PHOSPHOSORB - PHOSPHOSORB - CT 6727 - English version

Has

Description

Introduction PHOSPHOSORB 660 mg, film-coated tablet Container of 200 (CIP: 381 466-0) Posted on Apr 14 2011 Active substance (DCI) calcium acetate Néphrologie - Nouveau médicament Pas d’avantage clinique démontré par rapport aux autres hyposphophorémiants chez les patients insuffisants rénaux chroniques dialysés avec une hyperphosphorémie PHOSPHOSORB est indiqué dans l’hyperphosphorémie des patients insuffisants rénaux chroniques dialysés.PHOSPHOSORB n’a pas démontré d’avantage par rapport aux autres hyposphophorémiants en termes de tolérance et de réduction de la phosphorémie.Pour en savoir plus, téléchargez la synthèse ou l'avis complet ci-dessous. ATC Code V03AE Laboratory / Manufacturer FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE FRANCE PHOSPHOSORB 660 mg, film-coated tablet Container of 200 (CIP: 381 466-0) Posted on Apr 14 2011

Sujets

• Pédiatrie

Informations

• Publié par: haute-autorite-sante-maladies-urologiques
• Publié le: 22 juillet 2009
• Nombre de lectures: 36
• Licence : En savoir +
  Paternité, pas d'utilisation commerciale, partage des conditions initiales à l'identique
• Langue: English

Extrait

     

 

 

    The legally binding text is the original French version   TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE   OPINION   22 July 2009     PHOSPHOSORB 660 mg, film-coated tablet Container of 200 (CIP: 381 466-0)     Applicant: FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE FRANCE   Calcium acetate   List II   Date of Marketing Authorisation (mutual recognition): 7 September 2007     Reason for request: Inclusion on the list of medicines reimbursed by National Health Insurance and approved for hospital use.                                                     Medical, Economic and Public Health Assessment Division 1  

 

1.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDICINAL PRODUCT

  1.1. Active ingredient Calcium acetate   1.2. Indication “Hyperphosphataemia in patients with chronic renal insufficiency undergoing dialysis”.   1.3. Dosage “PHOSPHOSORB 660 mg should always be used with close monitoring (cf. SPC, “special warnings and precautions for use” section).   Adults: The recommended starting dose is two tablets (334 mg of calcium) three times daily. The dose is gradually increased until the desired serum phosphorus level is reached, provided that hypercalcaemia does not occur. Most patients require 3 to 4 tablets with each meal.   The dose may need to be adjusted either upwards or downwards, depending on phosphate intake or its elimination during dialysis.   Children and adolescents (less than 18 years of age):No sufficient information is available on the relationship of age to the effects of calcium acetate in paediatric patients. Therefore, Phosphosorb 660 mg cannot be recommended in these patients.     The elderly: A normal dosage regimen is recommended for the elderly. The tablets should only be taken together with meals to achieve the maximum phosphate binding effect. Tablets should preferably be swallowed whole. When a patient has difficulty swallowing the tablet due to its size, the tablet can be broken in half along the score line and the two halves swallowed one after the other. In that case the tablets need to be divided in two just before ingestion to avoid the development of a taste of acetic acid. In the event of a missed dose, the next dose should be taken at the normal time (no attempt should be made to make up for the missed dose)”.  

2. SIMILAR MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

  2.1. ATC classification (2008) A : Alimentary tract and metabolism A12 : Mineral supplements A12A : Calcium A12AA : Calcium A12AA12 : Calcium acetate anhydrous   2.2. Medicines in the same therapeutic category Calcic phosphate binders (calcium carbonate): - Calcidia 1.54 g, granules for oral suspension in sachets - Eucalcic 1.2 g/15 ml, oral suspension in sachets   2.3. Medicines with the same therapeutic aim Aluminium salt (carbonate gel/aluminium hydroxide): Lithiagel oral suspension Lanthanum carbonate: Fosrenol (250, 500, 750 and 1000 mg), chewable tablet. Sevelamer: Renagel 800 mg, film-coated tablet    

 

2

3.

ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE DATA

  3.1. Efficacy and tolerance The company supplied 18 studies. - one study versus placebo (Emmett 1991 1 ), - five studies versus sevelamer (Hervas 2003 2 , Qunibi 2004 3  and 2008 4 , Bleyer 1999 5   and Brewster 2006 6 ). The study Brewster 2006 7 , a retrospective study of medical data, will not be examined in this opinion. - a study versus lanthanum carbonate (Finn 2008 7 ). In this study lanthanum carbonate was compared with other hypophosphataemic treatments. In the absence of any direct comparison (specific subgroup analysis) between the different hypophosphataemic treatments, notably calcium acetate (PHOSPHOSORB), this study will not be examined in this opinion. - eight studies versus calcium carbonate (Schaefer 1991 8 , Delmez 1992 9 , Caravaca 1992 10 , Ring 1993 11 , Ben Hamida 1993 12 , Pflanz 1994 13 , Almirall 1994 14 , Conolly 1995 15 ), - study versus aluminium hydroxide (Janssen 1996one 16 ).   Two paediatric studies were also supplied (the studies Pieper 2006 17  Wallot 1996 and 18 ). Since the marketing authorisation does not recommend the use of PHOSPHOSORB in children and adolescents, these studies will not be examined in this opinion.   These studies were all carried out on patients with chronic renal insufficiency undergoing dialysis.     Only comparative studies versus placebo or an active comparator in which the statistical tests were carried out between the compared groups and which included more than 30 patients will be examined in this opinion. Applying these criteria, 8 studies were considred. Their methodologies and their main results are presented in the enclosed table.    

                                             1 Emmett M et al. ”Calcium acetate control of serumphosphorus in hemodialysis patients”. Am J KidneyDis 1991; 17(5), 544-550 2 Hervas JG et al. “Treatment of hyperphosphatemia with sevelamer hydrochloride in hemodialysis patients: a comparison with calcium acetate”. Kidney International, Vol.63, Supplement85 (2003), pp 569-572. 3 Qunibi W et al. “Treatment of hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients: The Calcium Acetate Renagel Evaluation (CARE Study)”. Kidney International, Vol. 65 (2004), pp 1914-1926. 4 Qunibi W et al. “A 1-year randomized trial of calcium acetate versus sevelamer on progression of coronary artery calcification in hemodialysis patients with comparable lipid control: the calcium acetate renagel evaluation-2 (CARE-2) study”. Am J Kidney Dis 2008; 51(6):952-65.   5 Bleyer et al. ”A comparison of the calcium-free phosphate binder sevelamer hydrochloride with calcium acetate in the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in hemodialysis patients” American Journal of Kidney diseases Vol 33,N°4 (april), 19 99:694-701 6 Brewster U et al. “Long-term comparison of sevelamer hydrochloride to calcium-containing phosphate binders”. Nephrology 2006; 11, 142-146.  7 Finn WF et al. “Lanthanum carbonate versus standard therapy for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia:safety and efficacy in chronic maintenance hemodialysis patients Clinical” Nephrool gy, Vol. 65 – No. 3/2006 (191-202). 8 Schaefer K et al. “The treatment of uraemic hyperphosphatemia with calcium acetate and calcium carbonate: a comparative study”. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1991; 6:170-175. 9 Delmez JA et al. “Calcium Acetate as a Phosphorus Binder in Hemodialysis Patients”. J Am Soc Nephrol1992 Jul;3(1):96-102. 10 Caravaca F et al. “Calcium acetate versus calcium carbonate as phosphate binders in hemodialysis pa tients”. Nephron 1992;60:423- 427. 11 Ring T , et al. “Calcium acetate versus calcium carbonate as phosphorus binders in patients on chronic haemodialysis: a controlled study“. Nephrol Dial Transplant (1993) 8:341-346. 12 Ben Hamida F et al. “Long-Term (6 Months) Cross-Over Comparison of Calcium Acetate with Calcium Carbonate as Phosphate Binder”. Nephron 1993;63(3):258-62. 13 Pflanz S et al. “Calcium acetate versus calcium carbonate as phosphate-binding agents in chronic haemodialysis”. Nephrol Dial Transplant (1994) 9:1121-1124. 14 Almirall J et al. “Calcium acetate versus calcium carbonate for the control of serum phosphorus in hemodialysis patients”. Am J Nephrol 1994;14:192-196. 15 Connolly J et al. “Calcium acetate versus calcium carbonate in chronic haemodialysis”. Nephrology 1995; 1, 47-50. 16 Janssen MJ et al. “Aluminium hydroxide, calcium carbonate and calcium acetate in chronic intermittent hemodialysis patients”. Clinical Nephrology 1996; 45(2):111-119. 17 Pieper AK et al. “A randomized crossover trial comparing sevelamer with calcium acetate in children with CKD“. Am J Kidney Dis 2006, 47:625-635. 18 Wallot M et al. “Calcium acetate versus calcium carbonate as oral phosphate binder in pediatric and adolescent hemodialysis patients”. Pediatr Nephrol (1996) 10:625-630. 3  

Since the primary and secondary criteria were not clearly identified and uniform from one study to another, only the results for phosphataemia (S-PO 4 ) and the occurrence of hypercalcaemia will be presented (cf. annex). The large number of assessment criterion with the lack of hierarchical organisation make difficult to interpret the results.   Note: Hypercalcaemia in renal insufficiency is a risk factor for overall mortality 19     3.2. Conclusion   The assessment of the efficacy and safety of PHOSPHOSORB is based on 8 studies versus placebo, sevelamer and calcium carbonate. Most of these studies are open ones with a low number of patients and on a short follow-up periods ( few weeks), except for the studies Qunibi 2008 and Janssen 1996 (1 year).   Study versus placebo:   In the study Emmett 1991, a significant reduction in phosphataemia (S-PO 4 ) was observed with calcium acetate (PHOSPHOSORB) in comparison to placebo.   Studies versus sevelamer:   In the studies Hervas 2003 and Bleyer 1999, no significant difference in terms of decrease of S O 4 trated between the groups treated with calcium acetate -P was demons (PHOSPHOSORB) and sevelamer. A significantly larger number of cases of hypercalcaemia was observed with calcium acetate than with sevelamer:   - Hervas 2003 study: 8.9% versus 7.1% (NS), - 27% versus 5%, p < 0.0001.Bleyer 1999 study:   In the study Qunibi 2004, a significant decrease of S-PO 4 was shown with calcium acetate versus sevelamer (difference -1.08 mg/dl, p = 0.0006) combined with an increase in calcaemia (S-Ca) (difference 0.63 mg/dl, p < 0.0001).   In the study Qunibi 2008, the non-inferiority of calcium acetate by comparison with sevelamer was demonstratedby the coronary artery calcification score.   Studies versus calcium carbonate:   In the study Janssen 1996, no significant difference in terms of decrease of S-PO 4 was demonstrated between the groups treated with calcium acetate (PHOSPHOSORB) and calcium carbonate. A significantly larger number of cases of hypercalcaemia was observed with calcium carbonate than with calcium acetate (31% versus 18%).   In the study Conolly 1995, no significant difference in terms of the decrease of S-PO 4 was demonstrated between the groups treated with calcium acetate (PHOSPHOSORB) and calcium carbonate. This study showed a lower intake of elemental calcium under calcium acetate than under calcium carbonate, without demonstrating a difference in terms of activel absorption of calcium. Moreover, this reduced intake of elemental calcium observed with calcium acetate was associated with a less good digestive tolerance than with calcium carbonate.   Finally, a significantly larger number of cases of hypercalcaemia was observed with calcium carbonate than with calcium acetate (11/32 patients versus 4/32 patients).  

                                             19 Greneche et al. “Le choix entre dialyse péritonéale et hémodialyse: une revue critique de la littérature” Néphrologie et thérapeutique (2005) 213-220. 4  

In the study Pflanz 1994, a significant decrease of S-PO 4 was demonstrated with calcium acetate (PHOSPHOSORB) versus calcium carbonate: 1.51 ± 0.65 mmol/l vs. 1.80 ± 0.50, p < 0.005. Hypercalcaemia was observed in 2 patients in the calcium acetate group; no hypercalcaemia was observed in the calcium carbonate group.   The adverse effects more commonly observed with calcium acetate were: hypercalcaemia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and constipation.   No study are available on the comparison of the efficacy of calcium acetate (PHOSPHOSORB) with lanthanum carbonate (Fosrenol), as the main target. There is also no study on calcium acetate in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis.    

4.

TRANSPARENCY COMMITTEE CONCLUSIONS

  4.1. Actual benefit   Hyperphosphataemia can, mainly because of its osseous and cardiovascular complications, be serious for patients with chronic renal insufficiency.   PHOSPHOSORB is intended as a preventive treatment.   The efficacy/adverse effects ratio for this medicinal product in this indication is high.   This medicinal product is a first-line therapy.   There are treatment alternatives, mainly calcium carbonate, lanthanum carbonate and sevelamer.   Public health benefit:   Hyperphosphataemia is common in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. While it is accepted that hyperphosphataemia is associated with an increased risk of morbidity, its impact on mortality has not been established. Consequently, the burden of the disease cannot be quantified.   The therapeutic need is at least partially covered by existing medicines (Fosrenol, Renagel and calcium salts).   The available clinical data do not allow an assessment to be made of the impact of PHOSPHOSORB on morbidity and mortality linked to hyperphosphataemia as opposed to the comparison medicines.   The actual benefit of PHOSPHOSORB is substantial.   4.2. Improvement in actual benefit (IAB)   PHOSPHOSORB (calcium acetate) does not provide any improvement in actual benefit (IAB V) in the management of patients with chronic renal insufficiency undergoing dialysis who have hyperphosphataemia.   4.3. Therapeutic use   In patients with chronic renal insufficiency undergoing dialysis, hyperphosphataemia is associated with an increased risk of morbidity (Block, 1998 et 2000), particularly osseous and cardiovascular.

