Search

BACKGROUND An unmet need exists for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) treatment. In an 8-week, phase 2 trial, sparsentan, a dual endothelin-angiotensin receptor antagonist, reduced proteinuria in patients with FSGS. The efficacy and safety of longer- term treatment with sparsentan for FSGS are unknown. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with FSGS (without known secondary causes) who were 8 to 75 years of age; patients were randomly assigned to receive sparsentan or irbesartan (active control) for 108 weeks. The surrogate efficacy end point assessed at the prespecified interim analysis at 36 weeks was the FSGS partial remission of proteinuria end point (defined as a urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio of El.5 [with protein and creatinine both measured in grams] and a >40% reduction in the ratio from baseline). The primary efficacy end point was the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope at the time of the final analysis. The change in eGFR from baseline to 4 weeks after the end of treatment (week 112) was a secondary end point. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS A total of 371 patients underwent randomization: 184 were assigned to receive sparsentan and 187 to receive irbesartan. At 36 weeks, the percentage of patients with partial remission of proteinuria was 42.0% in the sparsentan group and 26.0% in the irbesartan group (P= 0.009), a response that was sustained through 108 weeks. At the time of the final analysis at week 108, there were no significant between-group differences in the eGFR slope; the between-group difference in total slope (day 1 to week 108) was 0.3 ml per minute per 1.73 mz of body-surface area per year (95% confidence interval ICI], -1.7 to 2.4), and the between-group difference in the slope from week 6 to week 108 (i.e., chronic slope) was 0.9 ml per minute per 1.73 mz per year (95% CI, -1.3 to 3.0). The mean change in eGFR from baseline to week 112 was -10.4 ml per minute per 1.73 mz with sparsentan and -12.1 ml per minute per 1.73 mz with irbesartan (difference, 1.8 ml per minute per 1.73 mz; 95% CI, -1.4 to 4.9). Sparsentan and irbesartan had similar safety profiles, and the frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with FSGS, there were no significant between-group differences in eGFR slope at 108 weeks, despite a greater reduction in proteinuria with sparsentan than with irbesartan. (Funded by Travere Therapeutics; DUPLEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03493685.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background High-dose erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) for anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been associated with adverse clinical outcomes and do not always improve erythropoiesis. We hypothesized that high-dose ESA requirement would be associated with elevated inflammatory biomarkers, decreased adipokines, and increased circulating, endogenous soluble erythropoietin receptors (sEpoR). Methods A cross-sectional cohort of anemic 32 CKD participants receiving ESA were enrolled at a single center and cytokine profiles, adipokines, and sEpoR were compared between participants stratified by ESA dose requirement (usual-dose darbepoetin-α (< 1 μg/kg/week) and high-dose (≥1 μg/kg/week)). Results Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; however, hemoglobin was lower among participants on high-dose (1.4 μg/kg/week) vs usual-dose (0.5 μg/kg/week) ESA. In adjusted analyses, high-dose ESA was associated with an increased odds for elevations in c-reactive protein and interleukin-6 (p < 0.05 for both). There was no correlation between high-dose ESA and adipokines. Higher ESA dose correlated with higher levels of sEpoR (rs = 0.39, p = 0.03). In adjusted analyses, higher ESA dose (per μcg/kg/week) was associated with a 53% greater odds of sEpoR being above the median (p < 0.05). Conclusion High-dose ESA requirement among anemic CKD participants was associated with elevated inflammatory biomarkers and higher levels of circulating sEpoR, an inhibitor of erythropoiesis. Further research confirming these findings is warranted. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00526747

Introduction: IgA nephropathy is one of the most common forms of glomerular disease. Patients with persistent proteinuria are at increased risk of progression to kidney failure. There is a significant need for safe and effective therapies to lower proteinuria in these patients. Sparsentan is a non-immunosuppressive agent that acts as a dual angiotensin and endothelin receptor antagonist. It lowers proteinuria in experimental models of glomerular disease and in affected patients., Areas Covered: This review covers the immunological and non-immunological actions of sparsentan in glomerular disease. It reviews the clinical trials that evaluated the impact of the drug in pediatric and adult patients with IgA nephropathy. It places the use of sparsentan in an overall treatment paradigm for the full spectrum of patients with IgA nephropathy including nonspecific renoprotective agents such as inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis and SGLT2 transporter and immunosuppressive drugs. The review represents a search of the current literature about the effect of the drug on normal physiology and the pathogenesis of IgA nephropathy., Expert Opinion: The safety, tolerability, and therapeutic efficacy of sparsentan have been demonstrated in long-term studies of patients with primary glomerular diseases extending over 5 years. The evidence in support of a beneficial treatment effect of sparsentan is stronger in IgAN than in FSGS. It is anticipated that sparsentan will supplant the use of ACEI or ARB as the first-line therapy to reduce proteinuria prior to the implementation of immunosuppressive agents in patients with IgA nephropathy. It may be combined with other renoprotective drugs like SGLT2 inhibitors. Practice guidelines are needed to promote safe and effective use of this new drug by nephrologists caring for patients with IgAN in all clinical settings.

