Dataset Information

Long-term Safety of Epoetin Alfa-epbx for the Treatment of Anemia in ESKD: Pooled Analyses of Randomized and Open-label Studies.

ABSTRACT: Rationale & Objective:Epoetin alfa-epbx is a biosimilar to the reference product, epoetin alfa. We compare the safety of epoetin alfa-epbx versus epoetin alfa based on a pooled analysis of findings from 2 randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical studies, and report new data for the long-term safety of epoetin alfa-epbx. Study Design:Pooled analyses of previously conducted studies. Setting & Participants:Hemodialysis patients with anemia. Interventions:Data from patients who received 1 or more subcutaneous or intravenous doses of study drug were integrated across route of administration in combined randomized groups (epoetin alfa-epbx, n = 423; epoetin alfa, n = 426). Data from patients who received 1 or more doses of epoetin alfa-epbx in either open-label extension trial were integrated across route of administration in a combined long-term safety studies group (n = 576). Outcomes:Adverse events (AEs), immunogenicity, and other outcomes were assessed. Results:Incidences of treatment-emergent AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuation of study drug treatment because of treatment-emergent AEs were similar between combined randomized epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa, which had mean treatment durations of 18.1 and 17.7 weeks, respectively. Incidences of treatment-emergent AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuation of study drug treatment because of treatment-emergent AEs were 86.5%, 39.4%, and 6.6%, respectively, for the combined long-term safety studies group, which had a mean treatment duration of 40.0 weeks. In total, 12 patients across the combined randomized groups (epoetin alfa-epbx, n = 5; epoetin alfa, n = 7) and 9 patients in the combined long-term safety studies group tested anti-recombinant human erythropoietin antibody positive in 1 or more visits during study conduct. No patient in any group developed neutralizing antibodies or pure red blood cell aplasia. Limitations:Epoetin alfa comparator not included in the long-term safety studies, greater cumulative exposure to study drug for epoetin alfa-epbx, shorter follow-up in the randomized studies, and potential for selection bias among patients in the open-label long-term safety studies. Conclusions:This analysis reinforces previous conclusions of similar safety profiles between epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa. Furthermore, epoetin alfa-epbx had no unexpected safety signals during long-term treatment. Funding:This study was funded by Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov EPOE-10-13 (NCT01473420); EPOE-10-01 (NCT01473407); EPOE-11-04 (NCT01628120); EPOE-11-03 (NCT01628107).

SUBMITTER: Wish JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7380401 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep-Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-term Safety of Epoetin Alfa-epbx for the Treatment of Anemia in ESKD: Pooled Analyses of Randomized and Open-label Studies.

Wish Jay B JB Rocha Marcelo G MG Martin Nancy E NE Reyes Christian Russel D CRD Fishbane Steven S Smith Mark T MT Nassar George G

Kidney medicine 20190828 5

<h4>Rationale & objective</h4>Epoetin alfa-epbx is a biosimilar to the reference product, epoetin alfa. We compare the safety of epoetin alfa-epbx versus epoetin alfa based on a pooled analysis of findings from 2 randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical studies, and report new data for the long-term safety of epoetin alfa-epbx.<h4>Study design</h4>Pooled analyses of previously conducted studies.<h4>Setting & participants</h4>Hemodialysis patients with anemia.<h4>Interventions</h4>Data from ...[more]

PMID: 32734207

Similar Datasets

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: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: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:BackgroundDaprodustat is an oral agent that stimulates erythropoiesis by inhibiting the prolyl hydroxylases which mark hypoxia-inducible factor for degradation through hydroxylation. Its safety and efficacy (noninferiority) were assessed in this 52-week, open-label study.MethodsJapanese patients not on dialysis (ND) (N = 299) with anemia of CKD (stages G3, G4, and G5) with iron parameters of ferritin >100 ng/mL or transferrin saturation >20% at screening were randomized to daprodustat or epoetin beta pegol (continuous erythropoietin receptor activator [CERA], also known as methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta). After initiation of the study, the daprodustat starting dose for erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA)-naïve participants was revised, and daprodustat was started at 2 or 4 mg once daily depending on baseline hemoglobin. ESA users switched to daprodustat 4 mg once daily. CERA was started at 25 μg every 2 weeks for ESA-naïve patients and 25-250 μg every 4 weeks for ESA users based on previous ESA dose. In both treatment groups, dose was adjusted every 4 weeks based on hemoglobin level and changed according to a prespecified algorithm. The primary endpoint was mean hemoglobin level during weeks 40-52 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. ESA-naïve patients who entered before the protocol amendment revising the daprodustat starting dose were excluded from the ITT population.ResultsMean hemoglobin levels during weeks 40-52 were 12.0 g/dL in the daprodustat group (n = 108; 95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-12.1) and 11.9 g/dL for CERA (n = 109; 95% CI 11.7-12.0); the difference between the groups was 0.1 g/dL (95% CI -0.1 to 0.3 g/dL). The lower limit of the 95% CI of the difference was greater than the prespecified margin of -1.0 g/dL. The mean hemoglobin level was within the target range (11.0-13.0 g/dL) during weeks 40-52 for 92% of participants in both groups. There was no meaningful difference in the frequencies of adverse events.ConclusionsOral daprodustat was noninferior to CERA in achieving and maintaining target hemoglobin levels in Japanese ND patients. Daprodustat was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns identified.

Dataset Information

Long-term Safety of Epoetin Alfa-epbx for the Treatment of Anemia in ESKD: Pooled Analyses of Randomized and Open-label Studies.

Publications

Long-term Safety of Epoetin Alfa-epbx for the Treatment of Anemia in ESKD: Pooled Analyses of Randomized and Open-label Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets