places the greatest demand for iron in the erythropoietic tissues. During
ESA induction therapy iron requirements will depend on the rate of erythropoiesis, the Hb deficit, and ongoing
iron losses. Once the target Hb has been reached and Hb stabilised, the iron requirements will be dependent
on ongoing iron losses.
When adequate iron status is achieved, CKD patients on ESA therapy should be given maintenance iron
treatment.
 Several studies have reported that the dose of ESA required to achieve and maintain a given Hb level is
inversely related to iron stores (2-7). Iron deficiency (absolute or functional) was the main cause of ESA
resistance in the UK but this has now been solved by parenteral iron replacement strategies (8). The
evidence behind the statement that TSAT generally should be maintained at greater than 20% stems from a
single RCT comparing higher to lower TSAT targets; patients randomized to a target TSAT of 30% to 50%
demonstrated a 40% reduction in ESA dose compared with those assigned to a target of 20% to 30%(9).
 In a randomised controlled study involving 157 haemodialysis patients comparing iron management based
on serum ferritin and transferrin saturation versus CHr, CHr was a markedly more stable analyte than
serum ferritin or transferrin saturation. Iron management based on CHr resulted in similar haematocrit and
epoetin dosing while significantly reducing IV iron exposure (10).
 In another study involving 164 chronic haemodialysis patients, low CHr (<26 pg) was suggestive of
functional iron deficiency. When a subgroup of patients were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of
IV iron dextran (1000 mg), A CHr < 26 pg at baseline predicted iron deficiency with a sensitivity of 100% and
specificity of 80%. The serum ferritin, transferrin saturation and percentage of hypochromic red blood cells
were all less accurate. The time to correction of iron deficiency at the level of the reticulocyte was found to
be within 48 hours as measured by correction of the mean CHr to > 26 pg, and by the shift of the vast
majority of the reticulocyte population to CHr > 26 pg within this time span. (11)
 In a study comparing TSAT versus CHr as a guide of parenteral iron therapy in 197 Japanese peritoneal
dialysis patients, although CHr reflected the iron status more sensitively, TSAT was a better clinical marker
for iron supplementation therapy (12). A cross-sectional study of 72 haemodialysis patients was performed.
Mean haemoglobin was 9.6 +/- 0.16 g/dl. Mean haemoglobin content of reticulocytes (CHr) was normally
distributed and correlated with MCV, MCH and red cell ferritin. A low CHr identified patients with iron
deficiency with normal serum ferritin or transferrin saturation (13).
 Tessitore et al (14) compared the diagnostic efficiency of different iron markers in chronic haemodialysis
patients. Although percentage hypochromia >6% was the best marker to identify responsiveness to
intravenous iron; CHr was 78% efficient at cut-off ≤ 29 pg.
 TSAT and serum ferritin were evaluated in 47 chronic haemodialysis patients with baseline serum ferritin
levels < 600 ng/ml. Patients were treated with IV dextran (1000 mg over ten haemodialysis treatments).
Patients were classified as having iron deficiency if haematocrit value increased by 5% or if their
erythropoietin dose decreased by 10% by 2 months. Receiver operator curves demonstrated that none of
the iron indices had a high level of utility (both sensitivity and specificity > 80%). As such it was concluded
that both tests should be interpreted in the context of the patient's underlying EPO responsiveness. In
patients who are responsive to EPO, a transferrin saturation value < 18% or serum ferritin level < 100 ng/ml
should be used to indicate inadequate iron. When EPO resistance is present, transferrin saturation of < 27%
or serum ferritin < 300 microgram/L should be used to guide iron management (15).
 NICE evaluation of iron therapy in CKD patients suggests that for haemodialysis patients, %HRC > 6
dominated all other iron evaluation strategies (it led both to more QALYs and lower cost) (1). For the other
patients, TSAT less than 20% alone or serum ferritin less than 100 micrograms/L alone were the least cost
effective strategy, but %HRC was the most cost-effective (1).
 NICE guidelines on anaemia management in CKD patients suggest to:
 Use percentage of hypochromic red blood cells (% HRC; > 6%), but only if processing of blood sample
is possible within 6 hours. Since a fresh blood sample is needed, this test may be difficult to use
routinely in clinical practice.
 If using percentage of hypochromic red blood cells is not possible, use reticulocyte Hb content (CHr; <
29 pg) or equivalent tests – for example, reticulocyte Hb equivalent.
 If these tests are not available or the person has thalassaemia or thalassaemia trait, use a
combination of transferrin saturation (less than 20%) and serum ferritin measurement (less than 100
microgram/L). (1)
We believe that CHr (<29 pg) is more sensitive in determining iron depletion than %HRC. This is because
CHr reflects haemoglobin content of young reticulocytes, and therefore reflects iron availability in the
preceding few days; while %HRC reflects haemoglobin contents of whole erythrocyte pool, and since
senescent erythrocyte tend to get smaller in volume, the test may be affected by the overall rate of
erythropoiesis.
 If neither test is available, we recommend testing both serum ferritin and transferrin saturation rather
than relying on either test separately (1,15).
 For Children, a target ferritin level greater than 100 microgram/L for CKD patients on dialysis as well as
CKD patients not on ESA Therapy is appropriate (16) (ungraded). There is no evidence that a higher ferritin
target of 200 microgram/L is beneficial or safe in paediatric CKD HD patients.
References
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG8/evidence, (accessed 11/01/2017)
2. Besarab A, Amin N, Ahsan M et al. Optimization of epoetin therapy with intravenous iron therapy in
haemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000; 11: 530-538.
3. Besarab A, Dalton CL. Maintaining higher TSATs and other iron indices is beneficial in management of
anaemic haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Nurs J 2001; 28: 429-434.
4. Coladonato JA, Frankenfield DL, Reddan DN et al. Trends in anaemia management among US haemodialysis
patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002; 13: 1288-1295.
5. Kalantar-Zadeh K, McAllister CJ, Lehn RS et al. Effect of malnutrition-inflammation complex syndrome on
EPO hyporesponsiveness in maintenance haemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2003; 42: 761-773.
6. McClellan WM, Frankenfield DL, Wish JB et al. Subcutaneous erythropoietin results in lower dose and
equivalent hematocrit levels among adult haemodialysis patients: Results from the 1998 End-Stage Renal
Disease Core Indicators Project. Am J Kidney Dis 2001; 37:E36.
7. Richardson D, Bartlett C, Will EJ. Optimizing erythropoietin therapy in haemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney
Dis 2001; 38: 109-117.
8. UK Renal Registry. UK Renal Registry Report: The Seventeenth Annual Report.2014
https://www.renalreg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/07-Chap-07.pdf (accessed 15/06/2017).
haemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 11:530-538, 2000.
10. Fishbane S, Shapiro W, Dutka P et al. A randomized trial of iron deficiency testing strategies in
haemodialysis patients. Kidney International. 2001; 60(6):2406-2411.
11. Fishbane S, Galgano C, Langley RC, Jr et al. Reticulocyte haemoglobin content in the evaluation of iron
status of haemodialysis patients. Kidney International. 1997; 52(1):217-222.
12. Kaneko Y, Miyazaki S, Hirasawa Y et al. Transferrin saturation versus reticulocyte haemoglobin content for
iron deficiency in Japanese haemodialysis patients. Kidney International. 2003; 63:1086-109.
13. Bhandari S, Turney JH, Brownjohn AM et al. Reticulocyte indices in patients with end stage renal disease on
haemodialysis. Journal of Nephrology 1998; 11: 2, 78-82.
14. Tessitore N, Solero GP, Lippi G et al. The role of iron status markers in predicting response to intravenous
iron in haemodialysis patients on maintenance erythropoietin. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2001;
16(7):1416-1423.
15. Chen YC, Hung SC, Tarng DC. Association between transferrin receptor-ferritin index and conventional
measures of iron responsiveness in haemodialysis patients. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2006;
47(6):1036-1044.
16. National Kidney Foundation. KDOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines and Clinical Practice Recommendations for
Anaemia in Chronic Kidney Disease. Section III. Clinical practice recommendations for anaemia in chronic
kidney disease in children. Am J Kidney Dis 2006; 47:S86–108.
Guideline 2.2 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron Therapy - Initiation of ESA and Iron Status:
We suggest that ESA therapy should not be initiated in the presence of absolute iron deficiency (ferritin <100
microgram/L) until this is corrected and anaemia persists. In patients with functional iron deficiency iron
supplements should be given prior to or when initiating ESA therapy. (2B)
Audit measure
Proportion of patients with serum ferritin levels < 100ng/ml at start of treatment with ESA
Rationale
Iron is a required for production of new red cells. Iron must be supplied to the erythropoietic tissue at an
adequate rate, particularly if stimulated by ESA therapy. If iron stores are low ESAs can still be used if renal
anaemia is a likely contributor to the anaemia as long as iron is made directly available to the erythropoietic
tissues coincident with the initiation of ESA therapy.
 For CKD dialysis patients, percentage of hypochromic red blood cells >6%, reticulocyte Hb content < 29 pg
or are ideal test to assess iron status.
 If these tests are not available or the person has thalassaemia or thalassaemia trait, a combination of
transferrin saturation (less than 20%) and serum ferritin measurement (less than 100 microgram/L) could
be a suitable alternative (1)
Reference
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG8/evidence. (accessed 15/06/2017)
Guideline 2.3 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy - Route of Administration:
We suggest that oral iron will, in general, be sufficient to maintain and may be sufficient to attain the Hb
within targets in ESA treated CKD patients not yet requiring dialysis and in those on peritoneal dialysis (PD).
(2B)
For CKD patients not requiring haemodialysis, the choice between oral vs. parenteral iron depends on the
severity of iron deficiency, the previous response and side effects, the availability of venous access and the
need to initiate ESA therapy (2A).
In contrast most haemodialysis patients will require intravenous iron. (2A).
When offering intravenous iron therapy to people not receiving haemodialysis, consider high dose, low-
frequency IV iron as the treatment of choice for adults and young people when trying to achieve iron
repletion, taking into account all of the following:
 the availability of venous access