Introduction: The phase 3 DUPLEX trial is evaluating sparsentan, a novel, nonimmunosuppressive, single-molecule dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, in patients with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS)., Methods: DUPLEX (NCT03493685) is a global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of sparsentan 800 mg once daily versus irbesartan 300 mg once daily in patients aged 8 to 75 years (USA/UK) and 18 to 75 years (ex-USA/UK) weighing ≥20 kg with biopsy-proven FSGS or documented genetic mutation in a podocyte protein associated with FSGS, and urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UP/C) ≥1.5 g/g. Baseline characteristics blinded to treatment allocation are reported descriptively., Results: The primary analysis population includes 371 patients (336 adult, 35 pediatric [<18 years]) who were randomized and received study drug (median age, 42 years). Patients were White (73.0%), Asian (13.2%), Black/African American (6.7%), or Other race (7.0%); and from North America (38.8%), Europe (36.1%), South America (12.7%), or Asia Pacific (12.4%). Baseline median UP/C was 3.0 g/g; 42.6% in nephrotic-range (UP/C >3.5 g/g [adults]; >2.0 g/g [pediatrics]). Patients were evenly distributed across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories corresponding to chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1 to 3b. Thirty-three patients (9.4% of 352 evaluable samples) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants of genes essential to podocyte structural integrity and function, 27 (7.7%) had P/LP collagen gene ( COL4A3/4/5 ) variants, and 14 (4.0%) had high-risk APOL1 genotypes., Conclusions: Patient enrollment in DUPLEX, the largest interventional study in FSGS to date, will enable important characterization of the treatment effect of sparsentan in a geographically broad and clinically diverse FSGS population., (© 2024 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is a rare glomerular disease with high unmet clinical need. Interest in proteinuria as a surrogate end point for regulatory approval of novel treatments has increased. We assessed the relationship between achieving complete remission (CR) of proteinuria at least once during follow-up and long-term kidney outcomes., Methods: This post hoc analysis included all patients enrolled in the DUET trial of sparsentan in FSGS and the open-label extension (OLE). Evaluations occurred every 12 weeks, including blood pressure (BP), edema, proteinuria, and kidney function. CR was defined as a urine protein/creatinine ratio ≤0.3g/g in a first morning urine sample., Results: A total of 108 patients who received ≥1 sparsentan dose were included in this study. During a median follow-up of 47.0 months, 46 patients (43%) experienced ≥1 CR, 61% occurring within 12 months of starting sparsentan. There was an increased likelihood of CR with a higher sparsentan dose or baseline subnephrotic-range proteinuria. Achieving ≥1 CR was associated with significantly slower rate of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline versus non-CR patients ( P  < 0.05). Use of immunosuppressive agents was more frequent in patients who achieved a CR. However, the antiproteinuric effect of sparsentan was additive to that achieved with concomitant immunosuppressive treatment. No unanticipated adverse events occurred., Conclusion: We conclude that sparsentan can be safely administered for extended periods and exerts a sustained antiproteinuric effect. Achievement of CR at any time during follow-up, even if it is not sustained, may be an indicator of a favorable response to treatment and a predictor of improved kidney function outcomes., (© 2023 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety., Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to <60 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 and ≥60 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 ) and urine protein excretion at screening (≤1·75 g/day and >1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850., Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups., Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan., Funding: Travere Therapeutics., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HJLH reports consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook, CSL Behring, Dimerix, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Travere Therapeutics; research support for clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; honoraria from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk; travel expenses from Eli Lilly; and reports that The George Institute for Global Health and George Clinical hold research contracts for trials in kidney disease. CEA reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Mantra Bio; and grant support from Sana. JB reports research grants from Argenx, Calliditas Therapeutics, Chinook Therapeutics, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Travere Therapeutics; and is medical and/or scientific advisor to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Argenx, Astellas Pharma, BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Calliditas Therapeutics, Chinook Therapeutics, Dimerix, Galapagos, Novartis, Omeros, Travere Therapeutics, UCB, Vera Therapeutics, and Visterra. SB, UD, JI, RK, and WR are employees and stockholders of Travere Therapeutics. AM reports consulting fees from Travere Therapeutics through a contract with JAMCO Pharma Consulting and consulting fees from Vera Therapeutics. ILN reports receiving honoraria for scientific presentations from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Roche; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; and reports that The George Institute for Global Health holds research contracts for trials in kidney disease. JR reports consulting fees from Calliditas, Chinook, and Travere Therapeutics; and grant support from Travere Therapeutics. MNR reports acting as clinical trial site principal investigator for Chinook, Kaneka, Reata, River 3 Renal Corp, Sanofi, and Travere Therapeutics; consulting fees from Visterra; is a member of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board for Advicenne; and is in a leadership or fiduciary role for Pediatric Nephrology Research Consortium, Women in Nephrology, and #NephJC. BR reports consulting fees from Calliditas, Novartis, Omeros, Travere Therapeutics, and Vera; and clinical trial funding to his institution from Travere Therapeutics. HTra reports consulting fees and membership on data monitoring committees for Akebia, ChemoCentryx, Goldfinch Bio, Natera, Otsuka, Travere Therapeutics, and Walden; and serves on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for DUPRO. HTri reports receiving honoraria for scientific work from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Calliditas, Chinook, Dimerix, GSK, Novartis, Omeros, Roche, Travere Therapeutics, and Visterra Otsuka; and reports that The George Institute for Global Health holds research contracts for trials in kidney disease. MGW reports receiving honoraria for scientific presentations from Alpine, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Chinook, CSL Behring, Dimerix, Eledon, George Clinical, Horizon, Otuska, and Travere Therapeutics. VP is an employee of UNSW Sydney and serves as a Board Director for St. Vincent's Health Australia, George Clinical, and several Medical Research Institutes; has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook, Durect, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pharmalink, Reata, Relypsa, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Travere Therapeutics, Tricida, and Vifor Pharma; honoraria from Janssen; serves on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Dimerix; has stock or stock options in George Clinical; and reports that The George Institute for Global Health and George Clinical hold research contracts for trials in kidney disease., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Sparsentan is a novel single-molecule dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist with hemodynamic and anti-inflammatory properties and is not an immunosuppressant. The ongoing phase 3 PROTECT trial examines sparsentan in adults with IgA nephropathy (IgAN)., Methods: The PROTECT trial (NCT03762850) is a multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled study. The efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus the active control irbesartan is being evaluated in adults with biopsy-proven IgAN and proteinuria ≥1.0 g/d despite maximized treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and/or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for at least 12 weeks. Blinded and aggregated baseline characteristics are reported descriptively and compared to contemporary phase 3 trials with patients with IgAN., Results: The primary analysis population includes 404 patients who were randomized and received study drug (median age, 46 years). Enrolled patients were from Europe (53%), Asia Pacific (27%), and North America (20%). Baseline median urinary protein excretion was 1.8 g/d. The range of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was broad with the largest proportion of patients (35%) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3B. Before transitioning to study medication, mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 129/82 mm Hg, with the majority of patients (63.4%) receiving the maximum labeled ACEi or ARB dose. Patients in Asian versus non-Asian regions included a higher percentage of females, had lower blood pressures, and included lower proportions of patients with a history of hypertension and baseline antihypertensive treatment., Conclusions: Patient enrollment in PROTECT, with differing racial backgrounds and across CKD stages, will allow for important characterization of the treatment effect of sparsentan in patients with IgAN with proteinuria at high risk of kidney failure., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the International Society of Nephrology.)

