Tricida Reports Topline Results from the VALOR-CKD Phase 3 Trial of Veverimer
Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCDA) announced disappointing top-line results from its VALOR-CKD clinical trial, which aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of veverimer in slowing chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression in patients with metabolic acidosis. The trial failed to meet its primary endpoint, with a hazard ratio of 0.99 (p=0.898). Despite achieving a significant increase in serum bicarbonate levels (5.9 mEq/L), the treatment did not show clinically significant benefits over placebo. The company is now evaluating next steps amid these results.
- 67% of patients in Part A achieved a significant increase in serum bicarbonate levels.
- Overall safety profile of veverimer was consistent with expectations for CKD patients.
- VALOR-CKD trial did not meet its primary endpoint for CKD progression.
- Hazard ratio of 0.99 (p=0.898) indicates no significant difference between veverimer and placebo.
- Nominal p-values for secondary endpoints were non-significant.
Webcast today at
Primary Endpoint Analysis
The VALOR-CKD trial did not meet its primary endpoint, which was defined as the time to the first occurrence of any event in the composite endpoint of renal death, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), or a confirmed greater than or equal to
Primary Endpoint Event Analysis |
||||
|
Veverimer
|
Placebo
|
|
p-value |
Number (%) of Patients with Primary Endpoint Event |
149
|
148
|
0.99 |
0.898 |
Annualized Primary Endpoint Event Rate |
|
|
|
|
The VALOR-CKD Trial Design
The VALOR-CKD trial was an international, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients with CKD and metabolic acidosis. To qualify for enrollment in the study, patients were required to have two eGFR values, taken at least 2 weeks apart, in the range of 20 to 40 mL/min/1.73m2, that were not more than
Eligible patients were enrolled into a single-blind active-treatment period of 4 to 8 weeks (Part A) that was followed by a randomized withdrawal into a double-blind, randomized treatment period (Part B). Patients in Part A who experienced a greater than or equal to 4 mEq/L increase from baseline in serum bicarbonate and those whose serum bicarbonate increased into the normal range of greater than or equal to 22 mEq/L at Week 4 were randomized in a 1:1 ratio either to continue treatment with veverimer or to treatment with placebo for the double-blind, Part B, portion of the trial. Patients who did not achieve the required serum bicarbonate response to veverimer after 4 weeks in Part A continued to receive veverimer for an additional 4 weeks. After 8 weeks of veverimer treatment in Part A, those patients who experienced a greater than or equal to 4 mEq/L increase in serum bicarbonate and those whose serum bicarbonate increased into the normal range of greater than or equal to 22 mEq/L were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either continued treatment with veverimer or to treatment with placebo in Part B. Those patients who did not achieve the desired serum bicarbonate response after 8 weeks in Part A discontinued treatment with veverimer and exited the study.
In total, 2,198 patients received single-blind treatment with veverimer in Part A. Of these, 1,480 patients were randomized into Part B. The randomized patient population had a mean baseline eGFR of 29.2 mL/min/1.73m2 and a mean baseline serum bicarbonate of 17.5 mEq/L. The majority of patients randomized in the trial had one or more co-morbid conditions, such as hypertension, heart failure or diabetes. Approximately
Selected Demographics and Baseline Characteristics |
||
|
Veverimer
|
Placebo
|
Mean Age (SD) – years |
65.0 (11.87) |
65.2 (12.30) |
Male – N (%) |
433 (58.4) |
421 (57.0) |
Mean eGFR (SD) – mL/min/1.73m2 |
29.2 (6.35) |
29.1 (6.33) |
Serum Bicarbonate (SD) – mEq/L |
17.4 (1.39) |
17.5 (1.32) |
Hypertension – N (%) |
726 (98.0) |
724 (98.0) |
Diabetes – N (%) |
423 (57.1) |
399 (54.0) |
Heart Failure – N (%) |
230 (31.0) |
241 (32.6) |
Oral Alkali Use – N (%) |
83 (11.2) |
87 (11.8) |
Serum Bicarbonate Analysis
Based on the results from the veverimer arm of the previous TRCA-301 trial, the Part A run-in period was designed to achieve a large separation of serum bicarbonate levels in veverimer-treated subjects and subjects in the placebo group over the duration of treatment. Accordingly,
In the VALOR-CKD trial, at the completion of Part A,
“Unfortunately, due to the higher than expected serum bicarbonate values in the placebo group, we were not able to compare an untreated acidotic population with a veverimer-treated population and were thus unable to assess veverimer’s ability to slow CKD progression. Given our past clinical experience with veverimer, and the VALOR-CKD trial design, we were surprised that there was not a greater separation in serum bicarbonate levels between the two groups,” stated
Analysis of Secondary Endpoints
Given the failure on the primary endpoint, our prespecified hierarchical analysis did not permit statistical testing of the secondary endpoints, however, the nominal p-values for all of these endpoints were non-significant.
Safety Analysis
The overall safety profile of veverimer observed in both Part A and Part B of the trial was consistent with that expected for the general population of patients with Stage 3 to 5 CKD. The incidence of all-cause death (
Today’s Conference Call and Webcast
The VALOR-CKD Clinical Trial Results Conference Call |
|
|
|
|
|
Webcast: |
|
Dial-in: |
(800) 715-9871 |
International: |
(646) 307-1963 |
Conference ID: |
2832909 |
A replay of the webcast will be available on Tricida’s website approximately two hours following the completion of the call and will be available for up to 90 days.
About
For more information about
Cautionary Note on Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Forward-looking statements relate to expectations concerning matters that are not historical facts. Words such as “projects,” “believes,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “would,” and similar words and expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in such forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, risks associated with the Company’s business prospects, financial results and business operations.
These and other factors that may affect the Company’s future business prospects, results and operations are identified and described in more detail in the Company’s filings with the
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221024005383/en/
Senior Vice President of Investor Relations and Communications
IR@Tricida.com
Source:
FAQ
What were the results of the VALOR-CKD trial for Tricida (TCDA)?
What percentage of patients achieved significant serum bicarbonate increase in the trial?
What is the current status of veverimer after the trial results?