The PRIMAVERA study protocol design: Evaluating the effect of continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (C.E.R.A.) on renal function in non-anemic patients with chronic kidney disease

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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 certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hypertension. The comparative effects of all ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, and breathlessness were uncertain. Network analysis for fatigue was not possible due to sparse data.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The comparative effects of different ESAs on blood transfusions, death (any cause and cardiovascular), major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, fatigue and breathlessness were uncertain.

Treatment of renal anemia: Erythropoiesis stimulating agents and beyond

Anemia, complicating the course of chronic kidney disease, is a significant parameter, whether interpreted as subjective impairment or an objective prognostic marker. Renal anemia is predominantly due to relative erythropoietin (EPO) deficiency. EPO inhibits apoptosis of erythrocyte precursors. Studies using EPO substitution have shown that increasing hemoglobin (Hb) levels up to 10–11 g/dL is associated with clinical improvement. However, it has not been unequivocally proven that further intensification of erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA) therapy actually leads to a comprehensive benefit for the patient, especially as ESAs are potentially associated with increased cerebro-cardiovascular events. Recently, new developments offer interesting options not only via stimulating erythropoeisis but also by employing additional mechanisms. The inhibition of activin, a member of the transforming growth factor superfamily, has the potential to correct anemia by stimulating liberation of mature erythrocyte forms and also to mitigate disturbed mineral and bone metabolism as well. Hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors also show pleiotropic effects, which are at the focus of present research and have the potential of reducing mortality. However, conventional ESAs offer an extensive body of safety evidence, against which the newer substances should be measured. Carbamylated EPO is devoid of Hb augmenting effects whilst exerting promising tissue protective properties. Additionally, the role of hepcidin antagonists is discussed. An innovative new hemodialysis blood tube system, reducing blood contact with air, conveys a totally different and innocuous option to improve renal anemia by reducing mechanical hemolysis.

Continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (CERA) for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (CERA) is a newer, longer acting ESA which might be preferred to other ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) based on its lower frequency of administration. Different dosing requirements and molecular characteristics of CERA compared with other ESAs may lead to different health outcomes (mortality, cardiovascular events, quality of life) in people with anaemia and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

OBJECTIVES

To assess benefits and harms of CERA compared with other epoetins (darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa or beta) or placebo/no treatment or CERA with differing strategy of administration for anaemia in individuals with CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 13 June 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration, comparing CERA with a different ESA (darbepoetin alfa or epoetin alfa or beta) or placebo or standard care or versus CERA with different strategies for administration in people with any stage of CKD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted by two independent investigators. We summarised patient-centred outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, red cell blood transfusion, iron therapy, cancer, hypertension, seizures, dialysis vascular access thrombosis, drug injection-related events, hyperkalaemia and health-related quality of life and haemoglobin levels) using random effects meta-analysis. Treatment estimates were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences or standardized mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies involving 5410 adults with CKD. Seven studies (1273 participants) involved people not requiring dialysis, 19 studies (4209 participants) involved people treated with dialysis and one study (71 participants) evaluated treatment in recipients of a kidney transplant. Treatment was given for 24 weeks on average. No data were available for children with CKD. Studies were generally at high or unclear risk of bias from allocation concealment and blinding of outcomes. Only two studies masked participants and investigators to treatment allocation. One study compared CERA with placebo, nine studies CERA with epoetin alfa or beta, nine studies CERA with darbepoetin alfa, and two studies compared CERA with epoetin alfa or beta and darbepoetin alfa. Three studies assessed the effects of differing frequencies of CERA administration and five assessed differing CERA doses.There was low certainty evidence that CERA had little or no effects on mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.57; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.65), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 5.09, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.23; RR 5.56, 95% CI 0.99 to 31.30), hypertension (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28), need for blood transfusion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.61), or additional iron therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03) compared to epoetin alfa/beta or darbepoetin alfa respectively. There was insufficient evidence to compare the effect of CERA to placebo on clinical outcomes. Only one low quality study reported that CERA compared to placebo might lead to little or no difference in the risk of major cardiovascular events (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.18) and hypertension ((RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52). There was low certainty evidence that different doses (higher versus lower) or frequency (twice versus once monthly) of CERA administration had little or no different effect on all-cause mortality (RR 3.95, 95% CI 0.17 to 91.61; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.66), hypertension (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.52; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.21), and blood cell transfusions (RR 4.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 19.53; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62). No studies reported comparative treatment effects of different ESAs on health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low certainty evidence that CERA has little or no effects on patient-centred outcomes compared with placebo, epoetin alfa or beta or darbepoetin alfa for adults with CKD. The effects of CERA among children who have CKD have not studied in RCTs.

Early low-dose erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy and progression of moderate chronic kidney disease: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Background

It is unknown whether early intervention with low-dose erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in non-anaemic patients delays progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Methods

In a single-blind, 24-month trial, adults with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 30–59 mL/min/1.73 m2 and either Type 2 diabetes mellitus or previous kidney transplantation were randomized to low-dose continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (CERA; monthly dose 30–75 µg; n = 115) or placebo (n = 120). The primary endpoint was the annual change in eGFR (abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula).

