scholarly journals Comparing Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Epoetin Beta and Epoetin Alfa in the Treatment of Anemia in End-Stage Renal Disease Hemodialysis Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 251-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalal Azmandian ◽  
Mohammad Reza Abbasi ◽  
Vahid Pourfarziani ◽  
Amir Ahmad Nasiri ◽  
Shahrzad Ossareh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Weight ◽  
Hemodialysis Patients ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Epoetin Alfa ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Epoetin Beta ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Stage Renal Disease

Background: Anemia is one of the most prevalent complications in patients with chronic kidney disease, which is believed to be caused by the insufficient synthesis of erythropoietin by the kidney. This phase III study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CinnaPoietin® (epoetin beta, CinnaGen) with Eprex® (epoetin alfa, Janssen Cilag) in the treatment of anemia in ESRD hemodialysis patients. Methods: In this randomized, active-controlled, double-blind, parallel, and non-inferiority trial, patients were randomized to receive either CinnaPoietin® or Eprex® for a 26-week period. The primary endpoints of this study were to assess the mean hemoglobin (Hb) change during the last 4 weeks of treatment from baseline along with the evaluation of the mean weekly epoetin dosage per kilogram of body weight that was necessary to maintain the Hb level within 10–12 g/dL during the last 4 weeks of treatment. As the secondary objective, safety was assessed along with other efficacy endpoints. Results: A total of 156 patients were included in this clinical trial. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups regarding the mean Hb change (p = 0.21). In addition, the mean weekly epoetin dosage per kg of body weight for maintaining the Hb level within 10–12 g/dL showed no statistically significant difference between treatment arms (p = 0.63). Moreover, both products had comparable safety profiles. However, the incidence of Hb levels above 13 g/dL was significantly lower in the CinnaPoietin® group. Conclusion: CinnaPoietin® was proved to be non-inferior to Eprex® in the treatment of anemia in ESRD hemodialysis patients. The trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03408639).

A Comparison of Proposed Biosimilar and Originator Filgrastim for the Prevention of Neutropenia in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Myelosuppressive Adjuvant or Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial (The PIONEER study)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 5133-5133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Blackwell ◽  
Vladimir Semiglazov ◽  
Pedro Gascon ◽  
Roumen Nakov ◽  
Stefan Kramer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Lower Limit ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Pioneer Study ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Introduction: Biosimilars are biologics which have demonstrated highly similar safety, potency and purity to an originator product. Several biosimilars of recombinant human filgrastim, based on the originator Neupogen®, have become available in Europe since 2008 and are now in clinical use for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and hematopoietic stem cell mobilization. Filgrastim biosimilars are presently being developed for the U.S. market. Study design: A randomized, double-blind, four-group, multi-center phase III non-inferiority trial was performed with breast cancer patients treated with myleosuppressive chemotherapy. The two filgrastim products – proposed biosimilar, EP2006 (“biosimilar”) vs. originator (U.S.-licensed Neupogen®) - were compared regarding efficacy and safety. Patients included: women ≥18 years with histologically-proven breast cancer eligible for neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with docetaxel 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 (TAC regimen) given for 6 cycles. Other key inclusion criteria included: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 and adequate bone marrow function. Eligible patients were randomized to 4 groups with 2 of these groups alternating between the biosimilar and the originator filgrastim at the end of each cycle: 1) EP: treatment with EP2006 in all cycles; 2) EPNEU: EP2006 in Cycle 1, alternating between Neupogen and EP2006 in the following cycles; 3) NEUEP: Neupogen in Cycle 1, alternating between EP2006 and Neupogen in the following cycles; 4) NEU: treatment with Neupogen in all cycles. Patients received either biosimilar or originator filgrastim subcutaneously (daily dose of 5 µg/kg body weight) starting on Day 2 of each chemotherapy cycle until the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovered to 10×109/L after nadir or up to 14 days. Total duration of the study was 25 weeks: 3 weeks screening, 18 weeks treatment (total 6 cycles, 3 weeks each) and a follow-up visit 4 weeks after the last study drug administration. Primary objective was to assess the efficacy of the biosimilar compared to the originator with respect to mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) following Cycle 1 chemotherapy. A one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the mean DSN calculated using ANCOVA model with factors “treatment” and “kind of therapy” and covariates “baseline ANC” was to be considered non-inferior if lower limit of this CI lies entirely above non-inferiority margin of -1 day. All secondary efficacy endpoints and safety endpoints were analyzed descriptively by treatment group. The study was conducted between December 2011 and June 2013. Results: Enrolled were 258 patients in 27 centers, of which 218 patients were randomized to treatment. The baseline characteristics were balanced between different groups. The per-protocol set included 204 patients out of 218 randomized patients. The safety set included 214 patients who received at least one dose of study drug. On average each patient received treatment for 8-9 days per cycle. The mean DSN in Cycle 1 was 1.17±1.11 days (biosimilar) and 1.20±1.02 days (originator); the mean difference in DSN was 0.04 days (97.5% CI, lower limit -0.26 days). The pre-defined non-inferiority criteria were met and the biosimilar was considered non-inferior to the originator filgrastim. The incidence of febrile neutropenia over all 6 cycles chemotherapy was comparably low in all treatment groups (EP: 2/40, 5.0%, EPNEU: 5/45, 11.1%, NEUEP: 1/44, 2.3%, NEU: 0/46, 0.0%). There was no obvious difference in incidences of treatment emergent adverse events between the treatment arms. Twelve patients experienced serious adverse events (EP: 5/53, 9.4% patients; EPNEU: 4/54, 7.4%; NEUEP: 1/55, 1.8%; NEU: 2/52, 3.8%). None of them were study drug related, including one death (in the EP treatment group due to pulmonary embolism). No subjects developed anti-drug antibodies. Conclusion: This large clinical study showed that efficacy and safety of the biosimilar was comparable to the originator filgrastim in prevention of neutropenia in patients with breast cancer. Repeated switching between the biosimilar and the originator filgrastim did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity. Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the other investigators of the PIONEER study and acknowledge Gabor Stiegler, Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals for the medical writing. Disclosures Blackwell: Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Semiglazov:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Gascon:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Nakov:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Kramer:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Schwebig:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Employment. Harbeck:Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Prospective, Randomized, Double Blind, Multicenter Study for an Autocrosslinked Polysaccharide Gel to Evaluate Antiadhesive Effect and Safety Compared to Poloxamer/Sodium Alginate After Thyroidectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 103 (9) ◽  
pp. 452-460
Author(s):  
Woo Young Kim ◽  
Jae Bok Lee ◽  
Hoon Yub Kim ◽  
Pyoung Jae Park ◽  
Seung Pil Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Alginate ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Esophageal Motility ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Double Blinded ◽  
Voice Range

