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: 2.71). 11/2008; 14(9):858-69.
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Beth L Nordstrom, Oct 08, 2015
19 Reads
  • Source
    • "The opportunity cost of such time differences may be significant and should be taken into account when selecting anaemia management options. Specifically, clinics may optimize the practice efficiency of ESA therapy by offering anaemia management strategies that require less frequent administration, thereby reducing the time burden for staff [5, 16]. Clinics utilizing q3w ESA administration may synchronize ESA therapy with current chemotherapy regimens, thereby eliminating the need for ESA-only visits. "
    [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
    Clinical Drug Investigation 04/2013; 33(5). DOI:10.1007/s40261-013-0078-9 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1.92 (95% CI = 1.38-2.68, P < 0.001) for an increased risk of stroke (absolute rate = 5.0% for darbepoetin alfa vs. 2.6% for placebo). TREAT investigators also observed no significant reduction in the incidence of the 2 primary endpoint outcomes. Of the patients treated with darbepoetin alfa, 31.4% (n = 632) experienced the primary composite endpoint of death from any cause, stroke or cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure or myocardial ischemia) compared with 29.7% (n = 602) for placebo (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.94-1.17, P = 0.41). There was also no signifi- cant difference between the darbepoetin and placebo groups in the other primary composite endpoint of death or end-stage renal disease (ESRD), 32.4% (n = 652) for darbepoetin alfa versus 30.5% (n = 618) with placebo (HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.95-1.19, P = 0.29). of mortality both in ESA-treated patients (HR = 4.7, 95% CI = 2.1- 10.5 for 11.0 gm per dL vs. 12.5 gm per dL) and in patients not treated with ESAs (HR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.5-4.0). For patients with Hb levels of at least 12.5 gm per dL, an interaction between ESA use and Hb level was observed; Hb levels higher than 12.5 gm per dL were associated with increased mortality in ESA-treated patients (HR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.0-7.9 for 14.0 gm per dL vs. 12.5 gm per dL) but not in patients not treated with ESAs (HR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.4-1.5). These findings precipitated the recommenda- tion by the authors that renal transplant patients with Hb concen- tration greater than 12.5 gm per dL should not receive ESAs. Overwhelming Evidence That Harm Often Outweighs Benefits from the Use of ESAs in CKD
    Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 11/2009; 15(9):759-65. · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drugs are usually approved for a specific indication on the basis of randomized trials. However, once approved, these treatments are often used differently than as tested in trials. We performed an analysis to determine the patterns of use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database to identify patients age 65 years or older with breast, lung, or colon cancer diagnosed between 1995 and 2005 who had one ESA and chemotherapy claim. Associations of patient, tumor, and physician-related factors with receipt of ESAs were analyzed. Of 21,091 patients analyzed, 5,099 (24.2%) received ESAs for 1 week or less (misuse), and 1,601 (7.6%) received ESAs for more than 14 weeks (prolonged use). Receipt of ESAs while not actively receiving chemotherapy (off label) occurred in 2,876 patients (13.6%). In a multivariable analysis, ESA misuse was associated with MD degree, female sex of physician, and earlier year of medical school graduation. Private practice physicians (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.84) and high-volume physicians (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.85) were less likely to use 1 week or less of ESA treatment. Treatment by high-volume oncologists (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55) and by oncologists who graduated from US medical schools (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.42) predicted prolonged-duration ESA use, whereas female oncologists (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93) were less likely to prescribe prolonged ESA treatment. Private practice physicians (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.38) and high-volume providers (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.33 to 1.87) were more likely to prescribe more than 24 weeks of ESA treatment. Our study demonstrated widespread variability in the use of ESAs. Physician characteristics exerted substantial influence on ESA use. Policies to discourage inappropriate use of cancer therapies are needed.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 08/2011; 29(25):3408-18. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2010.34.5462 · 18.43 Impact Factor
Show more