Controlled multicentre study of the influence of subcutaneous recombinant human erythropoietin on anaemia and transfusion dependency in patients with ovarian carcinoma treated with platinum-based chemotherapy

Intravenous iron versus oral iron versus no iron with or without erythropoiesis- stimulating agents (ESA) for cancer patients with anaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Different Erythropoietin Usage Strategies

Aim

There is no comprehensive study that compares the different usage strategies of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) in platinum-induced anemia. In order to clarify this issue, we conducted a prospective clinical study.

Material and methods

Seventy-seven patients were studied in three main groups. Group 1 (n = 17) consisted of cancer patients without anemia. These patients received rHuEPO starting from the first chemotherapy cycle. Group 2 (n = 26) consisted of patients whose hemoglobin (Hb) values decreased by at least 1 g/dL after the first cycle of chemotherapy. Group 3 (n = 34) consisted of patients whose Hb values dropped below 10.5 g/dL after the second chemotherapy cycle. Groups 2 and 3 were each divided into two subgroups. In groups 1, 2A and 3A rHuEPO (5000 U/day subcutaneously three times a week) treatment was continued until three weeks after the completion of chemotherapy. In groups 2B and 3B, rHuEPO was given for 12 weeks only.

Results

There were no prominent differences between the Hb values of these groups throughout the chemotherapy cycles. Transfusion rates and the number of patients who became anemic were also not different between groups.

Conclusion

No rHuEPO usage strategies are superior to others in terms of Hb levels and transfusion requirements. The decision as to when rHuEPO is to be added to platinum-containing therapy should be tailored to the health conditions of individual patients.

Indications for and complications of transfusion and the management of gynecologic malignancies

Anemia, which is highly prevalent in oncology patients, is one of the most established negative prognostic factors for several gynecologic malignancies. Multiple factors can cause or contribute to the development of anemia in patients with gynecologic cancers; these factors include blood loss (during surgery or directly from the tumor), renal impairment (caused by platinum-based chemotherapy), and marrow dysfunction (from metastases, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy). Several peri- and intra-operative strategies can be used to optimize patient management and minimize blood loss related to surgery. Blood transfusions are routinely employed as corrective measures against anemia; however, blood transfusions are one of the most overused healthcare interventions. There are safe and effective evidence-based blood transfusion strategies used in other patient populations that warrant further investigation in the surgical oncology setting. Blood is a valuable healthcare resource, and clinicians can learn to use it more judiciously through knowledge of the potential risks and complications of blood interventions, as well as the ability to properly identify the patients most likely to benefit from such interventions.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin and darbepoetin) for treating cancer treatment-induced anaemia (including review of technology appraisal no. 142): a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is a common side effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ESAs in anaemia associated with cancer treatment (specifically chemotherapy).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched from 2004 to 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, Health Management Information Consortium, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites were also searched. Bibliographies of included papers were scrutinised for further potentially includable studies.

REVIEW METHODS

The clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or systematic reviews of RCTs, of ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) for treating people with CIA were eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparators were best supportive care, placebo or other ESAs. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. When appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. An empirical health economic model was developed comparing ESA treatment with no ESA treatment. The model comprised two components: one evaluating short-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (while patients are anaemic) and one evaluating long-term QALYs. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Of 1457 titles and abstracts screened, 23 studies assessing ESAs within their licensed indication (based on start dose administered) were included in the review. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current European Union licenses. The results suggest a clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes and an improvement in HRQoL scores. The impact of ESAs on AEs and survival remains highly uncertain, although point estimates are lower, confidence intervals are wide and not statistically significant. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for ESA treatment compared with no ESA treatment ranged from £ 19,429 to £ 35,018 per QALY gained, but sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate considerable uncertainty in these ICERs, including the possibility of overall health disbenefit. All ICERs were sensitive to survival and cost.

LIMITATIONS

The relative effectiveness of ESAs was not addressed; all ESAs were assumed to have equivalent efficacy. No studies were completely aligned with their European labelling beyond the starting dose evaluated. There is questionable generalisability given that the included trials were published >20 years ago and there have been many changes to chemotherapy as well as to the quality of supportive treatment. Trial quality was moderate or poor and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity for a number of outcomes, particularly survival, and evidence of publication bias. Adjustments were not made to account for multiple testing.

CONCLUSIONS

ESAs could be cost-effective when used closer to licence, but there is considerable uncertainty, mainly because of unknown impacts on overall survival.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005812.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Factors and Predictors of Response with Epoetin Alfa for Chemotherapy-Related Anemia

Objective:

To describe the value of specific factors and predictors that influence the use of epoetin alfa for anemia in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy.

Data Sources:

Data search restricted to English-language literature on epoetin alfa identified by MEDLINE searches (1990-July 2000) and other pertinent literature was conducted.