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety between an autocrosslinked polysaccharide (ACP) gel (Hyalobarrier) and a poloxamer/sodium alginate (P/SA: Guardix-SG) in preventing adhesions after thyroidectomy and demonstrate the noninferiority of ACP gel to P/SA. To identify differences of antiadhesive efficacy and safety between the ACP gel and P/SA, we investigated various variables such as the proportion of normal esophageal motility as assessed using marshmallow esophagography, swallowing impairment, adhesion severity and so on. This prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multicenter, phase III study investigated the antiadhesive efficacy and safety of ACP gel compared with those of P/SA for 12 weeks. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either ACP gel (n = 97) or P/SA (n = 96). The primary endpoint was the proportion of normal esophageal motility as assessed using marshmallow esophagography, while the secondary endpoints included swallowing impairment, adhesion severity, laryngoscopic assessment of the vocal cords, and voice range profile. Safety endpoints included adverse events. There was no significant difference between the ACP gel and P/SA groups in the proportion of normal esophageal motility as the primary endpoint (P = 0.7428). In addition, there were no differences in the secondary or safety endpoints between the 2 groups. It was demonstrated that ACP gel was not inferior to P/SA. ACP gel appears both effective and safe for use in preventing adhesions after thyroidectomy.

scholarly journals A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Phase III Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Olmesartan/Amlodipine plus Rosuvastatin Combination Treatment in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Dyslipidemia: A LEISURE Study

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 350
Author(s):  
Sang-Ho Jo ◽  
Seok Min Kang ◽  
Byung Su Yoo ◽  
Young Soo Lee ◽  
Ho Joong Youn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Combination Treatment ◽  
Reaction Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Single Pill ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Concomitant Hypertension

