Abstract

IMPORTANCE Daprodustat, a hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor, is being evaluated as an oral alternative to conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) therapy. Few studies of anemia treatment in an incident dialysis (ID) population have been reported. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of daprodustat vs darbepoetin alfa in treating anemia of chronic kidney disease in ID patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective, randomized, open-label clinical trial was conducted from May 11, 2017, through September 24, 2020, in 90 centers across 14 countries. Patients with advanced CKD were eligible if they planned to start dialysis within 6 weeks from screening or had started and received hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) within 90 days before randomization, had a screening hemoglobin (Hb) concentration of 8.0 to 10.5 g/dL (to convert to grams per liter, multiply by 10) and a randomization Hb of 8.0 to 11.0 g/dL, were ESA-naive or had received limited ESA treatment, and were iron-replete. INTERVENTIONS Randomized 1:1 to daprodustat or darbepoetin alfa. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary analysis in the intent-to-treat population evaluated the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to evaluation period (weeks 28-52) to assess noninferiority of daprodustat vs darbepoetin alfa (noninferiority margin, -0.75 g/dL). The mean monthly intravenous (IV) iron dose from baseline to week 52 was the principal secondary end point. Rates of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events (AEs) were also compared between treatment groups to assess safety and tolerability. RESULTS A total of 312 patients (median [IQR] age, 55 [45-65] years; 194 [62%] male) were randomized to either daprodustat (157 patients; median [IQR] age, 52.0 [45-63] years; 96 [61%] male) or darbepoetin alfa (155 patients; median [IQR] age, 56.0 [45-67] years; 98 [63%] male); 306 patients (98%) completed the trial. The mean (SD) Hb concentration during the evaluation period was 10.5 (1.0) g/dL for the daprodustat and 10.6 (0.9) g/dL for the darbepoetin alfa group, with an adjusted mean treatment difference of -0.10 g/dL (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.14 g/dL), indicating noninferiority. There was a reduction in mean monthly IV iron use from baseline to week 52 in both treatment groups; however, daprodustat was not superior compared with darbepoetin alfa in reducing monthly IV iron use (adjusted mean treatment difference, 19.4 mg [95% CI, -11.0 to 49.9 mg]). Adverse event rates were 76% for daprodustat vs 72% for darbepoetin alfa. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that daprodustat was noninferior to darbepoetin alfa in treating anemia of CKD and may represent a potential oral alternative to a conventional ESA in the ID population. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029208.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Daprodustat is an oral hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor. In patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not undergoing dialysis, the efficacy and safety of daprodustat, as compared with the conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agent darbepoetin alfa, are unknown. METHODS In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial with blinded adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes, we compared daprodustat with darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD who were not undergoing dialysis. The primary outcomes were the mean change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 and the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). RESULTS Overall, 3872 patients were randomly assigned to receive daprodustat or darbepoetin alfa. The mean (±SD) baseline hemoglobin levels were similar in the two groups. The mean (±SE) change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 was 0.74±0.02 g per deciliter in the daprodustat group and 0.66±0.02 g per deciliter in the darbepoetin alfa group (difference, 0.08 g per deciliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.13), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of -0.75 g per deciliter. During a median follow-up of 1.9 years, a first MACE occurred in 378 of 1937 patients (19.5%) in the daprodustat group and in 371 of 1935 patients (19.2%) in the darbepoetin alfa group (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.19), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.25. The percentages of patients with adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with CKD and anemia who were not undergoing dialysis, daprodustat was noninferior to darbepoetin alfa with respect to the change in the hemoglobin level from baseline and with respect to cardiovascular outcomes. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ASCEND-ND ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876835.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), the use of recombinant human erythropoietin and its derivatives for the treatment of anemia has been linked to a possibly increased risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and other adverse events. Several trials have suggested that hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (PHIs) are as effective as erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in increasing hemoglobin levels. METHODS In this randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial, we assigned patients with CKD who were undergoing dialysis and who had a hemoglobin level of 8.0 to 11.5 g per deciliter to receive an oral HIF-PHI (daprodustat) or an injectable ESA (epoetin alfa if they were receiving hemodialysis or darbepoetin alfa if they were receiving peritoneal dialysis). The two primary outcomes were the mean change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 (noninferiority margin, -0.75 g per deciliter) and the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke), with a noninferiority margin of 1.25. RESULTS A total of 2964 patients underwent randomization. The mean (±SD) baseline hemoglobin level was 10.4±1.0 g per deciliter overall. The mean (±SE) change in the hemoglobin level from baseline to weeks 28 through 52 was 0.28±0.02 g per deciliter in the daprodustat group and 0.10±0.02 g per deciliter in the ESA group (difference, 0.18 g per deciliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.24), which met the prespecified noninferiority margin of -0.75 g per deciliter. During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, a major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 374 of 1487 patients (25.2%) in the daprodustat group and in 394 of 1477 (26.7%) in the ESA group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.07), which also met the prespecified noninferiority margin for daprodustat. The percentages of patients with other adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with CKD undergoing dialysis, daprodustat was noninferior to ESAs regarding the change in the hemoglobin level from baseline and cardiovascular outcomes. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ASCEND-D ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02879305.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND Laboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting. METHODS Five databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria. RESULTS We identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group. CONCLUSIONS Our review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42016051941.