Search

Abstract Background Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and conventional in‐center hemodialysis (HD) are treatment options for patients with end‐stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, their impact on all‐cause mortality is unclear. Methods We conducted a multicenter, open‐label, randomized, non‐inferiority trial to determine the effect of dialysis modality on mortality in patients with ESKD. Eligible patients were recruited from 30 sites across China and assigned to receive either PD or HD in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. Non‐inferiority was defined as the upper bound of the one‐sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) being ≤1.25. Results A total of 414 patients with incident ESKD were randomly assigned to PD (n = 213) or HD (n = 201). During a median follow‐up of 1.7 years, 37 patients in the PD group and 31 in the HD group died, giving respective event rates per patient‐year of 0.061 and 0.071. The HR for mortality on PD in comparison with HD was 0.76 (95% CI 0.47–1.24) after adjustment for age, sex, and diabetes status, achieving the limit for non‐inferiority. There were more adverse events (p = 0.003), serious adverse events (p = 0.009), and adverse events leading to hospitalization (p = 0.003) in the PD group than in the HD group; however, there was no significant between‐group difference in adverse events leading to death or discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions PD was non‐inferior to conventional in‐center HD in terms of survival in patients with ESKD. Our findings underscore the need for shared decision‐making between physicians and patients regarding the selection of dialysis modality. Trial registration Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01413074).

Abstract Background This study was to explore the clinical efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa injection replacing epoetin alfa injection (recombinant human erythropoietin injection, rHuEPO) for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney failure in Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis. Method This study was a multicenter, randomized, open‐label, intergroup parallel control phase III noninferiority trial from April 19, 2013 to September 9, 2014 at 25 sites. In this study, the members of the darbepoetin alfa group underwent intravenous administration once per week or once every two weeks. The members of the control drug epoetin alfa group underwent intravenous administration two or three times per week. All subjects underwent epoetin alfa administration during the 8‐week baseline period. After that, subjects were randomly assigned to the darbepoetin alfa group or epoetin alfa group. The noninferiority in the changes of the average Hb concentrations from the baseline to the end of the evaluation period (noninferiority threshold: −1.0 g/dl) was tested between the two treatments. The time‐dependent hemoglobin (Hb) concentration and the maintenance rate of the target Hb concentration (the proportion of subjects with Hb concentrations between 10.0 and 12.0 g/dl) were also evaluated. Iron metabolism, including changes in the serum iron, total iron‐binding capacity, ferritin, transferrin saturation, and comparisons of the dose adjustments between the two groups during the treatment period were analyzed further. Adverse events (AEs) were also observed and compared, and the safety was analyzed between the two treatment groups. The conversion rate switching from epoetin alfa to darbepoetin alfa was also discussed. SAS® software version 9.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for all efficacy, safety, and demographic variable analyses, including for the primary efficacy indicators. Results Four hundred and sixty‐six patients were enrolled in this study, and ultimately 384 cases were analyzed for safety, including 267 cases in the darbepoetin alfa group and 117 cases in the epoetin alfa group. There were 211 cases in the per‐protocol set, including 152 cases in the darbepoetin alfa group and 59 cases in the epoetin alfa group. The changes in the average Hb concentrations from the baseline to the end of the evaluation period were −0.07 and −0.15 g/dl in the darbepoetin alfa group and epoetin alfa group respectively. The difference between the two groups was 0.08 g/dl (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.22 to 0.39), and the lower limit of the 95% CI was −0.22 > −1.0 g/dl. The average Hb concentrations of the two groups were 10.88–11.43 g/dl (darbepoetin alfa) and 10.91–11.38 g/dl (epoetin alfa) during the study period of Weeks 0–28, with the maintenance rates of the target Hb concentration ranging within 71%–87% and 78%–95% in the darbepoetin alfa group and epoetin alfa group respectively. During the period of comparison between the two groups, the incidence of AEs in the darbepoetin alfa group was 61.42%, while in the epoetin alfa group it was 56.41%. All of the adverse events and reactions in the study were those commonly associated with hemodialysis. Conclusion The overall efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of Chinese renal anemia patients undergoing hemodialysis are consistent with those of epoetin alfa.

Abstract Background Erythropoietin is a glycoprotein that mainly regulates erythropoiesis. In patients with chronic renal failure with anemia, darbepoetin alfa can stimulate erythropoiesis, correct anemia, and maintain hemoglobin levels. This study was designed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa injections as being not inferior to epoetin alfa injections (Recombinant Human Erythropoietin injection, rHuEPO) when maintaining hemoglobin (Hb) levels within the target range (10.0–12.0 g/dL) for the treatment of renal anemia. Methods Ninety‐five patients were enrolled in this study from April 15, 2013 to April 10, 2014 at 25 sites. In this study, patients (n = 95) aged 18–70 years were randomized into a once per week intravenous darbepoetin alfa group (n = 56) and a twice or three times per week intravenous epoetin alfa group (n = 39) for 28 weeks, who had anemia with hemoglobin levels between 6 g/dL and 10 g/dL due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and were undergoing hemodialysis or hemofiltration with ESA‐naive (erythropoiesis stimulating agent‐naive). The primary efficacy profile was the mean Hb level (the non‐inferiority margin was −1.0 g/dL, week 21–28); the secondary efficacy profiles were the Hb increase rate (week 0–4), the target Hb achievement cumulative rate and time, the change trends of the Hb levels, and the target Hb maintenance ratio. Adverse events (AEs) were observed and compared, and the efficacy and safety were analyzed between the two treatment groups. Additionally, the frequencies of dose adjustments between the darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa groups were compared during the treatment period. SAS® software version 9.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for all efficacy, safety, and demographic variable analyses, including for the primary efficacy indicators. Results The mean Hb level was 11.3 g/dL in the darbepoetin alfa group and 10.7 g/dL in the epoetin alfa group, respectively; the difference of the lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) between the two groups was 0.1 g/dL (>−1.0 g/dL), and non‐inferiority was proven; the Hb levels started to increase in the first four weeks at a similar increase rate; no obvious differences were observed between the groups in the target Hb achievement cumulative rates, and the Hb levels as well as the target Hb level maintenance rate changed over time. The incidence of AEs was 62.5% in the darbepoetin alfa group and 76.9% in the epoetin alfa group. All the adverse events observed in the study were those commonly associated with hemodialysis. Conclusion Darbepoetin alfa intravenously once per week can effectively increase Hb levels and maintain the target Hb levels well, which makes it not inferior to epoetin alfa intravenously twice or three times per week. Darbepoetin alfa shows an efficacy and safety comparable to epoetin alfa for the treatment of renal anemia.