 preferences of the person with anaemia of CKD or, where appropriate, their family or carers
 nursing and administration costs
 cost of local drug supply
 provision of resuscitation facilities
Intravenous iron administered at a low dose and high frequency may be more appropriate for adults who are
receiving in-centre haemodialysis.
High dose, low frequency (HD/LF) is considered to be a maximum of 2 infusions. For adults this is considered
to be a minimum of 500 mg of iron in each infusion.
Low dose, high frequency (LD/HF) is considered to be more than 2 infusions. For adults, there would typically
be 100–200 mg of iron in each infusion.
At the time of publication intravenous iron products available in the UK did not have a UK marketing
authorisation for all ages of children and young people for this indication.
Refer to the Summary of Product Characteristics for the prescription of individual iron preparations.
Audit measure
 Proportion of pre-dialysis and PD patients receiving iron therapy; type: oral vs. parenteral
 Proportion of pre-D and PD patients who are iron replete
 proportion of HD who are iron replete
Rationale
The evidence base for intravenous iron over oral iron in pre-dialysis patients and PD patients is limited. Oral
iron, if tolerated, appears to be adequate in most patients particularly in combination with ESA therapy. In
patients who appear resistant to ESA therapy on oral iron, or are intolerant of oral iron, a therapeutic trial of
IV iron trial seems reasonable.
 One randomised study 188 patients of IV iron (1000mg iron sucrose in divided doses over 14 days) versus
oral iron (ferrous sulphate 325mg TDS) in pre-dialysis patients demonstrated a greater improvement in Hb
outcome in those on IV iron (more patients achieved a Hb increased of >10g/L) but no difference in the
proportion of patients who had to commence ESA after the start of the study(1).
 Two studies in pre-dialysis patients not on ESA (one without oral iron and the other after oral iron therapy)
demonstrated improvements in Hb outcome after IV iron(2,3).
 Oral iron is easy and cheap to prescribe. It seems reasonable to treat patients who have not responded to
or been intolerant of oral iron with IV iron.
 Two randomised controlled studies of oral versus IV iron supplementation in pre-dialysis patients receiving
concomitant ESAs are in agreement. In the first study of 45 patients with Hb <110g/L given either ferrous
sulphate 200mg TDS versus 300mg iron sucrose IV monthly, there was no difference in Hb or ESA dose
between the oral and IV group receiving ESA over a mean 5.2 months follow-up(4). Iron stores were greater
in the IV than oral group. Five patients (55%) in the oral iron group had diabetes, compared to none on the
IV iron group and this may have confounded the results on iron stores. In addition more patients in the
oral iron group were exposed to ACEi/ARBs.
 Similar findings were reported in another study of 96 ND-CKD patients comparing 5 weeks of IV iron
sucrose (200mg every 7 days for a total of 5 doses) versus 29 days of thrice daily oral iron (ferrous sulphate
325mg TDS). There was no difference in Hb or ESA dose but greater increase in ferritin in the IV group(5).In
this study the frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms was greater in the oral iron group than the IV iron
group (constipation 34.5% vs. 12.5%; nausea 10.4% vs. 4.2%).
 In PD patients a cross-over study of oral and IV iron demonstrated higher Hb and lower ESA doses with IV
iron after 4 months oral(6).
 The relative safety of parenteral iron compared with oral iron was assessed in a study involving patients
with stage III and IV CKD and iron deficiency anaemia. Patients were randomly assigned to either oral
ferrous sulphate (69 patients to 325mg three times daily for 8 weeks) or intravenous iron sucrose (67
patients to 200mg every 2 weeks, total 1g). The trial was terminated early based on a higher risk of serious
adverse events in the intravenous iron treatment group. There were 36 serious cardiovascular events
among 19 participants assigned to the oral iron treatment group and 55 events among 17 participants of
the intravenous iron group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 2.51 (1.56–4.04)). Infections resulting in
hospitalisation had a significantly increased adjusted incidence rate ratio of 2.12 (1.24–3.64). The authors
concluded that among non-dialysis patients with CKD and anaemia, intravenous iron therapy could be
associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events, including those from cardiovascular causes and
infectious diseases (7).
 Conversely; the above finding was not reproduced in another study that involved 626 non dialysis CKD
patients with anaemia and iron deficiency not on ESAs. In this study, patients were randomized (1:1:2) to
intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), targeting a higher (400–600 microgram/L) or lower (100–200
microgram/L) ferritin or oral iron therapy. The primary end point was time to initiation of other anaemia
management (ESA, other iron therapy or blood transfusion) or Hb trigger of two consecutive values <100
g/L during Weeks 8–52. The increase in Hb was greater with high-ferritin FCM versus oral iron (P = 0.014)
and a greater proportion of patients achieved an Hb increase ≥10 g/L with high-ferritin FCM versus oral iron
(HR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.52–2.72; P < 0.001). Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in
all groups(8).
 Similarly no safety signal could be detected in another study comparing intravenous iron isomaltoside
versus oral iron in stage G5 non dialysis patients. In this study 351 iron-deficient patients were randomized
2:1 to either iron isomaltoside 1000 or iron sulphate administered as 100 mg elemental oral iron twice daily
(200 mg daily) for 8 weeks. Haemoglobin response, serum-ferritin and transferrin saturation were
significantly increased with IV iron compared with those treated with oral iron. Incidence of adverse drug
reactions was not different between both groups. More patients treated with oral iron sulphate withdrew
from the study due to adverse events (4.3 versus 0.9%, P = 0.2) (9).
 At present oral iron should remain first line treatment among CKD patients not on haemodialysis and IV
iron used if patients are intolerant of oral iron or remain absolutely or functionally iron deficient despite
oral iron. The further interpretation of these results is limited by several factors including the relative short
duration of follow-up and limited data on potential long term adverse effects such as the impact of
oxidative stress.
 HD patients have additional iron losses from GI bleeding, blood tests and losses in the dialysis lines that
result in iron supplementation requirements that outstrip the capacity of the gut to absorb iron.
Maintenance IV iron in HD patients greatly reduces ESA requirements and costs (1,4,10-15). Maintaining iron
stores at steady state in a HD population requires 50-60mg/week of intravenous iron(11-13). How this is
repleted remains a subject under study. A recent open-label, randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority trial
conducted in 351 haemodialysis subjects randomized 2 : 1 to either iron isomaltoside 1000 (Group A) or
iron sucrose (Group B). Subjects in Group A were equally divided into A1 (500 mg single bolus injection)
and A2 (500 mg split dose). Group B were also treated with 500 mg split dose. All treatments showed
similar efficacy and safety(16)
References
1. Van Wyck DB, Roppolo M, Martinez CO et al. A randomized, controlled trial comparing IV iron sucrose to
oral iron in anaemic patients with non-dialysis dependent CKD. Kidney Int 2005; 68: 2846-2856.
2. Anuradha S, Singh NP, Agarwal SK. Total dose infusion iron dextran therapy in pre-dialysis chronic renal
failure patients. Renal Failure 2002; 24: 307-313.
3. Silverberg DS, Iaina A, Peer G et al. Intravenous iron supplementation for the treatment of the anaemia of
moderate to severe chronic renal failure patients not receiving dialysis. Am.J.Kidney Dis 1996; 27: 234-238.
4. Stoves J, Inglis H, Newstead CG. A randomized study of oral vs. intravenous iron supplementation in
patients with progressive renal insufficiency treated with erythropoietin. Nephrol.Dial.Transplant 2001;
16: 967-974.
5. Charytan C, Qunibi W, Bailie GR. Comparison of intravenous iron sucrose to oral iron in the treatment of
anaemic patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis. Nephron Clin.Pract 2005; 100: c55-c62.
6. Ahsan N. Infusion of total dose iron versus oral iron supplementation in ambulatory peritoneal dialysis
patients: a prospective, cross-over trial. Adv Perit Dial 2000; 16:80-84.
7. Agarwal R, Kusek JW, Pappas MK. A randomized trial of intravenous and oral iron in chronic kidney
disease. Kidney Int. 2015 Oct;88(4):905-14.
8. Macdougall IC, Bock AH, Carrera F, et al.; for the FIND-CKD Study Investigators. FIND-CKD: a randomized
trial of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose versus oral iron in patients with chronic kidney disease and iron
deficiency anaemia. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2014; 29:2075-2084.
9. Kalra PA, Bhandari S, Saxena S, et al. A randomized trial of iron isomaltoside 1000 versus oral iron in non-
dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease patients with anaemia. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2016 31: 646–
655.
10. Besarab A, Kaiser JW, Frinak S. A study of parenteral iron regimens in haemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney
Dis 1999; 34: 21-28.
11. Macdougall IC, Chandler G, Elston O et al. Beneficial effects of adopting an aggressive intravenous iron
policy in a haemodialysis unit. Am J Kidney Dis 1999; 34:S40-S46.
13. Richardson D, Bartlett C, Will EJ. Optimizing erythropoietin therapy in haemodialysis patients. Am J
Kidney Dis 2001; 38: 109-117.
14. Fishbane S, Frei GL, Maesaka J. Reduction in recombinant human erythropoietin doses by the use of
chronic intravenous iron supplementation. Am J Kidney Dis 1995; 26: 41-46.
15. Macdougall IC, Tucker B, Thompson J et al. A randomized controlled study of iron supplementation in
patients treated with erythropoietin. Kidney Int 1996; 50: 1694-1699.
16. Bhandari S, Kalra PA, Kothari J et al A randomized, open-label trial of iron isomaltoside1000 (Monofer®)
compared with iron sucrose (Venofer®) as maintenance therapy in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial
Transplant 2015 0: 1–13, doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfv096
Guideline 2.4 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy - Upper limit for iron therapy
For non-haemodialysis patients; we recommend that serum ferritin should not exceed 800 μg /L in patients
treated with iron, and to achieve this iron management should be reviewed when the ferritin is >500 μg /L.
(1B)
For haemodialysis patients; we recommend that proactive high-dose IV iron sucrose 400 mg every month (or
equivalent) should be given unless ferritin > 700 μg/L or TSAT>40% (1A).
Rationale
 Iron overload is defined as increased total body iron content with the possible risk of organ dysfunction (1).
 There is no clinically available method that accurately determines total body iron content.
 An elevated serum ferritin does not always correlate with elevations in liver iron content (2,3).
 Magnetic resonance imaging provides a reliable assessment of tissue iron content in HD patients
regularly treated with parenteral iron (4). However, the clinical relevance of increased liver iron remains
unclear.
 Elevated serum ferritin together with elevated serum transferrin saturation remain the most clinically
accurate parameter of iron overload in CKD patients.
 Discontinuation of adequate maintenance IV iron when an individual‘s ferritin is > 500 microgram/L
produces a population mean that straddles the 500microgram/L ceiling (5). Ongoing iron therapy in
patients with ferritin >500 microgram/L results in a higher median ferritin outcome(6).
 Interpretation of iron status results and deciding on the need for further iron therapy should include a
concomitant assessment of changes in Hb level and ESA dose over time. Examples:
 A dropping ferritin as well as decreasing Hb levels signifies blood loss e.g. on HD or bowel related
anaemia: iron therapy is indicated; further investigation may be required depending on the clinical
scenario.
 A decreasing ferritin level after initiation of ESA therapy, with a concomitant rise in Hb level indicates a
response to ESA with a shift of iron from stores to bone marrow: further iron therapy is guided by
target ferritin level.
 An increasing ferritin level after reduction of ESA dose to bring Hb level down to target range indicates
ferritin level is rising as Hb synthesis is dropping: further iron therapy may be postponed.
 A rising ferritin level and a drop in TSAT suggest an inflammatory condition: a source of inflammation
may be sought: sepsis, vascular access, surgery, recent hospitalisation: further iron therapy depends
on target ferritin level and clinical scenario.
 Ongoing high requirements for IV iron to maintain a given ferritin level also point to ongoing blood
loss.
 The finding of a TSAT less than 20% coupled with a ferritin level greater than 500 microgram/L poses
a particularly difficult problem for clinicians. This situation may be caused by iron test variability(7),
inflammation, or reticuloendothelial iron blockade. Evidence on the risks and benefits of IV iron
therapy in these patients is not well established. The effect of iron therapy in this group of patients
was assessed in The Dialysis patients’ Response to IV Iron with Elevated ferritin (DRIVE) trial(8), which
evaluated the efficacy of intravenous ferric gluconate in 134 patients with high ferritin (500–1200
microgram/L) and low TSAT levels (≤ 25%) who were anaemic despite a high rHuEPO dose (≥225
IU/kg/week or≥22 500 IU/week). After 6 weeks the patients receiving ferric gluconate (125 mg IV at
eight consecutive HD sessions) showed a significant increase in Hb in comparison with controls.
However, the study has a number of limitations because, given the small sample size and short
follow-up, it provides no information about safety and iron overload.
 The Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) study, PIVOTAL compared a high-dose,
proactive IV iron sucrose regimen to a low-dose, reactive IV iron sucrose regimen in 2141 adult patients in
their first year of haemodialysis (HD) receiving an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA).9 Patients in the
high-dose group received 400mg IV iron sucrose proactively every month unless serum ferritin was
>700µg/L or transferrin saturation (TSAT) ≥40%. The low-dose group received 0 to 400mg monthly, with a
serum ferritin of <200μg/L or a TSAT of <20% being a trigger for iron administration. The primary end point
was the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalisation for heart failure, or
death, assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. Secondary end points included death, hospitalisation for
any cause, infection rate and ESA dose. The median follow-up period was 2.1 years. Patients in the high-
dose group received a median monthly iron dose of 264mg, compared with 145mg in the low-dose group.
The median monthly dose of an ESA was 29,757 IU in the high-dose group and 38,805 IU in the low-dose
group. A total of 320 patients (29.3%) in the high-dose group had a primary end-point event, compared
with 338 (32.3%) in the low-dose group (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.00; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.04
for superiority). There was no significant difference in infection rates or hospitalisation for any cause
between the two groups. The authors concluded that a high-dose IV iron regimen administered
proactively was superior to a low-dose regimen administered reactively; resulting in a lower risk of death
or major adverse cardiovascular events, and requiring lower doses of ESA and a lower incidence of blood
transfusions.9
 Finally it is not known whether treatment of patients with CKD and Hb values >120g/L in the presence of
iron deficiency is beneficial. Ongoing studies such as the Iron and Heart Study (EudraCT number: 2014-
004133-16) may provide future data.
References
1. Macdougall IC, Bircher AJ, Eckardt KU, et al; Conference Participants. Iron management in chronic
kidney disease: conclusions from a "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO)
Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2016 Jan;89(1):28-39.
2. Canavese C, Bergamo D, Ciccone G, et al. Validation of serum ferritin values by magnetic
susceptometry in predicting iron overload in dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2004 Mar;65(3):1091-8.
3. Ghoti H, Rachmilewitz EA, Simon-Lopez R, et al. Evidence for tissue iron overload in long-term
haemodialysis patients and the impact of withdrawing parenteral iron. Eur J Haematol. 2012
Jul;89(1):87-93.
4. Rostoker G, Griuncelli M, Loridon C, et al. Haemodialysis-associated hemosiderosis in the era of
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a MRI study. Am J Med. 2012 Oct;125(10):991-999.
5. Richardson D, Bartlett C, Will EJ. Optimizing erythropoietin therapy in haemodialysis patients. Am J
Kidney Dis 2001; 38: 109-117.
7. Fishbane S, Shapiro W, Dutka P et al. A randomized trial of iron deficiency testing strategies in
haemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 2001; 60:2406-2411.
8. Coyne DW, Kapoian T, Suki W et al. DRIVE Study Group. Ferric gluconate is highly efficacious in
anaemic haemodialysis patients with high serum ferritin and low transferrin saturation: results of the
Dialysis Patients‘ Response to IV Iron with Elevated Ferritin (DRIVE) Study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2007; 18:
975–984.
9. Macdougall I.C, White C, Anker S et al. intravenous iron in patients undergoing maintenance
haemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3 1;380 (5):447-458.
Guideline 3.1 - Treatment of Anaemia - Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents
We recommend that treatment with Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (ESAs) should be offered to patients
with anaemia of CKD who are likely to benefit in terms of quality of life and physical function and to avoid
blood transfusion; especially in patients considered suitable for transplantation. (1B)
Audit measure
Proportion of patients on renal replacement therapy (on haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for more than 3
months ) with Hb level < 100 g/L who are not prescribed an ESA
Rationale
Treatment of anaemia in CKD with ESA can be expensive(1), takes time to work and carries a small but
significant risk to the patient. It is therefore reasonable, as with any therapy, to treat only those who are
expected to benefit in the time frame that therapy is being considered. For example, patients with severe
sepsis/inflammation/acute bleeding are unlikely to respond.
Patients with a very short life expectancy (days or weeks) are not likely to survive long enough for therapy to
provide benefit in terms of an increase in Hb. The clinician and patient should agree on a therapeutic plan and,
at an appropriate time, review whether therapy is providing enough benefit to continue treatment.
Reference
management in chronic kidney disease. 2015. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Guideline 3.2 - Treatment of Anaemia - Choice of ESA
We recommend that the decision on the choice of ESA is based on local availability of ESAs. (1B)
Audit measure
Each renal unit should audit the type, route and frequency of administration and weekly dose of ESA
prescribed
Rationale
Many studies have been published comparing different ESA products against each other when used at
different dosing intervals, by different routes of administration and in different patient groups. All the
available products are efficacious when administered according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. The
choice of ESA will be dependent upon the clinician and patient agreeing a management plan and local supply
arrangements(1).
Reference
Guideline 3.3 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Target Hb:
We suggest that patients with CKD on ESA therapy should achieve Hb between:
 100 and 120 g/L in adults, young people and children aged 2 years and older (2B)
 95 and 115 g/L in children younger than 2 years of age (reflecting the lower normal range in that age (2B)
Guideline 3.4 - Treatment of Anaemia without ESA therapy - Target Hb
We suggest that these Hb targets apply exclusively to patients receiving ESA and are not intended to apply to
the treatment of iron deficiency in patients receiving iron therapy without the use of ESAs. (2B)
Audit measures
 The proportion of CKD stage 4-5 patients with Hb 100-120 g/L.

