Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents among chemotherapy patients with hemoglobin exceeding 12 grams per deciliter.

United BioSource Corporation, 430 Bedford Street, Suite 300, Lexington, MA 02420, USA.
Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP (Impact Factor: 2.68). 14(9):858-69.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Prior to 2007, the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa were indicated for use in chemotherapyinduced anemia to achieve target hemoglobin (Hb) levels of approximately 12 grams per deciliter (gm per dL), and treatment was to be withheld if Hb exceeded 13 gm per dL. In March 2007, the FDA changed the labeling of the ESAs to add boxed warnings, updated in November 2007, to include the following key points: (a) ESAs should be used only to treat anemia that occurs in patients with cancer while they are undergoing chemotherapy; (b) treatment with ESAs should be stopped when chemotherapy ends; and (c) dosing ESAs to an Hb target of 12 gm per dL or greater has resulted in more rapid cancer progression or shortened overall survival in patients with breast, head and neck, lymphoid, cervical, and non-small cell lung malignancies. In January 2008, the FDA specified that the increased risk of more rapid tumor growth or shortened survival was associated with ESAs when "administered in an attempt to achieve a Hb level of 12 gm per dL or greater, although many patients did not reach that level." A new black-box warning regarding this association was added to the labels of the ESAs in March 2008, and the FDA mandated further label changes on July 30, 2008, that ESA therapy should not be initiated in patients receiving chemotherapy at Hb levels of 10 gm per dL or higher.
To (a) assess the prevalence and predictors of ESA administrations at Hb levels above 12 gm per dL among patients with a diagnosis of solid or hematologic cancer or myelodysplastic syndrome who began their first regimen of conventional myelosuppressive chemotherapy between 2002 and 2006, and (b) describe patterns of ESA treatment subsequent to the first ESA administration at Hb above 12 gm per dL.
Using the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant Varian Medical Oncology database of de-identified electronic medical records from 17 U.S. outpatient oncology practices, adults (aged 18 years or older) with any cancer diagnosis who began chemotherapy between January 1, 2002, and September 30, 2006, were identified. The Hb value associated with each ESA administration was defined as the closest Hb measurement within 7 days prior to the ESA administration. A first ESAHb > 12 was defined as the first time an ESA, either epoetin or darbepoetin, was given with an associated Hb greater than 12 gm per dL during the first chemotherapy regimen recorded in the database for each patient. Hb levels and ESA administrations after the first ESAHb > 12 were determined. Logistic regression models identified predictors of initial receipt of an ESAHb > 12, and of receiving further ESA treatment following the first such administration.
Between January 1, 2002, and September 30, 2006, there were 17,731 patients on chemotherapy, the mean (SD) age was 60 (13.2) years; 58.9% were female; 24.6% had breast cancer, 22.2% had lung cancer, 15.8% had colorectal cancer, 11.8% had hematologic cancer, and 25.6% had other or multiple cancers. Of these, 8,086 (45.6%) received an ESA at any time during the regimen, and 7,606 (42.9%) received an ESA at a known Hb level (i.e., Hb measurement within 7 days prior to ESA administration). During the first recorded chemotherapy regimen, 1,844 patients (10.4% of the chemotherapy cohort, 24.2% of ESA users with a known Hb; n = 1,226 epoetin, n = 618 darbepoetin) received an ESAHb > 12. Among patients receiving ESA treatment at a known Hb level, significant predictors of receiving an ESAHb > 12 included treatment in a community-based clinic rather than a hospital-affiliated clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.40-3.65), location of practice in the eastern United States (OR for Midwest = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.57- 0.78; OR for West = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.22-0.34), hematologic cancer rather than solid tumor (OR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.21-1.71), private health insurance (OR for public health insurance = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.70-0.93; OR for other/ unknown insurance = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.47-0.62), and year of regimen 2002- 2003 (ORs = 0.75, 0.74, and 0.71 for 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively). Following the first ESAHb > 12, 276 (22.5%) of the patients on epoetin and 276 (44.7%) on darbepoetin received no further ESA treatment during the next 6 weeks (Pearson chi-square = 96.1, P < 0.001).
This analysis of outpatient oncology practices between 2002 and 2006 revealed that 24% of ESA users with a known Hb level received ESAHb > 12. Dose withholding subsequently occurred in 23%- 45% of those patients. A higher proportion of patients on epoetin than darbepoetin continued ESA treatment after the first administration of ESAHb > 12.


Available from: Beth L Nordstrom, Jun 04, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The role of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in the management of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) is becoming increasingly recognized in the field of medical oncology, with paucity of data in pediatrics. We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a single-dose darbepoetin alfa, a long-acting ESA, given to 35 pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) children during induction chemotherapy. Compared to a retrospective control group, the studied patients have required significantly less units of packed red blood cells (0.88 units/patient in the studied group versus 2.04 units in controls), with no major side effects. We recommend further prospective double-blinded studies with more tailored dosing regimens in pediatric ALL cases and solid tumors.
    Pediatric Hematology and Oncology 10/2013; DOI:10.3109/08880018.2013.824527 · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since 2004, concerns about the safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have resulted in label changes and restrictions on their use. We examined changes in ESA use and blood transfusions over time. The SEER-Medicare database was used to identify patients age ≥ 65 years with breast, lung, prostate, ovary, or colon cancer, diagnosed between 2000 and 2007, who had a chemotherapy claim after their cancer diagnosis. We calculated the mean number of ESA claims per patient per year. Follow-up claims were available through 2008. We used multivariable logistic regression models to analyze the association of ESA use and extended ESA use with clinical and demographic variables. Among 121,169 patients identified, 46,063 (38%) received an ESA. ESA use increased from 12.4% to 16.2% by 2006 and then decreased to 7.9% by 2008. Similarly, the mean number of ESA claims per patient decreased steadily over the entire timeframe. The annual percentage of patients undergoing transfusion remained relatively constant (9% to 10%). In a Cox proportional hazards time-dependent model, ESA use was positively associated with black race (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.15), metropolitan location (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.21), metastatic disease (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.41), female sex (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.20), > one comorbidity (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.25 to 1.32), and tumor type. The number of denied claims increased over time. Our study demonstrated a rapid decline in the percentage of patients treated with ESAs after changes to reimbursement policy, but not after warnings about use. Reimbursement restrictions of other overused or off-label drugs may help reduce health care expenditures.
    Journal of Oncology Practice 04/2014; DOI:10.1200/JOP.2013.001255
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are used for the management of anaemia in patients with non-myeloid malignancies where anaemia is due to the effect of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Assessing the impact of different ESA dosing regimens on office staff time and projected labour costs is an important component of understanding the potential for optimization of oncology practice efficiencies. OBJECTIVES: A two-phase study was conducted to evaluate staff time and labour costs directly associated with ESA administration in real-world oncology practice settings among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. The objective of Phase 1 was to determine the mean staff time required for the process of ESA administration in patients with anaemia due to concomitantly administered chemotherapy. The objective of Phase 2 was to quantify and compare the mean staff time and mean labour costs of ESA administered once weekly (qw) with ESA once every 3 weeks (q3w) over an entire course of chemotherapy. METHODS: Phase 1 was a prospective, cross-sectional time and motion study conducted in six private oncology practices in the US based on nine steps associated with ESA administration. Using findings from Phase 1, Phase 2 was conducted as a retrospective chart review to collect data on the number and types of visits in two private oncology practices for patients receiving a complete course of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. RESULTS: In Phase 1, the mean total time that clinic staff spent on ESA administration was 23.2 min for patient visits that included chemotherapy administration (n chemo = 37) and 21.5 min when only ESA was administered (n ESAonly = 36). In Phase 2, the mean duration of treatment was significantly longer for q3w than qw (53.84 days for qw vs. 113.38 for q3w, p < 0.0001); thus, analyses were adjusted using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for episode duration for between-group comparisons. Following adjustment by ANCOVA, qw darbepoetin alfa (DA) patients (n qw = 83) required more staff time for ESA + chemotherapy visits and ESA-only visits than q3w patients (nq3w = 118) over a course of chemotherapy. Overall, mean total staff time expended per chemotherapy course was greater for patients receiving qw versus q3w DA. Weekly DA dosing was associated with greater projected mean labour costs ($US38.16 vs. $US31.20 [average for 2007-2010]). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this real-world study demonstrate that oncology practices can attain staff time and labour costs savings through the use of q3w ESA. The degree of savings depends on the individual oncology practice's staffing model and ESA administration processes, including those that allow for optimized synchronization of patient visits for ESA and chemotherapy administration. These findings indicate that additional research using standard ESA administration protocols for longer periods of time with a larger number of oncology practices and patients should be conducted to confirm these findings.
    Clinical Drug Investigation 04/2013; 33(5). DOI:10.1007/s40261-013-0078-9 · 1.70 Impact Factor