 

5

Despite the possibility of control of the phosphate serum levels by the diet and dialysis, most of these patients need to take phosphate-binding medications. In this situation, patients may benefit from treatments such as calcium salts, sevelamer or lanthanum carbonate. 4.4. Target population   The target population for PHOSPHOSORB consists of dialysed patients with chronic renal insufficiency and hyperphosphataemia. The number of patients with chronic renal insufficiency undergoing haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis can be estimated at about 31,000 (Rapport REIN 2007 20 ) in France.   According to experts, between 70% and 95% of them, i.e. between 20,000 and 30,000 patients, have hyperphosphataemia requiring therapeutic management.   4.5. Transparency Committee recommendations   The Transparency Committee recommends inclusion on the list of medicines reimbursed by National Insurance and on the list of medicines approved for use by hospitals and various public services in the indication and at the dosage regimen stated in the marketing authorisation.  Packaging: Appropriate for the prescription conditions Reimbursement rate: 65%

                                             20 Réseau Epidémiologie et Information en Néphrologie, http://www.soc-nephrologie.org/REIN/index.htm

 

6

  S-Ca: Serum calcium S-PO 4 : Serum phosphate CaAc: Calcium acetate Ca x P: Calcium-phosphate ratio     Study Method

Annex – Summary of studies

PTH: Parathormone HD-Ca: Ca in the dialysate CRI: Chronic renal insufficiency  

Patients  

Treatments

Study versus placebo Emmett, Prospective sequential study in 2 parts Adult CRI patients Part A: CaAc, n = 91 1991 receiving haemodialysis  Part A: Open, 1 single arm (CaAc) 3 times a week Part B: n = 68 14 weeks (12 weeks) CaAc: n = 36 Part B: Controlled versus placebo, randomised, Part A: n = 91 Pbo: n = 32 double-blind crossover (2 weeks) Part B: n = 68    Efficacy endpoints: S-PO 4,  age: 55 yearsS-Ca Mean      Studies versus sevelamer  Hervas, Randomised comparative study of CaAc vs. Adult patients receiving 2003 sevelamer haemodialysis 3 times a  week for≥3 months 34 weeks Efficacy endpoints: S-PO 4     51 n = Mean age: 60.4 ± 15.1 years  

Qunibi, 2004 (CARE)   8 weeks

 

Randomised, double-blind comparative study of CaAc vs. sevelamer   Efficacy endpoints: Ca x P S-PO 4   S Ca -

Sevelamer, n = NA   CaAc, n = NA

Adult patients receiving Sevelamer, n = 50 haemodialysis for   ≥ CaAc,3 months n = 48   n = 98 Mean age: 53.1 ± 14.0 years  

Pbo: placebo NA: Not available ATV: Atorvastatin  

Results

Part B: After 2 weeks: - S-PO 4 : -0.52 mmol/l under CaAc vs. +0.23 mmol/l under Pbo,p < 0.01  - S-Ca: +0.15 mmol/l under CaAc vs. -0.05 mmol/l under Pbo.

After 34 weeks S-PO 4: -1.6 ± 0.1 mg/dl (-21.3%) under CaAc vs. -2.29 ± 0.05 mg/dl (-28.3%) under sevelamer,NS    

S-PO 4 : decrease greater with CaAc vs. sevelamer, difference -1.08 mg/dl, p = 0.0006    S-Ca: Increase greater with CaAc vs. sevelamer, difference 0.63 mg/dl,p < 0.0001    Ca x P: decrease greater with CaAc vs. sevelamer, difference 6.1 mg 2 /dl 2  , p < 0.0001 

Adverse effects

Five cases of transient moderate hypercalcaemia under CaAc

At least 1 episode of hypercalcaemia in 8.9% of patients on CaAc and 7.1% of patients on sevelamer (NS)   Incidence of AEs identical in the 2 groups Commonest AEs: diarrhoea (38 vs. 36%), constipation. Significantly more hypercalcaemia with CaAc vs. sevelamer: OR 6.1 [2.8; 13.3], p < 0.0001     Incidence of AEs, particularly gastrointestinal, identical in the 2 groups  