Data Synthesis:

Anemia of chronic disease (ACD) is a common finding among cancer patients. Patients receiving repeated or multiple chemotherapy regimens alone or with radiation therapy may worsen ACD. Blood transfusion is the cornerstone of treatment. Risks associated with allogeneic blood transfusion are clearly established. This includes alteration of the immune system, acute allergic reactions, viral and bacterial infections, tumor reappearance, and reduced quality of life (QOL). As the demand for blood increased and periodic supply shortages occurred, healthcare centers began seeking alternatives to blood transfusion. Recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin alfa) is a prophylactic or treatment option that can reduce the need for blood transfusion with an improved QOL. Albeit clinically beneficial, epoetin alfa is expensive. Using predictors during early use with epoetin alfa, clinicians can identify patients most likely and least likely to benefit from further therapy, thus preventing costly outcomes. The change in hemoglobin (>0.5–1.0 g/dL) combined with either endogenous erythropoietin concentration (<100 mU/mL) or absolute reticulocyte count increase (>40,000 cells/uL) two to four weeks after starting therapy provided the most powerful prediction of response to epoetin alfa.

Conclusions:

Key factors and predictors with epoetin alfa can optimize therapy outcomes in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in gynecological malignancies: A study-level meta-analysis

This meta-analysis was planned to define the role of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in gynecological cancer patients, receiving myelosuppressive treatment. Pubmed, Medline and Scopus were searched to select English-language articles. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Endpoints were incidence of transfusions, thrombotic events (TE), deaths, and failures. Odd ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using fixed or random effects model. In seven RCTs ESAs studies of 892 patients under treatment, use of ESAs correlates with a significant reduction of transfusions rate (OR=0.35; 95% CI: 0.19-0.65; p=0.008). OR for overall mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 0.82-1.49; p=0.53). ESAs OR for disease failure in 5 studies was 1.71 (95% CI: 0.90-3.24; p=0.1). This meta-analysis, even if limited by few RCTs, suggests that ESAs reduce transfusions without increasing mortality or disease progression in gynecological cancer patients receiving treatment.

The effects of vitamin C on DDP-induced anemia in rats

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of vitamin C on cisplatin (DDP)-induced anemia and explore its possible mechanisms in rats. Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into six groups: control, vitamin C 50, vitamin C 100, DDP, DDP plus vitamin C 50 and DDP plus vitamin C 100-treated groups. DDP was intravenous injected as a single dose and vitamin C was administered by gavage. Serum erythropoietin (Epo), hemoglobin (Hb) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration were measured 4 and 14 days after DDP treatment. The changes of renal tissue were examined by light microscope. Administration of DDP to rats induced anemia and nephrotoxicity, characterized with a significant decrease in serum Epo and Hb and increase in BUN concentrations. Pathological examination revealed that DDP caused significant renal damage in rats. Vitamin C administration produced amelioration in biochemical indices of anemia and nephrotoxicity and in histological change when compared to group DDP alone; concurrent administration of vitamin C at doses of 100 mg/kg being more effective. Results from this study indicate that the novel natural antioxidant vitamin C might have protective effect against DDP-induced anemia in rats.

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and red blood cell transfusions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ESAs to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE and other databases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review, 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the first update and to November 2011 for the current update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients receiving or not receiving anti-cancer therapy that compared the use of ESAs (plus transfusion if needed).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. One review author assessed quality assessment and extracted data, a second review author checked for correctness.

MAIN RESULTS

This update of the systematic review includes a total of 91 trials with 20,102 participants. Use of ESAs significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (risk ratio (RR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.68, 70 trials, N = 16,093). On average, participants in the ESAs group received one unit of blood less than the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.98; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.78, 19 trials, N = 4,715). Haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving ESAs (RR 3.93; 95% CI 3.10 to 3.71, 31 trials, N = 6,413). There was suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve Quality of Life (QoL). There was strong evidence that ESAs increase mortality during active study period (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29, 70 trials, N = 15,935) and some evidence that ESAs decrease overall survival (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11, 78 trials, N = 19,003). The risk ratio for thromboembolic complications was increased in patients receiving ESAs compared to controls (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.74; 57 trials, N = 15,498). ESAs may also increase the risk for hypertension (fixed-effect model: RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.56; random-effects model: RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33, 31 trials, N = 7,228) and thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.42; 21 trials, N = 4,507). There was insufficient evidence to support an effect of ESA on tumour response (fixed-effect RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06, 15 trials, N = 5,012).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESAs reduce the need for red blood cell transfusions but increase the risk for thromboembolic events and deaths. There is suggestive evidence that ESAs may improve QoL. Whether and how ESAs affects tumour control remains uncertain. The increased risk of death and thromboembolic events should be balanced against the potential benefits of ESA treatment taking into account each patient's clinical circumstances and preferences. More data are needed for the effect of these drugs on quality of life and tumour progression. Further research is needed to clarify cellular and molecular mechanisms and pathways of the effects of ESAs on thrombogenesis and their potential effects on tumour growth.

Effect of treatment with epoetin Beta on thromboembolic events in anemic patients with cancer: a metaanalysis

PURPOSE

Epoetin therapy is associated with a slight increase in thromboembolic event (TEE) incidence, although causality is uncertain. This metaanalysis compared TEE incidence in patients with cancer-related anemia treated with epoetin beta versus a control group (placebo or standard treatment) and investigated the impact of hemoglobin (Hb) parameters on thromboembolic risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients from 9 randomized trials were pooled (epoetin beta group, n = 800; control group, n = 613). Adverse event reports were reviewed for all TEEs recorded during treatment and 28 days thereafter. Thromboembolic event incidence was compared between 2 groups, and standard statistical analyses were conducted to investigate the potential of Hb parameters to modulate thromboembolic risk.

RESULTS

For epoetin beta, 5.9% of patients (n = 47) experienced >/= 1 TEE versus 4.2% of controls (n = 26; not significant).Thromboembolic-related mortality rates were 1% in both groups. Thromboembolic event rates in patients stratified by tumor type were consistent with the overall population. For epoetin beta, greater baseline-adjusted Hb area under the concentration-time curve and greater Hb increases during the first 4 weeks of treatment significantly correlated with reduced risk of TEEs. Conversely, treatment in those with higher baseline Hb levels was associated with increased TEE risk.

CONCLUSION

When administered in accordance with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines, epoetin beta did not appear to be associated with increased thromboembolic risk. Although risk of TEEs might be marginally increased in patients with cancer treated with epoetin beta, there is no increased risk of thromboembolic mortality.

Economic evaluation of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia related to cancer

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) administered to cancer patients with anemia reduce the need for blood transfusions and improve quality-of-life (QOL). Concerns about toxicity have led to more restrictive recommendations for ESA use; however, the incremental costs and benefits of such a strategy are unknown.

METHODS

The authors created a decision model to examine the costs and consequences of ESA use in patients with anemia and cancer from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system. Model inputs were informed by a recent systematic review. Extensive sensitivity analyses and scenario analysis rigorously assessed QOL benefits and more conservative ESA administration practices (initial hemoglobin [Hb] <10 g/dL, target Hb < or =12 g/dL, and chemotherapy induced anemia only).

RESULTS

Compared with supportive transfusions only, conventional ESA treatment was associated with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of $267,000 during a 15-week time frame. During a 1.3-year time horizon, ESA was associated with higher costs and worse clinical outcomes. In scenarios where multiple assumptions regarding QOL all favored ESA, the lowest incremental cost per QALY gained was $126,000. Analyses simulating the use of ESA in accordance with recently issued guidelines resulted in incremental cost per QALY gained of > $100,000 or ESA being dominated (greater costs with lower benefit) in the majority of the scenarios, although greater variability in the cost-utility ratio was present.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ESA for anemia related to cancer is associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that are not economically attractive, even when used in a conservative fashion recommended by current guidelines.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in oncology: a study-level meta-analysis of survival and other safety outcomes

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often develop the potentially debilitating condition of anaemia. Numerous controlled studies indicate that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) can raise haemoglobin levels and reduce transfusion requirements in anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. To evaluate recent safety concerns regarding ESAs, we carried out a meta-analysis of controlled ESA oncology trials to examine whether ESA use affects survival, disease progression and risk of venous-thromboembolic events.

METHODS: This meta-analysis included studies from the 2006 Cochrane meta-analysis, studies published/updated since the 2006 Cochrane report, and unpublished trial data from Amgen and Centocor Ortho Biotech. The 60 studies analysed (15 323 patients) were conducted in the settings of chemotherapy/radiochemotherapy, radiotherapy only treatment or anaemia of cancer. Data were summarised using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS: Results indicated that ESA use did not significantly affect mortality (60 studies: OR=1.06; 95% CI: 0.97–1.15) or disease progression (26 studies: OR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.90–1.14), but increased the risk for venous-thromoboembolic events (44 studies: OR=1.48; 95% CI: 1.28–1.72).

CONCLUSION: Though this meta-analysis showed no significant effect of ESAs on survival or disease progression, prospectively designed, future randomised clinical trials will further examine the safety and efficacy of ESAs when used according to the revised labelling information.

Epoetin-beta treatment in patients with cancer chemotherapy-induced anaemia: the impact of initial haemoglobin and target haemoglobin levels on survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events

BACKGROUND

Epoetin-beta is used to treat patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy to alleviate the symptoms of anaemia, reduce the risk of blood transfusions and improve quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

This meta-analysis of all 12 randomised, controlled studies of epoetin-beta evaluated the impact of therapy at different Hb-initiation levels and to different target Hb levels on overall survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events (TEE). An analysis of risk factors pre-disposing patients to TEEs under epoetin-beta therapy was also performed. A total of 2297 patients are included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Analyses based on various Hb-initiation levels indicate no detrimental impact on survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.70, 1.40) and a favourable impact on disease progression (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57, 0.94) when epoetin-beta was used within its licensed indication (Hb initiation < or = 10 g dl(-1)) or the EORTC recommended level of 11 g dl(-1). An increased risk of TEEs is seen for all Hb-initiation level strata and a detrimental impact on survival is seen when initiating epoetin-beta therapy at Hb levels >11 g dl(-1). We observe no association between high target Hb levels (> or = 13 g dl(-1)) and an increased risk of mortality, disease progression or TEEs with epoetin-beta compared with control.

CONCLUSION

The results of this analysis indicate that epoetin-beta therapy has no detrimental impact on survival or tumour progression when initiated at Hb levels up to 11 g dl(-1). Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that high Hb values achieved during epoetin-beta therapy are associated with an increased mortality, disease progression or TEE rate.

Erythropoietin or Darbepoetin for patients with cancer--meta-analysis based on individual patient data

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients and may improve quality of life, but there are concerns that ESAs might increase mortality.

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to examine the effect of ESAs and identify factors that modify the effects of ESAs on overall survival, progression free survival, thromboembolic and cardiovascular events as well as need for transfusions and other important safety and efficacy outcomes in cancer patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and conference proceedings for eligible trials. Manufacturers of ESAs were contacted to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) versus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) alone, to prevent or treat anemia in adult or pediatric cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alpha, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alpha plus red blood cell transfusions versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or therapy of anemia while or after receiving anti-cancer treatment. Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments, using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were according to the intention-to-treat principle. Primary endpoints were on study mortality and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, regardless of anticancer treatment, and in patients receiving chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of ESAs on mortality across pre-specified subgroups. The present review reports only the results for the primary endpoint.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13933 cancer patients from 53 trials were analyzed, 1530 patients died on-study and 4993 overall. ESAs increased on study mortality (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (cHR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33, respectively). Thirty-eight trials enrolled 10441 patients receiving chemotherapy. The cHR for on study mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 0.98-1.24) and 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients receiving different cancer treatments (P for interaction=0.42).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ESA treatment in cancer patients increased on study mortality and worsened overall survival. For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but an adverse effect could not be excluded.

Benefits and harms of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anemia related to cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents are used to treat anemia in patients with cancer. However, their safety and effectiveness is controversial. We did a systematic review of the clinical efficacy and harms of these agents in adults with anemia related to cancer or chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using accepted methods for literature searches, article selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We included RCTs involving anemic adults with cancer. We compared the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with nonuse and assessed clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and hypertension, health-related quality of life, blood transfusions and tumour response) and harms (serious adverse events) between groups.

RESULTS

We identified 52 trials (n = 12 006) that met our selection criteria. The pooled all-cause mortality during treatment was significantly higher in the group receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating therapy than in the control group (relative risk [RR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 1.29). Compared with no treatment, use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents led to clinically detectable improvements in disease-specific measures of quality of life. It also reduced the use of blood transfusions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.73). However, it led to an increased risk of thrombotic events (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.24) and serious adverse events (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.25).

INTERPRETATION

Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer-related anemia improved some disease-specific measures of quality of life and decreased the use of blood transfusions. However, it increased the risk of death and serious adverse events. Our findings suggest that such therapy not be used routinely as an alternative to blood transfusion in patients with anemia related to cancer.

Recombinant human epoetin beta in the treatment of chemotherapy-related anemia

Anemia is a common complication of systemic anti-cancer treatment. In this context epoetin beta, like other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), has demonstrable efficacy in raising Hb concentration and reducing the requirement for red cell transfusion. Consequently ESA therapy has gained increasing prominence in the management of chemotherapy-related anemia. However, recent trial data have suggested a higher rate of thromboembolic events, enhanced tumor progression and reduced survival in some patients with cancer who receive ESA therapy. In response, regulatory authorities have mandated increasingly restrictive label changes. In light of these new developments we consider the current role of epoetin beta in the management of chemotherapy-related anemia.

Recombinant human erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and mortality in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents reduce anaemia in patients with cancer and could improve their quality of life, but these drugs might increase mortality. We therefore did a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in which these drugs plus red blood cell transfusions were compared with transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anaemia in patients with cancer.

METHODS

Data for patients treated with epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa were obtained and analysed by independent statisticians using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. Primary endpoints were mortality during the active study period and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, irrespective of anticancer treatment, and in patients given chemotherapy. Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on mortality across prespecified subgroups.

FINDINGS

Data from a total of 13 933 patients with cancer in 53 trials were analysed. 1530 patients died during the active study period and 4993 overall. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents increased mortality during the active study period (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.30) and worsened overall survival (1.06, 1.00-1.12), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=0.87 for mortality during the active study period, and I(2) 7.1%, p=0.33 for overall survival). 10 441 patients on chemotherapy were enrolled in 38 trials. The cHR for mortality during the active study period was 1.10 (0.98-1.24), and 1.04 (0.97-1.11) for overall survival. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients given different anticancer treatments (p for interaction=0.42).

INTERPRETATION

Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer increased mortality during active study periods and worsened overall survival. The increased risk of death associated with treatment with these drugs should be balanced against their benefits.

FUNDING

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Medical Faculty of University of Cologne, and Oncosuisse (Switzerland).

Venous thromboembolic events and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: an update

Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) are frequent in cancer patients because of the effects of malignant disease, its treatment, and comorbidities. The higher risk for VTEs associated with the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) appears to be a class effect but may be particularly pronounced when these agents are used in patients who are not anemic at baseline and/or to achieve hemoglobin targets higher than those recommended in current labeling. Particular attention should be taken to assess the balance of risks and benefits in patients with a history of thromboembolism. If the goal of treatment of patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia is aimed to raise the hemoglobin level to 12 g/dl, and is confined to that, ESA-induced VTEs should rarely be a problem.

Once-weekly epoetin beta therapy in patients with solid tumours and chemotherapy-induced anaemia: a randomized, double-blind, dose-finding study

Anaemia is common in patients receiving chemotherapy, causing symptoms that have a major impact on quality of life (QoL). Epoetin beta rapidly increases haemoglobin (Hb) levels and improves QoL in anaemic patients with a variety of tumours. This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-finding study assessing the efficacy and safety of once-weekly epoetin beta in patients with solid tumours receiving chemotherapy. Adult patients with anaemia (Hb < 11 g/dL) were randomized to receive epoetin beta 30,000 IU or 20,000 IU once weekly for 12 weeks. All patients received oral iron supplementation. Haemoglobin levels, transfusion need and QoL [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-fatigue (FACT-F) subscale score] were assessed at regular intervals. Fifty patients were randomized; 30 patients received epoetin beta 30,000 IU once weekly and 20 received 20,000 IU once weekly. Mean (+/- SD) increase in Hb from baseline to week 12 was 1.75 +/- 2.15 g/dL in the 30,000 IU group (P = 0.008 vs. baseline) and 1.04 +/- 1.75 g/dL in the 20,000 IU group (non-significant). Haemoglobin response (increase in Hb >or=2 g/dL from baseline) was observed in 78.3% of patients receiving epoetin beta 30,000 IU and 66.7% receiving epoetin beta 20,000 IU. Improvements in FACT-F subscale score were significantly (P < 0.001) correlated with increases in Hb level. Transfusion use was low during the study in both groups. Both epoetin beta regiments were well tolerated and there were no dose-dependent adverse events. Epoetin beta 30,000 IU once weekly is an effective and well-tolerated treatment of anaemia in patients with solid tumours.

Role of hematopoietic growth factors as adjuncts in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C patients

Drug-induced hematotoxicity is the most common reason for reducing the dose or withdrawing ribavirin (RBV) and interferon (IFN) therapy in chronic hepatitis C, which leads to the elimination of a possible cure for the patient. Traditionally, severe anemia and neutropenia have been considered as absolute contraindications to start antiviral therapy. This has not however, been the case since the advent of adjunct therapy with hematopoietic growth factors (erythropoietin (EPO) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)). Some recent landmark studies have used this adjunct therapy to help avoid antiviral dose reductions. Although the addition of this adjunct therapy has been shown to significantly increase the overall cost of the treatment, this extra cost is worth bearing if the infection is cured at the end of the day. Although more studies are needed to refine the true indications of this adjunct therapy, determine the best dose regimen, quantify the average extra cost and determine whether or not the addition of this therapy increases the sustained virological response rates achieved, the initial reports are encouraging. Therefore, although not recommended on a routine basis, some selected patients may be given the benefits of these factors. This article reviews the current literature on this subject and makes a few recommendations to help develop local guidelines.

Effect of treatment with epoetin-beta on survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events in patients with cancer: an updated meta-analysis of 12 randomised controlled studies including 2301 patients

Epoetin-β is used to treat patients with metastatic cancer undergoing chemotherapy to alleviate the symptoms of anaemia, reduce the risk of blood transfusions and improve quality of life. This meta-analysis of 12 randomised, controlled studies evaluated the impact of epoetin-β on overall survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events (TEEs). A total of 2297 patients were included in the analysis (epoetin-β, n=1244; control, n=1053; 65% solid and 35% nonmyeloid haematological malignancies). A prespecified subgroup analysis assessed the effects in patients with a baseline Hb⩽11 g dl⁻¹, corresponding to current European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines. No statistically significant effect on mortality was observed with epoetin-β vs control, both overall (hazard ratio (HR)=1.13; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.46; P=0.355) and in patients with baseline Hb⩽11 g dl⁻¹ (HR=1.09; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.47; P=0.579). A trend for a beneficial effect on tumour progression was seen overall (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.01; P=0.072) and in patients with an Hb⩽11 g dl⁻¹ (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.99; P=0.041). An increased frequency of TEEs was seen with epoetin-β vs control (7 vs 4% of patients); however, TEEs-related mortality was similar in both groups (1% each). The results of this meta-analysis indicate that when used within current EORTC treatment guidelines, epoetin-β has no negative impact on survival, tumour progression or TEEs-related mortality.

Effects of anemia correction with epoetin beta in patients receiving radiochemotherapy for advanced cervical cancer

Patients with cervical cancer frequently suffer from anemia. This two-stage, adaptive-design study investigated the effect of anemia correction with epoetin beta on treatment outcomes. Patients with stage IIB–IVA cervical cancer received radiochemotherapy (RCT) and were randomized to epoetin 150 IU/kg three times weekly (n = 34) or standard care (control; n = 40) for up to 12 weeks. Primary end point for stage 1 aimed to establish a correlation between anemia correction and treatment failure (no complete response or relapsing within 6 months after RCT initiation) as a proof of concept before moving into stage 2. Secondary end points included progression/relapse-free survival, overall survival, response to RCT, hemoglobin (Hb) response, and safety. Median baseline Hb was 11.4 and 11.6 g/dL in epoetin and control groups, respectively. At treatment end point, median Hb increased by 1.3 g/dL with epoetin, but decreased by 0.7 g/dL in the control group (P < 0.0001). No significant correlation between Hb increase and treatment failure was demonstrated. There were no significant differences between epoetin and control groups in progression/relapse-free survival (29.4% vs 32.5% patients with events; P = 0.96), overall survival (23.5% vs 12.5% patients with events; P = 0.22) or overall complete response (53% vs 58%; P = 0.86). Adverse events were well matched between groups. This study shows that epoetin beta rapidly, effectively, and safely increases Hb levels in patients with cervical cancer receiving RCT. No positive correlation of Hb increase and improvement in clinical outcomes could be demonstrated.

Early intervention with epoetin beta prevents severe anaemia in lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy: A subgroup analysis of the NeoPrevent study

The NeoPrevent study showed that early intervention with epoetin beta could prevent severe anaemia in patients with solid tumours receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. An early intervention strategy may be particularly warranted in patients with lung cancer, as anaemia is very common in these patients and can be severe. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of epoetin beta in the subpopulation of patients with lung cancer included in the NeoPrevent study. Patients were enrolled if baseline haemoglobin (Hb) levels were <or=13 g/dl (men) or <or=12 g/dl (women), or fell to these levels during platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received epoetin beta 150 IU/kg three times weekly, until 4 weeks after last chemotherapy cycle. The anaemia prevention response was measured as the proportion of patients with an Hb response (Hb increase of >1g/dl) plus the proportion whose Hb was maintained at +/-1g/dl of baseline. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using the linear analogue scale assessment. The NeoPrevent study included 255 patients in total, and the results for the 102 patients with lung cancer (non-small-cell lung cancer 64%; small-cell lung cancer 36%) are presented here. The overall anaemia prevention response was 90%, with Hb response in 60% of patients and maintenance of baseline Hb level in 30%. Only 9% of patients required transfusions. QoL improved significantly in patients with Hb response (p<0.01) and was maintained in non-responders (p>or=0.578). Epoetin beta was effective in preventing severe anaemia in lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy.

Erythropoietin treatment of human ovarian cancer cells results in enhanced signaling and a paclitaxel-resistant phenotype

Erythropoietin (Epo), a glycoprotein hormone that is the principal regulator of erythropoiesis, is known to act also on nonhematopoietic cell types. Epo receptors have been reported on several normal and neoplastic human cells and tissues, including ovarian cancer cells. We found that long-term Epo treatment of A2780 cells resulted in the development of a phenotype exhibiting both enhanced Epo signaling, evidenced by increased peak levels of phospho-Erk1/2 and increased paclitaxel resistance. This phenotypic effect was specific for paclitaxel, since no change in cisplatin or carboplatin sensitivity was observed. In addition, the change in phenotype was stable, even after the removal of Epo. Measurement of mono- and oligonucleosome formation revealed that long-term Epo treated A2780 cells exhibited markedly less apoptosis than nonerythropoietin treated cells at essentially all concentrations of paclitaxel tested. Western blot analyses revealed that the long-term Epo treated cells had significantly reduced expression of apoptosis-related proteins Bcl-2 and Bcl-10. These findings may have implications for the clinical use of recombinant human Epo and other erythropoiesis stimulating agents to correct anemia in paclitaxel-treated cancer patients.

Use of epoetin and darbepoetin in patients with cancer: 2007 American Society of Hematology/American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology (ASCO/ASH) recommendations for the use of epoetin. The guideline was expanded to address use of darbepoetin and thromboembolic risk associated with these agents.

METHOD

An Update Committee ("Committee") reviewed and analyzed data published since 2002 through July 2007. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were searched.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia, the Committee continues to recommend initiating an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) as hemoglobin (Hb) approaches, or falls below, 10 g/dL, to increase Hb and decrease transfusions. ESA treatment continues to be recommended for patients with low-risk myelodysplasia for similar reasons. There is no evidence showing increased survival as a result of ESA treatment. Conclusive evidence is lacking that, absent clinical circumstances necessitating earlier treatment, initiating ESAs at Hb levels greater than 10 g/dL either spares more patients from transfusion or substantially improves their quality of life. Starting doses and dose modifications based on response or lack thereof should follow the package insert. Continuing ESAs beyond 6 to 8 weeks in the absence of response, assuming appropriate dose increase has been attempted in nonresponders as per US Food and Drug Administration-approved label, does not seem to be beneficial, and ESA therapy should be discontinued. The Committee recommends monitoring iron stores and supplementing iron intake for ESA-treated patients. ESAs should be used cautiously with chemotherapy, or in clinical states, associated with elevated risk for thromo-embolic complications. The Committee also cautions against ESA use for patients with cancer who are not receiving chemotherapy, since recent trials report increased thromboembolic risks and decreased survival under these circumstances.

Use of epoetin and darbepoetin in patients with cancer: 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology clinical practice guideline update

PURPOSE

To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology (ASCO/ASH) recommendations for the use of epoetin. The guideline was expanded to address use of darbepoetin and thromboembolic risk associated with these agents.

METHOD

An Update Committee ("Committee") reviewed and analyzed data published since 2002 through July 2007. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were searched.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia, the Committee continues to recommend initiating an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) as hemoglobin (Hb) approaches, or falls below, 10 g/dL, to increase Hb and decrease transfusions. ESA treatment continues to be recommended for patients with low-risk myelodysplasia for similar reasons. There is no evidence showing increased survival as a result of ESA treatment. Conclusive evidence is lacking that, absent clinical circumstances necessitating earlier treatment, initiating ESAs at Hb levels greater than 10 g/dL either spares more patients from transfusion or substantially improves their quality of life. Starting doses and dose modifications based on response or lack thereof should follow the package insert. Continuing ESAs beyond 6 to 8 weeks in the absence of response, assuming appropriate dose increase has been attempted in nonresponders as per US Food and Drug Administration-approved labeling, does not seem to be beneficial, and ESA therapy should be discontinued. The Committee recommends monitoring iron stores and supplementing iron intake for ESA-treated patients. ESAs should be used cautiously with chemotherapy, or in clinical states, associated with elevated risk for thromboembolic complications. The Committee also cautions against ESA use for patients with cancer who are not receiving chemotherapy, since recent trials report increased thromboembolic risks and decreased survival under these circumstances.

Once-weekly epoetin beta (30,000IU) in anemic patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy

Anemia occurs frequently in patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy and has a negative impact on quality of life (QoL). Erythropoietic proteins effectively increase hemoglobin (Hb) levels, reduce transfusion requirements and improve QoL in anemic patients with a range of malignancies. This prospective, observational study evaluated epoetin beta 30,000 IU once weekly in patients with lung cancer in a real-life, clinical-practice setting. Forty patients (72.5% with NSCLC and 27.5% with SCLC) were treated with epoetin beta during any cycle of chemotherapy when Hb decreased to <12 g/dL. Hb levels were assessed at regular intervals and transfusion needs were monitored throughout the study. In total, 72.5% of patients required epoetin treatment by the second cycle of chemotherapy. Epoetin beta treatment duration ranged from 1 to >9 (median 4) weeks. Mean (+/-S.D.) baseline Hb was 10.4+/-1.2 g/dL. Epoetin beta was associated with a rapid increase in Hb levels, with a mean increase of 1.3 g/dL by week 4. Most patients (95%) remained transfusion-free throughout the study. Epoetin beta was well tolerated. This early intervention strategy with epoetin beta 30,000 IU once weekly is an effective and well-tolerated therapy for anemia in patients with lung cancer.

Effect of treatment with epoetin beta on short-term tumour progression and survival in anaemic patients with cancer: A meta-analysis

To assess the early effect of epoetin beta on survival and tumour progression in anaemic patients with cancer, data were pooled from nine randomised clinical trials comparing epoetin beta with placebo or standard care. Studies were not primarily designed to assess these end points. Follow-up was for treatment duration plus 4 weeks following therapy completion. All adverse events (AEs) were retrospectively reviewed blinded, for progression. Thromboembolic events were also assessed. Data analysis involved standard statistical tests. Overall, 1413 patients were included (epoetin beta, n=800; control, n=613; 56% haematological, and 44% solid). Median initial epoetin beta dose was 30 000 IU/week. Overall survival during months 0–6 was similar with epoetin beta and control (0.31 vs 0.32 deaths/patient-year). No increased mortality risk was seen with epoetin beta (relative risk (RR) 0.97, 95% CI: 0.69, 1.36; P=0.87). There was a significantly reduced risk of rapidly progressive disease for epoetin beta (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62, 0.99; P=0.042). Epoetin beta was associated with a slightly higher frequency of thromboembolic events vs control (5.9% vs 4.2% of patients) but thromboembolic-related mortality was identical in both groups (1.1%). Epoetin beta provided a slight beneficial effect on tumour progression and did not impact on early survival or thromboembolic-related mortality.

Clinical benefits and risks associated with epoetin and darbepoetin in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Erythropoiesis-stimulating proteins (ESPs) are indicated for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Evidence-based guidelines and systematic reviews of the management of CIA do not yet include all currently approved ESPs or all of the clinically relevant benefits and risks of ESPs.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this work were to provide up-to-date assessments of the clinical efficacy and effectiveness (ie, transfusions and quality-of-life [QoL] benefits) and safety (ie, risk of venous thromboembolism [VTE] and all-cause or treatment-associated death) of epoetin-alfa, epoetin-beta, and darbepoetin-alfa for the treatment of CIA in cancer patients with hemoglobin<11 g/dL. We also considered the impact of differences in study design, patients, and treatments on the results.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify and analyze English-language studies (controlled trials and prospective uncontrolled studies with >or=300 patients) published between 1980 and July 2005. The databases searched were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Relevant abstracts from the last 2 annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Hematology, and European Society for Medical Oncology were also included. Studies were selected, using predefined eligibility criteria. Two reviewers had to agree on all included and excluded studies, and on all data extracted from each accepted study before they were entered into a relational database. Meta-analyses were performed to quantify benefit and risk outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 40 studies including 21,378 patients were eligible for analysis. Each ESP was found to have efficacy relative to standard care or placebo. The odds ratio (OR) for transfusions in studies of epoetin versus controls was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.35-0.55) and of darbepoetin versus controls was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.55). Patients receiving ESPs experienced a significant improvement in QoL; the mean difference in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue score for ESPs versus controls was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.10-0.36; P=0.001). The frequency of VTE and death was not significantly different between ESPs and control (VTE OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.81-2.47]; all-cause mortality OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.69-1.44]).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of key clinical benefits and risks of epoetin and darbepoetin in the treatment of CIA found no clinically relevant differences between these drugs.