Background: This study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. Methods: Patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia aged 20–80 were enrolled from 36 tertiary hospitals in Korea from January 2017 to April 2018. Patients were randomized to three groups in a 1:1:0.5 ratio, olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin (olme/amlo/rosu) or olmesartan plus rosuvastatin (olme/rosu) or olmesartan/amlodipine single pill (olme/amlo) combination. The primary endpoints were change of sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/rosu groups and the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/amlo groups after 8 weeks of treatment. Results: A total of 265 patients were randomized, 106 to olme/amlo/rosu, 106 to olme/rosu and 53 to olme/amlo groups. Baseline characteristics among the three groups did not differ. The mean sitSBP change was significantly larger in the olme/amlo/rosu group with −24.30 ± 12.62 mmHg (from 153.58 ± 10.90 to 129.28 ± 13.58) as compared to the olme/rosu group, −9.72 ± 16.27 mmHg (from 153.71 ± 11.10 to 144.00 ± 18.44 mmHg). The difference in change of sitSBP between the two groups was −14.62± 1.98 mmHg with significance (95% CI −18.51 to −10.73, p < 0.0001). The mean LDL-C reduced significantly in the olme/amlo/rosu group, −52.31 ± 16.63% (from 154.52 ± 30.84 to 72.72 ± 26.08 mg/dL) as compared to the olme/amlo group with no change, −2.98 ± 16.16% (from 160.42 ± 32.05 to 153.81 ± 31.57 mg/dL). Significant difference in change was found in LDL-C between the two groups with −50.10 ± 2.73% (95% CI −55.49 to −44.71, p < 0.0001). Total adverse drug reaction rates were 10.48%, 5.66% and 3.7% in the olme/amlo/rosu, olme/rosu and olme/amlo groups, respectively with no statistical significance among the three groups. Serious adverse drug reactions did not occur. Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia is effective and safe as compared to either olmesartan plus rosuvastatin or olmesartan plus amlodipine treatment.

P0880EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF SEVELAMER CARBONATE IN NON-DIALYSIS HYPERPHOSPHATEMIA PATIENTS: A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE BLIND, PARALLEL GROUP STUDY FOR THE TREATMENT OF HYPERPHOSPHATEMIA IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE NOT ON DIALYSIS IN CHINA

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueqing Yu
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Parallel Group Study ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Sevelamer Carbonate ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background and Aims Hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is associated with adverse outcomes, including vascular calcification, increasing risks of disease progression and even death. Sevelamer carbonate have been approved in Europe for phosphate lowering treatment in pre-dialysis CKD patient, its efficacy and safety in Chinese CKD hyperphosphatemia patients are not previously reported. Method This was a phase III, multi-center, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, balanced (1:1, sevelamer: placebo) parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sevelamer carbonate versus placebo over 8 weeks’ duration in hyperphosphatemic CKD patients not on dialysis in China (Registration number NCT03001011). The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate efficacy of sevelamer carbonate tablets in the reduction of serum phosphorus in hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis. Results In all, 202 patients were randomized (sevelamer, n=101; placebo, n=101); mean age was 50.7 years, 53.5% were male and the mean time of CKD diagnosis was 3.4 years with mean eGFR 7.5 ml/min/1.73 m2. The baseline phosphorous were 2.13±0.35 mmol/L and 2.12±0.37 mmol/L in sevelamer and placebo group, respectively. The mean serum phosphorous decreased significantly in patients treated with sevelamer carbonate (-0.22±0.47 mmol/L) compared with placebo (0.05±0.44 mmol/L) (mean difference between sevelamer carbonate and placebo was -0.26 mmol/L, P&lt;0.0001). When compared with placebo, sevelamer carbonate significantly reduced serum total cholesterol (-0.90±0.85 vs. -0.06±0.68 mmol/L, P&lt;0.0001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.94±0.72 vs. -0.04±0.58 mmol/L, P&lt;0.0001) and calcium-phosphorous product (-0.48±0.97 vs. 0.05±0.81 mmol2/L2) from baseline to week 8. Serum iPTH was not significantly changed in sevelamer carbonate group compared with placebo group (-9.60±136.00 vs. 7.61±141.92 ng/L, P=0.83). Sevelamer carbonate was well tolerated with 83.27% compliance compared with 82.19% compliance in placebo arm. Average dose of sevelamer carbonate was 7.51 g/d at the end of study and 4.52 g/d across the study. Adverse events experienced by patients in sevelamer carbonate and placebo group were similar. Conclusion This study demonstrated that sevelamer carbonate has produced a significant reduction of serum phosphorous, and is safe and tolerated in Chinese pre-dialysis CKD patients with hyperphosphatemia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document