 The proportion of patients treated with an ESA with Hb > 120 g/L.
 Mean (median) ESA dose in patients maintained on ESA therapy.
Rationale for Guidelines 3.3 and 3.4
 In determining target Hb guidelines it is important to assess potential benefits (in terms of possible
improved survival, improvement in health related quality of life (HRQoL) and avoidance of transfusion
requirement and hospitalisation) vs. potential harms (increased mortality, increased risk of vascular
events).
 Although several studies have shown that higher Hb targets could be associated with improvements in both
physical and mental health domains(1), the HRQoL benefits of higher Hb targets diminish over time(1). In
addition, there is no apparent Hb threshold above which there is definitively a quality-of-life improvement
in the higher Hb treatment arms.
 Besarab et al(2) reported a study of normalisation of haemoglobin in 1233 prevalent CKD G5HD patients
with high cardiovascular risk on haemodialysis. Normalisation of haemoglobin showed no benefit in risk
reduction but did show an improvement in quality of life. The treatment arm showed a trend towards
increased risk of death failure (183 deaths and 19 myocardial infarcts, producing 202 primary events,
compared to 164 events (150 deaths, 14 myocardial infarcts) and vascular access (39% versus 29%) and the
trial was terminated before completion on the grounds that the study was unlikely to show benefit from
normalisation.
 Two studies evaluated the effect of ESA on patients not yet on dialysis – CHOIR(3) and CREATE(4). The
outcome of the CHOIR study showed no benefit of higher Hb outcome in CKD patients (GFR 15-50ml/min)
randomised to Hb of 113g/L vs. 135g/L. Higher outcome target Hb had an increased risk (using composite
end-points of death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalisation for congestive cardiac failure) and no
incremental improvement in quality of life(3). The limitation of this study is that, compared with the group
assigned to the lower Hb treatment target, the higher Hb target group showed at baseline a statistically
greater proportion of patients with a history of hypertension and coronary artery bypass graft. A report
posted by the study sponsor (5) indicates that patients assigned to the higher Hb treatment arm also had a
significantly greater severity of congestive heart failure (CHF) at baseline. The results of a multivariate
analysis, included in this report, indicate that after adjustment for baseline conditions (CHF by National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey CHF score, atrial fibrillation/flutter, serum albumin level,
reticulocyte count, and age), the relationship between treatment assignment and primary composite
outcome events is no longer statistically significant (HR, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.62; p =
0.11 compared with the unadjusted HR of 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.74; p = 0.03) (6). A secondary analysis of
the CHOIR trial suggested that higher doses of epoetin α, rather than target Hb per se, were associated
with an increased risk of death, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure or stroke compared with
lower epoetin doses, and with poorer outcomes(6). Another secondary analysis of the CHOIR study found
that, among patients with diabetes mellitus, the percentage of patients reaching the primary end point of
death, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure or stroke within 3 years was similar in the high and
low haemoglobin arms of the trial (24.8% versus 24.7%, respectively; p = 0.249). By contrast, among
patients without diabetes mellitus at baseline, 36.4% of patients randomized to the higher Hb target had
reached the primary end point after 3 years compared with 24% of those randomized to the lower
haemoglobin target (HR 1.70; 95% CI 1.03–2.81; p= 0.04). Individuals without diabetes mellitus randomized
to the higher haemoglobin target had a significantly greater risk of reaching the primary end point after 3
years than individuals with diabetes mellitus randomized to the lower haemoglobin target (7).
 The CREATE(4) study reported that early correction of anaemia to normal Hb (130-150g/L vs. 105-115g/L)
did not reduce risk of cardiovascular events. Indeed the hazards ratio for primary endpoints of death from
any cause or death from cardiovascular disease consistently (but not significantly) favoured the lower
haemoglobin target group. The trend to increase in events appeared to occur after initiation of dialysis but
there was no difference in endpoints after censoring of data from patients who started dialysis. Quality of
life was significantly better in the higher Hb outcome group. Although GFR was not significantly different
between the two groups, more patients started renal replacement therapy earlier in the higher Hb
outcome group (p =0.03) with the difference apparent from 18 months. An important limitation of this trial
is that the event rate was much lower than predicted; thus, the power to detect a difference in event rates
was decreased(4).
 Other important limitation (s) of these trials is that important subgroups of patients enrolled in large trials,
such as young adults, patients returning to dialysis after failed renal transplant, or patients with chronic
lung disease were not identified or assessed in any of these trials.
 Further analysis of outcome of high target Hb was performed by the KDOQI team(8). An Evidence Review
Team analysed all data from randomized controlled trials of anaemia management in CKD, including,
CHOIR, CREATE and other studies. Combining mortality outcomes from eight studies involving 3038
subjects with CKD who were not on dialysis (the CHOIR and CREATE studies contributed most of the weight
to the analysis) revealed no difference between the higher and lower Hb target (7), but combining adverse
cardiovascular events from six studies involving 2850 subjects showed an increased risk among the patients
assigned to the higher Hb targets (a RR of 1.24, 95% CI 1.02–1.51) (8), although it is worth noting that the
CHOIR and CREATE studies also contributed most of the weight to the analysis. Among dialysis patients,
combining mortality (four studies, 2391 subjects) or cardiovascular outcomes (three studies, 1975 subjects)
showed no statistically significant difference between the higher and lower Hb level with The US Normal
Haematocrit Study(2) contributing most of the weight to the analysis.
In the TREAT study(9), 4038 patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease not on dialysis, and anaemia,
were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to darbepoetin α, to achieve Hb level of approximately 130 g/L or to
placebo, with rescue darbepoetin α when the haemoglobin level was less than 90 g/L. The primary end
points were the composite outcomes of death or a cardiovascular event (nonfatal myocardial infarction,
congestive heart failure, stroke, or hospitalization for myocardial ischemia) and of death or end-stage renal
disease. After a median follow up of 29 months, there was no difference between the two arms in the
primary outcome of death, cardiovascular event or end stage renal disease. Fatal or nonfatal stroke
occurred in 101 patients assigned to darbepoetin α and 53 patients assigned to placebo (HR, 1.92; 95% CI,
1.38 to 2.68; p <0.001). The investigators concluded that for many involved in clinical decision making this
risk of prescribing an ESA in this patient population will outweigh the potential benefits(9).
 Data from observational studies have, however, not shown increased hazard risk among patients who
achieved higher Hb. In one study, data from haemodialysis patients in the UK Renal Registry from 1999 to
2005 were analysed for the relative risk of death at different Hb concentrations. Hb concentrations above
the reference range (100–110 g/L) consistently showed a 35% lower relative risk of death, while patients
with haemoglobin below 100 g/L had a 28% higher mortality. The greatest mortality was seen in patients
with haemoglobin <90 g/L (73% increased risk of death, although due to the small numbers, this was not
statistically significant). On the other hand, the lowest death rate was seen in patients with haemoglobin
levels between 120 and 139 g/L (64% reduced mortality) (10).
 The effect of cumulative ESA dose was also reported in another retrospective study(11). In this study, which
looked at data from Medicare‘s end-stage renal disease program between 1999 and 2007, different US
dialysis centres annual anaemia management practice were characterised by estimating their typical use of
ESAs and intravenous iron in haemodialysis patients within 4 hematocrit categories. Monthly mortality
rates were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression to correlate centre-level patterns of ESA and
iron use with 1-year mortality risk in 269,717 incident haemodialysis patients. Monthly mortality rates were
highest in patients with haematocrit less than 30% (mortality, 2.1%) and lowest for those with haematocrit
of 36% or higher (mortality, 0.7%). After adjustment for baseline case-mix differences, dialysis centres that
used larger ESA doses in patients with haematocrit less than 30% had lower mortality rates than centres
that used smaller doses (highest vs. lowest dose group: HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97). Centres that
administered iron more frequently to patients with haematocrit less than 33% also had lower mortality
rates (highest vs. lowest quintile, HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98). However, centres that used larger ESA doses
in patients with haematocrit between 33% and 35.9% had higher mortality rates (highest vs. lowest
quintile, HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12). More intensive use of both ESAs and iron was associated with
increased mortality risk in patients with haematocrit of 36% or higher (11).
 The findings of all the above studies have obviously made it difficult to define a safe target Hb in CKD
patients treated with ESA. As a result Target Hb in this patient group has been the subject of extensive
debate in the literature:
 KDIGO suggest that for adult CKD patients on dialysis, ESA therapy could be used to avoid having the Hb
concentration fall below 90g/l by starting ESA therapy when the haemoglobin is between 90– 100g/L (12).
 The Anaemia Working Group of ERBP expressed its view that Hb values of 110-120 g/L should be
generally sought in the CKD population without intentionally exceeding 130 g/L In low-risk patients (i.e.
in younger patients with very few comorbidities). In those with ischaemic heart disease with worsening
ischaemic symptoms associated with anaemia, or in those in whom a clear benefit on quality of life can
be foreseen, the start of ESA therapy could be considered at higher Hb values but not exceeding 120 g/L.
In high-risk patients, including those with asymptomatic ischaemic heart disease, treatment initiation
with ESA should be started at Hb values between 90 and 100 g/ L in order to maintain a Hb value ∼100
g/L during maintenance therapy (13).
 NICE guidelines on managing anaemia in CKD patients suggest maintaining the “aspirational” Hb range
between 100 and 120 g/L for adults(14). The rationale behind choosing a wide target Hb range (100-120
g/L) for this guideline is that when the target Hb level is narrow (i.e.10 g/L), variability in achieved Hb
levels around the target is high, the fraction of prevalent patients with achieved Hb levels within the
target range is low and ESA dose titration is required frequently during maintenance therapy.
 The health economics of anaemia therapy using ESAs has been subject to a NICE systematic review (14)
which concludes that treating to a target Hb 100-120g/L is cost effective in HD patients(14). Table 1
summarises the mean Hb data for prevalent UK dialysis patients from the Thirteenth (2010) and
Seventeenth (2013) UK Renal Registry Reports(15,16).
 The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance (2007) notes that using
ESAs to achieve Hb levels greater than 120 g/L is associated with an increased risk of death and serious
cardiovascular events in people with CKD. The MHRA advises that Hb levels greater than this should be
avoided, and that patients should be monitored closely to ensure that the lowest approved dose of ESA
is used to provide adequate control of the symptoms of anaemia. Use of ESAs to achieve Hb levels
greater than 120 g/L is not consistent with UK marketing authorisations for ESAs. Informed consent
should be obtained and documented (17).
Table 1: Hb data for UK prevalent HD patients(15,16)
Median Hb Hb>100g/L Hb 100-120 g/L Interquartile Hb range Hb >110g/L and not on ESA
10%
2010 115 g/L 85% 53% 105- 123 g/L
11%
2013 112 g/L 83% 59% 103 -120 g/L
References
1. Parfrey PS, Foley RN, Wittreich BH et al. Double-blind comparison of full and partial anaemia correction in
incident haemodialysis patients without symptomatic heart disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005
Jul;16(7):2180-9.
2. Besarab A, Bolton WK, Browne JK et al. The effects of normal as compared with low hematocrit values in
patients with cardiac disease who are receiving haemodialysis and epoetin. N Engl J Med. 1998 Aug 27;
339(9):584-90.
3. Singh AK, Szczech L, Tang KL, et al. Correction of anaemia with epoetin alfa in chronic kidney disease. N
Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 16; 355(20):2085-98.
4. Drüeke TB, Locatelli F, Clyne N, et al. Normalization of haemoglobin level in patients with chronic kidney
disease and anaemia. N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 16; 355(20):2071-84.
5. (PROCRIT ®: Clinical Study Report PR00-06-014 (CHOIR) Synopsis, 12 September 2006; available at:
www.clinicaltrials.gov (accessed 15/06/2017)
6. Szczech LA, Barnhart HX, Inrig JK, et al. Secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial epoetin-alpha dose and
achieved haemoglobin outcomes. Kidney Int. 2008 Sep; 74(6):791-8.
7. Szczech LA, Barnhart HX, Sapp S, et al. A secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial shows that comorbid
conditions differentially affect outcomes during anaemia treatment. Kidney Int. 2010 Feb; 77(3):239-46.
8. KDOQI clinical practice guideline and clinical practice recommendations for anaemia in chronic kidney
disease, 2007 update of haemoglobin target. Am J Kidney Dis 2007; 50(3): 471–530.
9. Pfeffer MA, Burdmann EA, Chen CY, et al. A trial of darbepoetin alfa in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney
disease. N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 19;361(21):2019-32.
10. Macdougall IC, Tomson CR, Steenkamp M et al. Relative risk of death in UK haemodialysis patients in
relation to achieved haemoglobin from 1999 to 2005: an observational study using UK Renal Registry data
incorporating 30,040 patient-years of follow-up. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010; 25(3):914-9.
11. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, et al. Comparative mortality risk of anaemia management
practices in incident haemodialysis patients. JAMA. 2010; 303(9):857-64.
12. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Anaemia in Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2012;2:279-335.
13. Locatelli F, Aljama P, Canaud B, et al. Anaemia Working Group of European Renal Best Practice (ERBP).
Target haemoglobin to aim for with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a position statement by ERBP
following publication of the Trial to Reduce cardiovascular Events with Aranesp Therapy (TREAT) study.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010; Sept 25(9):2846-50.
15. UK Renal Registry. UK Renal Registry Report: The fourteenth Annual Report. 2011.
https://www.renalreg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Chap08_Renal11_web.pdf (accessed
15/06/2017).
16. UK Renal Registry. UK Renal Registry Report: The Seventeenth Annual Report. 2014
https://www.renalreg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/07-Chap-07.pdf (accessed 15/06/2017).
17. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency: Recombinant human erythropoietins: new advice
for prescribing. https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/recombinant-human-erythropoietins-new-
advice-for-prescribing (accessed 15/06/2017).
Guideline 3.5 - Treatment of Anaemia - Initial ESA dose
We recommend that the initial ESA dose should be determined by the patient's Hb level, the target Hb level,
the observed rate of increase in Hb level and clinical circumstances. (2B)
Rationale
For initiation of ESA therapy, several points are to be considered:
 Type(s) of licensed ESAs available
 Initial ESA dose
 ESA dose adjustment: dose required for Hb correction vs. maintenance
 Route of ESA administration
 Frequency of ESA administration that best fit patient requirements and achieve maximal convenience
 Patient monitoring for the anticipated response in terms of Hb rise, rate of Hb rise, possible adverse effect
(e.g. hypertension).
In general, the aim of initial ESA therapy is to achieve a rate of increase in Hb levels of 10 to 20 g/L per month.
This rate of rise is considered safe as evidenced from interventional trials on ESA naïve patients(1-3). In CKD
