Dataset Information

Randomized Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Epoetin Alfa-epbx Versus Epoetin Alfa in End-Stage Kidney Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This double-blind, randomized controlled trial compared the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous epoetin alfa-epbx, an epoetin alfa biosimilar, with the reference product, epoetin alfa, in hemodialysis patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and anemia who were receiving epoetin alfa maintenance treatment.

Methods

Eligible patients (n = 320) were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous epoetin alfa-epbx or epoetin alfa in a titration phase; patients who demonstrated stable subcutaneous dosing (n = 246) were re-randomized to receive subcutaneous epoetin alfa-epbx or epoetin alfa 1 to 3 times per week in a 16-week maintenance phase. Co-primary endpoints were least-squares mean difference between treatments in mean weekly hemoglobin concentration and mean weekly epoetin dose per kilogram body weight (BW) during the last 4 weeks of treatment in the maintenance phase.

Results

The least-squares mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) between treatments in weekly hemoglobin was 0.04 g/dl (-0.17 to 0.24 g/dl) and weekly epoetin dose/kg BW was -2.34 U/kg per week (-14.51 to 9.82 U/kg per week). The 95% CIs were contained within the prespecified equivalence margins of ±0.5 g/dl (weekly hemoglobin) and ±45 U/kg per week (weekly epoetin dose/kg BW). In the epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa groups, respectively, 4.0% and 4.1% of patients required blood transfusions, 69.7% and 70.5% reported adverse events, 18.9% and 27.0% reported serious adverse events, and 3 and 2 deaths were reported. Five patients were confirmed positive for anti-recombinant human erythropoietin antibody, 2 of whom tested positive at baseline. All patients tested negative for neutralizing antibodies.

Conclusions

This comparative clinical trial demonstrated equivalence in efficacy and similar safety of subcutaneously administered epoetin alfa-epbx to epoetin alfa.

SUBMITTER: Fishbane S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6734106 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Epoetin Alfa-epbx Versus Epoetin Alfa in End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Fishbane Steven S Spinowitz Bruce S BS Wisemandle Wayne A WA Martin Nancy E NE

Kidney international reports 20190522 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>This double-blind, randomized controlled trial compared the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous epoetin alfa-epbx, an epoetin alfa biosimilar, with the reference product, epoetin alfa, in hemodialysis patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and anemia who were receiving epoetin alfa maintenance treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Eligible patients (<i>n</i> = 320) were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous epoetin alfa-epbx or epoetin alfa in a titration phase; patients who demonstra ...[more]

PMID: 31517143

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesThis 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, & measurementsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThis 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:BackgroundAnemia 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.ObjectiveTo compare the cost of DA and EPO and to determine the dose conversion ratio over a 12-month period.DesignRandomized controlled trial.SettingCanadian outpatient hemodialysis center.PatientsEligible patients were adult hemodialysis patients requiring ESA therapy.MeasurementsThe 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsThe 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.LimitationsResults 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.ConclusionsIn 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02817555).

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:BackgroundSeveral studies with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents claim that maintenance therapy of renal anaemia may be possible at extended dosing intervals; however, few studies were randomized, results varied, and comparisons between agents were absent. We report results of a multi-national, randomized, prospective trial comparing haemoglobin maintenance with methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta and darbepoetin alfa administered once monthly.MethodsHaemodialysis patients (n = 490) on stable once-weekly intravenous darbepoetin alfa were randomized to methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta once monthly or darbepoetin alfa every 2 weeks for 26 weeks, with dose adjustment for individual haemoglobin target (11-13 g/dL; maximum decrease from baseline 1 g/dL). Subsequently, patients entered a second 26-week period of once-monthly methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta and darbepoetin alfa. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who maintained average haemoglobin ≥10.5 g/dL, with a decrease from baseline ≤1 g/dL, in Weeks 50-53; the secondary endpoint was dose change over time. The trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00394953.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between groups. One hundred and fifty-seven of 245 patients treated with methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta and 99 of 245 patients with darbepoetin alfa met the response definition (64.1% and 40.4%; P < 0.0001). Doses increased by 6.8% with methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta and 58.8% with darbepoetin alfa during once-monthly treatment. Death rates were equal between treatments (5.7%). Most common adverse events included hypertension, procedural hypotension, nasopharyngitis and muscle spasms, with no differences between groups.ConclusionsMethoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta maintained target haemoglobin more successfully than darbepoetin alfa at once-monthly dosing intervals despite dose increases with darbepoetin alfa.

Dataset Information

Randomized Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Epoetin Alfa-epbx Versus Epoetin Alfa in End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Randomized Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Epoetin Alfa-epbx Versus Epoetin Alfa in End-Stage Kidney Disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets