The real-world effectiveness of sucroferric oxyhydroxide in European hemodialysis patients: a 1-year retrospective database analysis.
Chronic kidney disease
End-stage renal disease
Hemodialysis
Hyperphosphatemia
Phosphate binder
Sucroferric oxyhydroxide
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 12 2020
07 12 2020
Historique:
received:
04
06
2020
accepted:
26
11
2020
entrez:
8
12
2020
pubmed:
9
12
2020
medline:
3
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The iron-based phosphate binder (PB), sucroferric oxyhydroxide (SFOH), demonstrated its effectiveness for lowering serum phosphate levels, with low daily pill burden, in clinical trials of dialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia. This retrospective database analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of SFOH for controlling serum phosphate in European hemodialysis patients. De-identified patient data were extracted from a clinical database (EuCliD®) for adult hemodialysis patients from France, Italy, Portugal, Russia and Spain who were newly prescribed SFOH for up to 1 year as part of routine clinical care. Serum phosphate and pill burden were compared between baseline (3-month period before starting SFOH) and four consecutive quarterly periods of SFOH therapy (Q1-Q4; 12 months) in the overall cohort and three subgroups: PB-naïve patients treated with SFOH monotherapy (mSFOH), and PB-pretreated patients who were either switched to SFOH monotherapy (PB → mSFOH), or received SFOH in addition to another PB (PB + SFOH). 1096 hemodialysis patients (mean age: 60.6 years; 65.8% male) were analyzed, including 796, 188 and 53 patients in, respectively, the PB + SFOH, mSFOH, and PB → mSFOH groups. In the overall cohort, serum phosphate decreased significantly from 1.88 mmol/L at baseline to 1.77-1.69 mmol/L during Q1-Q4, and the proportion of patients achieving serum phosphate ≤1.78 mmol/L increased from 41.3% at baseline to 56.2-62.7% during SFOH treatment. Mean PB pill burden decreased from 6.3 pills/day at baseline to 5.0-5.3 pills/day during Q1-Q4. The subgroup analysis found the proportion of patients achieving serum phosphate ≤1.78 mmol/L increased significantly from baseline during SFOH treatment in the PB + SFOH group (from 38.1% up to 60.9% [Q2]) and the mSFOH group (from 49.5% up to 75.2% [Q2]), but there were no significant changes in the PB → mSFOH group. For the PB + SFOH group, serum phosphate reductions were achieved with a similar number of PB pills prescribed at baseline prior to SFOH treatment (6.5 vs 6.2 pills/day at Q4). SFOH daily pill burden was low across all 3 subgroups (2.1-2.8 pills/day). In this real-world study of European hemodialysis patients, prescription of SFOH as monotherapy to PB-naïve patients, or in addition to existing PB therapy, was associated with significant improvements in serum phosphate control and a low daily pill burden.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The iron-based phosphate binder (PB), sucroferric oxyhydroxide (SFOH), demonstrated its effectiveness for lowering serum phosphate levels, with low daily pill burden, in clinical trials of dialysis patients with hyperphosphatemia. This retrospective database analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of SFOH for controlling serum phosphate in European hemodialysis patients.
METHODS
De-identified patient data were extracted from a clinical database (EuCliD®) for adult hemodialysis patients from France, Italy, Portugal, Russia and Spain who were newly prescribed SFOH for up to 1 year as part of routine clinical care. Serum phosphate and pill burden were compared between baseline (3-month period before starting SFOH) and four consecutive quarterly periods of SFOH therapy (Q1-Q4; 12 months) in the overall cohort and three subgroups: PB-naïve patients treated with SFOH monotherapy (mSFOH), and PB-pretreated patients who were either switched to SFOH monotherapy (PB → mSFOH), or received SFOH in addition to another PB (PB + SFOH).
RESULTS
1096 hemodialysis patients (mean age: 60.6 years; 65.8% male) were analyzed, including 796, 188 and 53 patients in, respectively, the PB + SFOH, mSFOH, and PB → mSFOH groups. In the overall cohort, serum phosphate decreased significantly from 1.88 mmol/L at baseline to 1.77-1.69 mmol/L during Q1-Q4, and the proportion of patients achieving serum phosphate ≤1.78 mmol/L increased from 41.3% at baseline to 56.2-62.7% during SFOH treatment. Mean PB pill burden decreased from 6.3 pills/day at baseline to 5.0-5.3 pills/day during Q1-Q4. The subgroup analysis found the proportion of patients achieving serum phosphate ≤1.78 mmol/L increased significantly from baseline during SFOH treatment in the PB + SFOH group (from 38.1% up to 60.9% [Q2]) and the mSFOH group (from 49.5% up to 75.2% [Q2]), but there were no significant changes in the PB → mSFOH group. For the PB + SFOH group, serum phosphate reductions were achieved with a similar number of PB pills prescribed at baseline prior to SFOH treatment (6.5 vs 6.2 pills/day at Q4). SFOH daily pill burden was low across all 3 subgroups (2.1-2.8 pills/day).
CONCLUSION
In this real-world study of European hemodialysis patients, prescription of SFOH as monotherapy to PB-naïve patients, or in addition to existing PB therapy, was associated with significant improvements in serum phosphate control and a low daily pill burden.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33287733
doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-02188-8
pii: 10.1186/s12882-020-02188-8
pmc: PMC7720479
doi:
Substances chimiques
Chelating Agents
0
Drug Combinations
0
Ferric Compounds
0
sucroferric oxyhydroxide
0
Sucrose
57-50-1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
530Subventions
Organisme : Vifor Pharma
ID : N/A
Références
Kidney Int. 2014 Sep;86(3):638-47
pubmed: 24646861
Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Oct;42(4 Suppl 3):S1-201
pubmed: 14520607
Clin Nephrol. 2010 Jul;74(1):4-11
pubmed: 20557860
J Bras Nefrol. 2019 Apr-Jun;41(2):224-230
pubmed: 30742699
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Nov;27(11):4180-8
pubmed: 22431708
Am J Nephrol. 2018;47(3):153-161
pubmed: 29514139
N Engl J Med. 2010 Apr 8;362(14):1312-24
pubmed: 20375408
Kidney Int Suppl. 2009 Aug;(113):S1-130
pubmed: 19644521
Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2019 Jan 22;12:1-8
pubmed: 30774412
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017 Aug 1;32(8):1330-1338
pubmed: 27342579
J Nephrol. 2001 Nov-Dec;14 Suppl 4:S94-100
pubmed: 11798154
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004 Aug;15(8):2208-18
pubmed: 15284307
Nephrol Ther. 2019 Mar;15(1):29-34
pubmed: 30639044
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015 Jun;30(6):1037-46
pubmed: 25691681
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009 Jun;4(6):1089-96
pubmed: 19423571
Clin Nephrol. 2017 Aug;88(8):59-67
pubmed: 28587714
Hemodial Int. 2016 Jan;20(1):38-49
pubmed: 25975222
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003 Sep;14(9 Suppl 4):S300-4
pubmed: 12939385
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001 Oct;12(10):2131-8
pubmed: 11562412
Kidney Int Rep. 2019 Jun 20;4(8):1043-1056
pubmed: 31440695
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013 Feb;24(3):332-4
pubmed: 23393321
J Ren Nutr. 2019 Sep;29(5):428-437
pubmed: 30679076
Kidney Int. 2006 Jun;69(11):1945-53
pubmed: 16641930
Kidney Int Suppl (2011). 2017 Dec;7(3):e1
pubmed: 30681074
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Jul;28(7):1922-35
pubmed: 23166310
Kidney Int. 2008 Jul;74(2):148-57
pubmed: 18449174