Frequency of administration of recombinant human erythropoietin for anaemia of end-stage renal disease in dialysis patients

Safety and Efficacy of PDpoetin for Management of Anemia in Patients with end Stage Renal Disease on Maintenance Hemodialysis: Results from a Phase IV Clinical Trial

Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) is available for correcting anemia. PDpoetin, a new brand of rHuEPO, has been certified by Food and Drug Department of Ministry of Health and Medical Education of Iran for clinical use in patients with chronic kidney disease. We conducted this post-marketing survey to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of PDpoetin for management of anemia in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Patients from 4 centers in Iran were enrolled for this multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled phase IV clinical trial. Changes in blood chemistry, hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, renal function, and other characteristics of the patients were recorded for 4 months; 501 of the patients recruited, completed this study. Mean age of the patients was 50.9 (±16.2) years. 48.7% of patients were female. Mean of the hemoglobin value in all of the 4 centers was 9.29 (±1.43) g/dL at beginning of the study and reached 10.96 (±2.23) g/dL after 4 months and showed significant increase overall (P<0.001). PDpoetin dose was stable at 50-100 U/kg thrice weekly. Hemorheologic disturbancesand changes in blood electrolytes was not observed. No case of immunological reactions to PDpoetin was observed. Our study, therefore, showed that PDpoetin has significantly raised the level of hemoglobin in the hemodialysis patients (about 1.7±0.6 g/dL). Anemia were successfully corrected in 49% of patients under study. Use of this biosimilar was shown to be safe and effective for the maintenance of hemoglobin in patients on maintenance hemodialysis.

Frequency of administration of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for the anaemia of end-stage kidney disease in dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

The benefits of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) for dialysis patients have been demonstrated. However, it remains unclear whether the efficacy and safety of new, longer-acting ESA given less frequently is equivalent to recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) preparations. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to establish the optimal frequency of ESA administration in terms of effectiveness (correction of anaemia, and freedom from adverse events) and efficiency (optimal resource use) of different ESA dose regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 21 March 2013 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing different frequencies of ESA administration in dialysis patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 33 studies (5526 participants), 22 of which were added for this update. Risk of bias was generally high; only nine studies were assessed at low risk of bias for sequence generation and 14 studies for allocation concealment. Although only four studies were placebo-controlled, all were considered to be at low risk of performance or detection bias because the primary outcome of haemoglobin level was a laboratory-derived assessment and unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding. We found that 16 studies were at low risk of attrition bias and five were at low risk of selection bias; only one study reporting sources of support was not funded by a pharmaceutical company.We compared four different interventions: Continuous erythropoietin receptor agonists (CERA) versus other ESA (darbepoetin or rHuEPO); different frequencies of darbepoetin administration; darbepoetin versus rHuEPO; and different frequencies of rHuEPO administration.There were no significant differences in maintaining final haemoglobin between CERA administered at two weekly intervals (4 studies, 1762 participants: MD 0.08 g/dL, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.21) or four weekly intervals (two studies, 1245 participants: MD -0.03 g/dL, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.12) compared with rHuEPO administered at two to three weekly intervals. In one study comparing CERA administered every two weeks with darbepoetin administered once/week, there was no significant difference in final haemoglobin (313 participants: MD 0.30 g/dL, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.55). In comparisons of once/week with once every two weeks darbepoetin (two studies, 356 participants: MD 0.04 g/dL, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.52) and once every two weeks with monthly darbepoetin (one study, 64 participants: MD 0.40 g/dL, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.17) there were no significant differences in final haemoglobin levels. There was marked heterogeneity among studies comparing weekly darbepoetin with once every two weeks and was possibly related to different administration protocols. Eight studies compared weekly darbepoetin with rHuEPO given two to three times/week; no statistical difference in final haemoglobin was demonstrated (6 studies, 1638 participants: MD 0.02 g/dL, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.12). Fourteen studies compared different frequencies of rHuEPO. No statistical difference was demonstrated in final haemoglobin (7 studies, 393 participants: SMD -0.17 g/dL, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.05). Adverse events did not differ significantly within comparisons; however, mortality and quality of life were poorly reported, particularly in earlier publications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Longer-acting ESA (darbepoetin and CERA) administered at one to four week intervals are non-inferior to rHuEPO given one to three times/week in terms of achieving haemoglobin targets without any significant differences in adverse events in haemodialysis patients. Additional RCTs are required to evaluate different frequencies of ESA in peritoneal and paediatric dialysis patients and to compare different longer-acting ESA (such as darbepoetin compared with CERA).

