Dataset Information

Switching from Epoetin Alfa (Epogen®) to Epoetin Alfa-Epbx (RetacritTM) Using a Specified Dosing Algorithm: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Study in Adults on Hemodialysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:For patients with anemia undergoing hemodialysis, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are typically dosed via precise algorithms. Using one such algorithm, we assessed the maintenance of hemoglobin levels in patients switched from epoetin alfa reference product (Epogen®) to epoetin alfa-epbx (RetacritTM; a biosimilar to US-licensed Epogen®/Procrit®). METHODS:This randomized, open-label, non-inferiority study was conducted at Fresenius Medical Care North America (FMCNA) hemodialysis centers. Patients with anemia and chronic kidney disease undergoing maintenance hemodialysis and receiving routine intravenous (IV) Epogen® were randomized 1: 1 to switch to IV RetacritTM or continue standard-of-care (Epogen®) for 24 weeks, using analogous versions of the FMCNA ESA-dosing algorithm. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time patients' hemoglobin was 9-11 g/dL during weeks 17-24. RESULTS:Of 432 randomized patients, 418 received treatment (RetacritTM, n = 212; standard-of-care, n = 206) and comprised the full analysis set. A similar proportion of patients discontinued from each arm. The proportion of time patients' hemoglobin was within the target range was 61.9% (95% CI 57.5-66.2) in the RetacritTM arm and 63.3% (95% CI 58.7-67.7) in the standard-of-care arm. The difference in proportions between treatment arms was -1.4% (95% CI -7.6 to 4.9), and the lower bound of the confidence interval was within the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -12.5%. There was no statistically significant difference between arms in the mean change from baseline in the weekly mean ESA dose during weeks 17-24, and no clinically relevant differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Switching to RetacritTM was non-inferior to continuing -Epogen® in maintaining hemoglobin levels in patients receiving hemodialysis, when both ESAs were dosed using a specified algorithm (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504294).

SUBMITTER: Thadhani R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6214608 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Switching from Epoetin Alfa (Epogen®) to Epoetin Alfa-Epbx (RetacritTM) Using a Specified Dosing Algorithm: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Study in Adults on Hemodialysis.

Thadhani Ravi R Guilatco Ruffy R Hymes Jeffrey J Maddux Franklin W FW Ahuja Ajay A

American journal of nephrology 20180907 3

<h4>Background</h4>For patients with anemia undergoing hemodialysis, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are typically dosed via precise algorithms. Using one such algorithm, we assessed the maintenance of hemoglobin levels in patients switched from epoetin alfa reference product (Epogen®) to epoetin alfa-epbx (RetacritTM; a biosimilar to US-licensed Epogen®/Procrit®).<h4>Methods</h4>This randomized, open-label, non-inferiority study was conducted at Fresenius Medical Care North America (FM ...[more]

PMID: 30196301

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: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.

Project description:This study aimed to assess and compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) properties following a single subcutaneous injection of epoetin alfa (Eporon®) with those of the comparator (Eprex®) in healthy male subjects.A randomized, double-blind, two-sequence, crossover study was conducted. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a single dose, that is, 4,000 IU, of the test or comparator epoetin alfa. After 4 weeks, all subjects received the alternative formulation. The primary PK parameters, maximum observed concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf), were calculated with the serum erythropoietin (EPO) concentrations from blood samples collected for 144 h after dosing. The reticulocyte, hematocrit, hemoglobin and red blood cell counts were measured up to 312 h as PD markers. The primary PD parameters, maximum observed effect (Emax) and area under the effect curve (AUEC), were obtained from the baseline-corrected reticulocyte count. The serum EPO concentration and the reticulocyte count were used to assess the concentration-response relationship. The tolerability and immunogenicity profiles were assessed together.Forty-two subjects completed the study. The mean EPO concentration-time profiles were comparable between the two formulations. The geometric mean ratios (90% CI) of the Cmax and AUCinf were 0.908 (0.843-0.978) and 1.049 (0.999-1.101), respectively, both of which were within the regulatory range of 0.80-1.25. Additionally, the PD and tolerability profiles were similar between the two formulations. The time-matched serum EPO concentration and PD markers presented a counterclockwise hysteresis, suggesting a time delay between the measured concentration and the response. Both formulations were well tolerated, and production of anti-drug antibodies was not observed.The two epoetin alfa formulations had similar PK, PD and tolerability profiles. Furthermore, both formulations had a similar time-matched serum EPO concentration and erythropoietic response profile. Thus, the two formulations are expected to be used interchangeably in clinical settings.

Dataset Information

Switching from Epoetin Alfa (Epogen®) to Epoetin Alfa-Epbx (RetacritTM) Using a Specified Dosing Algorithm: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Study in Adults on Hemodialysis.

Publications

Switching from Epoetin Alfa (Epogen®) to Epoetin Alfa-Epbx (RetacritTM) Using a Specified Dosing Algorithm: A Randomized, Non-Inferiority Study in Adults on Hemodialysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure