Efficacy and safety of Desidustat versus Erythropoietin in post kidney transplant anaemia: a prospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Post-renal transplant anemia significantly impacts patient outcomes and quality of life. The only option available until recently was erythropoietin (EPO) that requires intravenous or subcutaneous injection. New class of drugs that are Hypoxia-Inducible Factor Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor (HIF PHI) have become available and there is scarce data on their use in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Methods This was prospective observational study which included 58 renal transplant recipients with anemia (Hb < 10 g/dL) who were started on either oral HIF PHI in the form of Desidustat (n=30) or EPO (n=28) based on nephrologist discretion. Adult KTRs with a hemoglobin (Hb) level of less than 10 gm/dl were included. Patients with acute graft dysfunction, bleeding and primary haematological diseases were excluded. Baseline clinical characteristics were recorded. Primary outcomes were change in Hb at 8 weeks in the two groups. Secondary outcomes included inflammatory markers (CRP, ESR), iron indices, and safety. Results 58 patients were enrolled in the study; 30 received desidustat and 28 received erythropoietin. Both groups showed significant improvement in Hb from baseline to 2 months (Desidustat: 8.69 ± 0.86 g/dL to 9.89 ± 0.92 g/dL; EPO: 8.54 ± 0.73 g/dL to 9.55 ± 0.71 g/dL; p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in inflammatory markers or iron indices. Both treatments were well-tolerated, with no reported adverse events. Conclusions Desidustat demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to EPO, with the added benefit of oral administration. It presents a promising alternative for anemia management in post-renal transplant 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".