epoetin-alfa and Dyspnea

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their use has been associated with cardiovascular events. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014.. To compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD.. In this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 29 April 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, a biosimilar epoetin or a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD were considered for inclusion.. Two independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (expressed as odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI)) and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed certainty in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes (preventing blood transfusions and death (any cause)) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.. Sixty-two new studies (9237 participants) were included in this update, so the review now includes 117 studies with 25,237 participants. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in most methodological domains. Overall, results remain similar in this update compared to our previous review in 2014. For preventing blood transfusion, epoetin alfa (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61; low certainty evidence) and epoetin beta (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47; low certainty evidence) may be superior to placebo, and darbepoetin alfa was probably superior to placebo (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.67; moderate certainty evidence). Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.02; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03; very low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.91; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on preventing blood transfusion compared to placebo. The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on preventing blood transfusions were uncertain, in low to very low certainty evidence. Effects on death (any cause) were uncertain for epoetin alfa (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.22; low certainty evidence), epoetin beta (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.20; low certainty evidence), methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.36; low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.23; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo. There was probably no difference between darbepoetin alfa and placebo on the odds of death (any cause) (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on death (any cause) were uncertain in low to very low certainty evidence. Epoetin beta probably increased the odds of hypertension when compared to placebo (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.00; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, epoetin alfa (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.59; very low certainty evidence), darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.14; low certainty evidence) and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.74; low certainty evidence) may increase the odds of hypertension, but a biosimilar epoetin (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.67; low certainty evidence) and biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.66; low certa. Los fármacos estimulantes de la eritropoyesis (FEE) se suelen utilizar para tratar la anemia en personas con nefropatía crónica. Sin embargo, su uso se ha asociado a eventos cardiovasculares. Esta es una actualización de una revisión Cochrane publicada por primera vez en 2014.. Comparar la eficacia y la seguridad de los FEE (epoetina alfa, epoetina beta, darbepoetina alfa o metoxi‐polietilenglicol epoetina beta y FEE biosimilares) entre sí, con placebo, o ningún tratamiento, para el tratamiento de la anemia en adultos con nefropatía crónica. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: En esta actualización, a través del contacto con el documentalista, y con el uso de términos de búsqueda pertinentes para esta revisión, se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro de estudios del Grupo Cochrane de Riñón y trasplante (Cochrane Kidney and Transplant) hasta el 29 de abril de 2022. Los estudios en el registro se identifican mediante búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE y EMBASE, en resúmenes de congresos, en el portal de búsqueda de la Plataforma de registros internacionales de ensayos clínicos (ICTRP) y en ClinicalTrials.gov. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se consideraron para la inclusión los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que incluían una comparación de un FEE (epoetina alfa, epoetina beta, darbepoetina alfa o metoxi‐polietilenglicol epoetina beta, una epoetina biosimilar o una darbepoetina alfa biosimilar) con otro FEE, placebo o ningún tratamiento en adultos con NC. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores independientes examinaron los resultados de la búsqueda y extrajeron los datos. La síntesis de los datos se realizó mediante un metanálisis pareado de efectos aleatorios (expresada como odds ratio [OR] y sus intervalos de confianza [IC] del 95%) y un metanálisis en red. Se evaluó la heterogeneidad y la inconsistencia dentro de los metanálisis con técnicas estándares y se planeó crear subgrupos y una metarregresión para explorar las fuentes de heterogeneidad o la inconsistencia. Se evaluó la certeza en las estimaciones del tratamiento para los desenlaces principales (prevención de transfusiones de sangre y muerte [por cualquier causa]) mediante el método Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).. En esta actualización se incluyeron 62 nuevos estudios (9237 participantes), por lo que la revisión incluye ahora 117 estudios con 25 237 participantes. La mayoría de los estudios tuvieron riesgo alto o incierto de sesgo en la mayoría de los dominios metodológicos. En general, los resultados siguen siendo similares en esta actualización en comparación con la revisión anterior de 2014. Para prevenir la transfusión de sangre, la epoetina alfa (OR 0,28; IC del 95%: 0,13 a 0,61; evidencia de certeza baja) y la epoetina beta (OR 0,19; IC del 95%: 0,08 a 0,47; evidencia de certeza baja) podrían ser superiores al placebo, y la darbepoetina alfa fue probablemente superior al placebo (OR 0,27; IC del 95%: 0,11 a 0,67; evidencia de certeza moderada). La metoxi‐polietilenglicol epoetina beta (OR 0,33; IC del 95%: 0,11 a 1,02; evidencia de certeza muy baja), una epoetina biosimilar (OR 0,34; IC del 95%: 0,11 a 1,03; evidencia de certeza muy baja) y una darbepoetina alfa biosimilar (OR 0,37; IC del 95%: 0,07 a 1,91; evidencia de certeza muy baja) tuvieron efectos inciertos sobre la prevención de la transfusión de sangre en comparación con el placebo. Los efectos comparativos de los FEE comparados con otro FEE sobre la prevención de las transfusiones de sangre fueron inciertos, en evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja. Los efectos sobre la mortalidad (por cualquier causa) fueron inciertos para la epoetina alfa (OR 0,79; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 1,22; evidencia de certeza baja), la epoetina beta (OR 0,69; IC del 95%: 0,40 a 1,20; evidencia de certeza baja), la metoxi‐polietilenglicol epoetina beta (OR 1,07; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 1,71; evidencia de certeza muy baja), una epoetina biosimilar (OR 0,80; IC del 95%: 0,47 a 1,36; evidencia de certeza baja) y una darbepoetina alfa biosimilar (OR 1,63; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 5,23; evidencia de certeza muy baja) en comparación con el placebo. Es probable que no hubiera diferencias entre la darbepoetina alfa y el placebo en las probabilidades de muerte (por cualquier causa) (OR 0,99; IC del 95%: 0,81 a 1,21; evidencia de certeza moderada). Los efectos comparativos de los FEE comparados con otro FEE sobre la mortalidad (por cualquier causa) fueron inciertos en evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja. Es probable que la epoetina beta aumentara el riesgo de hipertensión en comparación con el placebo (OR 2,17; IC del 95%: 1,17 a 4,00; evidencia de certeza moderada). En comparación con el placebo, la epoetina alfa (OR 2,10; IC del 95%: 1,22 a 3,59; ev. Los efectos comparativos de los diferentes FEE sobre las transfusiones de sangre, la mortalidad (por cualquier causa y cardiovascular), los eventos cardiovasculares mayores, el infarto de miocardio, el accidente cerebrovascular, la trombosis de acceso vascular, la insuficiencia renal, el cansancio y la disnea fueron inciertos.