7

  Study

Method

Patients

Treatments

Results

Adverse effects

  Studies versus sevelamer Qunibi, To test the hypothesis that the progression of Adult patients receiving CaAc + atorvastatin, After 52 weeks: mean increase Incidence of AEs identical in 2008 calcification is identical in haemodialysis patients chronic haemodialysis for n = 103 in CAC of 35% on CaAc vs. the 2 groups (CARE-2) treated with CaAc or with sevelamer when LDL-C is > 3 months (and≤5 yrs) of patients on 91% on sevelamer, with an 39% Commonest AEs: diarrhoea  reduced to the target level of < 70 mg/dL S-PO 4  atorvastatin adjusted> 5.5 mg/dL vs. 16%), nausea (17 vs. (16 ratio for the 52 weeks (< 1.81 mmol/L) CaAc/sevelamer covariable of 17%), vomiting (17 vs. 18%).  n = 203 Sevelamer ± 0.994, 95% CI [0.851-1.161]  atorvastatin < 1.8 Randomised, controlled, open study of non-inferiority (upper limit 1.8), of CaAc + ATV vs. sevelamer ± ATV Mean age: 59 years n = 100 Non-inferiority demonstrated 79% of patients on    Efficacy endpoints: atorvastatin Variation in the score for coronary artery calcification (CAC) Bleyer, Comparative randomised, open crossover study of Adult patients undergoing CaAc, n = NA  No significant difference (NS  of AEs identical in ) Incidence 1999 CaAc vs. sevelamer haemodialysis in terms of the decrease of the 2 groups.  S-PO 4  S-PO Sevelamer, n = NA> 6 mg/dL 4 , Ca x P   2 x 8 weeks Efficacy endpoints: At least 1 episode of S-PO 4  nS-CA, Ca x P S-Ca: = 83 hypercalcaemia Increase with CaAc vs. in 27% of the  sevelamer (0.2 mg/dl vs. patients with CaAc compared   Mean age: 54.5 ± 15 yrs 0.6 mg/dl, p < 0.0001 to 5% with sevelamer (p < 0.0001).  

Study versus calcium carbonate Pflanz, Randomised, open, crossover comparative study of 1994 CaAc vs. CaCO 3 performed in a single centre    2 x 6 weeks Efficacy endpoints: S-PO 4 S-Ca    

Connolly, 1995 12 weeks

Janssen, 1996 12 months    

 

 

Randomised, double-blind crossover comparative study of CaCO 3 vs. CaAc   E s: S S-Ca fficacy endpoint -PO 4

Adult chronic haemo- dialysis patients   n = 31   Mean age: 59.5 years

Adult chronic haemo- dialysis patients n = 32   Mean age: 51 ± 24 years S-PO 4  ≤1.85 mmol/l

To evaluate the efficacy of Al(OH)3, CaCO3 and Adult chronic haemo- CaAc in haemodialysis patients. dialysis patients     Prospective open, randomised comparative study of n = 53 (OH)3 [3 months] vs. then CaAc [9 months] vs Al . CaAc vs. CaCO3 Mean age: 57 ± 2 years Efficacy endpoints: S-PO 4 S-Ca

CaAc, n = 31 S-PO 4 : Larger decrease of stopped due to GI Treatment  CaAc vs. Ca CO 3 : 1.51 ± 0.65 2 patients with CaAc disorders: CaCO 3 ,   n = 31 vs. 1.80 ± 0.50 mmol/l, vs. 1 on CaCO 3 .  p < 0.005 S-Ca >2.70 mmol/l in  2 patients with CaAc and 6 of S-Ca: Increase with CaAc vs. mild hypercalcaemia CaCO 3 : 2.40 vs. 2.32 mmol/l, p<0.005. CaAc, n = 32 S-PO 4 : No significant Hypercalcaemia: 4 patients  difference (NS) in terms of the  with CaAc vs. 11 on CaCO 3    CaCO 3  decreasen = 32 of S-PO 4      Treatment stopped due to GI S-Ca: No significant difference adverse I effects: 5 patients (NS) in terms of the decrease  with CaAc of S-Ca. Al(OH)3 [3 months] S-PO 4 : No significant Hypercalcaemia: 18% with vs. then CaAc  difference (NS) in terms of the  (18%) vs. 31% with CaAc [9 months], n = 15 decrease of S-PO 4  between CaCO3  CaAC and CaCO3 taken CaAc, n = 18 preprandially    CaCO3, n = 20 S-Ca: Non-inferiority demonstrated between the two salts

8