Resistance to erythropoietin-stimulating agents: etiology, evaluation, and therapeutic considerations

Routine clinical and laboratory assessments facilitate diagnosis of erythropoietin (EPO) resistant anemia by allowing early identification of patients with non-adherence. Any new event that impairs response to EPO (e.g., catheter sepsis) must be promptly controlled. Because of the confounding interaction of its risk factors, initial evaluation should include nutrition, dialysis adequacy, hemorrhage, bone mineral metabolism, and inflammation. Prevention of EPO resistance is more cost effective and should include adequate dialysis and nutritional supplements. Blood loss during hemodialysis (HD) procedures should be minimized. If there is laboratory proof of iron deficit intravenous repletion is most effective. Oxidative stress may be attenuated by vitamins E and C, while optimal control of hyperparathyroidism will enhance EPO stimulation. Contaminated dialysates should be suspected if there is EPO-stimulating agents (ESA) resistance at the same time among most members of a dialysis program. Heavy metal toxicity should be suspected in high-risk patients. The impact of co-morbidities such as hemoglobinopathy, glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency and connective tissue diseases must be excluded in an appropriate setting. In conclusion, given the multiple risk factors of EPO resistance promotion of the overall health status will most likely yield an enduring benefit. Finally, there are experimental trials of gene-based (therapy) to stimulate endogenous EPO synthesis with the goal of avoiding the off-target effect of excessive dosing.

Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency

OBJECTIVE

Errors in the electronic search strategy of a systematic review may undermine the integrity of the evidence base used in the review. We studied the frequency and types of errors in reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data sources were MEDLINE searches from reviews in the Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002. To be eligible, systematic reviews must have been of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, reported included and excluded studies, and used one or more sections of the Cochrane Collaboration's Highly Sensitive Search Strategy. MEDLINE search strategies not reported in enough detail to be assessed or that were duplicates of a search strategy already assessed for the study were excluded. Two librarians assessed eligibility and scored the eligible electronic search strategies for 11 possible errors. Dual review with consensus was used.

RESULTS

Of 105 MEDLINE search strategies examined, 63 were assessed; 31 were excluded because they were inadequately reported, and 11 were duplicates of assessed search strategies. Most (90.5%) of the assessed search strategies contained > or =1 errors (median 2, interquartile range [IQR] 1.0-3.0). Errors that could potentially lower recall of relevant studies were found in 82.5% (median 1, IQR 1.0-2.0) and inconsequential errors (to the evidence base) were found in 60.3% (median 1, IQR 0.0-1.0) of the search strategies. The most common search errors were missed MeSH terms (44.4%), unwarranted explosion of MeSH terms (38.1%), and irrelevant MeSH or free text terms (28.6%). Missed spelling variants, combining MeSH and free text terms in the same line, and failure to tailor the search strategy for other databases occurred with equal frequency (20.6%). Logical operator error occurred in 19.0% of searches.

CONCLUSION

When the MEDLINE search strategy used in a systematic review is reported in enough detail to allow assessment, errors are commonly revealed. Additional peer review steps are needed to ensure search quality and freedom from errors.

Recombinant human erythropoietin therapy in critically ill patients: a dose-response study [ISRCTN48523317]

Introduction

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of two dosing schedules of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) in increasing haematocrit (Hct) and haemoglobin (Hb) and reducing exposure to allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in critically ill patients.

Method

This was a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial. A total of 13 intensive care units participated, and a total of 148 patients who met eligibility criteria were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous iron saccharate alone (control group), intravenous iron saccharate and subcutaneous rHuEPO 40,000 units once per week (group A), or intravenous iron saccharate and subcutaneous rHuEPO 40,000 units three times per week (group B). rHuEPO was given for a minimum of 2 weeks or until discharge from the intensive care unit or death. The maximum duration of therapy was 3 weeks.

Results

The cumulative number of RBC units transfused, the average numbers of RBC units transfused per patient and per transfused patient, the average volume of RBCs transfused per day, and the percentage of transfused patients were significantly higher in the control group than in groups A and B. No significant difference was observed between group A and B. The mean increases in Hct and Hb from baseline to final measurement were significantly greater in group B than in the control group. The mean increase in Hct was significantly greater in group B than in group A. The mean increase in Hct in group A was significantly greater than that in control individuals, whereas the mean increase in Hb did not differ significantly between the control group and group A.