The vast majority of maintenance dialysis patients suffer from poor long-term survival rates and lower levels of health-related quality of life. However, home hemodialysis is a historically significant dialysis modality that has been associated with favorable outcomes as well as greater patient autonomy and control, yet only represents a small minority of the total dialysis performed in the United States. Some potential disadvantages of home hemodialysis include vascular access complications, infection-related hospitalizations, patient fatigue, and attrition. In addition, current barriers and challenges in expanding the utilization of this modality include limited patient and provider education and technical expertise. Here we report a 65-year old male with end-stage renal disease due to Alport's syndrome who has undergone 35 years of uninterrupted thrice-weekly home hemodialysis (ie, every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday evening, each session lasting 3 to 3¼ hours in length) using a conventional hemodialysis machine who has maintained a high functional status allowing him to work 6-8 hours per day. The patient has been able to liberalize his dietary and fluid intake while only requiring 3-4 liters of ultrafiltration per treatment, despite having absence of residual kidney function. Through this case of extraordinary longevity and outcomes after 35 years of dialysis and a review of the literature, we illustrate the history of home hemodialysis, its significant clinical and psychosocial advantages, as well as the barriers that hinder its widespread adaptation., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background/aims: Intradialytic hypertension (IH) occurs frequently in some hemodialysis patients and increases mortality risk. We simultaneously compared pre-dialysis, post-dialysis and changes in extracellular volume and hemodynamics in recurrent IH patients and controls., Methods: We performed a case-control study among prevalent hemodialysis patients with recurrent IH and hypertensive hemodialysis controls. We used bioimpedance spectroscopy and impedance cardiography to compare pre-dialysis, post-dialysis, and intradialytic change in total body water (TBW) and extracellular water (ECW), as well as cardiac index (CI) and total peripheral resistance index (TPRI)., Results: The ECW/TBW was 0.453 (0.05) pre-dialysis and 0.427 (0.04) post-dialysis in controls vs. 0.478 (0.03) and 0.461 (0.03) in IH patients (p=0.01 post-dialysis). The ECW/TBW change was -0.027 (0.03) in controls and -0.013 (0.02) in IH patients (p=0.1). In controls, pre- and post-dialysis TPRI were 3254 (994) and 2469 (529) dynes/sec/cm2/m2 vs. 2983 (747) and 3408 (980) dynes/sec/cm2/m2 in IH patients (p=0.002 post-dialysis). There were between-group differences in TPRI change (0=0.0001), but not CI (p=0.09)., Conclusions: Recurrent intradialytic hypertension is associated with higher post-dialysis extracellular volume and TPRI. Intradialytic TPRI surges account for the vasoconstrictive state post-dialysis, but intradialytic fluid shifts may contribute to post-hemodialysis volume expansion., (© 2016 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background/aims: Intradialytic hypertension (IH) patients have higher mortality risk than other hemodialysis patients and have been shown to have higher ambulatory blood pressure (BP). We hypothesized that interdialytic BP patterns would differ in IH patients and hypertensive hemodialysis controls., Methods: We consecutively screened hemodialysis patients at our university-affiliated units. Based on pre and post-HD BP measurements during the prior 2 week period, we identified IH patients and demographically matched hemodialysis controls. We measured ambulatory interdialytic BP, flow-mediated vasodilation, and intradialytic endothelin-1 (ET-1). Using linear mixed-models, we compared BP slopes during the following intervals: 1-24 hours post-dialysis, 25-44 hours post-dialysis, and 1-44 hours post-dialysis., Results: There were 25 case subjects with IH and 24 controls. Systolic BP during hours 1-44, 1-24, and 25-44 were 143.1 (16.5), 138.0 (21.2), and 150.8 (22.3) mmHg in controls. For IH subjects, they were 155.4 (14.2), 152.7 (22.8), and 156.5 (20.8) mmHg (p=0.008, 0.02, 0.4). In controls, the slopes were +0.6, +0.6, and +0.4 mmHg/hr. In IH subjects, they were +0.1, -0.3, and +0.3 mmHg/hr. The IH 1-24 hour slope differed from the IH 25-44 hour slope (p=0.001) and the control 1-24 hour slope (p=0.002). The change in ET-1 from pre to post dialysis was 0.5 (1.5) pg/mL in controls and 1.0 (2.3) pg/mL in IH patients (p=0.4). In a univariate model, there was an association with screening BP and BP slope (p=0.002 for controls and p=0.1 for IH patients)., Conclusions: Interdialytic BP patterns differ in IH patients and hemodialysis controls. The elevated post dialysis blood pressure persists for many hours in IH patients contributing to the overall increased BP burden., (© 2016 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

In addition to extending health insurance coverage, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 aims to improve quality of care and contain costs. To this end, the act allowed introduction of bundled payments for a range of services, proposed the creation of accountable care organizations (ACOs), and established the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to test new care delivery and payment models. The ACO program began April 1, 2012, along with demonstration projects for bundled payments for episodes of care in Medicaid. Yet even before many components of the Affordable Care Act are fully in place, the Medicare ESRD Program has instituted legislatively mandated changes for dialysis services that resemble many of these care delivery reform proposals. The ESRD program now operates under a fully bundled, case-mix adjusted prospective payment system and has implemented Medicare's first-ever mandatory pay-for-performance program: the ESRD Quality Incentive Program. As ACOs are developed, they may benefit from the nephrology community's experience with these relatively novel models of health care payment and delivery reform. Nephrologists are in a position to assure that the ACO development will benefit from the ESRD experience. This article reviews the new ESRD payment system and the Quality Incentive Program, comparing and contrasting them with ACOs. Better understanding of similarities and differences between the ESRD program and the ACO program will allow the nephrology community to have a more influential voice in shaping the future of health care delivery in the United States.