patients with initial Hb levels less than target range, these trials have shown the mean initial rate of Hb level
increase to be in the range of 7 to 25 g/L in the first 4 weeks. This rate of Hb increase is affected by the patient
population, iron status, initial ESA dose, and the frequency and route of ESA administration.
References
1. Eschbach JW, Abdulhadi MH, Browne JK, et al. Recombinant human erythropoietin in anaemic patients
with end-stage renal disease. Results of a phase III multicentre clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Dec
15;111(12):992-1000.
2. Eschbach JW, Kelly MR, Haley NR et al. Treatment of the anaemia of progressive renal failure with
recombinant human erythropoietin. N Engl J Med.1989 Jul 20; 321(3):158-63.
3. Locatelli F, Olivares J, Walker R, et al; European/ Australian NESP 980202 Study Group. Novel
erythropoiesis stimulating protein for treatment of anaemia in chronic renal insufficiency. Kidney Int. 2001
Aug;60(2):741-7.
Guideline 3.6 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Route of administration
Audit measure
Each renal unit should audit the type, route and frequency of administration and weekly dose of ESA
prescribed.
Rationale
In the outpatient setting, SC administration is the only routinely feasible route of administration for non HD
CKD patients. For HD patients, either SC or IV administration is feasible. Among short-acting ESAs,
subcutaneous administration is associated with approximately 30% reduction in dose requirements compared
to that of IV administration for the same target Hb outcome. This has been proven in a large multi-centre RCT
on long term HD patients who had their haematocrit maintained within target range while on epoetin α either
via SC or IV route. Patients were then randomised to IV or SC route. Upon randomization, ESA doses were first
decreased to allow haematocrit levels to decrease to less than target range. Doses were titrated upward to
again achieve target haematocrit levels, and then were adjusted to maintain haematocrit in the target range
during a 26-week maintenance phase. Among 107 patients who completed the trial, those assigned to SC
route showed 27% lower ESA doses than those assigned to IV administration(1). However, not all patients
showed a dose decrease after conversion from IV to SC, and some patients showed a dose increase.
Among long-acting agents, efficacy of SC administration appears to be equivalent to that of IV route at the
examined dosing frequencies (2-5).
References
1. Kaufman JS, Reda DJ, Fye CL, et al. Subcutaneous compared with intravenous epoetin in patients receiving
haemodialysis. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Erythropoietin in
Haemodialysis Patients. N Engl J Med. 1998 Aug 27;339(9):578-83.
2. Locatelli F, Canaud B, Giacardy F, et al. Treatment of anaemia in dialysis patients with unit dosing of
darbepoetin α at a reduced dose frequency relative to recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo).
Nephrol Dial Transplant 2003; 18:362-369.
3. Vanrenterghem Y, Bárány P, Mann JF, et al; European/ Australian NESP 970200 Study Group. Randomized
trial of darbepoetin alfa for treatment of renal anaemia at a reduced dose frequency compared with
rHuEPO in dialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2002 Dec;62(6):2167-75.
4. Spinowitz B, Coyne DW, Lok CE, et al. RUBRA Study Investigators: C.E.R.A. maintains stable control of
haemoglobin in patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis when administered once every two weeks.
Am J Nephrol 2008; 28(2):280-289.
5. Klinger M, Arias M, Vargemezis V, et al. Efficacy of intravenous methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta
administered every 2 weeks compared with epoetin administered 3 times weekly in patients treated by
haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis: a randomized trial. Am J Kidney Dis 2007; 50(6):989-1000.
Guideline 3.7 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Frequency of administration
Rationale
The frequency of ESA administration should be determined by the CKD treatment setting and the class of ESA.
Maximum efficacy is achieved by using the dosing intervals that are ESA class specific. In HD patients receiving
SC short-acting ESA therapy, ESA efficacy is maximal when the drug is given thrice weekly. ESA efficacy
decreases and dose requirement increases when the dosing frequency is extended from thrice-weekly to
once-weekly administration(1). Increasing the time interval between dosages of long acting ESAs could also
result in an increase in dose requirements(2).
References
1. Tolman C, Richardson D, Bartlett C et al. Structured conversion from thrice weekly to weekly erythropoietic
regimens using a computerized decision-support system: A randomized clinical study. J Am Soc Nephrol
2005; 16:1463-1470.
2. Jadoul M, Vanrenterghem Y, Foret M et al. Darbepoetin α administered once monthly maintains
haemoglobin levels in stable dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004;19:898-903.
We recommend that adjustments to ESA doses should be considered when Hb is <105 or >115 g/L in adults,
young people and children aged 2 years and older, in order to balance the benefit and safety to patients given
the current evidence base.
These thresholds for intervention should achieve a population distribution centred on a mean of 110 g/L with
a range of 100-120 g/L. (2B)
In children younger than 2 years, adjust ESA dose before Hb level is outside the target range to ensure Hb level
is maintained within that range. (ungraded)
We suggest that ESA doses should ideally be decreased rather than withheld when a downward adjustment of
Hb level is required. (2B)
Guideline 3.10 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA Therapy
We suggest that ESA administration in ESA-dependent patients should continue during acute illness, surgical
procedures or any other cause of hospitalisation, unless there is a clear contra-indication such as
accelerated hypertension. (2B)
Rationale for Guidelines 3.8 – 3.10
 The NICE Guidelines for anaemia management in chronic kidney disease recommend an “aspirational” Hb
of 100-120 g/L. It is anticipated that if a population Hb distribution is centred on this outcome with a mean
of 110g/L, then 85% of the population will have Hb > 100g/L(1).
 In HD patients, withholding ESA doses for Hb levels greater than the target range is associated with
subsequent downward Hb excursions often to levels less than target Range(2). The time between
withholding ESA doses and return of Hb to target range is variable and unpredictable. In HD patients with
Hb values greater than 140 g/L, the median time for Hb to return to 120 g/L or less after withholding of a
SC-administered ESA is 7-9 weeks. The difference between withholding long and short acting ESAs on the
rate of Hb reduction is not significant(3).
 ESA dose adjustment may be higher during initiation (or titration after switch between different ESAs) than
maintenance phases of ESA therapy. In a randomized double blind trial comparing a short-acting ESA with a
long-acting ESA in haemodialysis patients previously receiving epoetin α, dose adjustments were made in
25% increments or decrements of the baseline dose, aiming to maintain individual Hb concentrations
within a range of 90 to 130 g/L(4). Approximately 70% of patients required dose adjustment in the 20-week
titration period, and 50% required dose adjustment during the 8 week maintenance period.
References
http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG8/evidence (accessed 15/06/2017)
2. Fishbane S, Berns JS: Haemoglobin cycling in haemodialysis patients treated with recombinant human
erythropoietin. Kidney Int 2005; 68:1337-1343.
3. Locatelli F, Olivares J, Walker R, et al; European/ Australian NESP 980202 Study Group. Novel erythropoiesis
stimulating protein for treatment of anaemia in chronic renal insufficiency. Kidney Int. 2001 Aug;60(2):741-
7.
4. Nissenson AR, Swan SK, Lindberg JS, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of darbepoetin alfa for the
treatment of anaemia in haemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002 Jul; 40(1):110-8.5.
Guideline 3.11 – Caution in prescribing ESA in certain CKD patients sub-group:
We suggest exerting extreme caution while prescribing ESA therapy in CKD patients with a history of stroke, or
malignancy, particularly in those with active malignancy when cure is the anticipated outcome (2C).
Rationale
 In the TREAT study, there was an increased risk of stroke in the high ESA group (HR 1.92; 95% CI 1.38–2.68):
5.0% of the high Hb group had a stroke compared to 2.6% in the placebo group (P<0.001). Venous
thrombo-embolic events occurred significantly more frequently in the high Hb arm (2.0%) compared to the
placebo arm (1.1%, P=0.02)(1).
 A post-hoc analysis of TREAT study showed that: 7.4% of those with a history of malignancy at baseline died
from cancer in the ESA arm compared to 0.6% in the placebo arm (P=0.002) (2).
In a meta-analysis comparing possible adverse events related to ESA therapy, The higher Hb concentrations in
ESA treated CKD patients increased risk for stroke (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03–2.21), hypertension (RR 1.67, 95% CI
1.31–2.12), and vascular access thrombosis (RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.16–1.53), and possibly the risk of death (RR
1.09; 95% CI 0.99–1.20), serious cardiovascular events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.33) or ESRD (RR 1.08; 95% CI
0.97–1.20). (3) However the risk of stroke was independent of Hb level or dose of ESA suggesting other factors
such as iron deficiency (4).
 Patients with neoplasia who received ESA in randomised clinical trials had an increased risk of tumour
progression and reduced overall survival compared with study controls(5).
 The MHRA advised that r-HuEPOs should not be given to patients with cancer who do not fulfil the criteria
in the authorised cancer indications, and that patients should be monitored closely to ensure that the
lowest approved dose of r-HuEPO is used to adequately control of symptoms of anaemia (5).
 The joint guideline from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of
Haematology(6) recommend using ESA therapy with great caution in patients with active malignancy,
particularly when cure is the anticipated outcome.
 NICE evaluated the efficacy and safety of ESA in treating anaemia in cancer patients receiving
chemotherapy (7). Although NICE researchers identified 23 randomised controlled trials evaluating the
effectiveness and safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for treating cancer treatment-related
anaemia. NICE assessment focused only on trials that evaluated ESAs at a starting dose reflecting the
current licence (Hb <100g/L). In total 16 studies were included in the analysis of the outcome related to
anaemia and 7 trials in the outcome related to overall survival. NICE analysis of available trials concluded
that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are recommended, within their marketing authorisations, as options
for treating anaemia in people with cancer who are having chemotherapy. ESAs were effective in increasing
haemoglobin concentrations, improving haematological responses, reducing the need for blood
transfusions and improving health-related quality of life, but that it could not assume that ESA treatment
either prolonged or shortened survival compared with treatment without an ESA (7).
References
1. Pfeffer MA, Burdmann EA, Chen CY, et al; TREAT Investigators. A trial of darbepoetin alfa in type 2 diabetes
and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 19;361(21):2019-32.
2. FDA presentation at Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRDAC) meeting, 18 October
2010.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/Cardiovascula
randRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM231978.pdf (accessed 15/06/2017).
3. Palmer SC, Navaneethan SD, Craig JC, et al. Meta-analysis: erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients
with chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jul 6;153(1):23-33.
4. Streja E, Kovesdy CP, Greenland S et al. Erythropoietin, iron depletion, and relative thrombocytosis: a
possible explanation for haemoglobin-survival paradox in haemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2008; 727-736.
5. MHRA Drug Safety Update Recombinant human erythropoietins: treating anaemia in cancer.
https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/recombinant-human-erythropoietins-treating-anaemia-in-cancer.
(accessed 15/06/2017).
6. Rizzo JD, Brouwers M, Hurley P, et al; American Society of Haematology and the American Society of
Clinical Oncology Practice Guideline Update Committee. American Society of Haematology/American
Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of epoetin and darbepoetin in
adult patients with cancer. Blood. 2010 Nov 18;116(20):4045-59.
7. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions, Royal College of Physicians. Erythropoiesis-
stimulating agents Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin and darbepoetin) for treating anaemia in
people with cancer ha anaemia in people with cancer having chemotherapy. 2014. National Institute for
Clinical Excellence. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta323/resources/erythropoiesisstimulating-agents-
epoetin-and- darbepoetin-for-treating-anaemia-in-people-with-cancer-having-chemotherapy-including-
review-of-ta142- 82602485230021 (accessed 15/06/2017)
Guideline 4.1 - Monitoring of treatment - Hb during ESA therapy
We suggest that Hb concentration should be monitored every 2-4 weeks in the correction phase and every 1-3
months for stable patients in the maintenance phase.
More frequent monitoring will depend on clinical circumstances. (2B)
Rationale
It is important to closely monitor Hb response to treatment to monitor for possible adverse events and plan
ESA dose modification. More frequent Hb monitoring may be needed for patients with unstable Hb, out of
target Hb level, anticipated Hb drop due to blood loss/haemolysis, infection or suboptimal dialysis.
The response to ESA therapy varies widely between different patient groups and individuals within those
groups. In addition, an individual‘s response can vary greatly dependent on other clinical variables. During ESA
initiation therapy, after drug dose adjustments or changes in an individual‘s clinical condition, more frequent
monitoring is advised in order that under-treatment (ongoing anaemia) and overtreatment (rapidly rising
Hb/hypertension or polycythaemia) may be avoided(1-3).
References
2. Locatelli F, Aljama P, Barany P et al. Revised European best practice Guidelines for the management of
anaemia in patients with chronic renal failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19 Suppl 2: ii1-47.
3. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease: update 2000. Am J Kidney
Dis 2001; 37: S182-S238.
Guideline 4.2 - Monitoring of treatment - Iron therapy
We recommend regular monitoring of iron status (every 1-3 months) in patients receiving intravenous iron to
avoid toxicity (2B): a serum ferritin consistently greater than 800 microgram/L with no evidence of
inflammation (normal CRP) may be suggestive of iron overload. (1B)
Rationale
Intravenous iron therapy in particular has potential risks as well as benefits. Toxicity associated with high
ferritin outcomes was originally reported in the context of multiple transfusions in the pre-ESA era. The risk
persists that intravenous iron may reproduce similar toxicity and thus regular monitoring during therapy is
required. Similarly with ongoing iron losses on HD regular monitoring to avoid worsening iron deficiency is
required(1-3). The safety of persistently very high ferritin levels remains unknown. In a cohort of 58058
prevalent haemodialysis patients in the USA, both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality had increasing rates
across increasing ferritin levels, whereas the opposite (inverse) association was observed for TSAT increments.
Serum ferritin levels between 200 and 1200 microgram/L and iron saturation ratio between 30 and 50% were
associated with the lowest all-cause and cardiovascular death risks. However, association studies are biased by
the fact that serum ferritin is also a marker of inflammation. In unadjusted, time-varying model, serum ferritin
>800 microgram/L during each quarter was associated with increased death rate (4). Significant iron overload in
the liver and spleen (assessed through T 2 magnetic resonance) has been described in 19 of 21 HD patients
with serum ferritin >1000 microgram/L and severe comorbidities who were treated with IV iron (5). Similarly,
Rostoker et al (6). prospectively studied a cohort of 119 fit HD patients who were receiving iron and ESA
therapy and measured their liver iron content by means of T 1 and T 2 magnetic resonance. Mild to severe
hepatic iron overload was observed in 84% of the patients, 36% of whom had severe iron overload
approaching that found in haemocromatosis (7) .
Clinical settings in which more frequent iron testing may be necessary include the following:
1. Initiation of ESA therapy

2. Achieving less-than-target Hb level during ongoing ESA therapy
3. Recent bleeding
4. After surgery
5. After hospitalization
6. Monitoring response after a course of IV iron
7. Evaluation for ESA hypo-responsiveness
References
2. Locatelli F, Aljama P, Barany P et al. Revised European Best Practice Guidelines for the management of
anaemia in patients with chronic renal failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004; 19 Suppl 2:1-47.
3. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease: update 2000. Am J Kidney
Dis 2001; 37: S182-S238.4. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Regidor DL, McAllister CJ et al. Time-dependent associations
between iron and mortality in haemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16: 3070–3080
4. Rambod M, Kovesdy CP, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Combined high serum ferritin and low iron saturation in
haemodialysis patients: the role of inflammation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 3: 1691–1701
5. Ghoti H, Rachmilewitz EA, Simon-Lopez R et al. Evidence for tissue iron overload in long-term haemodialysis
patients and the impact of withdrawing parenteral iron. Eur J Haematol 2012; 89: 87–93
6. Rostoker G, Griuncelli M, Loridon C et al. Haemodialysis-associated hemosiderosis in the Era of
erythropoiesis-stimulating Agents: A MRI Study. Am J Med 2012; 125: 991–999
7. Ferrari P, Kulkarni H, Dheda S et al. Serum iron markers are inadequate for guiding iron repletion in chronic
kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2011; 6: 77–83
Guideline 4.3 - Monitoring during Intravenous Iron Administration
We recommend that resuscitative medication and personnel trained to evaluate and resuscitate anaphylaxis
should be present at each administration of intravenous iron. (1A)
Rationale
 All forms of IV iron may be associated with acute adverse events (AEs).
 Immune mechanisms (including IgE-mediated responses or complement activation-related pseudo-allergy)

may have a role in some cases(1).
 Anaphylactoid reactions appear to occur more frequently with high molecular weight iron dextran(2).
 Labile or free iron reactions occur more frequently with non-dextran forms of iron(3).
 The rate of life-threatening reactions to iron dextran administration is 0.6% to 0.7%.(4,5)
 In one study, a total of 2534 haemodialysis patients were directly observed after double-blind exposure to
intravenous sodium ferric gluconate (SFGC) or placebo. One patient in each of the SFGC and placebo groups
experienced anaphylactoid reactions. Additional cases with characteristics possibly consistent with
anaphylaxis occurred in 0.4% of intravenous SFGC–treated patients and 0.1% of placebo-treated patients.
The results suggest that there is a relatively low rate of anaphylaxis with non-dextran irons and that the
reactions are generally easily managed.(6)
 The MHRA has issued an updated guidance on the use of parenteral iron. This was in response to concerns
raised as a result of serious and rarely fatal hypersensitivity reaction, particularly in pregnant women.
These reactions can occur even when a previous administration has been tolerated (including a negative
test dose). The risk of hypersensitivity is increased in patients with: known allergies (including drug
allergies); immune or inflammatory conditions (e.g., systemic lupus erythematous, rheumatoid arthritis);
or those with a history of severe asthma, eczema, or other atopic allergy. As a result the MHRA updated
guidelines recommend that (7):
 IV iron should be administered in strict accordance with the posology and method of administration
described in the product information for each individual product (note that advice varies between
products).
 Caution is needed with every dose of intravenous iron that is given, even if previous administrations
have been well tolerated.
 IV iron products should only be administered when staff trained to evaluate and manage anaphylactic or
anaphylactoid reactions—as well as resuscitation facilities—are immediately available.
 Patients should be closely monitored for signs of hypersensitivity during and for at least 30 minutes
after every administration of an IV iron product.
 In patients with increased risk of hypersensitivity, treatment with IV iron products should only be
considered if the benefits are clearly judged to outweigh the potential risks.
References
1. Rampton D, Folkersen J, Fishbane S et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to intravenous iron: guidance for risk
minimization and management. Haematologica. 2014 Nov;99(11):1671-6.
2. Novey HS, Pahl M, Haydik I et al. Immunologic studies of anaphylaxis to iron dextran in patients on renal
dialysis. Ann Allergy 1994; 72:224-228.
3.
4. Agarwal R, Vasavada N, Sachs NG et al. Oxidative stress and renal injury with intravenous iron in patients
with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2004; 65:2279- 2289.
5. Hamstra RD, Block MH, Schocket AL. Intravenous iron dextran in clinical medicine. JAMA 1980; 243:1726-
1731.
6. Fishbane S, Ungureanu VD, Maesaka JK, et al. The safety of intravenous iron dextran in haemodialysis
patients. Am J Kidney Dis 1996; 28:529-534.
7. Michael B, Coyne DW, Fishbane S, et al; Ferrlecit Publication Committee. Sodium ferric gluconate complex
in haemodialysis patients: adverse reactions compared to placebo and iron dextran. Kidney Int. 2002
May;61(5):1830-9.
8. MHRA Drug Safety Update (2013) Intravenous iron and serious hypersensitivity reactions: strengthened
recommendations https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/intravenous-iron-and-serious-
hypersensitivity- reactions-strengthened-recommendations (accessed 15/06/2017)
Guideline 4.4- Parenteral iron & infection:
We recommend avoiding parenteral iron therapy in patients with active infection (2B)
Rationale
 Parenteral iron administration to haemodialysis patients has been shown to result in a reduction of
circulating TNFα levels (1). In addition, chronic iron loading has been associated with an impaired immune
response of circulating monocytes to ex vivo stimulation with LPS(3). Excess iron inhibits anti-microbial
effector pathways of macrophages(3,4). This is exerted via blockade of LPS and interferon-gamma (IFNJ)
inducible immune pathways, while production of macrophage de-activating cytokines such as interleukin-
10 (IL10) is increased(5,6). The effect of iron on immune function could be dependent on the iron
preparation; one study have shown that iron sucrose had more prominent effects on monocyte
differentiation than other clinically available compounds(7).
 Ishida and Johansen critically reviewed available literature regarding the association between iron and
infection in HD patients(8). The authors identified studies that evaluated the association between the risk of
infection, serum ferritin levels (13 studies) and iron usage (24 studies). Thirteen studies with sample sizes
ranging from 61 to 2,662 have examined the link between serum ferritin and infection in haemodialysis
patients. Among the 13 studies, nine studies reported an association and four studies did not find an
association between serum ferritin and infection. Among the studies that identified an association, high
serum ferritin (typically defined as >500 or 1,000 microgram/L) was associated with higher incidence of
bacterial infection or infection-related mortality. The incidence of bacterial infection ranged from 0.34 to
0.59 infections per patient-year (in studies evaluating the rate of infection) and 0.93% to 61.9% (in studies
evaluating the proportion with infection) in the higher serum ferritin groups and 0.09 to 0.18 infections per
patient-year and 0% to 37% in the lower serum ferritin groups. The authors concluded that these studies
suggest an excess of 16 to 50 infections per 100 patient-years in the higher compared with the lower serum
ferritin groups. In studies that expressed the association between serum ferritin and bacterial infection as
ratios, higher serum ferritin was independently associated with a 1.5 to 3.1-fold higher incidence of
bacterial infection or infection-related mortality. Among the 24 studies that evaluated the relationship
between iron therapy and infection, twenty two studies were observational with sample sizes ranging from
21 to 309,219 patients. Twelve of these studies found an association between any iron usage, higher dose
or frequency of iron usage and infection or infection-related mortality.
 One study compared mortality with different dosing patterns of IV iron(9). Based on data from 117,050 HD
patients, the study evaluated the effect of bolus versus maintenance IV iron dosing during repeated 1-
month exposure periods on risks of mortality and infection-related hospitalization during the subsequent 3
months. In multivariable additive risk models, compared to maintenance dosing (median monthly dose 200
mg), bolus dosing (median 700 mg) was associated with an increased risk of infection-related
hospitalization (risk difference, 25 additional events/1000 patient-years; 95% CI, 16 to 33), with the risk
being largest among patients with a catheter or history of recent infection. An association between bolus
dosing and infection-related mortality was also observed. In contrast, maintenance and low-dose iron (125
mg) dosing were not associated with increased risks of infection-related hospitalization or mortality
outcomes when compared with no iron.
 A multicentre study prospectively evaluated the association between serum ferritin levels and IV iron usage
with adverse outcomes and mortality among 1086 Japanese chronic HD patients. By using Cox proportional
hazard models and time-dependent variables, there was a significantly higher risk of infection with higher
(above 100 microgram/L) compared to lower (below 100 ng/dl) serum ferritin levels, and with high (≥50
mg/week) and even low (<50 mg/week) doses of IV iron compared with no IV iron; they also reported
significantly higher risk of death among patients with high-amplitude ferritin fluctuations (serum ferritin
level consistently above 100 microgram/L or upward trend from below to above 100 microgram/L)
compared with those with low ferritin level (10).
 In a study involving 626 patients with pre-dialysis CKD patients. Patients were treated with intravenous
ferric carboxymaltose (with a high and low ferritin target) or oral iron for 52 weeks. The percentage of
deaths, myocardial infarctions, and infections was not significantly different between oral iron–treated and
IVI-treated patients. However, the study was not powered to evaluate safety of parenteral iron (11).
 In a study evaluating the safety of parenteral iron therapy in10,169 haemodialysis patients in the United
States; after adjusting for 23 demographic and comorbidity characteristics among 5833 patients included in
the multivariable analysis; bills for ≤10 vials of iron over 6 months showed no adverse effect on survival
when compared with none, but bills for >10 vials showed a statistically significant elevated rate of death.
Bills for ≤10 vials of iron over 6 months also showed no significant association with hospitalization (adjusted
= 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03; P = 0.15), but bills for >10 vials showed statistically significant elevated risk.
More intensive dosing was associated with diminished survival and higher rates of hospitalization, even
after extensive adjustment for baseline comorbidity. (12)
 A subsequent analysis of 32,566 Fresenius Inc. haemodialysis patients by the same authors did not confirm
an association between IVI dose and risk of death after adjusting for time-varying measures of iron
treatment and fixed and time-varying measures of morbidity(13)
 Kalantar-Zadeh et al. studied 58,058 DaVita Inc. dialysis patients. For patients who received 400 mg of IVI
per month, the risk for death was found to be lower compared with patients with no IVI administered. By
contrast, doses >400 mg per month were associated with increased risks of death(14).
 Kshirsagar et al. studied 117,050 haemodialysis patients. No association was found between dose of IVI and
short-term risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death. (15)
 A prospective observational study by Hoen et al. followed 988 haemodialysis patients from 19 French
centres for 6 months. There were 51 episodes of bacteraemia, but no association with either IVI dosing or
serum ferritin concentration was detected (16)A more recent study from the same group in 985 dialysis
patients, demonstrated no increase in infection rates (17).
References
1. Weiss, G., Meusburger, E., Radacher, G., et al. 2003. Effect of iron treatment on circulating cytokine levels
in ESRD patients receiving recombinant human erythropoietin. Kidney Int 64:572-578.
2. Sonnweber, T., Theurl, I., Seifert, M., et al. 2011. Impact of iron treatment on immune effector function
and cellular iron status of circulating monocytes in dialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26:977-987.
3. Nairz, M., Schroll, A., Sonnweber, T et al, G. 2010. The struggle for iron - a metal at the host-pathogen
interface. Cell Microbiol 12:1691-1702.
4. Ganz, T. 2009. Iron in innate immunity: starve the invaders. Curr Opin Immunol 21:63-67.
5. Fritsche, G., Nairz, M., Werner, E.R et al. 2008. Nramp1-functionality increases iNOS expression via
repression of IL-10 formation. Eur J Immunol 38:3060-3067.
6. Weiss, G., and Goodnough, L.T. 2005. Anemia of chronic disease. N Engl J Med 352:1011-1023.
7. Fell, L.H., Zawada, A.M., Rogacev, K.S., et al. 2014. Distinct immunologic effects of different intravenous
iron preparations on monocytes. Nephrol Dial Transplant 29:809-822.
8. Ishida JH, Johansen KL. Iron and infection in haemodialysis patients. Semin Dial. 2014 Jan;27(1):26-36.
9. Brookhart MA, Freburger JK, Ellis AR, et al. Infection risk with bolus versus maintenance iron
supplementation in haemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013 Jun; 24(7):1151-8.
10. Kuragano T, Matsumura O, Matsuda A, et al. Association between hemoglobin variability, serum ferritin
levels, and adverse events/mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2014
Oct;86(4):845-54
11. Macdougall IC, Bock AH, Carrera F, et al; FIND-CKD Study Investigators. FIND-CKD: a randomized trial of
intravenous ferric carboxymaltose versus oral iron in patients with chronic kidney disease and iron
deficiency anaemia. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014 Nov;29(11):2075-84.
12. Feldman HI, Santanna J, Guo W, et al. Iron administration and clinical outcomes in haemodialysis patients.
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002 Mar;13(3):734-44.
13. Feldman HI, Joffe M, Robinson B, et al. Administration of parenteral iron and mortality among
haemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004 Jun;15(6):1623-32.
14. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Regidor DL, McAllister CJ et al. Time-dependent associations between iron and mortality
in haemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005 Oct;16(10):3070-80.
15. Kshirsagar AV, Freburger JK, Ellis AR, et al. Intravenous iron supplementation practices and short-term risk
of cardiovascular events in haemodialysis patients. PLoS One. 2013 Nov 1;8(11):e78930.
16. Hoen B, Paul-Dauphin A, Hestin D, et al. EPIBACDIAL: a multicentre prospective study of risk factors for
bacteraemia in chronic haemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998; 9: 869-876.
17. Hoen B, Paul-Dauphin A, Kessler M: Intravenous iron administration does not significantly increase the risk
of bacteraemia in chronic haemodialysis patients. Clin Nephrol 2002, 57(6):457-461.
Guideline 4.5 - Monitoring of treatment - Resistance to ESA therapy
We recommend that inadequate response (‘resistance’) to ESA therapy is defined as failure to reach the target
Hb level despite SC epoetin dose >300 IU/kg/week (450 IU/kg/week IV epoetin), or darbepoetin dose >1.5
microgram/kg/week. Hyporesponsive patients who are iron replete should be screened clinically and by
investigations for other common causes of anaemia. (1A)
Audit measure
Prevalence of resistance to ESA among renal replacement therapy patients
Rationale
Extensive publications are available on the topic of resistance to ESA therapy including the Revised European
Best Practice Guidelines(1) which defines ESA resistance as above. Failure to respond at an earlier stage in
therapy should however raise suspicion of ESA resistance.
Comparison of the individual Hb outcome achieved and the dose of ESA used can provide a useful way of
highlighting individuals that are ESA resistant during local unit audit (2,3) . ESA therapy is efficacious in most
patients. However many conditions and treatment variables can cause or explain apparent resistance to ESA
therapy. Adequate investigation and management of these underlying conditions is crucial in achieving
satisfactory outcome haemoglobin values as well as requiring therapy in their own right.
References
1. Horl WH, Jacobs C, Macdougall IC et al. European best practice Guidelines 14-16: inadequate response to
epoetin. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15 Suppl 4: 43-50.
2. Winearls CG. Recombinant human erythropoietin: 10 years of clinical experience. Nephrol Dial Transplant
1998; 13 Suppl 2: 3-8. Jacobs C, Horl WH, Macdougall IC et al.
3. European best practice Guidelines 5: target haemoglobin. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15 Suppl 4: 15-19.
Guideline 4.6- Evaluation for ESA Induced Pure Red Cell Aplasia (PRCA)
 We do not recommend routine screening for anti-erythropoietin antibodies among CKD patients regularly
treated with erythropoiesis stimulating agents. (2A)
 We recommend that the diagnosis of ESA induced PRCA should be considered whenever a patient receiving
long term ESA therapy (more than 8 weeks) develops all the following (2A):
 a sudden decrease in Hb concentration at the rate of 5 to 10g/L per week OR requirement of
transfusions at the rate of approximately 1 to 2 per week,
 normal platelet and white cell counts,
 absolute reticulocyte count less than 10,000/µl
 We recommend that all ESA therapy should be stopped in patients who develop ESA induced PRCA. (2A)
 We recommend that patients who remain transfusion dependent after withdrawing ESA therapy should be
treated with immunosuppressant medications guided by the level of anti EPO antibodies. (2A)
Rationale
Anti-erythropoietin antibody associated pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) is a very rare cause of resistance
characterised by transfusion dependency, low reticulocyte count (<1%), lack of proerythroid progenitor cells in
the bone marrow and neutralising anti-erythropoietin antibodies (1). ESA induced PRCA is a very rare condition,
with the overall incidence of reported cases between 1989 and June 2004 was 1.6 per 10,000 patient-years of
subcutaneous exposure (2), and 0.02 per 10,000 patient-years of intravenous exposure (3). Nevertheless, most
reported cases of anti-erythropoietin antibody-associated PRCA have occurred in CKD patients who have
received the drug subcutaneously (4,5,6).
Pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) due to anti-erythropoietin (EPO) antibodies should be suspected in an individual
who has previously responded to EPO if the haemoglobin (Hb) level declines by >20 g/l per month or the
reticulocyte count is <20,000/uL(5).
PRCA is specifically characterized by the following clinical features(6):
 A drop in Hb level of >7 to 10 g/L per week without transfusions or transfusion requirement of at least one
unit per week to maintain adequate Hb, despite continued use of ESA at high doses.
 Markedly reduced reticulocyte count (<10,000/uL).
 Normal platelet and white blood cell count.
 Elevated serum transferrin saturation and serum ferritin.
 Rarely, allergic urticarial skin reactions at sites of earlier subcutaneous EPO injections have been
described(7).
 The diagnosis of PRCA is established by:
 Bone marrow examination: which confirms severe hypoplasia of erythroid precursors (<5%).
 The presence of anti-erythropoietin antibodies:
 There are several available tests to detect antibodies to erythropoietin, with varying sensitivities and
specificities (8).
 Patients with suspected ESA induced PRCA who test positive using binding antibodies should have
the diagnosis confirmed with the definitive testing for neutralizing antibodies (9).
ESA induced PRCA is an immune mediated process. While spontaneous remissions after cessation of EPO
therapy have been reported, immunosuppressive therapy is usually needed in most cases (10). One study
evaluated 170 CKD patients who developed epoetin-associated PRCA(11). Of the 34 patients who received
epoetin after the onset of PRCA, 56% recovered epoetin responsiveness; the highest rate of epoetin
responsiveness was observed among those who had no detectable anti-erythropoietin antibodies at the time
of epoetin administration (89%). The study also reported that the highest recovery rates were among those
treated with immunosuppressive therapy, particularly a combination of cyclophosphamide and prednisone
(11)
. Other options such as rituximab, danazol or even plasma exchange may be considered.
Verhelst et al (12) compared various immunosuppressive agents in 37 patients with antibody mediated PRCA
compared to 10 with no treatment and found benefit with cyclophosphamide, plasma exchange and
ciclosporin and also transplantation.
Given these data, it is advisable that retreatment with ESA may be considered in patients with a history of
PRCA only if anti-EPO antibody level is no longer detectable. In addition, if epoetin therapy is to be
reconsidered for these patients, only the intravenous rather than the subcutaneous route should be
considered for drug administration.
ESA induced PRCA is now part of RaDaR, the rare disease registry (13).
References
1. Peschle C, Marmont AM, Marone G, et al. Pure red cell aplasia: studies on an IgG serum inhibitor
neutralizing erythropoietin. Br J Haematol 1975; 30:411.
2. Boven K, Stryker S, Knight J, et al. The increased incidence of pure red cell aplasia with an Eprex
formulation in uncoated rubber stopper syringes. Kidney Int 2005; 67:2346.
3. Cournoyer D, Toffelmire EB, Wells GA, et al. Anti-erythropoietin antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia
after treatment with recombinant erythropoietin products: recommendations for minimization of risk. J
Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:2728.
4. Casadevall N, Nataf J, Viron B, et al. Pure red-cell aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies in patients
treated with recombinant erythropoietin. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:469.
5. Rossert J, Casadevall N, Eckardt KU. Anti-erythropoietin antibodies and pure red cell aplasia. J Am Soc
Nephrol 2004; 15:398.
6. Eckardt KU, Casadevall N. Pure red-cell aplasia due to anti-erythropoietin antibodies. Nephrol Dial
Transplant 2003; 18:865.
7. Weber G, Gross J, Kromminga A, et al. Allergic skin and systemic reactions in a patient with pure red cell
aplasia and anti-erythropoietin antibodies challenged with different epoetins. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002;
13:2381.
8. 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.
9. Casadevall N, Cournoyer D, Marsh J, et al. Recommendations on haematological criteria for the diagnosis
of epoetin-induced pure red cell aplasia. Eur J Haematol 2004; 73:389.
10. Rossert J, Macdougall I, Casadevall N. Antibody-mediated pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) treatment and re-
treatment: multiple options. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005; 20 Suppl 4:iv23.
11. Bennett CL, Cournoyer D, Carson KR, et al. Long-term outcome of individuals with pure red cell aplasia and
antierythropoietin antibodies in patients treated with recombinant epoetin: a follow-up report from the
Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) Project. Blood 2005; 106:3343.
12. Verhelst D, Rossert J, Casadevall N, et al. Treatment of erythropoietin-induced pure red cell aplasia: a
retrospective study. Lancet. 2004 May 29;363(9423):1768-71.
13. http://rarerenal.org/rare-disease-groups/pure-red-cell-aplasia-rdg/ (accessed 15/06/2017).
Guideline 4.7 - Monitoring of treatment - Hypertension during ESA therapy
We recommend that blood pressure should be monitored in all patients receiving ESAs and, if present,
hypertension be treated by volume removal and/or hypotensive drugs. (1A)
Rationale
Hypertension is the most common complication in CKD and can be aggravated by ESA treatment (1). Early
studies demonstrated higher incidence rates of hypertension though ESA doses used were higher and Hb
responses faster in these trials. It is now more common to start at low doses and increase gradually according
to response. The commonest cause of hypertension in CKD is not ESA therapy. Exacerbation of hypertension
in ESA therapy patients may be associated with polycythaemia or rapidly rising haemoglobin levels. These
complications should be looked for in hypertensive patients but in the absence of these complicating factors
and in the absence of severe hypertension, ESA therapy can usually continue. Hypertension should be
adequately controlled prior to initiating ESA therapy. ESA therapy should be discontinued in malignant
hypertension.
Reference
1. Horl WH, Jacobs C, Macdougall IC et al. European Best Practice Guidelines 14-16: inadequate response to
epoetin. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2000; 15 Suppl 4: 43-50.
We recommend that in patients with anaemia of CKD, especially those in whom renal transplantation is an
option, red blood cell transfusion should be avoided if possible to minimise the risk of allosensitisation. (1A)
We recommend if red blood cell transfusion becomes essential (usually in the setting of acute blood loss,
acute haemolysis or severe sepsis) transfusion should be based on policies set by local transfusion guidelines
rather than Hb targets for ESA therapy in chronic anaemia of CKD. (1B)
Guidelines 5.3- Blood transfusion
We recommend that renal transplant recipients, those on the transplant waiting list or patients on
immunosuppressive therapy should receive only Hepatitis E negative blood components. (2B)
Audit Measure
Proportion of HD patients who received a blood transfusion within the past year.
Rationale for Guidelines 5.1-5.3
CKD results in chronic anaemia, the degree of which usually reflects the severity of CKD. As with any chronic
anaemia, patients tend to deal with this by various compensatory mechanisms. Blood transfusion is rarely an
acute requirement except in emergencies such as acute blood loss, acute haemolysis or severe
sepsis/inflammation. Hence the risk benefit ratio of the intervention needs to be analysed before prescribing a
red blood cell transfusion to treat anaemia in patients with chronic kidney disease.
The potential risks associated with blood transfusion include transfusion reactions, iron overload and
transfusion acquired infections. In the presence of severe chronic anaemia, transfusion may lead to congestive
cardiac failure, particularly in the elderly. A review of transfusion outcome in patients with acute coronary
artery syndromes revealed a greater mortality rate in transfusion recipients (1). Another review suggested that
treatment of mild to moderate anaemia resulted in increased mortality (2). Also transplant recipient
sensitisation may occur following transfusion resulting in longer transplant register waiting times and difficulty
in finding a cross match negative donor. A study from Ireland looking at causes of sensitisation of potential
allograft recipients showed that the level of sensitisation increased with the number of units of blood
transfused and also demonstrated a direct relationship between degree of sensitisation and waiting time for
transplantation(3). Blood transfusions can induce antibodies to histocompatibility leukocyte antigens that can
reduce the success of kidney transplantation; thus transfusions generally should be avoided in patients
awaiting a renal transplant(2).
The use of ESAs can greatly reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions in patients with anaemia of CKD
when target Hb concentrations are achieved and maintained(5-6). Since the introduction of ESAs and reduction
in routine blood transfusion in anaemic patients with CKD sensitisation has markedly reduced(7). With the
advent of new immunosuppressant regimens after 1995, the use of pre-transplantation transfusion have been
rendered largely obsolete(8). The K-DOQI anaemia guideline recommends that no single Hb concentration
justifies or requires transfusion and the target Hb recommended for chronic anaemia management should not
serve as a transfusion trigger(8). NICE agrees that there are clinical reasons to minimise blood transfusion in
anaemia of CKD and if blood transfusion is essential the relevant haematology guidelines should be followed
(e.g. the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH) guidelines www.bcshguidelines.com) (9). In
hospitalised patients who are haemodynamically stable, the need for transfusion is directed by symptoms and
the Hb values. A value in CKD patients of <70g/L or <80g/L in post-operative surgical patients or pre-existing
cardiac disease should prompt transfusion (10).
Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is a RNA virus and has 4 genotypes: the one commonly found in the UK is genotype 3.
The most common route of infection in the UK is from eating raw or undercooked meat (particularly pork
products) and shellfish; however, HEV can be transmitted via blood transfusion and solid organ
transplantation. Incidence of HEV in the UK has been increasing considerably since 2011. It is likely that as
many as 100,000 persons may suffer acute infections each year and that less than 1 in 100 will have any illness
at all1. The majority of people who become infected with HEV have no symptoms and the infection clears
completely within a couple of months. HEV may pose a risk of harm to immunocompromised patients who
may be unable to clear the infection, which may then become persistent, potentially leading to chronic
inflammation of the liver and cirrhosis. The Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs
(SaBTO) recommends that immunocompromised /immunosuppressed patients should receive HEV negative
blood components (11).
References
1. Rao SV, Jollis JG, Harrington RA, et al. Relationship of blood transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients
with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2004; 292(13): 1555-62.
2. Zarychanski R, Houston DS. Anaemia of chronic disease: a harmful disorder or an adaptive, beneficial
response? CMAJ 2008; 179(4): 333–337.
3. Soosay A, O'Neill D, Counihan A et al. Causes of sensitisation in patients awaiting renal transplantation in
Ireland. Ir Med J 2003; 96(4):109-12.
4. Eschbach JW. The anaemia of chronic renal failure: Pathophysiology and the effects of recombinant
erythropoietin. Kidney Int 1989; 35(1):134-48.
5. House AA, Pham B, Pagé DE. Transfusion and recombinant human erythropoietin requirements differ
between dialysis modalities. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998;13(7):1763-9.
6. Popovsky MA, Ransil BJ. Long-term impact of recombinant human erythropoietin on transfusion support in
patients with chronic renal failure. Immunohematology 1996;12(1):1-3.
7. Manchester Kidney Transplant, NWKTA Audit Project, Jan 2003.
8. NKF-K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease:2006.
9. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Blood transfusion
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng24/resources/blood-transfusion-1837331897029 (accessed
15/06/2017)
10. Drueke TB, Locatelli F, Clyne N et al CREATE Investigators. Normalization of haemoglobin level in patients
with chronic kidney disease and anaemia. N Engl J Ned 2006; 355: 2071-2084
11. SaBTO (2015) HEV SCT Clinician Letter draft v0.3i http://hospital.blood.co.uk/media/27890/sabto-
hev- clinician-letter-sct-12_08_15.pdf (accessed 15/06/2017)
6. Anaemia of CKD (Guideline 6.1)
Guideline 6.1 - Post-transplantation Anaemia
We recommend that the treatment guidelines for anaemia in renal transplant patients should be similar to
those for CKD patients not on dialysis. (2B)
Rationale
Post transplantation Anaemia (PTA) is common (1-3). Apart from the usual causes of anaemia due to CKD, renal
transplant recipients have various unique factors predisposing to anaemia.
Factors causing PTA:
1. GFR: anaemia in transplant patients reflects the degree of GFR similar to other patients with CKD(3).
2. Immunosuppressive medications: Mycophenolate and azathioprine are myelosuppressive agents.

