Dataset Information

Anaemia management with C.E.R.A. in routine clinical practice: OCEANE (Cohorte Mircera patients non-dialyses), a national, multicenter, longitudinal, observational prospective study, in patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe the management of anaemia with a continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A., methoxy polyethylene glycol epoetin-?), in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis, naïve or non-naïve to treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) at inclusion.

Design

National, multicentre, longitudinal, observational prospective study.

Setting

133 nephrologists practicing in France selected patients during their routine follow-up visits. The study was non-interventional.

Participants

They were adult CKD patients not on dialysis or kidney transplant patients, naïve or not to ESA treatment: 524 patients not on dialysis (48% ESA-naïve) and 92 kidney transplant patients (24% ESA-naïve) were included and followed up every 3 months during 1 year.

Outcome measures

The two main endpoints were the percentage of patients who achieved target haemoglobin (Hb) levels as per European Medicines Agency guidelines (10-12 g/dl) around 6 months of treatment and modalities of treatment.

Results

Approximately one in two patients had an Hb level within 10-12 g/dl at baseline, and around 6 and 12 months of treatment. Ninety per cent of ESA-naïve patients achieved at least +1 g/dl increase over baseline Hb levels or had Hb within 10-12 g/dl around 6 and 12 months. The Hb level remained at approximately 11.5 g/dl during the 12 months of follow-up. Around 6 months: almost all patients were receiving a once-monthly subcutaneous dose of C.E.R.A. (patients not on dialysis: 95±54 µg; kidney transplant patients: 121±70 µg); approximately half the patients did not require a change in C.E.R.A. dose. Adverse effects related to C.E.R.A. were observed in less than 5% of patients and led to modification or discontinuation of treatment in 2%.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of C.E.R.A. in CKD patients not on dialysis, with or without kidney transplantation, were confirmed in routine clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Frimat L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3612788 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is rapidly expanding across the world, with more than 100,000 new cases each day as of end-June 2020. Healthcare workers are struggling to provide the best care for COVID-19 patients. Approaches for invasive ventilation vary widely between and within countries and new insights are acquired rapidly. We aim to investigate invasive ventilation practices and outcome in COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands.MethodsPRoVENT-COVID ('study of PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19') is an investigator-initiated national, multicenter observational study to be undertaken in intensive care units (ICUs) in The Netherlands. Consecutive COVID-19 patients aged 18 years or older, who are receiving invasive ventilation in the participating ICUs, are to be enrolled during a 10-week period, with a daily follow-up of 7 days. The primary outcome is ventilatory management (including tidal volume expressed as mL/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure expressed as cmH2O) during the first 3 days of ventilation. Secondary outcomes include other ventilatory variables, use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia such as prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, use of sedatives, vasopressors and inotropes; daily cumulative fluid balances; acute kidney injury; ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), duration of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital and 90-day mortality.DiscussionPRoVENT-COVID will be the largest observational study to date, with high density ventilatory data and major outcomes. There is urgent need for a better understanding of ventilation practices, and the effects of ventilator settings on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The results of PRoVENT-COVID will be rapidly disseminated through electronic presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in international peer-reviewed journals. Access to source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets on request, and after agreement of the PRoVENT-COVID steering committee.Trial registrationPRoVENT-COVID is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT04346342).

Project description:BackgroundAnaemia can be a pointer of underlying severe disease, including undiagnosed malignancy. Subsequent blood tests are essential to classify the anaemia into subtypes and to facilitate targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis of underlying disease.ObjectiveWe aimed to describe and classify anaemia based on laboratory tests from patients with new-onset anaemia detected in general practice. An additional aim was to analyse associations between patient characteristics and unclassified anaemia (not classifiable according to an algorithm).DesignPopulation-based cross-sectional study.SettingDanish general practice.SubjectsA total of 62,731 patients (age: 40-90 years) with new-onset anaemia were identified in Danish laboratory information systems and nationwide registries, and data were obtained for 2014-2018.Main outcome measuresWe measured the proportion of patients classified into subtypes of anaemia based on blood tests requested by general practitioners within 31 days of the anaemia index date.ResultsOf the 62,731 patients with new-onset anaemia, we identified unclassified anaemia in 78.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.3-80.5) of men and 65.1% (CI: 63.4-66.9) of women. The likelihood of unclassified anaemia increased with age, increasing comorbidity and decreasing severity of anaemia.ConclusionThe majority of patients with new-onset anaemia could not be classified through a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests, which highlights a potential missed opportunity for diagnosis. Standardised laboratory testing of patients with anaemia is warranted to ensure adequate follow-up and early detection of underlying severe disease.KEY POINTSAnaemia can be a sign of malignancy, and anaemia classification is an important step in the diagnosis of underlying disorders.The majority of patients with anaemia could not be classified according to a simple algorithm due to missing blood tests.Some patient characteristics were associated with a high risk of unclassified anaemia: high age, high comorbidity, and severe anaemia.Standardised laboratory testing in patients with anaemia is needed to inform targeted diagnostic investigation to ensure timely diagnosis.

Project description:IntroductionBaricitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aimed to investigate patients' characteristics, prescription patterns, effectiveness, and treatment persistence in patients receiving baricitinib in real-world practice in Spain.MethodsThis retrospective longitudinal cohort study conducted in five rheumatology units included adults with RA initiating baricitinib (Sep-2017-May-19) with at least a 6-month-follow-up. Demographic/clinical characteristics, prescription patterns, and changes in disease activity and pain level were collected until treatment discontinuation/end of follow-up. Treatment persistence was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods.ResultsData from 182 patients were included (mean (SD)): 83.5% women, 62.2 (12.3) years, body mass index 26.8 (5.1), disease duration 13.2 (10.8) years and Charlson Comorbidity Index score 2.4 (2.0). All patients had received at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD) before starting baricitinib and 78.0% at least one biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD). Furthermore, 90.1% started with baricitinib 4 mg/day; 43.4% in monotherapy. One hundred and twelve (61.5%) of patients continued baricitinib at data collection time; mean persistence was 14.1 (0.5) months. Overall treatment persistence was 79.7/64.8/59.1% at 6/12/18 months. Seventy (38.5%) patients discontinued baricitinib during follow-up due to loss of efficacy (68.6%) or adverse events (18.6%). In those patients with available scores at the different observed cut-off points, remission or low disease activity was reported in 71.6 and 76.3% of patients at 6/12 months at any index: Disease Activity Score 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) (73.1 and 73.5%), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) (62.4 and 75.0%), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) (66.7 and 78.1%). Good or moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)-response was noted in 80.0 and 78.2% of patients, respectively. Improvement from baseline in pain (Visual Analog Scale) was 2.5 cm and 3.0 cm at 6/12 months, respectively.ConclusionsThis Spanish cohort of patients treated with baricitinib had a long-standing and refractory disease. Nevertheless, high persistence and improvements in disease activity and pain were found at 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation, independently of the composite disease activity measure used, reinforcing the effectiveness of baricitinib in routine clinical practice.

Project description:PurposeThis postmarketing surveillance survey was conducted to investigate the utility of the CONsistency in r-FSH Starting dOses for individualized tReatmenT (CONSORT) calculator for individualizing recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) starting doses for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in routine clinical practice.MethodsThis was a 3-year, open-label, observational study evaluating data from women undergoing COS for assisted reproductive technology at 31 German fertility centers. Physicians stated their recommended r-hFSH starting dose, then generated a CONSORT-recommended r-hFSH starting dose. Physicians could prescribe any r-hFSH starting dose. The primary objective was to compare the r-hFSH starting dose recommended by the physician with the CONSORT-calculated dose and that prescribed. Statistical analyses were conducted post hoc.ResultsData were collected from 2,579 patients; the mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 30.5 (2.93) years (range: 19-40 years). The mean (SD) CONSORT-calculated r-hFSH starting dose was significantly lower than the physician-recommended dose (134.5 [38.0] IU versus 164.6 [47.1] IU; P<0.0001); the mean (SD) starting dose prescribed was 162.2 (48.4) IU. CONSORT-calculated doses were prescribed for 27.3% (number [n] =677) of patients, and non-CONSORT-calculated doses prescribed for 72.7% (n=1,800). The mean (SD) number of oocytes retrieved per patient was 10.6 (6.15) and 11.4 (6.66) in the CONSORT and non-CONSORT groups, respectively; the mean (SD) number of embryos transferred per patient was 1.98 (0.41) and 2.03 (0.45), respectively. Clinical pregnancy rates per COS cycle were 38.8% (CONSORT) and 34.8% (non-CONSORT) (P=0.142); clinical pregnancy rates per embryos transferred were 45.0% and 39.5%, respectively (P=0.049). Miscarriage occurred in 14.8% of all clinical pregnancies (Consort12.5%; non-Consort15.3%). The rate of grade 3 ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was 0.3% (n=2) in the CONSORT group and 0.6% (n=11) in the non-CONSORT group. OHSS led to hospitalization in 0.81% (n=21) of cases (CONSORT group: 0.74% [n=5]; non-CONSORT group: 0.83% [n=15]).ConclusionPhysician-recommended r-hFSH starting doses were generally higher than those calculated by CONSORT; most patients were prescribed a higher starting dose than that recommended by CONSORT.