Nefrologia · 2026
Analysis of the carbon footprint of pharmacological treatments in advanced chronic kidney disease and peritoneal dialysis: Oral vs. subcutaneous administration.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lomas-Calatayud Susana, Moncho Francesc, Gimenez-Civera Elena, Puchades Maria Jesús, Gandía Lorena, Forquet Claudia, Montomoli Marco, Pardillo Raquel, Alos Manuel, Panizo Nayara, Górriz Jose Luis
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Carbon footprint quantification currently stands as the most accepted model for assessing the ecological impact of human activities. Selecting the most environmentally friendly treatment for pathologies arising from advanced chronic kidney disease can reduce the carbon footprint.
METHODS: We aimed to analyze the carbon footprint from using subcutaneous administration treatments versus oral medication in patients with the same medical condition: advanced chronic kidney disease (ACKD) (CKD stage 4 or 5 not in dialysis) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). This is an observational, cross-sectional study with 41 patients, 19 receiving oral medication (cinacalcet), and 22 subcutaneously administered erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (darbepoetin alfa). Both treatments were dispensed at the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia internal pharmacy. The carbon footprint was calculated using analytical techniques from hybrid life cycle models of the studied medications. For this analysis, three groups were considered: patient and supplies transportation, energy, and waste disposal.
RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were included, with a median age of 72 years (IQR: 63-80). No significant between-group differences were detected in analytical parameters. The overall carbon footprint derived from the subcutaneous treatment process with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) was 95,512.93kg of CO2/year, compared to 12,199.85kg of CO2/year resulting from cinacalcet treatment (p<0.001). Group-wise analysis did not detect significant differences in travel-related consumption. However, in waste generation and transportation, ESA use showed a significantly higher carbon footprint than oral medication use (p<0.001), partly attributable to the refrigeration energy consumption of darbepoetin (inexistent for cinacalcet).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of drugs not requiring subcutaneous administration with syringes could significantly reduce healthcare-related carbon footprint.
METHODS: We aimed to analyze the carbon footprint from using subcutaneous administration treatments versus oral medication in patients with the same medical condition: advanced chronic kidney disease (ACKD) (CKD stage 4 or 5 not in dialysis) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). This is an observational, cross-sectional study with 41 patients, 19 receiving oral medication (cinacalcet), and 22 subcutaneously administered erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (darbepoetin alfa). Both treatments were dispensed at the Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia internal pharmacy. The carbon footprint was calculated using analytical techniques from hybrid life cycle models of the studied medications. For this analysis, three groups were considered: patient and supplies transportation, energy, and waste disposal.
RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were included, with a median age of 72 years (IQR: 63-80). No significant between-group differences were detected in analytical parameters. The overall carbon footprint derived from the subcutaneous treatment process with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) was 95,512.93kg of CO2/year, compared to 12,199.85kg of CO2/year resulting from cinacalcet treatment (p<0.001). Group-wise analysis did not detect significant differences in travel-related consumption. However, in waste generation and transportation, ESA use showed a significantly higher carbon footprint than oral medication use (p<0.001), partly attributable to the refrigeration energy consumption of darbepoetin (inexistent for cinacalcet).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of drugs not requiring subcutaneous administration with syringes could significantly reduce healthcare-related carbon footprint.