Calcineurin inhibitors may cause anaemia by microangiopathic haemolysis(4-8). OKT3 may also cause
haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) (9-10). Tacrolimus has also been associated with anaemia(11-13). It may
interfere with post erythropoietin receptor binding intracellular signalling and may occasionally cause HUS
(13-14)
.
3. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use: ACE inhibition
has been linked with anaemia(3,15). Its pathogenesis is multifactorial and may include inhibition of
endogenous EPO production, production of an erythropoiesis-inhibiting protein(16) and inhibition of
angiotensin II mediated stimulation of erythrocyte precursors(17).
4. Antibiotic use: various common antibiotics may cause anaemia including trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.
5. Infections: viral infections such as cytomegalovirus and parvovirus B19 and antiviral agents such as
ganciclovir may cause anaemia in transplant patients(18-19).
6. Malignancy: malignancies including post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder may result in anaemia.
7. Haemolytic anaemia: haemolytic anaemia may result from HUS or minor blood group incompatibility in
transplant patients(20-22).
(23)
8. Rejection episodes: Acute rejection may cause reduced endogenous EPO production . Severe vascular
rejection may cause microangiopathy.
9. Chronic inflammation: Failing renal transplant causes a chronic inflammatory state resulting in EPO hypo-
responsiveness.
Safety of ESA in transplant patients
A few early retrospective studies suggested increased incidence of delayed graft function in patients on ESA
prior to transplantation(24,25). However Registry data has since shown reduced incidence of delayed graft
function despite increasing use of ESA. It has also been shown that ESA use prior to renal transplantation does
not reduce production of or response to endogenous EPO(26,27). Studies in the early post-transplant period did
not show significant adverse events including delayed graft function or hypertension(28,29). Studies in the late
transplant period have shown increased incidence of hypertension(30,31). ESAs, most probably, do not
accelerate rate of graft function decline and one study suggested that correction of anaemia slowed the
decline in allograft function(32).
In another prospective study that assessed the effect of correction of anaemia on progression of renal
Insufficiency in transplant patients; 128 patients from 17 centres in France treated with ESA were randomised
to full correction of anaemia (hemoglobin values13.0–15.0 g/dl, n=63) versus partial correction of anemia (Hb
value10.5–11.5 g/dl, n=62).This study found that in the group of patients with a haemoglobin level close to
normal (~13 g/dL), the rate of decline of renal function was lower compared with the group of control
patients, and the number of patients reaching end-stage renal disease and the number of graft failures was
lower in this treatment group compared with the control group, suggesting that correcting anaemia in
transplant patients reduces the rate of decrease of renal function and reduces the number of grafts lost (33).
Efficacy of ESA in transplant patients
Studies in the early post-transplant period have shown that ESA is effective in these patients, although the
dose required may be higher than in pre-transplant period(28,29). Similarly studies in late post-transplant period
have shown efficacy of ESA in these patients(30,31,34,35).
References
1. Yorgin PD, Scandling JD, Belson A, et al. Late post-transplant anaemia in adult renal transplant recipients.
An under-recognized problem? Am J Transplant 2002;2(5):429-35.
2. Yorgin PD, Belson A, Sanchez J, et al. Unexpectedly high prevalence of post-transplant anaemia in paediatric
and young adult renal transplant recipients. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;40(6):1306-18.
3. Vanrenterghem Y, Ponticelli C, Morales JM, et al. Prevalence and management of anaemia in renal
transplant recipients: A European survey. Am J Transplant 2003; 3(7):835-45.
4. Abraham KA, Little MA, Dorman AM et al. Haemolytic-uremic syndrome in association with both
cyclosporine and tacrolimus. Transpl Int 2000; 13(6):443-7.
5. Epstein M, Landsberg D. Cyclosporine-induced thrombotic microangiopathy resulting in renal allograft loss
and its successful reuse: A report of two cases. Am J Kidney Dis 1991;17(3):346-8.
6. Pham PT, Peng A, Wilkinson AH et al. Cyclosporine and tacrolimus-associated thrombotic microangiopathy.
Am J Kidney Dis 2000;36(4):844-50.
7. Trimarchi HM, Truong LD, Brennan S et al. Report of two cases and review of the literature. Transplantation
1999; 67(4):539-44.
8. Zarifian A, Meleg-Smith S, O'donovan R et al. Cyclosporine associated thrombotic microangiopathy in renal
allografts. Kidney Int 1999; 55(6):2457-66.
9. Dussol B, Brunet P, Vacher-Coponat H, et al. Haemolytic uraemic syndrome in a renal transplant recipient
during OKT3 therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1994; 9(8):1191-3.
10.Morris-Stiff G, Evans M, Baboolal K, et al. Haemolytic uraemic syndrome associated with OKT3. Transpl Int
1996; 9(5):522-3.
11.MacDonald AS, RAPAMUNE Global Study Group. A worldwide, phase III, randomized, controlled, safety and
efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary
mismatched renal allografts. Transplantation 2001;71(2):271-80.
12.Kahan BD, Knight R, Schoenberg L, et al. Ten years of sirolimus therapy for human renal transplantation:
The University of Texas at Houston experience. Transplant Proc 2003;35(3 Suppl):25S-34S.
13.Augustine JJ, Knauss TC, Schulak JA, et al. Comparative effects of sirolimus and mycophenolate mofetil on
erythropoiesis in kidney transplant patients. Am J Transplant 2004;4(12):2001-6.
14.Crew RJ, Radhakrishnan J, Cohen DJ, et al. De novo thrombotic microangiopathy following treatment with
sirolimus: Report of two cases. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(1):203-9.
15.Winkelmayer WC, Kewalramani R, Rutstein M, et al. Pharmacoepidemiology of anaemia in kidney
transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004;15(5):1347-52.
16.Le Meur Y, Lorgeot V, Comte L, et al. Plasma levels and metabolism of AcSDKP in patients with chronic renal
failure: Relationship with erythropoietin requirements. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;38(3):510-7.
17.Naito M, Kawashima A, Akiba T, Takanashi M et al. Effects of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist and
angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on burst forming units-erythroid in chronic haemodialysis
patients. Am J Nephrol. 2003;23(5):287-93.
18.So BJ, Chae KM, Lee KK et al. Pure red cell aplasia due to parvovirus B19 infection in a renal transplant
patient: A case report. Transplant Proc. 2000; 32(7):1954-6.
19.Vales-Albertos LJ, García-Cárdenas M, Chávez-Becerra S, et al. Pure red cell aplasia associated with
parvovirus B19 infection in renal transplantation: The first case report in Mexico. Transplantation. 2005;
79(6):739.
20.Debska-Slizień A, Chamienia A, Król E, et al. Haemolytic anaemia after renal transplantation: Analysis of
case reports. Transplant Proc. 2003; 35(6):2233-7.
21.Peces R, Díaz Corte C, Navascués RA. [Haemolytic anaemia caused by graft-versus host reaction in ABO-non
identical renal transplants from blood group O donors]. Nefrologia. 2001; 21(4):395-401.
22.Li FK, Chan TM, Lai KN: Alloimmune haemolysis after renal transplantation. Am J Nephrol. 2000; 20(6):473-
5.
23.Moulin B, Ollier J, George F. Serum erythropoietin and reticulocyte maturity index after renal
transplantation: A prospective longitudinal study. Nephron. 1995; 69(3):259-66.
24.Schmidt R, Kupin W, Dumler F et al. Influence of the pre-transplant hematocrit level on early graft function
in primary cadaveric renal transplantation. Transplantation. 1993; 55(5):1034-40.
25.Vasquez EM, Pollack R. Effect of pre-transplant erythropoietin therapy on renal allograft outcome.
Transplantation. 1996; 62(7):1026-8.
26.Paganini EP, Braun WE, Latham D et al. Renal transplantation: results in haemodialysis patients previously
treated with recombinant human erythropoietin. ASAIO Trans. 1989; 35(3):535-8.
27.Lee DB: Interrelationship between erythropoietin and erythropoiesis: Insights from renal transplantation.
Am J Kidney Dis. 1991; 18(4 Suppl 1):54-6.
28.Van Loo A, Vanholder R, Bernaert P et al. Recombinant human erythropoietin corrects anaemia during the
first weeks after renal transplantation: A randomized prospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;
11(9):1815-21.
29.Van Biesen W, Vanholder R, Veys N et al. Efficacy of erythropoietin administration in the treatment of
anaemia immediately after renal transplantation. Transplantation. 2005; 79(3):367-8.
30.Jindal KK, Hirsch DJ, Belitsky P et al. Low-dose subcutaneous erythropoietin corrects the anaemia of renal
transplant failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1992; 7(2):143-6.
31.Muirhead N, Cattran DC, Zaltzman J, et al. Safety and efficacy of recombinant human erythropoietin in
correcting the anaemia of patients with chronic renal allograft dysfunction. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1994;
5(5):1216-22.
32.
33.Becker BN, Becker YT, Leverson GE, Heisey DM. Erythropoietin therapy may retard progression in chronic
renal transplant dysfunction. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002; 17(9):1667-73.
34.Choukroun G, Kamar N, Dussol B, et al for the CAPRIT study Investigators. Correction of post kidney
transplant anemia reduces progression of allograft nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Feb;23(2):360-8.
35.Traindl O, Barnas U, Franz M, et al. Recombinant human erythropoietin in renal transplant recipients with
renal anaemia. Clin Transplant. 1994; 8(1):45-8.
36.Yoshimura N, Oka T, Ohmori Y, Aikawa I. Effects of recombinant human erythropoietin on the anaemia of
renal transplant recipients with chronic rejection. Transplantation. 1989; 48(3):527-9.
4. Lay Summary
Anaemia is a commonly diagnosed complication among patients suffering with chronic kidney disease. If left
untreated, it may affect patient quality of life. There are several causes for anaemia in this patient population.
As the kidney function deteriorates, together with medications and dietary restrictions, patients may develop
iron deficiency, resulting in reduction of iron supply to the bone marrow (which is the body organ responsible
for the production of different blood elements). Chronic kidney disease patients may not be able to utilise
their own body’s iron stores effectively and hence, many patients, particularly those receiving haemodialysis,
may require additional iron treatment, usually provided by infusion.
With further weakening of kidney function, patients with chronic kidney disease may need additional
treatment with a substance called erythropoietin which drives the bone marrow to produce its own blood.
This substance, which is naturally produced by the kidneys, becomes relatively deficient in patients with
chronic kidney disease. Any patients will eventually require treatment with erythropoietin or similar products
that are given by injection.
Over the last few years, several iron and erythropoietin products have been licensed for treating anaemia in
chronic kidney disease patients. In addition, several publications discussed the benefits of each treatment and
possible risks associated with long term treatment. The current guidelines provide advice to health care
professionals on how to screen chronic kidney disease patients for anaemia, which patients to investigate for
other causes of anaemia, when and how to treat patients with different medications, how to ensure safe
prescribing of treatment and how to diagnose and manage complications associated with anaemia and the
drugs used for its treatment.
5. Acknowledgements
This document has been externally reviewed by key stake holders according to the process described in the
Clinical Practice Guidelines Development Policy Manual.

