Long-term Safety of Epoetin Alfa-epbx for the Treatment of Anemia in ESKD: Pooled Analyses of Randomized and Open-label Studies.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Epoetin alfa-epbx is a biosimilar to the reference product, epoetin alfa. We compare the safety of epoetin alfa-epbx versus epoetin alfa based on a pooled analysis of findings from 2 randomized, double-blind, comparative clinical studies, and report new data for the long-term safety of epoetin alfa-epbx. STUDY DESIGN: Pooled analyses of previously conducted studies. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Hemodialysis patients with anemia. INTERVENTIONS: Data from patients who received 1 or more subcutaneous or intravenous doses of study drug were integrated across route of administration in combined randomized groups (epoetin alfa-epbx, n = 423; epoetin alfa, n = 426). Data from patients who received 1 or more doses of epoetin alfa-epbx in either open-label extension trial were integrated across route of administration in a combined long-term safety studies group (n = 576). OUTCOMES: Adverse events (AEs), immunogenicity, and other outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Incidences of treatment-emergent AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuation of study drug treatment because of treatment-emergent AEs were similar between combined randomized epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa, which had mean treatment durations of 18.1 and 17.7 weeks, respectively. Incidences of treatment-emergent AEs, serious AEs, and discontinuation of study drug treatment because of treatment-emergent AEs were 86.5%, 39.4%, and 6.6%, respectively, for the combined long-term safety studies group, which had a mean treatment duration of 40.0 weeks. In total, 12 patients across the combined randomized groups (epoetin alfa-epbx, n = 5; epoetin alfa, n = 7) and 9 patients in the combined long-term safety studies group tested anti-recombinant human erythropoietin antibody positive in 1 or more visits during study conduct. No patient in any group developed neutralizing antibodies or pure red blood cell aplasia. LIMITATIONS: Epoetin alfa comparator not included in the long-term safety studies, greater cumulative exposure to study drug for epoetin alfa-epbx, shorter follow-up in the randomized studies, and potential for selection bias among patients in the open-label long-term safety studies. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis reinforces previous conclusions of similar safety profiles between epoetin alfa-epbx and epoetin alfa. Furthermore, epoetin alfa-epbx had no unexpected safety signals during long-term treatment. FUNDING: This study was funded by Hospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov EPOE-10-13 (NCT01473420); EPOE-10-01 (NCT01473407); EPOE-11-04 (NCT01628120); EPOE-11-03 (NCT01628107).

Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.

Cost-effectiveness of dalteparin vs unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients.

IMPORTANCE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges. RESULTS: Hospital costs per patient were $39,508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24,676 to $71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40,805 (IQR, $24,393 to $76,139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in medical surgical critical illness.

BACKGROUND: In a recent multicenter randomized trial comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH) with low-molecular-weight heparin (dalteparin) for thromboprophylaxis in 3,746 critically ill patients, 17 patients (0.5%) developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) based on serotonin-release assay-positive (SRA+) status. A trend to a lower frequency of HIT with dalteparin vs UFH was observed in the intention-to-treat analysis (five vs 12 patients, P = .14), which was statistically significant (three vs 12 patients, P = .046) in a prespecified per-protocol analysis that excluded patients with DVT at study entry. We sought to characterize HIT outcomes and to determine how dalteparin thromboprophylaxis may reduce HIT frequency in patients in the ICU. METHODS: In 17 patients with HIT, we analyzed platelet counts and thrombotic events in relation to the study drug and other open-label heparin, to determine whether the study drug plausibly explained seroconversion to SRA+ status and/or breakthrough of thrombocytopenia/thrombosis. We also compared antibody frequencies (dalteparin vs UFH) in 409 patients serologically investigated for HIT. RESULTS: HIT-associated thrombosis occurred in 10 of 17 patients (58.8%) (8:1:1 venous:arterial:both). Dalteparin was associated with fewer study drug-attributable HIT-related events (P = .020), including less seroconversion (P = .058) and less breakthrough of thrombocytopenia/thrombosis (P = .032). Antiplatelet factor 4/heparin IgG antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay were less frequent among patients receiving dalteparin vs UFH (13.5% vs 27.3%, P < .001). One patient with HIT-associated DVT died after UFH bolus (anaphylactoid reaction), whereas platelet counts recovered in two others with HIT-associated VTE despite continuation of therapeutic-dose UFH. CONCLUSIONS: The lower risk of HIT in patients in the ICU receiving dalteparin appears related to both decreased antibody formation and decreased clinical breakthrough of HIT among patients forming antibodies.

Telavancin versus vancomycin for hospital-acquired pneumonia due to gram-positive pathogens.

