Bennett CL, Silver SM, Djulbegovic B, Samaras AT, Blau CA, Gleason KJ et al.. Venous thromboembolism and mortality associated with recombinant erythropoietin and darbepoetin administration for the treatment of cancer-associated anemia. JAMA 299: 914-924

VA Chicago Healthcare System, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois 60611, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 03/2008; 299(8):914-24. DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.8.914
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) erythropoietin and darbepoetin are licensed to treat chemotherapy-associated anemia in patients with nonmyeloid malignancies. Although systematic overviews of trials have identified venous thromboembolism (VTE) risks, none have identified mortality risks with ESAs.
To evaluate VTE and mortality rates associated with ESA administration for the treatment of anemia among patients with cancer.
A published overview from the Cochrane Collaboration (search dates: January 1, 1985-April 1, 2005) and MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (key words: clinical trial, erythropoietin, darbepoetin, and oncology), the public Web site of the US Food and Drug Administration and ESA manufacturers, and safety advisories (search dates: April 1, 2005-January 17, 2008).
Phase 3 trials comparing ESAs with placebo or standard of care for the treatment of anemia among patients with cancer.
Mortality rates, VTE rates, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted by 3 reviewers from 51 clinical trials with 13 611 patients that included survival information and 38 clinical trials with 8172 patients that included information on VTE.
Patients with cancer who received ESAs had increased VTE risks (334 VTE events among 4610 patients treated with ESA vs 173 VTE events among 3562 control patients; 7.5% vs 4.9%; relative risk, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.87) and increased mortality risks (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20).
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administration to patients with cancer is associated with increased risks of VTE and mortality. Our findings, in conjunction with basic science studies on erythropoietin and erythropoietin receptors in solid cancers, raise concern about the safety of ESA administration to patients with cancer.

Download full-text


Available from: Benjamin Djulbegovic, Dec 19, 2013
70 Reads
  • Source
    • "In 2006, Bohlius et al reported a meta-analysis identifying a 1.57-fold increased thromboembolic risks with ESA administration to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (Bohlis et al, 2006). These findings were replicated in numerous meta-analyses, including the one by Bennett et al in 2008. The history of ESAs and their effects on QOL followed similar trajectories. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The BJC is owned by Cancer Research UK, a charity dedicated to understanding the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and to making sure that the best new treatments reach patients in the clinic as quickly as possible. The journal reflects these aims. It was founded more than fifty years ago and, from the start, its far-sighted mission was to encourage communication of the very best cancer research from laboratories and clinics in all countries. The breadth of its coverage, its editorial independence and it consistent high standards, have made BJC one of the world's premier general cancer journals. Its increasing popularity is reflected by a steadily rising impact factor.
    British Journal of Cancer 07/2014; 111(3):421-3. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.292 · 4.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "No increased risk of serious adverse events was found in these meta-analyses. ESAs have also been shown to be effective in improving Hb levels and quality of life in several chronic conditions (dialysis [35], chronic heart failure [36], cancer [41], rheumatoid arthritis [42]), although an increased risk for thromboembolism and mortality was found in some studies [43]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anemia is considered the most common systemic complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to provide all available evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of therapy existing today to correct anemia in IBD. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared any treatment for anemia in patients with IBD. We searched electronic databases, conference proceedings and clinical trials registries. Two reviewers independently extracted data from included trials. The primary outcome was the effect of treatment for anemia in IBD on the hemoglobin (Hb) response, defined as rate of patients who achieved an increase of 2 g/dl in Hb concentration at the end of the follow-up. Secondary outcomes included disease severity scores, iron indices, Hb levels, inflammatory markers, adverse effects, and mortality. Dichotomous data were analysed by calculating the relative risk (RR) for each trial with the uncertainty in each result being expressed using 95% confidence intervals (CI). A fixed effect model was used, except in the event of significant heterogeneity between the trials (P<0.10, I(2)>40%), in which we used a random effects model. Nine trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, to a total of 973 patients. We were able to perform meta-analysis for intravenous (IV) versus oral iron and for ESAs versus placebo. IV iron was associated with a higher rate of achieving Hb response in comparison to oral iron; RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.04-1.51, I(2) = 2%, 4 trials), CRP levels and disease activity indexes were not significantly affected by IV iron. IV iron was associated with a decrease in adverse events that required discontinuation of intervention and without an increase in serious adverse. Treatment for anemia in IBD should include IV iron and not oral iron replacement, due to improved Hb response, no added toxicity and no negative effect on disease activity.
    PLoS ONE 12/2013; 8(12):e75540. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0075540 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Finally, this is a meta-analysis at study level, and confounding variables at patient level cannot be assessed properly and incorporated into the analysis. However, a review by Bennett et al. (2008) showed that the results between patient and study level were remarkably similar. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Fatal adverse events (FAEs) have been reported with sorafenib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor kinase inhibitor (VEGFR TKI). We here performed an up-to-date and detailed meta-analysis to determine the overall risk of FAEs associated with sorafenib. Methods: Databases, including PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, and abstracts presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meetings were searched to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials evaluating sorafenib effects in patients with all malignancies. Summary incidence rates, relative risks (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for FAEs. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed according to tumor type and therapy regimen. Results: 13 trials recruiting 5,546 patients were included in our analysis. The overall incidence of FAEs with sorafenib was 1.99% (95%CI, 0.98-4.02%). Patients treated with sorafenib had a significantly increased risk of FAEs compared with patients treated with control medication, with an RR of 1.77 (95%CI 1.25-2.52, P=0.001). Risk varied with tumour type, but appeared independent of therapy regimen. A significantly increased risk of FAEs was observed in patients with lung cancer (RR 2.26; 95% CI 1.03-4.99; P= 0.043) and renal cancer (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.15-2.94; P= 0.011). The most common causes of FAEs were hemorrhage (8.6%) and thrombus or embolism (4.9%). Conclusions: It is important for health care practitioners to be aware of the risks of FAEs associated with sorafenib, especially in patients with renal and lung cancer.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 11/2013; 14(11):6681-6. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.11.6681 · 2.51 Impact Factor
Show more