HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.03130906v1 2/1/13    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Wyck, D. Articles by Levin, A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Van Wyck, D. Articles by Levin, A.

Response to "Influence of Industry on Renal Guideline Development"

David Van Wyck^*, Kai-Uwe Eckardt, Katrin Uhlig, Michael Rocco, and Adeera Levin^||

^* Department of Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona; Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany; Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and ^|| Department of Nephrology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Address correspondence to: Dr. David Van Wyck, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Section of Geriatrics, 1807 East Elm Street, Tucson, AZ 85719. Phone: 520-906-8262; Fax: 520-498-5027; E-mail: dvanwyck{at}sprynet.com

	Introduction

Top Introduction Disclosures References

 
Dr. Coyne argues (1) that our statement 2.1.2, Upper Limit of Hemoglobin (1), will promote greater erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) use, enrich pharmaceutical companies and dialysis providers, and impoverish the health care system; (2) that the upper limit should have been recommended on the basis of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) package insert and unpublished data; (3) that pharmaceutical industry support for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and industry ties among NKF Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) membership foretold the upper limit statement; (4) that shame and discredit will befall the renal community as a result; and (5) that the only solution is to preclude pharmaceutical support and experts with conflicts of interest (COI) from guideline development and shift guideline development responsibility to the National Institutes of Health. Although some of Dr. Coyne’s suggestions deserve support, others warrant scrutiny:

• Dr. Coyne objects to the specific value of 13.0 g/dl as the upper hemoglobin "target" and offers his own alternative. However, the actual statement 2.1.2 reads, "There is insufficient evidence to support routinely maintaining hemoglobin levels at 13.0 g/dl or greater in ESA-treated patients." That statement defines strength of evidence, not target hemoglobin. The carefully selected words are supported in exhaustive detail by 21 pages of tables, figures, and rationale. Dr. Coyne’s contention that KDOQI raised the target hemoglobin represents a fundamental misinterpretation of the guideline.
  
• Dr. Coyne misrepresents both statements 2.1.2 (Upper Limit of Hemoglobin) and 3.2.4 (Upper Level of Ferritin). He dismisses the two as "opinion-based" and therefore susceptible to industry influence. Each statement, however, is supported extensively in the rationale with an analysis of the available evidence. The terms clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and clinical practice recommendations (CPR) distinguish not between the presence and the absence of evidence but between levels of the strength and quality of evidence.
  
• Dr. Coyne assumes that ESA use is tied to the upper limit of hemoglobin. In fact, ESA use is determined largely by treatment protocols, population-based benchmarks, and reimbursement policy, not by what is targeted as the upper limit of hemoglobin in an individual patient or, for that matter, mean national hemoglobin. ESA use in the United States far exceeds that of any other country, independent of mean national hemoglobin (Figure 1) (2). This is an issue of public policy and implementation, not guideline development.
  
• The statement that "DaVita has increased its hemoglobin target to 12.5 to 13.0 g/dl" is false. DaVita policy calls for maintaining hemoglobin 11.0 g/dl and decreasing epoetin dosage if hemoglobin exceeds 12.0 g/dl.
  
• The statement, "The chair and co-chair define the scope of work and the specific questions to be addressed," although factually correct, is taken out of context. Co-chairs prepare the first draft of the scope-of-work document as a series of open-ended questions to be considered by work group members. At their first 2-d meeting, members add questions until the initial working document is considered complete. The inclusive, combined set of questions (still without answers) forms the basis for the deliberation and discussion that follows and evolves as the group works, serving to ensure that all topics that are deemed clinically relevant and worthy of review are identified and addressed. Absence of a topic from the final guideline should not be regarded as evidence that the pertinent question was not identified or addressed by the work group.
  
• The FDA product prescribing information (FDA labeling) is not a guideline. As a policy or implementation tool, it potentially is confusing. Current labeling for ESA products that are available in the United States includes reference to a "suggested target" hemoglobin range of 10 to 12 g/dl for epoetin alfa (3,4) but specifies no range for darbepoetin (5), just a warning that the hemoglobin should not exceed 12 g/dl (3–5). Finally, the labeling for two of the three agents includes the statement, "At the physician’s discretion, the suggested target hemoglobin range may be expanded to achieve maximal patient benefit" (3,4). The labeling offers no evidence to support the specific upper hemoglobin target, affords no explanation for the differences in hemoglobin target definition among the three ESA products, and cites no CKD literature that was published later than 1998 (3–5).
  
• The Anemia Work Group, like all KDOQI work groups and most other guideline development efforts, required a priori that information that is used as evidence for the guidelines had been peer reviewed and either published or accepted for publication. This requirement served as a safeguard against bias from inclusion of unpublished, unreviewed results from trials that were not fully adjudicated (Correction of Hemoglobin and Outcomes in Renal Insufficiency [CHOIR]) or not actually completed (Dialysis Patients Response to IV Iron with Elevated Ferritin [DRIVE]).
  
• Dr. Coyne’s request to have transparency in disclosure and a process to resolve issues around real or perceived COI is well taken. However, the proposal that guideline development be carried out only by "intelligent physician-scientists with no COI," excluding both pharmaceutical support and experts with potential COI, although attractive in theory, is unrealistic. As we have pointed out, the KDOQI guideline development process includes an Evidence Review Team without COI, designed to provide methodologic expertise to the work group and to ensure that problems are defined clearly, data are interpreted appropriately, and rigor and transparency are maintained. If experts with COI were to be excluded from guideline development as unfit to appraise evidence, then the same standard should apply to all those who are in a position to appraise evidence, including each author who submits a trial report to a journal, each member of each journal’s editorial board, and each person to whom a manuscript is submitted for peer review. Absolute proscription of COI, if achievable, would discourage investigators from participating in the design, conduct, safety monitoring, and analysis of industry-sponsored research. The likely result, less clinical research that yields evidence of lower quality, would be undesirable. Guideline development aims not to eliminate but to control all potential or perceived bias, including that arising from COI. The goal is to control potential bias by adhering to scientific and methodologic rigor; fostering an interdisciplinary and independent work group; and using an open, structured, and systematic development process.
  

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide]   Figure 1. Relationship between mean hemoglobin and mean weekly epoetin dosage for hemodialysis patients in 12 countries. Data from 2002 to 2003. Adapted with permission from reference (2).

	Disclosures

Top Introduction Disclosures References

 
D.V.W. receives lecture and consultant fees from Amgen, American Regent, Ortho-Biotech, and Affymax, is a part-time employee of DaVita, and is co-chair of the KDOQI Anemia Work Group. K.-U.E. receives lecture and consultant fees from Amgen, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, and Affymax and is co-chair of the KDOQI Anemia Work Group. K.U. is a co-director of the KDOQI evidence review team. M.R. is vice-chair of the KDOQI Steering Committee and receives lecture and consulting fees from Amgen, NxStage, and DaVita. A.L. receives lecture and consultant fees and grant support from Amgen, Roche, Ortho-Biotech/Janssen-Cilag and is chair of the KDOQI Steering Committee.

	Footnotes

 
Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

	References

Top Introduction Disclosures References

 

1. KDOQI clinical practice guidelines and clinical practice recommendations for anemia in chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis47 :S11 –S145,2006[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Pisoni RL, Bragg-Gresham JL, Young EW, Akizawa T, Asano Y, Locatelli F, Bommer J, Cruz JM, Kerr PG, Mendelssohn DC, Held PJ, Port FK: Anemia management and outcomes from 12 countries in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Am J Kidney Dis44 :94 –111,2004[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Epogen (Epoetin Alfa) for Injection: Prescribing Information. 1–30, Silver Spring, MD, US Food and Drug Administration,2006
4. Procrit (Epoetin Alfa) for Injection: Prescribing Information. 1–21, Silver Spring, MD, US Food and Drug Administration,2006
5. Aranesp (Darbepoetin Alfa) for Injection: Prescribing Information. 1–21, Silver Spring, MD, US Food and Drug Administration,2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. C. Macdougall, K.-U. Eckardt, and F. Locatelli Reply Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., December 1, 2008; 23(12): 4071 - 4072. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. C. Macdougall, K.-U. Eckardt, and F. Locatelli Reply Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1772 - 1772. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: CJN.03130906v1 2/1/13    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van Wyck, D. Articles by Levin, A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Van Wyck, D. Articles by Levin, A.