Topics: Adult; Anemia; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals; Darbepoetin alfa; Dyspnea; Epoetin Alfa; Erythropoiesis; Hematinics; Humans; Hypertension; Myocardial Infarction; Network Meta-Analysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Thrombosis

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are the standard-of-care treatment for anaemia in most patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes but responses are limited and transient. Luspatercept promotes late-stage erythroid maturation and has shown durable clinical efficacy in patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. In this study, we report the results of a prespecified interim analysis of luspatercept versus epoetin alfa for the treatment of anaemia due to lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes in the phase 3 COMMANDS trial.. The phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled COMMANDS trial is being conducted at 142 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes of very low risk, low risk, or intermediate risk (per the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System), were ESA-naive, and required red blood cell transfusions (2-6 packed red blood cell units per 8 weeks for ≥8 weeks immediately before randomisation). Integrated response technology was used to randomly assign patients (1:1, block size 4) to luspatercept or epoetin alfa, stratified by baseline red blood cell transfusion burden (<4 units per 8 weeks vs ≥4 units per 8 weeks), endogenous serum erythropoietin concentration (≤200 U/L vs >200 to <500 U/L), and ring sideroblast status (positive vs negative). Luspatercept was administered subcutaneously once every 3 weeks starting at 1·0 mg/kg body weight with possible titration up to 1·75 mg/kg. Epoetin alfa was administered subcutaneously once a week starting at 450 IU/kg body weight with possible titration up to 1050 IU/kg (maximum permitted total dose of 80 000 IU). The primary endpoint was red blood cell transfusion independence for at least 12 weeks with a concurrent mean haemoglobin increase of at least 1·5 g/dL (weeks 1-24), assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The COMMANDS trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03682536 (active, not recruiting).. Between Jan 2, 2019 and Aug 31, 2022, 356 patients were randomly assigned to receive luspatercept (178 patients) or epoetin alfa (178 patients), comprising 198 (56%) men and 158 (44%) women (median age 74 years [IQR 69-80]). The interim efficacy analysis was done for 301 patients (147 in the luspatercept group and 154 in the epoetin alfa group) who completed 24 weeks of treatment or discontinued earlier. 86 (59%) of 147 patients in the luspatercept group and 48 (31%) of 154 patients in the epoetin alfa group reached the primary endpoint (common risk difference on response rate 26·6; 95% CI 15·8-37·4; p<0·0001). Median treatment exposure was longer for patients receiving luspatercept (42 weeks [IQR 20-73]) versus epoetin alfa (27 weeks [19-55]). The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events with luspatercept (≥3% patients) were hypertension, anaemia, dyspnoea, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, pneumonia, COVID-19, myelodysplastic syndromes, and syncope; and with epoetin alfa were anaemia, pneumonia, neutropenia, hypertension, iron overload, COVID-19 pneumonia, and myelodysplastic syndromes. The most common suspected treatment-related adverse events in the luspatercept group (≥3% patients, with the most common event occurring in 5% patients) were fatigue, asthenia, nausea, dyspnoea, hypertension, and headache; and none (≥3% patients) in the epoetin alfa group. One death after diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia was considered to be related to luspatercept treatment (44 days on treatment).. In this interim analysis, luspatercept improved the rate at which red blood cell transfusion independence and increased haemoglobin were achieved compared with epoetin alfa in ESA-naive patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Long-term follow-up and additional data will be needed to confirm these results and further refine findings in other subgroups of patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes, including non-mutated SF3B1 or ring sideroblast-negative subgroups.. Celgene and Acceleron Pharma.

Topics: Aged; Anemia; Body Weight; COVID-19; Dyspnea; Epoetin Alfa; Erythropoiesis; Female; Hematinics; Hemoglobins; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Myelodysplastic Syndromes; Neutropenia