Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose versus standard medical care in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomized, active-controlled, multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Currently available intravenous (IV) iron agents vary in indication, dosing regimens and safety profiles. Ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) is a stable, non-dextran-containing iron formulation developed for rapid IV administration in high doses with controlled delivery of iron into target tissues. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety of FCM compared with standard medical care (SMC) in dialysis (HD) and non-dialysis-dependent (NDD) chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. METHODS: Adults 18-85 years of age with CKD were enrolled. NDD-CKD (n = 204) patients received an undiluted IV dose of FCM (15 mg/kg to a maximum of 1000 mg IV) and HD-CKD (n = 50) patients received an undiluted IV push of 200 mg ~30-60 min into the dialysis session. Subjects randomized to the SMC group (n = 259) received treatment determined by the investigator that could include oral iron, IV iron or no iron. RESULTS: Single doses of FCM of 200 mg in HD-CKD patients and up to 1000 mg in NDD-CKD patients were well tolerated. Incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between the groups: 30.3% (77 of 254) in the FCM group and 32.8% (85 of 259) in the SMC group. Incidences of serious adverse events were higher in the SMC group overall and in patients receiving iron sucrose or sodium ferric gluconate. There were no clinically significant differences in laboratory or clinical chemistry values or vital signs between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the FCM and SMC groups in indices of hemoglobin (Hb) improvement, including proportions of patients achieving a ≥ 1 g/dL increase in Hb and proportions of patients achieving Hb level of >12 g/dL. CONCLUSION: FCM in doses of 200 mg for HD-CKD patients and up to 1000 mg in NDD-CKD patients were well tolerated and displayed comparable efficacy to other IV iron formulations.

Converting to doxercalciferol capsules from intravenous paricalcitol or doxercalciferol.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the 2 studies presented in this article was to determine the clinically appropriate dose of doxercalciferol capsules that is required to maintain similar intact parathyroid hormone control when converting from intravenous (IV) paricalcitol or doxercalciferol. DESIGN: Both studies were multicenter, open-label, randomized designs comprising the following 3 periods: a screening period, a 5-week run-in period, and a 5-week treatment period. SETTING: Dialysis centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis 3 times weekly for a minimum of 6 months and with recent intact parathyroid hormone measurements between 15.9 and 63.7 pmol/L (150 to 600 pg/mL) were included. INTERVENTION: After a 5-week fixed-dose IV paricalcitol or doxercalciferol run-in period, subjects were randomized to doxercalciferol capsules for the 5-week treatment period. Conversion factors for the paricalcitol study were 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 times the current paricalcitol dose. Conversion factors for the doxercalciferol study were 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 times the current doxercalciferol injection dose. RESULTS: The predicted conversion factor for paricalcitol injection to doxercalciferol capsules was 0.92, whereas the factor for doxercalciferol injection to doxercalciferol capsules was 1.49. No statistically significant changes in serum calcium and phosphorus levels were found in either study. The nature of adverse events was consistent with the administration of an active vitamin D therapy to patients with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis. CONCLUSION: The studies demonstrate patients on dialysis can be safely and effectively converted from IV paricalcitol or doxercalciferol to oral doxercalciferol.

A Randomized Trial of Roxadustat in Anemia of Kidney Failure: SIERRAS Study.

INTRODUCTION: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, standard of care for anemia of end-stage kidney disease, are associated with cardiovascular events. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of roxadustat, an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor that stimulates erythropoiesis. METHODS: SIERRAS was a phase 3, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study enrolled adults on dialysis for end-stage kidney disease receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia. Patients were randomized (1:1) to thrice-weekly roxadustat or epoetin alfa. Doses were based on previous epoetin alfa dose and adjusted in the roxadustat arm to maintain hemoglobin at ∼11 g/dl during treatment. Epoetin alfa dosing was adjusted per US package insert. Primary efficacy endpoint was mean hemoglobin (g/dl) change from baseline averaged over weeks 28 to 52. Treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Enrolled patients (roxadustat, n = 370 and epoetin alfa, n = 371) had similar mean (SD) baseline hemoglobin levels (10.30 [0.66] g/dl). Mean (SD) hemoglobin changes for weeks 28 to 52 were 0.39 (0.93) and -0.09 (0.84) in roxadustat and epoetin alfa, respectively. Roxadustat was noninferior (least squares mean difference: 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.59]; P < 0.001) to epoetin alfa. Tolerability was comparable between treatments. CONCLUSION: In end-stage kidney disease, roxadustat was noninferior to epoetin alfa in up to 52 weeks of treatment in this erythropoietin-stimulating agent conversion study. Roxadustat had an acceptable tolerability profile.

Ferumoxytol for treating iron deficiency anemia in CKD.

Iron deficiency is an important cause of anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but intravenous iron is infrequently used among patients who are not on dialysis. Ferumoxytol is a novel intravenous iron product that can be administered as a rapid injection. This Phase III trial randomly assigned 304 patients with CKD in a 3:1 ratio to two 510-mg doses of intravenous ferumoxytol within 5 +/- 3 d or 200 mg of elemental oral iron daily for 21 d. The increase in hemoglobin at day 35, the primary efficacy end point, was 0.82 +/- 1.24 g/dl with ferumoxytol and 0.16 +/- 1.02 g/dl with oral iron (P < 0.0001). Among patients who were not receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, hemoglobin increased 0.62 +/- 1.02 g/dl with ferumoxytol and 0.13 +/- 0.93 g/dl with oral iron. Among patients who were receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, hemoglobin increased 1.16 +/- 1.49 g/dl with ferumoxytol and 0.19 +/- 1.14 g/dl with oral iron. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 10.6% of patients who were treated with ferumoxytol and 24.0% of those who were treated with oral iron; none was serious. In summary, a regimen of two doses of 510 mg of intravenous ferumoxytol administered rapidly within 5 +/- 3 d was well tolerated and had the intended therapeutic effect. This regimen may offer a new, efficient option to treat iron deficiency anemia in patients with CKD.

Safety of ferumoxytol in patients with anemia and CKD.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anemia is a common complication in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Currently available intravenous (IV) iron replacement therapies have either inconvenient regimens of administration or adverse event profiles that limit their utility in the outpatient setting. Ferumoxytol is a novel, semisynthetic, carbohydrate-coated, superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticle that is administered IV as an injection. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety of ferumoxytol for the treatment of patients with CKD stages 1 to 5 and 5D. STUDY DESIGN: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, multicenter study of a single 510-mg dose of ferumoxytol versus saline as placebo. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 750 patients with CKD stages 1 to 5 and 5D. INTERVENTION: An IV injection of either 17 mL of ferumoxytol or saline placebo over 17 seconds on day 0 and the alternate agent on day 7. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive comparison of adverse events, laboratory tests, and vital signs. RESULTS: Of 750 randomly assigned patients with CKD, 60% were not on dialysis therapy. 713 patients received ferumoxytol, and 711 received placebo. There were 420 adverse events reported; 242 in 152 patients (21.3%) with ferumoxytol and 178 in 119 patients (16.7%) with placebo. The incidence of related adverse events was 5.2% with ferumoxytol and 4.5% with placebo. The most common related adverse events after each treatment included symptoms related to the injection/infusion site, dizziness, pruritus, headache, fatigue, and nausea. Serious adverse events occurred in 21 patients (2.9%) after ferumoxytol and 13 patients (1.8%) after placebo. Serious related adverse events were observed in 1 patient (0.1%) after each treatment. There was no meaningful decrease in blood pressure after administration of ferumoxytol or placebo. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up was 7 days after each study treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Ferumoxytol is well tolerated and has a safety profile similar to placebo in anemic patients with CKD stages 1 to 5 and 5D.

Assessment of time and practice resources required to provide weekly or monthly erythropoiesis-stimulating protein therapy to chronic kidney disease patients in the physician office setting.

BACKGROUND: There is an epidemic of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and a high prevalence of anemia (47%) observed in CKD patients. Little is known about the cost in physician office resources of routine erythropoiesis-stimulating protein (ESP) administration to treat patients with nondialysis CKD. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research were (1) to explore the patterns of care in physician offices where nondialysis CKD patients receive routine ESP injections, (2) to examine differences in the monthly resources and related costs incurred by physician offices in treating patients receiving either weekly (QW) or monthly (QM) ESP regimens, and (3) to identify opportunities to minimize the burden of CKD treatment on physician offices. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional time and motion assessment was performed in 10 community-based outpatient nephrology practices (5 QW and 5 QM practices); each practice had 40 patients on routine ESP therapy for nondialysis CKD. Three observers trained in health care research documented injection-related tasks and time associated with 91 ESP injection procedures (47 QW and 44 QM) from patients. arrival to and departure from the physician office, office personnel follow-up on billing and documentation, and injection-related staff time. Monthly injection times for QM were calculated by summing the time required to perform the tasks associated with administering a single injection of ESP to subjects, as documented by observers. Total monthly per-patient medical practice costs for providing QM ESP injections were calculated, including labor costs (calculated by applying average wage rates of practice staff to time observed for the specific activities performed) and supply costs (based on average list prices found in medical supply catalogs). Monthly injection times and costs for the QW regimen were calculated by summing the same list of activities as for the QM regimen and multiplying by 4.3 (4.3 weeks per month). Nephrology practice personnel completed a questionnaire summarizing practice characteristics and estimated the time required for some of the injection-related activities. The time and cost associated with each task were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics (i.e., Fisher.s exact test and t test). RESULTS: On average, patients spent 21 minutes in the clinic for a routine injection visit (QW: 17 minutes, QM: 25 minutes; P=0.053), during which 11 minutes (52%) were spent interacting with clinic staff (QW: 8.9 minutes, QM: 13.4 minutes; P=0.005). In the time spent interacting with staff, 3 minutes (QW: 2.9 minutes, QM: 3.6 minutes; P=0.065) were for dose administration and 8 minutes (QW: 5.3 minutes, QM: 9.8 minutes; P=0.011) were for staff providing various services to the patients, including registering patients on arrival, examining patients (vital signs, weight, blood work), consulting with patients, and scheduling patients. next visits. Each month, clinic staff spent a total visit average of 38 minutes providing anemia-related treatment for each QW injection patient, compared with 13 minutes for each QM injection patient (P <0.001). After patients. departure, clinic staff spent additional time (not quantified) on billing, filing claims, and other administrative responsibilities most of which could not be observed during our 1-day observation. The average total monthly practice cost of providing ESP therapy to a QW patient (17.00 dollars [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.00-27.13]) was more than double that for a QM patient (6.78 dollars [95% CI, 5.34-9.12]); (P=0.004). Differences in visit-related labor costs (QW: 8.34 dollars, QM: 3.43 dollars; P=0.108) and injection supply costs (QW: 4.39 dollars, QM: 1.67 dollars; P <0.001) accounted for the largest portions of the total monthly cost differential between the treatment regimens. QM dosing would require, on average, 83 hours less staff time and 2,044 dollars less estimated cost treating 200 patients per month compared with weekly administration per clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Administering routine ESP injections to nondialysis CKD patients for anemia using a QM regimen results in substantial time and cost savings compared with a QW therapy regimen. Managing patients on less frequent ESP dosing schedules may alleviate medical practice burden by reducing the staff time and supplies related to providing injections in the office.