BACKGROUND: Telavancin is a lipoglycopeptide bactericidal against gram-positive pathogens. METHODS: Two methodologically identical, double-blind studies (0015 and 0019) were conducted involving patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) due to gram-positive pathogens, particularly methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Patients were randomized 1:1 to telavancin (10 mg/kg every 24 h) or vancomycin (1 g every 12 h) for 7-21 days. The primary end point was clinical response at follow-up/test-of-cure visit. RESULTS: A total of 1503 patients were randomized and received study medication (the all-treated population). In the pooled all-treated population, cure rates with telavancin versus vancomycin were 58.9% versus 59.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -5.6% to 4.3%). In the pooled clinically evaluable population (n = 654), cure rates were 82.4% with telavancin and 80.7% with vancomycin (95% CI for the difference, -4.3% to 7.7%). Treatment with telavancin achieved higher cure rates in patients with monomicrobial S. aureus infection and comparable cure rates in patients with MRSA infection; in patients with mixed gram-positive/gram-negative infections, cure rates were higher in the vancomycin group. Incidence and types of adverse events were comparable between the treatment groups. Mortality rates for telavancin-treated versus vancomycin-treated patients were 21.5% versus 16.6% (95% CI for the difference, -0.7% to 10.6%) for study 0015 and 18.5% versus 20.6% (95% CI for the difference, -7.8% to 3.5%) for study 0019. Increases in serum creatinine level were more common in the telavancin group (16% vs 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point of the studies was met, indicating that telavancin is noninferior to vancomycin on the basis of clinical response in the treatment of HAP due to gram-positive pathogens.

Delirium epidemiology in critical care (DECCA): an international study.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is a frequent source of morbidity in intensive care units (ICUs). Most data on its epidemiology is from single-center studies. Our aim was to conduct a multicenter study to evaluate the epidemiology of delirium in the ICU. METHODS: A 1-day point-prevalence study was undertaken in 104 ICUs from 11 countries in South and North America and Spain. RESULTS: In total, 975 patients were screened, and 497 fulfilled inclusion criteria and were enrolled (median age, 62 years; 52.5% men; 16.7% and 19.9% for ICU and hospital mortality); 64% were admitted to the ICU because of medical causes, and sepsis was the main diagnosis (n = 76; 15.3%). In total, 265 patients were sedated with the Richmond agitation and sedation scale (RASS) deeper than -3, and only 232 (46.6%) patients could be evaluated with the confusion-assessment method for the ICU. The prevalence of delirium was 32.3%. Compared with patients without delirium, those with the diagnosis of delirium had a greater severity of illness at admission, demonstrated by higher sequential organ-failure assessment (SOFA (P = 0.004)) and simplified acute physiology score 3 (SAPS3) scores (P < 0.0001). Delirium was associated with increased ICU (20% versus 5.7%; P = 0.002) and hospital mortality (24 versus 8.3%; P = 0.0017), and longer ICU (P < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay (LOS) (22 (11 to 40) versus 7 (4 to 18) days; P < 0.0001). Previous use of midazolam (P = 0.009) was more frequent in patients with delirium. On multivariate analysis, delirium was independently associated with increased ICU mortality (OR = 3.14 (1.26 to 7.86); CI, 95%) and hospital mortality (OR = 2.5 (1.1 to 5.7); CI, 95%). CONCLUSIONS: In this 1-day international study, delirium was frequent and associated with increased mortality and ICU LOS. The main modifiable risk factors associated with the diagnosis of delirium were the use of invasive devices and sedatives (midazolam).

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist medications are the most commonly used sedatives for intensive care unit (ICU) patients, yet preliminary evidence indicates that the alpha(2) agonist dexmedetomidine may have distinct advantages. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial conducted in 68 centers in 5 countries between March 2005 and August 2007 among 375 medical/surgical ICU patients with expected mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours. Sedation level and delirium were assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Dexmedetomidine (0.2-1.4 microg/kg per hour [n = 244]) or midazolam (0.02-0.1 mg/kg per hour [n = 122]) titrated to achieve light sedation (RASS scores between -2 and +1) from enrollment until extubation or 30 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of time within target RASS range. Secondary end points included prevalence and duration of delirium, use of fentanyl and open-label midazolam, and nursing assessments. Additional outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse events. RESULTS: There was no difference in percentage of time within the target RASS range (77.3% for dexmedetomidine group vs 75.1% for midazolam group; difference, 2.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3.2% to 7.5%]; P = .18). The prevalence of delirium during treatment was 54% (n = 132/244) in dexmedetomidine-treated patients vs 76.6% (n = 93/122) in midazolam-treated patients (difference, 22.6% [95% CI, 14% to 33%]; P < .001). Median time to extubation was 1.9 days shorter in dexmedetomidine-treated patients (3.7 days [95% CI, 3.1 to 4.0] vs 5.6 days [95% CI, 4.6 to 5.9]; P = .01), and ICU length of stay was similar (5.9 days [95% CI, 5.7 to 7.0] vs 7.6 days [95% CI, 6.7 to 8.6]; P = .24). Dexmedetomidine-treated patients were more likely to develop bradycardia (42.2% [103/244] vs 18.9% [23/122]; P < .001), with a nonsignificant increase in the proportion requiring treatment (4.9% [12/244] vs 0.8% [1/122]; P = .07), but had a lower likelihood of tachycardia (25.4% [62/244] vs 44.3% [54/122]; P < .001) or hypertension requiring treatment (18.9% [46/244] vs 29.5% [36/122]; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in time at targeted sedation level in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. At comparable sedation levels, dexmedetomidine-treated patients spent less time on the ventilator, experienced less delirium, and developed less tachycardia and hypertension. The most notable adverse effect of dexmedetomidine was bradycardia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00216190 Published online February 2, 2009 (doi:10.1001/jama.2009.56).