Dataset Information

Factors Affecting Doses of Roxadustat Versus Darbepoetin Alfa for Anemia in Nondialysis Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Roxadustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor for treating anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD). This post hoc analysis of a Japanese, open-label, partially randomized, phase 3 study in nondialysis-dependent (NDD) CKD patients treated with traditional erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) evaluated dosing trends of roxadustat and darbepoetin alfa (DA) required to maintain target hemoglobin concentrations in patients with risk factors associated with ESA hyporesponsiveness.

Methods

Patients enrolled in the 1517-CL-0310 study (NCT02988973) that demonstrated noninferiority of roxadustat to DA for change in average hemoglobin levels of week 18-24 from baseline who had used human recombinant erythropoietin or DA before conversion and who were randomized to either roxadustat or DA were included. The endpoints were the average allocated dose of roxadustat and DA per administration in the last 6 weeks (AAD/6W), assessed by subgroups known to be associated with ESA hyporesponsiveness. The analysis of variance was performed by the treatment group to test the influence of subgroup factors on the AAD/6W of study drug. The ratios between the mean AAD/6W in each subgroup category and the within-arm mean AAD/6W were calculated.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-two patients were randomized to either the roxadustat or DA comparative group and received treatment (roxadustat, n = 131; DA, n = 131). Higher mean (standard deviation) doses of both roxadustat (63.15 [24.84] mg) and DA (47.33 [29.79] μg) were required in the highest ESA resistance index (≥6.8) quartile (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). Patients with adequate iron repletion had the lowest doses for both roxadustat (45.54 [18.01] mg) and DA (28.13 [20.98] μg). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥28.57 nmol/L and the estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 were associated with requiring higher DA but not roxadustat doses.

Discussion/conclusion

The roxadustat dose required to maintain target hemoglobin in NDD patients in Japan with anemia of CKD relative to DA dose may not be impacted by low-grade inflammation. Roxadustat may be beneficial for ESA-hyporesponsive NDD CKD patients.

SUBMITTER: Akizawa T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8686708 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRoxadustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor approved in China for dialysis-dependent CKD anemia.MethodsThis phase 3, 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy study evaluated roxadustat's noninferiority to darbepoetin alfa for hemodialysis-dependent CKD anemia. We randomly assigned Japanese patients to oral roxadustat three times weekly or to darbepoetin alfa injections once weekly, titrating doses to maintain hemoglobin between 10-12 g/dl. The primary end point was change of average hemoglobin from baseline to weeks 18-24 (∆Hb18-24). Secondary end points were average hemoglobin and proportion of patients with hemoglobin between 10-12 g/dl (maintenance rate) at weeks 18-24, and iron parameters. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events and adjudicated ophthalmologic findings.ResultsWe randomly assigned 303 patients to roxadustat (n=151) or darbepoetin alfa (n=152). The difference between roxadustat and darbepoetin alfa in ∆Hb18-24 was -0.02 g/dl (95% confidence interval, -0.18 to 0.15), confirming roxadustat's noninferiority to darbepoetin alfa. Average hemoglobin at weeks 18-24 with roxadustat was 10.99 g/dl (95% confidence interval: 10.88 to 11.10), confirming its efficacy. Among patients with one or more hemoglobin value during weeks 18-24, the maintenance rate was 95.2% with roxadustat and 91.3% with darbepoetin alfa. Serum iron, ferritin, and transferrin saturation remained clinically stable with roxadustat; transferrin and total iron binding capacity increased through week 4 before stabilizing. Common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis, shunt stenosis, diarrhea, contusion, and vomiting. The proportion of patients with new or worsening retinal hemorrhage was 32.4% with roxadustat and 36.6% with darbepoetin alfa. We observed no clinically meaningful changes in retinal thickness groups.ConclusionsRoxadustat maintained hemoglobin within 10-12 g/dl in patients on hemodialysis and was noninferior to darbepoetin alfa. Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with previous reports.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberA Study of Intermittent Oral Dosing of ASP1517 in Hemodialysis Chronic Kidney Disease Patients with Anemia, NCT02952092 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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.