PURPOSE: Safety concerns raised in the recent oncology trials with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have led to regulatory restrictions on their use. We wished to determine the impact of these changes on the use of ESAs and RBC transfusions. METHODS: In a retrospective observational study of patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in 2006-2008, data on all ESA doses dispensed, RBCs transfused, and hemoglobin levels on the days of transfusions and ESA initiations were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with 2006, the total patients treated was 14% higher (28,339 versus 24,806) in 2007 and 22% higher (30,254) in 2008. Patients receiving ESAs decreased by 26% and 61%, and ESA units dispensed decreased by 29% (from 30,206 units to 21,409 units) and 80% (6,102 units) in 2007 and 2008, respectively. However, RBC transfusions increased by only 2% (from 38,218 units to 38,948 units) in 2007 and by 8% (41,438) in 2008. The mean hemoglobin on the day of transfusion was the same for each year (8.4 g/dl); however, an increasing proportion of patients initiated ESAs at lower hemoglobin (< 10 g/dl) levels. After adjusting for demographics and diagnostic variables for 3 years (n = 83,399), a multivariate logistic regression showed a significant decline in ESA use (p < .0001) without an increase in RBC transfusions. CONCLUSIONS: Recent ESA safety concerns and regulatory restrictions have significantly decreased ESA use. The lack of a significant impact on transfusions may be related to a lower hemoglobin threshold used to initiate ESAs or treatment of patients less likely to respond.
PURPOSE: Safety concerns raised in the recent oncology trials with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have led to regulatory restrictions on their use. We wished to determine the impact of these changes on the use of ESAs and RBC transfusions. METHODS: In a retrospective observational study of patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in 2006-2008, data on all ESA doses dispensed, RBCs transfused, and hemoglobin levels on the days of transfusions and ESA initiations were analyzed. RESULTS: Compared with 2006, the total patients treated was 14% higher (28,339 versus 24,806) in 2007 and 22% higher (30,254) in 2008. Patients receiving ESAs decreased by 26% and 61%, and ESA units dispensed decreased by 29% (from 30,206 units to 21,409 units) and 80% (6,102 units) in 2007 and 2008, respectively. However, RBC transfusions increased by only 2% (from 38,218 units to 38,948 units) in 2007 and by 8% (41,438) in 2008. The mean hemoglobin on the day of transfusion was the same for each year (8.4 g/dl); however, an increasing proportion of patients initiated ESAs at lower hemoglobin (< 10 g/dl) levels. After adjusting for demographics and diagnostic variables for 3 years (n = 83,399), a multivariate logistic regression showed a significant decline in ESA use (p < .0001) without an increase in RBC transfusions. CONCLUSIONS: Recent ESA safety concerns and regulatory restrictions have significantly decreased ESA use. The lack of a significant impact on transfusions may be related to a lower hemoglobin threshold used to initiate ESAs or treatment of patients less likely to respond.
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: Ian Quirt; Michael Kovacs; Félix Couture; A Robert Turner; Michael Noble; Ronald Burkes; Sean Dolan; Richard K Plante; Catherine Y Lau; José Chang Journal: Oncologist Date: 2006-01
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: 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: Gillian Thomas; Shamshad Ali; Frank J P Hoebers; Kathleen M Darcy; William H Rodgers; Malti Patel; Ovardia Abulafia; Joseph A Lucci; Adrian C Begg Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 5.482
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: 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
Authors: Lanfang Xu; Hairong Xu; Kimberly Cannavale; Olivia Sattayapiwat; Roberto Rodriguez; John H Page; Chun Chao Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: F J Sherida H Woei-A-Jin; Shu Zhen Zheng; Inci Kiliçsoy; Francisca Hudig; Saskia A C Luelmo; Judith R Kroep; Hildo J Lamb; Susanne Osanto Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-08-27
Authors: A Shander; H Van Aken; M J Colomina; H Gombotz; A Hofmann; R Krauspe; S Lasocki; T Richards; R Slappendel; D R Spahn Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 9.166