Cross-sectional analysis finds non-classical monocytes impact anemia severity in ESKD patients, indicating potential risk identification.
Background: Anemia remains a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in patients treated by hemodialysis despite current anemia management strategies. Non-classical monocytes (CD14+CD16++), which expand in end-stage kidney disease and participate in iron recycling through heme scavenging, represent an unexplored link to anemia in this population. Methods: In this two-center cross-sectional analysis of 408 patients treated by prevalent hemodialysis from the prospective Immunity in End-Stage Renal Disease (iESRD) cohort, monocyte subsets were quantified by multicolor flow cytometry. Associations between non-classical monocyte percentage (%M3) and hemoglobin were evaluated using Spearman rank correlations and multivariable linear regression adjusted for demographics, dialysis vintage, erythropoietin dose, iron parameters, inflammatory markers, and comorbidities. Results: Mean age was 62±12 years, 57% were male, and 45% had diabetes. Patients in the highest %M3 tertile had lower hemoglobin than those in the lowest tertile (10.6±1.2 versus 11.1±1.6 g/dL; P=0.01). In multivariable regression, each one-tertile higher %M3 was independently associated with 0.29 g/dL lower hemoglobin (β=−0.29; 95% CI, −0.43 to −0.15; P<0.001), and this association persisted after further adjustment for blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine (β=−0.31; P<0.001). The association was not attenuated by adjustment for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and %M3 showed no correlation with interleukin-6 or tumor necrosis factor-α. The association was strongest among diabetic patients (ρ = −0.27; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Non-classical monocyte expansion is independently associated with anemia severity in patients treated by hemodialysis through an inflammation-independent pathway involving altered iron homeostasis. Monocyte subset profiling may identify patients at risk for refractory anemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: