OVARIAN CANCER and US: ESA

Blog Archives: Nov 2004 - present

#ovariancancers



Special items: Ovarian Cancer and Us blog best viewed in Firefox

Search This Blog

Showing posts with label ESA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESA. Show all posts

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Effects of Funding Policy Changes and Health Warnings on the Use of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [Original Contributions]



Effects of Funding Policy Changes and Health Warnings on the Use of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents [Original Contributions]

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.

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

paywalled: Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in Ovarian Cancer Patients: Does the Use of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents Worsen Survival?



Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in Ovarian Cancer P... : International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Abstract

Objective: 
Considering the paucity of data relating erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) use to ovarian cancer survival, our objective was to evaluate the effect of ESA as used for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) on survival in ovarian cancer patients.

Materials and Methods:  
A multi-institution retrospective chart review was performed on ovarian cancer patients. Data collection included patient demographic, surgicopathologic, chemotherapy, ESA, and survival data. Patients were stratified by ever-use of ESA and were compared using appropriate statistical methods.

Results: A total of 581 patients were eligible for analysis with 39% (n = 229) patients with ever-use of ESA (ESA-YES) and 61% (n = 352) never-use ESA (ESA-NO). Mean age was 60.4 years with most patients having stage IIIC (60%) of papillary serous histological diagnosis (64%) with an optimal cytoreduction (67%). Median follow-up for the cohort was 27 months. Both ESA-YES and ESA-NO groups were similar regarding age, body mass index, race, stage, histological diagnosis, and debulking status. Compared with the ESA-NO group, ESA-YES patients were significantly more likely to experience recurrence (56% vs 80%, P < 0.001) and death (46% vs 59%, P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significant reduction in progression-free survival for ESA-YES patients (16 vs 24 months, P < 0.001); however, overall survival was statistically similar between the 2 groups (38 vs 46 months, P = 0.10). When stratifying by ever experiencing a CIA, ESA-YES patients demonstrated a significantly worse progression-free survival (17 vs 24 months, P = 0.02) and overall survival (37 vs 146 months, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: 
Our data evaluating the use of ESA as a treatment of CIA in ovarian cancer patients are similar to reports in other tumor sites. Considering that patients who used ESA were more likely to experience recurrence and death and to have decreased survival, the use of ESA in ovarian cancer patients should be limited.