C.E.R.A. once every 4 weeks corrects anaemia and maintains haemoglobin in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No previous randomized controlled studies have been reported examining de novo, once every 4 weeks (Q4W) administration of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. We report results from a randomized multinational study that compared continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A.) Q4W with darbepoetin alfa once weekly (QW) or every 2 weeks (Q2W) for the correction of anaemia in non-dialysis CKD patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either 1.2 μg/kg C.E.R.A. Q4W or darbepoetin alfa QW/Q2W during a 20-week correction period and an 8-week evaluation period. Two primary end points were assessed: the haemoglobin (Hb) response rate and the change in average Hb concentration between baseline and evaluation. RESULTS: The Hb response rate for C.E.R.A. was 94.1%, significantly higher than the protocol-specified 60% response rate [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.1, 97.3; P < 0.0001] and comparable with darbepoetin alfa (93.5%; 95% CI: 88.4, 96.8; P < 0.0001). C.E.R.A. Q4W was non-inferior to darbepoetin alfa QW/Q2W, with similar mean Hb changes from baseline of 1.62 g/dL and 1.66 g/dL, respectively. Patients receiving C.E.R.A. showed a steady rise in Hb, with fewer patients above the target range during the first 8 weeks compared with darbepoetin alfa [39 patients (25.8%) versus 72 patients (47.7%); P < 0.0001]. Adverse event rates were comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: C.E.R.A. Q4W successfully corrects anaemia and maintains stable Hb levels within the recommended target range in non-dialysis CKD patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".