Results

Mean (standard deviation) eGFR was 40.7 (9.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 versus 39.8 (9.2) mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline for CERA and placebo, respectively, and 39.0 (11.6) g/dL versus 39.7 (10.6) g/dL at the final visit. The median (interquartile range) annual reduction in eGFR was 0.5 (−2.2, 3.8) mL/min/1.73 m2 with CERA versus 0.4 (−2.0, 3.2) mL/min/1.73 m2 with placebo (P = 0.657). No significant difference in the annual change in eGFR was observed between treatment groups in the subpopulations with Type 2 diabetes or kidney transplant. Adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug occurred in 22.0% and 16.2% of patients randomized to CERA or placebo, respectively, and adverse events led to study drug discontinuation in 11.0% and 8.5% of patients.

Conclusions

Patients with moderate CKD and Type 2 diabetes or previous kidney transplantation showed stable renal function that was unaffected by administration of low-dose ESA. In addition, there was no clinically meaningful effect of 2-year low-dose ESA treatment on albuminuria, an important surrogate marker of kidney injury.

Subcutaneous C.E.R.A. for the Treatment of Chronic Renal Anemia in Predialysis Patients

BACKGROUND

We investigated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-monthly administration of C.E.R.A. in erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) naive predialysis patients with CKD for anemia treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Single arm, open label study.

METHODS

A total of 75 patients (mean (SD) age was 52.8 (16.4) years, 76.0% were female) were included in this study conducted between 12 August 2008 and 30 October 2009 in 9 centers across Turkey. The mean change in Hb concentration (g/dL) between baseline (week 0) and the efficacy evaluation period (EEP) was the primary efficacy parameter evaluated in three consecutive periods including a dose titration period (DTP; with initial 1.2 μg/kg dose of C.E.R.A., subcutaneously, 28 weeks), EEP (8 weeks) and a long-term safety period (16 weeks).

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed an improvement in Hb levels from baseline value of 9.4 (0.4) g/dL to time adjusted average level of 11.4 (0.7) g/dL in EEP in the per protocol (PP) population and from 9.3 (0.5) g/dL to 11.1 (1.0) g/dL in intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Mean (SD) change in Hb levels from baseline to EEP was 2.0 (0.7) g/dl in the PP population (primary endpoint) and 1.7 (1.1) g/dL in the ITT population. The percentage of patients whose Hb concentrations remained within the target range of 10.0-12.0 g/dL throughout the EEP was 43.9% (95% CI: 28.5-60.3%) in the PP population and 38.7% (95% CI: 27.6% to 50.6%) in the ITP population. A total of 206 adverse events (AE) were reported in 77.0% of patients with hypertension (20%) as the most frequent AE.

CONCLUSION

Once-monthly subcutaneous C.E.R.A. administration is effective and safe in the treatment of anemia in pre-dialysis patients with CKD, who are not currently treated with ESAs.

Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure

Since more than two decades erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are the main pillar for treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney disease. Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (MPG-EPO), also called continuous erythropoietin receptor activator, is the longest acting erythropoiesis-stimulating agent currently available. MPG-EPO is characterized by an elimination half-life of approximately 137 h and offers extended dosing intervals up to 4 weeks. Numerous phase I/II studies and a comprehensive clinical phase III program demonstrated the feasibility of MPG-EPO therapy for anemia correction and maintenance of stable hemoglobin levels in adult chronic kidney disease patients. Due to patent disputes MPG-EPO was only available outside the US market so far. In view of a prevailing US market introduction, this review focuses on efficacy and safety data from pivotal trials, summarizes recent clinical research and finally tries to substantiate potential benefits associated with the use of this anti-anemic drug.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are available for treating anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Their relative efficacy (preventing blood transfusions and reducing fatigue and breathlessness) and safety (mortality and cardiovascular events) are unclear due to the limited power of head-to-head studies.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, or methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs, against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 11 February 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, or biosimilar ESA) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD and that reported prespecified patient-relevant outcomes were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed by random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore for sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed our confidence in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes within network meta-analysis (preventing blood transfusions and all-cause mortality) according to adapted GRADE methodology as very low, low, moderate, or high.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 eligible studies involving 15,596 adults with CKD. Risks of bias in the included studies was generally high or unclear for more than half of studies in all of the risk of bias domains we assessed; no study was low risk for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment and attrition from follow-up. In network analyses, there was moderate to low confidence that epoetin alfa (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59), epoetin beta (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.38), darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57), and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.70) prevented blood transfusions compared to placebo. In very low quality evidence, biosimilar ESA therapy was possibly no better than placebo for preventing blood transfusions (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.47) with considerable imprecision in estimated effects. We could not discern whether all ESAs were similar or different in their effects on preventing blood transfusions and our confidence in the comparative effectiveness of different ESAs was generally very low. Similarly, the comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality were imprecise.All proprietary ESAs increased the odds of hypertension compared to placebo (epoetin alfa OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; epoetin beta OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.23 to 5.39; darbepoetin alfa OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.21; methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.92), while the effect of biosimilar ESAs on developing hypertension was less certain (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.99). Our confidence in the comparative effects of ESAs on hypertension was low due to considerable imprecision in treatment estimates. The comparative effects of all ESAs on cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and vascular access thrombosis were uncertain and network analyses for major cardiovascular events, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), fatigue and breathlessness were not possible. Effects of ESAs on fatigue were described heterogeneously in the available studies in ways that were not useable for analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the CKD setting, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest the superiority of any ESA formulation based on available safety and efficacy data. Directly comparative data for the effectiveness of different ESA formulations based on patient-centred outcomes (such as quality of life, fatigue, and functional status) are sparse and poorly reported and current research studies are unable to inform care. All proprietary ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta) prevent blood transfusions but information for biosimilar ESAs is less conclusive. Comparative treatment effects of different ESA formulations on other patient-important outcomes such as survival, MI, stroke, breathlessness and fatigue are very uncertain.For consumers, clinicians and funders, considerations such as drug cost and availability and preferences for dosing frequency might be considered as the basis for individualising anaemia care due to lack of data for comparative differences in clinical benefits and harms.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are available for treating anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Their relative efficacy (preventing blood transfusions and reducing fatigue and breathlessness) and safety (mortality and cardiovascular events) are unclear due to the limited power of head-to-head studies.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, or methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs, against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 11 February 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, or biosimilar ESA) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD and that reported prespecified patient-relevant outcomes were considered for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed by random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore for sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed our confidence in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes within network meta-analysis (preventing blood transfusions and all-cause mortality) according to adapted GRADE methodology as very low, low, moderate, or high.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 eligible studies involving 15,596 adults with CKD. Risks of bias in the included studies was generally high or unclear for more than half of studies in all of the risk of bias domains we assessed; no study was low risk for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment and attrition from follow-up. In network analyses, there was moderate to low confidence that epoetin alfa (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59), epoetin beta (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.38), darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57), and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.70) prevented blood transfusions compared to placebo. In very low quality evidence, biosimilar ESA therapy was possibly no better than placebo for preventing blood transfusions (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.47) with considerable imprecision in estimated effects. We could not discern whether all ESAs were similar or different in their effects on preventing blood transfusions and our confidence in the comparative effectiveness of different ESAs was generally very low. Similarly, the comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality were imprecise.All proprietary ESAs increased the odds of hypertension compared to placebo (epoetin alfa OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; epoetin beta OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.23 to 5.39; darbepoetin alfa OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.21; methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.92), while the effect of biosimilar ESAs on developing hypertension was less certain (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.99). Our confidence in the comparative effects of ESAs on hypertension was low due to considerable imprecision in treatment estimates. The comparative effects of all ESAs on cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and vascular access thrombosis were uncertain and network analyses for major cardiovascular events, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), fatigue and breathlessness were not possible. Effects of ESAs on fatigue were described heterogeneously in the available studies in ways that were not useable for analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the CKD setting, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest the superiority of any ESA formulation based on available safety and efficacy data. Directly comparative data for the effectiveness of different ESA formulations based on patient-centred outcomes (such as quality of life, fatigue, and functional status) are sparse and poorly reported and current research studies are unable to inform care. All proprietary ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta) prevent blood transfusions but information for biosimilar ESAs is less conclusive. Comparative treatment effects of different ESA formulations on other patient-important outcomes such as survival, MI, stroke, breathlessness and fatigue are very uncertain.For consumers, clinicians and funders, considerations such as drug cost and availability and preferences for dosing frequency might be considered as the basis for individualising anaemia care due to lack of data for comparative differences in clinical benefits and harms.

Quantitative assessment of minimal effective concentration of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

Minimal effective concentration (MEC) was proposed to explain why subcutaneous (SC) administration of erythropoietin (EPO) induces a higher hemoglobin (HGB) increase than intravenous (IV) administration. It has been further used to explain the paradox that erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) with lower receptor binding affinity may have higher in vivo activity. We have developed a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model with incorporation of the operational model of agonism to characterize the data from two clinical trials. By using model-based simulations, we demonstrate that SC route is more efficacious than IV route and explain the paradoxical behavior of ESAs. We determined that MEC can be quantified by C50, which represents the concentration of an ESA producing its half-maximal effect of stimulating the proliferation of erythroid precursor cells. The model used may allow joint PK/PD modeling of data from different ESAs, and provide a platform for dosing regimen optimizations and future clinical study designs.CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology (2013) 2, e62; doi:10.1038/psp.2013.39; published online 7 August 2013.