Comparison of outcomes on hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) in anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease: network meta-analyses in dialysis and non-dialysis dependent populations

Background

Hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) are oral alternatives to current standard-of-care treatments for anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted network meta-analyses to indirectly compare clinical outcomes for three HIF-PHIs in dialysis and non-dialysis populations with anaemia in CKD.

Methods

The evidence base comprised phase III, randomised, controlled trials evaluating daprodustat, roxadustat, or vadadustat. Three outcomes were evaluated: efficacy [change from baseline in haemoglobin (Hgb)], cardiovascular safety [time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)] and quality of life [change from baseline in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Vitality score]. Analyses were performed separately for all patients and for erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) non-users at baseline (non-dialysis population) or prevalent dialysis patients (dialysis population). Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods with non-informative priors were used to estimate the posterior probability distribution and generate pairwise treatment comparisons. Point estimates (medians of posterior distributions) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated.

Results

Seventeen trials were included. In non-dialysis patients, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the three HIF-PHIs with respect to Hgb change from baseline [all patients analysis (total n = 7907): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, 0.09 g/dL (95% CrI -0.14, 0.31); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.09 g/dL (-0.04, 0.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.00 g/dL (-0.22, 0.22)] or risk of MACE [all patients analysis (total n = 7959): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16 (95% CrI 0.76, 1.77); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.88 (0.71, 1.09); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.76 (0.50, 1.16)]. Daprodustat showed a greater increase in SF-36 Vitality compared with roxadustat [total n = 4880; treatment difference 4.70 points (95% CrI 0.08, 9.31)]. In dialysis patients, Hgb change from baseline was higher with daprodustat and roxadustat compared with vadadustat [all patients analysis (total n = 11 124): daprodustat, 0.34 g/dL (0.22, 0.45); roxadustat, 0.38 g/dL (0.27, 0.49)], while there were no clinically meaningful differences in the risk of MACE between the HIF-PHIs [all patients analysis (total n = 12 320): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, HR 0.89 (0.73, 1.08); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, HR 0.99 (0.82, 1.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, HR 1.12 (0.92, 1.37)]. Results were similar in analyses of ESA non-users and prevalent dialysis patients.

Conclusions

In the setting of anaemia in CKD, indirect treatment comparisons suggest that daprodustat, roxadustat, and vadadustat are broadly clinically comparable in terms of efficacy and cardiovascular safety (precision was low for the latter), while daprodustat may be associated with reduction in fatigue to a greater extent than roxadustat.

Causes of death in patients with chronic kidney disease: insights from the ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND cardiovascular outcomes trials

Background

There are limited contemporary data available regarding adjudicated causes of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Prior studies have indicated that cardiovascular (CV) events are one of the most common causes of death among patients with CKD, with previous reports stating approximately 30% of patients died from CV causes [1]. Here, we report the adjudicated causes of death in two recently completed large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with ∼14,200 person years of follow-up: ASCEND-D [2] (median follow-up: 2.5 years; NCT02879305) and ASCEND-ND [3] (median follow-up: 1.9 years; NCT02876835). These trials investigated the safety and efficacy of daprodustat, a hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor (HIF-PHI), in correcting anaemia in patients with CKD.

Purpose

This study assessed the causes of death in patients with CKD in the ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND trials.

Methods

ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND were global, randomised, open-label, CV outcome trials in adult patients with CKD-related anaemia undergoing maintenance dialysis (ASCEND-D) or with pre-dialysis CKD (ASCEND-ND) who received daily oral daprodustat or conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Cause of death was systematically and centrally adjudicated in a blinded fashion to the study treatment assignment by an independent committee.

Results

In ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND, respectively, 2964 and 3872 patients were randomised, of which 92% and 97% completed the study. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across treatment groups within each trial. Adjudicated causes of death for the ASCEND-D and -ND trials are shown in the Table. All-cause mortality was similar in patients treated with daprodustat as compared with those treated with conventional ESA in both the ASCEND-D and -ND trials. Overall mortality in the ASCEND-D and -ND trials was 20.0% and 15.5%, respectively, and CV causes accounted for approximately 30–40% of all deaths and infection accounted for 25–30% of all deaths in both trials.

Conclusion

Although CV events were the most common cause of death in the ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND trials (30–40% of cases), the risk of death due to infection was also high, accounting for approximately 25–30% of all deaths across all study arms. Sudden death accounted for most CV deaths, particularly in the ASCEND-D trial. Infection as a cause of death was more frequent than previously reported in other RCTs or disease registries. Causes of death did not differ significantly between ASCEND-D and ASCEND-ND, or between treatments. However, as this is a selected population for a CV trial, it may not be representative of a real-life CKD population. Our results provide important data to inform the design of future studies in this population.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Medical writing support was provided Natasha Tracey, PhD (Ashfield MedComms, Macclesfield, UK) and was funded by GlaxoSmithKline.