Matthew A Weir1, Tara Gomes, Eric Winquist, David N Juurlink, Meaghan S Cuerden, Muhammad Mamdani. 1. University of Western Ontario, London; University of Waterloo, Waterloo; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; University of Toronto; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre; and Applied Health Research Center, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize the effects of formulary changes and governmental safety warnings on use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional time-series analysis using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. From January 1997 to December 2009 we identified all ESA initiations among patients diagnosed with cancer. We explored the effects of two formulary changes that progressively liberalized coverage for ESAs, first by rescinding the requirement for blood transfusion in 2003 and then by removing all restrictions in 2007. We also explored the effect of US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada warnings issued in the second quarter of 2007. To assess regional variability in ESA use, we determined prescription rates for each of Ontario's 14 regional cancer centers. RESULTS: After the first formulary change, the ESA initiation rate increased to 1.66 new users per 1,000 patients with cancer, 374% more than predicted (P < .001). After the second formulary change, the initiation rate increased to 3.97 new users per 1,000 patients with cancer, 73% more than predicted (P < .001). After the safety warnings, this rate declined 81% by study end (P < .001). We found significant regional variation in ESA use. CONCLUSION: Formulary access and safety warnings had significant impacts on the new use of ESA drugs in patients with cancer. This suggests that both are effective means of influencing the use of these drugs. Variable ESA prescription rates across our region may reflect a lack of consensus regarding their utility.
PURPOSE: To characterize the effects of formulary changes and governmental safety warnings on use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional time-series analysis using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada. From January 1997 to December 2009 we identified all ESA initiations among patients diagnosed with cancer. We explored the effects of two formulary changes that progressively liberalized coverage for ESAs, first by rescinding the requirement for blood transfusion in 2003 and then by removing all restrictions in 2007. We also explored the effect of US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada warnings issued in the second quarter of 2007. To assess regional variability in ESA use, we determined prescription rates for each of Ontario's 14 regional cancer centers. RESULTS: After the first formulary change, the ESA initiation rate increased to 1.66 new users per 1,000 patients with cancer, 374% more than predicted (P < .001). After the second formulary change, the initiation rate increased to 3.97 new users per 1,000 patients with cancer, 73% more than predicted (P < .001). After the safety warnings, this rate declined 81% by study end (P < .001). We found significant regional variation in ESA use. CONCLUSION: Formulary access and safety warnings had significant impacts on the new use of ESA drugs in patients with cancer. This suggests that both are effective means of influencing the use of these drugs. Variable ESA prescription rates across our region may reflect a lack of consensus regarding their utility.
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: W Smalley; D Shatin; D K Wysowski; J Gurwitz; S E Andrade; M Goodman; K A Chan; R Platt; S D Schech; W A Ray Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-12-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frederick A Masoudi; Yongfei Wang; Silvio E Inzucchi; John F Setaro; Edward P Havranek; JoAnne M Foody; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-07-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David N Juurlink; Muhammad M Mamdani; Douglas S Lee; Alexander Kopp; Peter C Austin; Andreas Laupacis; Donald A Redelmeier Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marcello Tonelli; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Tony Reiman; Braden Manns; M Neil Reaume; Anita Lloyd; Natasha Wiebe; Scott Klarenbach Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-04-30 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Julia Bohlius; Kurt Schmidlin; Corinne Brillant; Guido Schwarzer; Sven Trelle; Jerome Seidenfeld; Marcel Zwahlen; Michael Clarke; Olaf Weingart; Sabine Kluge; Margaret Piper; Dirk Rades; David P Steensma; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Martin F Fey; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Mitchell Machtay; Volker Moebus; Gillian Thomas; Michael Untch; Martin Schumacher; Matthias Egger; Andreas Engert Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Shamia Hoque; Brian J Chen; Martin W Schoen; Kenneth R Carson; Jesse Keller; Bartlett J Witherspoon; Kevin B Knopf; Y Tony Yang; Benjamin Schooley; Chadi Nabhan; Oliver Sartor; Paul R Yarnold; Paul Ray; Laura Bobolts; William J Hrushesky; Michael Dickson; Charles L Bennett Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Esther de Vries; Elisabeth Bakker; Remy D C Francisca; Stijn Croonen; Petra Denig; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 5.228