Conversion from Aranesp® to NESP® in dialysis patients-Exploration of dosing strategies and the feasibility of extending the dosing interval.

AIM: Darbepoetin alpha is available as Aranesp® and NESP®, which differ in the inactive component and maximum dose-strength of prefilled syringes. We conducted an observational cohort study to investigate optimal conversion strategies and the feasibility of extending dosing intervals with higher-dose preparations in dialysis patients converting from Aranesp® to NESP®. METHODS: Adult dialysis patients on Aranesp® with stable haemoglobin of 9-12 g/dL were converted to NESP® at the same monthly total dose according to one of three conversion regimens. Group A included patients on ≤80 mcg/month of Aranesp® who converted with dosing regimen unchanged. Group B patients converted to NESP® with extended dosing intervals using higher individual dose preparations. Group C were patients on 100 mcg Aranesp® who converted to NESP® 120 mcg with extended dosing intervals. Patients were observed for 6 months. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included. All 24 Group A patients maintained stable haemoglobin. In Group B, 10 patients (50%) maintained stable haemoglobin with extension of dosing interval from 1.04 ± 0.14 to 3.03 ± 1.28 weeks. Factors associated with success in extending dosing interval included a lower prevalence of cardiovascular disease and a higher Kt/Vurea in peritoneal dialysis patients. Four patients (80%) in Group C maintained stable haemoglobin after conversion to NESP® 120 mcg with extended dosing interval. The use of NESP® 120 mcg was well tolerated, and was associated with reduced patient-reported pain score and 38% reduction of drug cost. CONCLUSION: Dialysis patients on Aranesp® can be successfully converted to NESP® and the dosing interval can be extended successfully in a significant proportion of patients, which could reduce discomfort and drug cost.

A strategy to reduce inflammation and anemia treatment's related costs in dialysis patients.

This is a post-hoc analysis evaluating erythropoiesis stimulating agents' (ESA) related costs while using an additional ultrafilter (Estorclean PLUS) to produce ultrapure dialysis water located within the fluid pathway after the treatment with reverse osmosis and before the dialysis machine. Twenty-nine patients (19 treated with epoetin alfa and 10 with darboepoetin alfa) were included in the analysis. We showed to gain savings of 210 € per patient (35 € per patient each month) with epoetin alfa during the experimental period of 6 months, compared to the control period and of 545 € per patient (90 € per patient each month) with darboepoetin alfa. Estorclean PLUS had a cost of 600 € (25 € per month per each patient) and was used for 6 months. Intravenous iron therapy with sodium ferrigluconate had a cost of 0,545 €/62,5 mg. In conclusion, during the experimental period with the use of Estorclean, we obtained global savings of 11 € per patient per month with epoetin alfa and 30 € per patient per month with darboepoetin alfa to treat anemia in dialysis patients.

Tale of Two Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents: Utilization, Dosing, Litigation, and Costs of Darbepoetin and Epoetin Among South Carolina Medicaid-Covered Patients With Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved epoetin and darbepoetin for chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Approved epoetin and darbepoetin dosing schedules were three times per week and weekly, respectively, although off-label, less frequent scheduling was common. In 2004, 2007, and 2008, a US Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committees warned of risks associated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. During this period, lawsuits alleging illegal darbepoetin marketing practices have concluded, resulting in $1.1 billion in fines and settlements and one criminal conviction. No prior study, to our knowledge, has reported on the use of darbepoetin versus epoetin for CIA. METHODS: We evaluated the dosing, utilization, and costs of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents among 3,761 South Carolina Medicaid patients with CIA. RESULTS: Epoetin and darbepoetin utilization rates were 22% and 28% in 2003, 10% and 33% in 2007, and 3% and 7% in 2010, respectively. Mean per-patient per-administration epoetin and darbepoetin doses were 40,983 IU and 191 µg, respectively, in 2003 and 47,753 IU and 369 µg, respectively, in 2010. Mean monthly patient costs for epoetin and darbepoetin were $1,030 and $981, respectively, in 2003 and $932 and $1,352, respectively, in 2010. Epoetin use decreased steadily between 2002 and 2010; darbepoetin use increased steadily between 2003 and 2007 and then decreased steadily thereafter. Per-patient dosing of darbepoetin, but not epoetin, increased steadily between 2003 and 2010, and monthly per-patient epoetin costs decreased 3% while the per-patients costs of darbepoetin increased 30% between 2003 and 2010. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, our findings are the first data reporting on epoetin versus darbepoetin use for CIA and support recently concluded lawsuits involving allegations of illegal marketing practices of the manufacturer of darbepoetin.