Repository Corticotropin Versus Glucocorticoid for Nephrotic Syndrome

When Will We See the Evidence?

Daniel M. Hartung, Kirbee Johnston, Atulya (Atul) Deodhar, Dennis Bourdette, David Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Despite little evidence supporting its superiority to glucocorticoid therapy, use and expenditures for repository corticotropin (rACTH) injection (H.P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt) have increased dramatically in the last 5 years, particularly among a small number of nephrologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists. Recently, the manufacturer justified the extremely high and rapidly increasing cost of rACTH by citing the ongoing need to generate clinical data to support its use. We test this assertion by investigating the quality and provenance of the evidence likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. We identified all completed, in-progress, and proposed studies of rACTH registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. 75 studies representing 2,953 participants met inclusion criteria. Studies addressed primarily nephrologic (n = 23), rheumatologic (n = 28), and neurologic (n =22) indications. Of the 23 studies proposed for renal indications (enrollment, 33 ± 49 [mean ± SD]), 11 were not randomized, 8 compared only different rACTH treatment regimens, and 4 compared rACTH to placebo. No studies of rACTH proposed for renal indications included an rACTH-free arm receiving active treatment (ie, another form of immunosuppression). We conclude that evidence emerging in the foreseeable future is unlikely to broadly support rACTH use over lower-cost glucocorticoid-based alternatives for renal indications.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Nephrotic Syndrome
Adrenocorticotropic Hormone
Glucocorticoids
Kidney
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health Expenditures
Immunosuppression
Nervous System
Therapeutics
Gels
Placebos
Injections

Keywords

  • Acthar
  • adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)
  • clinical trials
  • corticotropin
  • cost-effectiveness
  • drug costs
  • focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS)
  • Glucocorticoid
  • health care costs
  • Mallinckrodt
  • methylprednisolone
  • nephrologist
  • nephrotic syndrome
  • prednisolone
  • proteinuria
  • steroid

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Cite this

@article{911de28e3fc441399990835f7a5f39f3,
title = "Repository Corticotropin Versus Glucocorticoid for Nephrotic Syndrome: When Will We See the Evidence?",
abstract = "Despite little evidence supporting its superiority to glucocorticoid therapy, use and expenditures for repository corticotropin (rACTH) injection (H.P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt) have increased dramatically in the last 5 years, particularly among a small number of nephrologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists. Recently, the manufacturer justified the extremely high and rapidly increasing cost of rACTH by citing the ongoing need to generate clinical data to support its use. We test this assertion by investigating the quality and provenance of the evidence likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. We identified all completed, in-progress, and proposed studies of rACTH registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. 75 studies representing 2,953 participants met inclusion criteria. Studies addressed primarily nephrologic (n = 23), rheumatologic (n = 28), and neurologic (n =22) indications. Of the 23 studies proposed for renal indications (enrollment, 33 ± 49 [mean ± SD]), 11 were not randomized, 8 compared only different rACTH treatment regimens, and 4 compared rACTH to placebo. No studies of rACTH proposed for renal indications included an rACTH-free arm receiving active treatment (ie, another form of immunosuppression). We conclude that evidence emerging in the foreseeable future is unlikely to broadly support rACTH use over lower-cost glucocorticoid-based alternatives for renal indications.",
keywords = "Acthar, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), clinical trials, corticotropin, cost-effectiveness, drug costs, focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), Glucocorticoid, health care costs, Mallinckrodt, methylprednisolone, nephrologist, nephrotic syndrome, prednisolone, proteinuria, steroid",
author = "Hartung, {Daniel M.} and Kirbee Johnston and Deodhar, {Atulya (Atul)} and Dennis Bourdette and David Cohen",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.12.025",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "American Journal of Kidney Diseases",
issn = "0272-6386",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repository Corticotropin Versus Glucocorticoid for Nephrotic Syndrome

T2 - When Will We See the Evidence?

AU - Hartung, Daniel M.

AU - Johnston, Kirbee

AU - Deodhar, Atulya (Atul)

AU - Bourdette, Dennis

AU - Cohen, David

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Despite little evidence supporting its superiority to glucocorticoid therapy, use and expenditures for repository corticotropin (rACTH) injection (H.P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt) have increased dramatically in the last 5 years, particularly among a small number of nephrologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists. Recently, the manufacturer justified the extremely high and rapidly increasing cost of rACTH by citing the ongoing need to generate clinical data to support its use. We test this assertion by investigating the quality and provenance of the evidence likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. We identified all completed, in-progress, and proposed studies of rACTH registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. 75 studies representing 2,953 participants met inclusion criteria. Studies addressed primarily nephrologic (n = 23), rheumatologic (n = 28), and neurologic (n =22) indications. Of the 23 studies proposed for renal indications (enrollment, 33 ± 49 [mean ± SD]), 11 were not randomized, 8 compared only different rACTH treatment regimens, and 4 compared rACTH to placebo. No studies of rACTH proposed for renal indications included an rACTH-free arm receiving active treatment (ie, another form of immunosuppression). We conclude that evidence emerging in the foreseeable future is unlikely to broadly support rACTH use over lower-cost glucocorticoid-based alternatives for renal indications.

AB - Despite little evidence supporting its superiority to glucocorticoid therapy, use and expenditures for repository corticotropin (rACTH) injection (H.P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt) have increased dramatically in the last 5 years, particularly among a small number of nephrologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists. Recently, the manufacturer justified the extremely high and rapidly increasing cost of rACTH by citing the ongoing need to generate clinical data to support its use. We test this assertion by investigating the quality and provenance of the evidence likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. We identified all completed, in-progress, and proposed studies of rACTH registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. 75 studies representing 2,953 participants met inclusion criteria. Studies addressed primarily nephrologic (n = 23), rheumatologic (n = 28), and neurologic (n =22) indications. Of the 23 studies proposed for renal indications (enrollment, 33 ± 49 [mean ± SD]), 11 were not randomized, 8 compared only different rACTH treatment regimens, and 4 compared rACTH to placebo. No studies of rACTH proposed for renal indications included an rACTH-free arm receiving active treatment (ie, another form of immunosuppression). We conclude that evidence emerging in the foreseeable future is unlikely to broadly support rACTH use over lower-cost glucocorticoid-based alternatives for renal indications.

KW - Acthar

KW - adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)

KW - clinical trials

KW - corticotropin

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - drug costs

KW - focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS)

KW - Glucocorticoid

KW - health care costs

KW - Mallinckrodt

KW - methylprednisolone

KW - nephrologist

KW - nephrotic syndrome

KW - prednisolone

KW - proteinuria

KW - steroid

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061226629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061226629&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.12.025

DO - 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.12.025

M3 - Article

JO - American Journal of Kidney Diseases

JF - American Journal of Kidney Diseases

SN - 0272-6386

ER -