Conclusion

Administration of rHuEPO to critically ill patients significantly reduced the need for RBC transfusion. The magnitude of the reduction did not differ between the two dosing schedules, although there was a dose response for Hct and Hb to rHuEPO in these patients.

Frequency of administration of recombinant human erythropoietin for anaemia of end-stage renal disease in dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

The benefits of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) administration in dialysis patients have been demonstrated, however the optimal frequency regimen have yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different frequency regimens of rHuEPO administration in dialysis patients on anaemia correction, quality of life and optimal use.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched 13 electronic databases (1980 to May 2001) the internet (August 1997), handsearched Kidney International (1983 to May 1997), contacted known investigators, biomedical companies, and screened reference lists of relevant articles. Most recent search: The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (June 2004) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing different frequencies of rHuEPO administration in dialysis patients. We compared haemodialysis and CAPD patients and subcutaneous and intravenous administration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Quality assessment was performed by two assessors. Data were abstracted by a single author onto a standard form, and a sample was checked by another author. Results were expressed as relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (719 patients) were included. There was no significant difference in maintaining target haemoglobin for once versus twice weekly administration (one study, 20 patients: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.40) or mean haemoglobin after 12 weeks of therapy between haemodialysis and CAPD patients (two studies: WMD -0.21 g/dL, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.56) At the end of study for once versus thrice weekly administration (three studies: SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.06) and at the end of maintenance phase (one study: WMD -0.2 g/dL, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.25) there was no significant difference. More rHuEPO was required by haemodialysis patients receiving once weekly versus twice weekly doses (WMD 12.0 U/kg, 95% CI 0.24 to 23.76). No difference was found for CAPD patients alone or combined (WMD 4.38 U/kg, 95% CI -11.28 to 20.04). Once versus thrice weekly administration was not significant (WMD 10.00 U/kg, 95% CI -80.87 to 100.87). There was no difference in the frequency of adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference between once weekly versus thrice weekly subcutaneous administration of rHuEPO. Once weekly administration would require an additional 12 U/kg/wk for patients on haemodialysis, however this is based on one very small study. Cost of additional rHuEPO needs to assessed with regard to patient preference and compliance.

Differentiating factors between erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a guide to selection for anaemia of chronic kidney disease

Endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) consists of a central polypeptide core covered by post-translationally linked carbohydrates. Three of the four currently available erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA)--epoetin-alpha, epoetin-beta and epoetin-omega- are composed of an identical amino acid sequence, but glycosylation varies as a result of type- and host cell-specific differences in the production process. Epoetin-alpha and epoetin-beta resemble each other with respect to molecular characteristics and pharmacokinetic data, although epoetin-beta has a higher molecular weight, a lower number of sialylated glycan residues and possibly slight pharmacokinetic advantages such as a longer terminal elimination half-life. A serious adverse effect of long-term administration of ESA is pure red cell aplasia. This effect has been observed predominantly with subcutaneous use of epoetin-alpha produced outside the US after albumin was removed from the formulation. In comparison with the intravenous route, subcutaneous administration of epoetin has been reported to have a dose-sparing effect in some studies. Epoetin-beta has been the subject of studies aimed at proving efficacy with a reduced administration frequency but results are not unequivocal. Epoetin-omega is produced in a different host cell than all other erythropoietic agents, hence glycosylation and pharmacokinetics are different. Small-scale clinical studies found epoetin-omega to be slightly more potent than epoetin-alpha. Epoetin-delta is a recently approved agent produced by human cells that are genetically engineered to transcribe and translate the EPO gene under the control of a newly introduced regulatory DNA sequence. However, epoetin-delta is not yet on the market and few data are available. The erythropoietin analogue darbepoetin-alpha carries two additional glycosylation sites that permit a higher degree of glycosylation. Consequently, in comparison with the other epoetins, darbepoetin-alpha has a longer serum half-life and a higher relative potency, which further increases with extension of the administration interval. Dosage requirements of darbepoetin-alpha do not appear to differ between the intravenous and subcutaneous routes of administration. The less frequent administration of darbepoetin-alpha in comparison to the other epoetins may reduce drug costs in the long term, but the variability in dosage or dosage frequency required within a single patient is high. Further studies should be aimed at defining predictors of the individual demand for erythropoietic agents, thereby allowing nephrologists to prescribe a cost-effective, individualised regimen.