Dataset Information

Relative safety of peginesatide and epoetin alfa.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Peginesatide, a long-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, was recalled in February 2013 following reports of serious and sometimes fatal hypersensitivity reactions in dialysis patients who received a first dose. We assessed the relative risks of mortality and morbidity in peginesatide-treated and matched epoetin alfa-treated patients. METHODS:From standardized extracts of paid Medicare claims in 2012 and 2013, we identified dialysis patients treated with peginesatide or epoetin between 1 July 2012 and 28 February 2013. For each peginesatide-treated patient, we identified with propensity score matching two epoetin-treated control patients. Patients were followed for up to 2?days after the first peginesatide dose or the referent epoetin dose for death or hospitalization as a result of cardiovascular morbidity or symptoms (composite event), all-cause hospitalization, and emergency room care. RESULTS:We identified 15?633 peginesatide-treated patients and 31?266 matched epoetin-treated controls. On the day of dose administration, 19 composite events occurred with peginesatide (incidence, 0.12%) and 14 with epoetin (0.04%); the hazard ratio was 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.4). With follow-up for 1 and 2 subsequent days, hazard ratios were 1.6 (1.0-2.4) and 1.5 (1.1-2.0), respectively. Corresponding hazard ratios were larger among hemodialysis patients with neither intravenous antibiotic nor intravenous iron exposure on the day of dose administration. Hazard ratios for all-cause hospitalization and emergency room care exceeded 1 on and after the day of dose administration. CONCLUSIONS:Relative to administration of epoetin alfa, first administration of peginesatide in dialysis patients was acutely associated with higher risk of death or hospitalization as a result of cardiovascular morbidity or symptoms.

SUBMITTER: Weinhandl ED

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7510845 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Relative safety of peginesatide and epoetin alfa.

Weinhandl Eric D ED Gilbertson David T DT Collins Allan J AJ Foley Robert N RN

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 20140606 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>Peginesatide, a long-acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, was recalled in February 2013 following reports of serious and sometimes fatal hypersensitivity reactions in dialysis patients who received a first dose. We assessed the relative risks of mortality and morbidity in peginesatide-treated and matched epoetin alfa-treated patients.<h4>Methods</h4>From standardized extracts of paid Medicare claims in 2012 and 2013, we identified dialysis patients treated with peginesatide o ...[more]

PMID: 24905967

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: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).

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.

Dataset Information

Relative safety of peginesatide and epoetin alfa.

Publications

Relative safety of peginesatide and epoetin alfa.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets