Dataset Information

Preservation of anemia control and weekly ESA dosage after conversion from PEG-Epoetin beta to darbepoetin alfa in adult hemodialysis patients: the TRANSFORM study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is scant real-world information on switching treatment for anemia associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD) from methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (PEG-Epo) to darbepoetin alfa (DA). TRANSFORM was a multi-center, observational study designed to describe the time course of hemoglobin (Hb) concentration (primary outcome measure) and other parameters of clinical management of anemia in European hemodialysis patients in clinical practice before and after a switch from PEG-Epo to DA.

Methods

Eligible subjects were adult patients with CKD dialyzed at European dialysis centers for ≥26 weeks and treated with PEG-Epo for ≥14 weeks immediately prior to being switched to DA and no earlier than January 2011. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent doses and Hb values were recorded for the 14-week pre-switch and 26-week post-switch periods.

Results

Of the 1,027 eligible patients enrolled at 42 hemodialysis centers in 7 European countries, 785 were included in analyses. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) Hb was generally stable: 11.19 (11.11, 11.26), 11.48 (11.40, 11.57), and 11.29 (11.20, 11.37) g/dL at month -1 pre-switch and months 3 and 6 post-switch, respectively. The geometric mean (95% CI) PEG-Epo dose at month -1 was 27.4 (26.0, 28.8) µg/week; DA dose was 29.4 (27.9, 30.9), 23.3 (21.9, 24.9), and 25.6 (24.1, 27.1) µg/week at months 1, 4, and 6, respectively. The geometric mean (95% CI) dose ratio at switching was 1.06 (1.01, 1.11). When stratifying by dose-ratio categories <0.8, 0.8-1.2, and >1.2 at switching, mean DA dose and Hb converged within narrow ranges by month 6 post-switch: 23.9-27.0 µg/week and 11.1-11.5 g/dL, respectively. Hb excursions <10 g/dL were less frequent post-switch versus pre-switch.

Conclusion

Mean Hb values remained within a narrow range following switching from PEG-Epo to DA in this population of hemodialysis patients. Time trends of mean Hb and DA dose indicate that physicians titrated DA doses post-switch, to attain Hb concentrations comparable to those attained pre-switch with PEG-Epo.

SUBMITTER: Donck J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4245491 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Adequately powered studies directly comparing hard clinical outcomes of darbepoetin alfa (DPO) versus epoetin alfa (EPO) in patients undergoing dialysis are lacking.Observational, registry-based, retrospective cohort study; we mimicked a cluster-randomized trial by comparing mortality and cardiovascular events in US patients initiating hemodialysis therapy in facilities (almost) exclusively using DPO versus EPO.Nonchain US hemodialysis facilities; each facility switching from EPO to DPO (2003-2010) was matched for location, profit status, and facility type with one EPO facility. Patients subsequently initiating hemodialysis therapy in these facilities were assigned their facility-level exposure.DPO versus EPO.All-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality; composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke.Unadjusted and adjusted HRs from Cox proportional hazards regression models.Of 508 dialysis facilities that switched to DPO, 492 were matched with a similar EPO facility; 19,932 (DPO: 9,465 [47.5%]; EPO: 10,467 [52.5%]) incident hemodialysis patients were followed up for 21,918 person-years during which 5,550 deaths occurred. Almost all baseline characteristics were tightly balanced. The demographics-adjusted mortality HR for DPO (vs EPO) was 1.06 (95% CI, 1.00-1.13) and was materially unchanged after adjustment for all other baseline characteristics (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.12). Cardiovascular mortality did not differ between groups (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94-1.16). Nonfatal outcomes were evaluated among 9,455 patients with fee-for-service Medicare: 4,542 (48.0%) in DPO and 4,913 (52.0%) in EPO facilities. During 10,457 and 10,363 person-years, 248 and 372 events were recorded, respectively, for strokes and MIs. We found no differences in adjusted stroke or MI rates or their composite with cardiovascular death (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.25).Nonrandom treatment assignment, potential residual confounding.In incident hemodialysis patients, mortality and cardiovascular event rates did not differ between patients treated at facilities predominantly using DPO versus EPO.

Project description:BackgroundErythropoietin is a glycoprotein that mainly regulates erythropoiesis. In patients with chronic renal failure with anemia, darbepoetin alfa can stimulate erythropoiesis, correct anemia, and maintain hemoglobin levels. This study was designed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa injections as being not inferior to epoetin alfa injections (Recombinant Human Erythropoietin injection, rHuEPO) when maintaining hemoglobin (Hb) levels within the target range (10.0-12.0 g/dL) for the treatment of renal anemia.MethodsNinety-five patients were enrolled in this study from April 15, 2013 to April 10, 2014 at 25 sites. In this study, patients (n = 95) aged 18-70 years were randomized into a once per week intravenous darbepoetin alfa group (n = 56) and a twice or three times per week intravenous epoetin alfa group (n = 39) for 28 weeks, who had anemia with hemoglobin levels between 6 g/dL and 10 g/dL due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and were undergoing hemodialysis or hemofiltration with ESA-naive (erythropoiesis stimulating agent-naive). The primary efficacy profile was the mean Hb level (the non-inferiority margin was -1.0 g/dL, week 21-28); the secondary efficacy profiles were the Hb increase rate (week 0-4), the target Hb achievement cumulative rate and time, the change trends of the Hb levels, and the target Hb maintenance ratio. Adverse events (AEs) were observed and compared, and the efficacy and safety were analyzed between the two treatment groups. Additionally, the frequencies of dose adjustments between the darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa groups were compared during the treatment period. SAS® software version 9.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for all efficacy, safety, and demographic variable analyses, including for the primary efficacy indicators.ResultsThe mean Hb level was 11.3 g/dL in the darbepoetin alfa group and 10.7 g/dL in the epoetin alfa group, respectively; the difference of the lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) between the two groups was 0.1 g/dL (>-1.0 g/dL), and non-inferiority was proven; the Hb levels started to increase in the first four weeks at a similar increase rate; no obvious differences were observed between the groups in the target Hb achievement cumulative rates, and the Hb levels as well as the target Hb level maintenance rate changed over time. The incidence of AEs was 62.5% in the darbepoetin alfa group and 76.9% in the epoetin alfa group. All the adverse events observed in the study were those commonly associated with hemodialysis.ConclusionDarbepoetin alfa intravenously once per week can effectively increase Hb levels and maintain the target Hb levels well, which makes it not inferior to epoetin alfa intravenously twice or three times per week. Darbepoetin alfa shows an efficacy and safety comparable to epoetin alfa for the treatment of renal anemia.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Anemia of chronic kidney disease is associated with adverse outcomes and a reduced quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have improved anemia management, and 2 agents are available in Canada, epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DA). EPO and DA are considered equally effective in achieving target hemoglobin (Hb), but it is not clear whether there is a cost difference. There have been few head-to-head comparisons; most published studies are observational switch studies. OBJECTIVE:To compare the cost of DA and EPO and to determine the dose conversion ratio over a 12-month period. DESIGN:Randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Canadian outpatient hemodialysis center. PATIENTS:Eligible patients were adult hemodialysis patients requiring ESA therapy. MEASUREMENTS:The primary outcome was ESA cost (Can$) per patient over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the dose conversion ratio, deviation from target ranges in anemia indices, iron dose and cost, and time and number of dose changes. METHODS:An open-label randomized controlled trial of intravenous (IV) DA versus EPO was conducted in 50 hemodialysis patients. Participants underwent a minimum 6-week run-in phase followed by a 12-month active study phase. ESA and iron were dosed using a study algorithm. RESULTS:The median cost was $4179 (interquartile range [IQR]: $2416-$5955) for EPO and $2303 (IQR: $1178-$4219) for DA with a difference of $1876 (P = .02). The dose conversion ratio was 280:1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 197-362:1) at the end of the run-in phase, 360:1 (95% CI: 262-457:1) at the 3-month point of the active phase, and 382:1 (95% CI: 235-529:1) at the 6-month point of the active phase. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in weekly iron dose, Hb, serum ferritin, or transferrin saturation. The number of dose changes and the time to Hb stability were similar. LIMITATIONS:Results may not be generalizable to hemodialysis units without algorithm-based anemia management, with subcutaneous ESA administration, or to the nondialysis chronic kidney disease population. The effective conversion ratio between EPO and DA is known to increase at higher doses; the Hb targets used in the study were slightly higher than those recommended today so it is possible that the doses used were also higher. Because of this, the cost savings estimated for DA could differ somewhat from the savings realizable in current practice. CONCLUSIONS:In this study of hemodialysis patients with comparable anemia management, IV DA cost $1876 less per year per patient than IV EPO. The dose conversion ratio was greater than 350:1 by the 3-month point. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02817555).

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:This study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous epoetin alfa-epbx, an epoetin alfa biosimilar, to epoetin alfa in patients on hemodialysis with ESKD and anemia. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS:In this 24-week, multicenter, double-blind comparative efficacy and safety study, 612 patients on hemodialysis with ESKD and anemia who had stable hemoglobin and were receiving stable doses of intravenous epoetin alfa were randomized (1:1) to intravenous epoetin alfa or epoetin alfa-epbx. Dosing was adjusted according to the epoetin alfa prescribing information. The coprimary efficacy end points were the least squares mean difference between the two treatments in mean weekly hemoglobin level and mean weekly epoetin dose per kilogram of body weight during the last 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS:The least squares mean difference between epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa in weekly hemoglobin was -0.12 g/dl and the 95% confidence interval (-0.25 to 0.01) was contained within the prespecified equivalence margin (-0.5 to 0.5 g/dl). The least squares mean difference between epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa in weekly epoetin dose per kilogram of body weight was 0.37 U/kg per week, and the 95% confidence interval (-10.40 to 11.13) was contained within the prespecified equivalence margin (-45 to 45 U/kg per week). Incidences of adverse events (77.1% versus 75.3%), serious adverse events (24.9% versus 27.0%), and deaths (n=5 versus 6) were similar between the epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa groups, respectively. Five patients tested positive for anti-recombinant human erythropoietin antibodies at baseline, and two additional patients (n=1 per group) developed anti-recombinant human erythropoietin antibodies while on study treatment. All patients tested negative for neutralizing antibodies, and no patient in either group experienced an event of pure red cell aplasia. CONCLUSIONS:This 24-week, comparative, clinical trial in patients on hemodialysis with ESKD and anemia demonstrated there is no clinically meaningful difference in efficacy or safety between epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa.