PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a new evidence-based institutional practice algorithm on the patterns and costs of treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) in lymphoma patients prescribed erythropoietic-stimulating agents (ESAs). METHODS: The study design was retrospective, with a historical control group. Patient demographic data, clinical data (including chemotherapy and hemoglobin values), and cost data were extracted from patient medical charts and institutional databases. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and chi-square analyses were conducted to evaluate the study objectives. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 154 patients, 90 patients in the pre-implementation group and 64 in the post-implementation group. Both groups had similar demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. After implementation, there was a significant decrease in the mean hemoglobin level at the time of subsequent ESA dosing from 9.59 to 8.98 g/dL (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who received an ESA at a hemoglobin level >10 g/dL decreased significantly from 66% to 17% (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the mean hemoglobin level at week 4 of ESA therapy, which may indicate that patients were not clinically affected by the change in practice. There were also no significant differences in the number of transfusions administered associated with the treatment of CIA in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show an association between implementation of the new institutional practice algorithm for ESA usage in CIA and a change in ESA utilization patterns.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a new evidence-based institutional practice algorithm on the patterns and costs of treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) in lymphomapatients prescribed erythropoietic-stimulating agents (ESAs). METHODS: The study design was retrospective, with a historical control group. Patient demographic data, clinical data (including chemotherapy and hemoglobin values), and cost data were extracted from patient medical charts and institutional databases. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and chi-square analyses were conducted to evaluate the study objectives. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 154 patients, 90 patients in the pre-implementation group and 64 in the post-implementation group. Both groups had similar demographic and baseline clinical characteristics. After implementation, there was a significant decrease in the mean hemoglobin level at the time of subsequent ESA dosing from 9.59 to 8.98 g/dL (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who received an ESA at a hemoglobin level >10 g/dL decreased significantly from 66% to 17% (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the mean hemoglobin level at week 4 of ESA therapy, which may indicate that patients were not clinically affected by the change in practice. There were also no significant differences in the number of transfusions administered associated with the treatment of CIA in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show an association between implementation of the new institutional practice algorithm for ESA usage in CIA and a change in ESA utilization patterns.
Authors: Brian Leyland-Jones; Vladimir Semiglazov; Marek Pawlicki; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Sergei Tjulandin; George Manikhas; Antoly Makhson; Anton Roth; David Dodwell; Jose Baselga; Mikhail Biakhov; Konstantinas Valuckas; Edouard Voznyi; Xiangyang Liu; Els Vercammen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-08-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James R Wright; Yee C Ung; Jim A Julian; Kathleen I Pritchard; Timothy J Whelan; Column Smith; Barbara Szechtman; Wilson Roa; Liam Mulroy; Leona Rudinskas; Bruno Gagnon; Gord S Okawara; Mark N Levine Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas E Witzig; Peter T Silberstein; Charles L Loprinzi; Jeff A Sloan; Paul J Novotny; James A Mailliard; Kendrith M Rowland; Steven R Alberts; James E Krook; Ralph Levitt; Roscoe F Morton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-09-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Hedenus; Magnus Adriansson; Jesus San Miguel; Mark H H Kramer; Martin R Schipperus; Eeva Juvonen; Kerry Taylor; Andrew Belch; Albert Altés; Giovanni Martinelli; David Watson; James Matcham; Gregory Rossi; Timothy J Littlewood Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Vinni Juneja; Patricia Keegan; Joseph E Gootenberg; Mark D Rothmann; Yuan Li Shen; Kyung Y Lee; Karen D Weiss; Richard Pazdur Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Johan Vansteenkiste; Robert Pirker; Bartomeu Massuti; Fernando Barata; Albert Font; Michael Fiegl; Salvatore Siena; Jenni Gateley; Dianne Tomita; Alan B Colowick; Jaromir Musil Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: D Kotasek; G Steger; W Faught; C Underhill; E Poulsen; A B Colowick; G Rossi; J Mackey Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: J A Glaspy; J S Jadeja; G Justice; J Kessler; D Richards; L Schwartzberg; N S Tchekmedyian; S Armstrong; J O'Byrne; G Rossi; A B Colowick Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-07-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Elizabeth Tarlov; Kevin T Stroupe; Todd A Lee; Thomas W Weichle; Qiuying L Zhang; Laura C Michaelis; Howard Ozer; Margaret M Browning; Denise M Hynes Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Anne M Butler; Abhijit V Kshirsagar; Andrew F Olshan; Matthew E Nielsen; Stephanie B Wheeler; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 3.754