Gúia Nice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gúia Nice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gúia Nice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clinical Practice Guideline

Anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease

Final Version: June 2017

Jennifer Ann Williams

Ms. Hayleigh Isaac

Professor Sunil Bhandari

Method used to arrive at a recommendation

Conflicts of Interest Statement

2. Summary of Clinical Practice Guidelines on anaemia Chronic Kidney Disease .................................................. 6

3. Summary of Audit Measures on anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease ................................................................. 11

5. Lay Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 49

 children: 0–13 years

 Anaemia and CKD

 Prospective randomised or quasi-randomised trials

We also reviewed all related guidelines including those listed below:

1. Evaluating and Diagnosing Anaemia in CKD (Guidelines 1.1 – 1.5)

Guideline 1.1 – Evaluation of anaemia - Screening for anaemia

 at least annually in patients with CKD G3 and

Guideline 1.2 - Evaluation of anaemia – haemoglobin levels

This is to ensure the correct diagnosis and management of anaemia. (1A)

Guideline 1.3 - Evaluation of anaemia - Renal function

Guideline 1.4 - Evaluation of anaemia - Erythropoietin measurement

Guideline 1.5 - Evaluation of anaemia – Baseline investigations

 Full blood count (FBC) including—in addition to the Hb concentration:

 Serum B12 and serum folate concentrations.

Guideline 2.1 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy – Iron repletion

Iron repletion is usually defined as:

Guideline 2.3 - Treatment of Anaemia with Iron therapy - Route of Administration:

In contrast most haemodialysis patients will require intravenous iron. (2A).

 the availability of venous access

3. Treatment with Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents (Guidelines 3.1 – 3.11)

Guideline 3.1 - Treatment of Anaemia - Erythropoiesis Stimulating Agents

Guideline 3.2 - Treatment of Anaemia - Choice of ESA

Guideline 3.3 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Target Hb:

Guideline 3.4 - Treatment of Anaemia without ESA therapy - Target Hb

Guideline 3.5 - Treatment of Anaemia - Initial ESA dose

Guideline 3.6 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Route of administration:

Guideline 3.7 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA therapy - Frequency of administration

Guideline 3.10 - Treatment of Anaemia with ESA Therapy

Guideline 3.11 – Caution in prescribing ESA in certain CKD patients sub-group:

4. Monitoring of Therapy (Guidelines 4.1 – 4.7)

Guideline 4.1 - Monitoring of treatment - Hb during ESA therapy

More frequent monitoring will depend on clinical circumstances. (2B)

Guideline 4.2 - Monitoring of treatment - Iron therapy

Guideline 4.4 - Parenteral iron & infection:

Guideline 4.5 - Monitoring of treatment - Resistance to ESA therapy

Guideline 4.7 - Monitoring of treatment - Hypertension during ESA therapy

5. Anaemia of CKD: Blood Transfusion (Guidelines 5.1 – 5.3)

Guideline 5.1 - Blood Transfusion

Guideline 5.2 - Blood Transfusion

6. Anaemia of CKD: Post Transplant Anaemia (Guideline 6.1)

3. Summary of Audit Measures on anaemia of Chronic Kidney Disease

5. The proportion of CKD Grade 4-5 patients with Hb 100-120 g/L

7. Mean (median) ESA dose in patients maintained on ESA therapy

8. Each renal unit should monitor ESA dose adjustments

11. Proportion of HD patients receiving IV iron

12. Prevalence of resistance to ESA among renal replacement therapy patients

1. Anaemia of CKD (Guidelines 1.1 – 1.6)

Guideline 1.1 – Evaluation of anaemia - Screening for anaemia