No abstract

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an increasing public health issue. Anemia, which is a complication of CKD, is associated with reduced quality of life and increased morbidity and mortality. Currently quite a few clinical studies have been conducted to compare roxadustat with epoetin alfa [all for dialysis-dependent (DD) patients] or placebo [all for nondialysis-dependent (NDD) patients]. Our meta-analysis aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of roxadustat for anemia in patients with CKD. Methods We thoroughly searched eight electronic resource databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety between roxadustat versus epoetin alfa or placebo for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD. Results Four Phase 2 and two Phase 3 studies with 1010 participants were included. Hemoglobin (Hb) and transferrin levels were increased significantly in the roxadustat group versus those in the placebo {standard mean difference [SMD] 1.57 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17–1.98]; SMD 1.81 [95% CI 1.53–2.08]; respectively, both low-quality evidence} or epoetin alfa group [SMD 0.47 (95% CI 0.02–0.93), very low-quality evidence; SMD 1.05 (95% CI 0.81–1.29), low-quality evidence; respectively]. Hepcidin levels were reduced significantly in the roxadustat group versus those in the placebo [SMD −1.72 (95% CI −3.03 to −0.41), very low-quality evidence] or epoetin alfa group [SMD −0.23 (95% CI −0.43 to −0.02), low-quality evidence]. Ferritin and serum transferrin saturation (TSAT) levels were reduced significantly in the roxadustat group versus those in the placebo group [SMD −0.82 (95% CI −1.31 to −0.33); SMD −0.54 (95% CI −0.76 to −0.32), respectively; both low-quality evidence] and ferritin and TSAT levels in the roxadustat group were comparable to those in the epoetin alfa group [SMD 0.02 (95% CI −0.18–0.21); SMD 0.15 (95% CI −0.04–0.35), respectively, both low-quality evidence]. As for safety, the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in the roxadustat group was insignificantly different from that of the placebo group [risk ratio (RR) 0.99 (95% CI 0.83–1.18); P = 0.89, very low-quality evidence]. But the incidence of AEs in the roxadustat group was significantly higher than that in the epoetin alfa group [RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.01–1.54); P = 0.04, low-quality evidence]. There was no significant association between roxadustat and the incidence of serious AEs (SAEs) for both NDD and DD patients [RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.51–2.28) and RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.85–2.40), respectively, both very low-quality evidence]. Conclusion In this meta-analysis of RCTs, we found evidence that after the oral administration of roxadustat, NDD patients’ Hb levels were increased effectively and DD patients’ Hb levels were maintained effectively. The risk of SAEs was not observed with the short-term use of roxadustat. These findings support roxadustat for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD.

Objective: Daprodustat is a novel oral agent in treating anemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and several clinical trials have been conducted to compare daprodustat with recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) or placebo. Our systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of daprodustat for anemia treatment in both dialysis-dependent (DD) and non-dialysis-dependent (NDD) patients.Methods: Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting daprodustat vs. rhEPO or placebo for anemia patients in CKD. The outcome indicators were focused on hemoglobin (Hb), ferritin, transferrin saturation (TSAT), total iron-binding capacity (TIBC), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and serious adverse events (SAEs).Results: Eight eligible studies with 1,516 participants were included. For both NDD and DD patients, changes in Hb levels from baseline were significantly higher in daprodustat group than that in the placebo (mean difference (MD) = 1.73, [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34 to 3.12], p = 0.01; MD = 1.88, [95% CI, 0.68 to 3.09], p = 0.002; respectively), and there was no significant difference between daprodustat and rhEPO group (MD = 0.05, [95% CI, −0.49 to 0.59], p = 0.86; MD = 0.12, [95% CI, −0.28 to 0.52], p = 0.55; respectively). The indexes of iron metabolism were improved significantly in the daprodustat group compared to placebo- or rhEPO-treated patients, while there was no similar change in terms of TSAT for DD patients. Furthermore, no trend of increasing plasma VEGF was observed in daprodustat-treated subjects. As for safety, there was no significant difference in the incidence of SAEs between daprodustat and placebo treatment, while the incidence of SAEs in the daprodustat group was significantly lower than that in the rhEPO group.Conclusion: Daprodustat was efficacious and well tolerated for anemia in both NDD and DD patients in the short term based on current RCTs. And daprodustat may become an effective alternative for treatment of anemia with CKD. Since the application of daprodustat is still under exploration, future researches should consider the limitations of our study to evaluate the value of daprodustat.