Early intervention with epoetin beta prevents severe anaemia in patients with solid tumours receiving platinum-based chemotherapy: results of the NeoPrevent study

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is common during platinum-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of epoetin beta in the prevention of severe anaemia in patients with solid tumours receiving concomitant platinum therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this open-label, single-arm study, patients (n = 255) with solid tumours and haemoglobin (Hb) levels </= 13 g/dl (men) or </= 12 g/dl (women) received epoetin beta 450 IU/kg ( approximately 30,000 IU) weekly until 4 weeks after their last platinum-based chemotherapy cycle.

RESULTS

An anaemia prevention response [defined as patients with a Hb response (increase in Hb level > 1 g/dl from baseline) plus patients whose Hb levels remained +/- 1 g/dl of baseline throughout the study] was observed in 234 patients (92%). Response to epoetin beta was rapid. Of the 159 patients achieving a Hb response, 139 (87%) had Hb levels > 1 g/dl of baseline within 4 weeks of treatment initiation. Mean Hb levels had improved from 10.8 +/- 1.0 g/dl at baseline to 12.2 +/- 1.8 g/dl by the final visit. Quality of life measured by linear analogue scale assessment significantly (P < 0.01) improved in patients achieving a Hb response (n = 159).

CONCLUSIONS

Epoetin beta effectively prevents anaemia in most patients with solid tumours receiving concurrent platinum-based chemotherapy.

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo), darbepoetin (Darbepo) and red blood cell transfusions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of Epo or Darbepo to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE and other data bases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review and 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients that compared the use of Epo/Darbepo (plus transfusion if needed) with observation until red blood cell transfusion was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

This update of the systematic review included a total of 57 trials with 9,353 patients. Of these, 27 trials with 3,287 adults were also included in the first Cochrane Review. Thirty trials with 6,066 patients were added during the update process. Use of Epo/Darbepo significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.68, 42 trials, n = 6,510). On average participants in the Epo/Darbepo group received one unit of blood less than the control group (WMD -1.05; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.78, 14 trials, n = 2,353). For participants with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving Epo/Darbepo (RR 3.43; 95% CI 3.07 to 3.84, 22 trials, n = 4,307). There was suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve Quality of Life (QoL). The relative risk for thrombo embolic complications was increased in patients receiving Epo/Darbepo compared to controls (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06; 35 trials, n = 6,769). Uncertainties remain whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response (fixed effect RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23, 13 trials, n = 2,833; random effects: RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26) or overall survival (unadjusted and adjusted data: HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.18; 42 trials, n = 8,167).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is consistent evidence that administration of Epo/Darbepo reduces the relative risk for blood transfusions and the number of units transfused in cancer patients. For patients with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL (mild anaemia) there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo improves haematological response. There is suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve QoL. However, there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo increases the relative risk for thrombo embolic complications. Whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response and overall survival remains uncertain.

Recombinant human erythropoietins and cancer patients: updated meta-analysis of 57 studies including 9353 patients

This is an updated systematic review of 57 trials and 9353 cancer patients from articles, abstracts, and reports published between January 1, 1985, and April 30, 2005, on the effects of epoetin alfa and beta (i.e., epoetin) and darbepoetin alfa (i.e., darbepoetin). We included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusion with red blood cell transfusion alone for prophylaxis or treatment of anemia in cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and conference proceedings were searched. Effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with fixed-effects models. Treatment with epoetin or darbepoetin statistically significantly reduced the risk for red blood cell transfusions (relative risk [RR] = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.68; 42 trials and 6510 patients) and improved hematologic response (RR = 3.43, 95% CI = 3.07 to 3.84; 22 trials and 4307 patients). Treatment with epoetin or darbepoetin increased the risk of thrombo-embolic events (RR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.35 to 2.06; 35 trials and 6769 patients). Uncertainties remain as to whether and how epoetin or darbepoetin affects overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.18; 42 trials and 8167 patients). Caution is advised when using epoetin or darbepoetin in combination with thrombogenic chemotherapeutic agents or for cancer patients who are at high risk for thrombo-embolic events.

Epoetin alfa in platinum-treated ovarian cancer patients: results of a multinational, multicentre, randomised trial

This multicentre, open-label, controlled clinical trial assessed the effects of epoetin alfa treatment on haematologic and quality of life (QOL) parameters in 182 anaemic (Hb⩽12 g dl⁻¹) ovarian cancer patients receiving platinum chemotherapy. Patients were randomised 2 : 1 to receive epoetin alfa 10 000–20 000 IU three times weekly plus best standard treatment (BST) or BST only. Main study end points were changes from baseline in haemoglobin (Hb) level, transfusion requirements, and QOL. For the epoetin alfa group, mean Hb increased by 1.8 g dl⁻¹ by weeks 4–6 and was significantly increased from baseline through study end (P<0.001). The mean change in Hb from baseline was significantly (P<0.001) greater for epoetin alfa than BST patients at all postbaseline evaluations. Significantly fewer epoetin alfa than BST patients required transfusion(s) after the first 4 weeks of treatment (7.9 vs 30.5%; P<0.001). Also, significant (P⩽0.04) differences favouring the epoetin alfa group over the BST group were found for all three median CLAS scores (Energy Level, Ability to Do Daily Activities, Overall QOL) and the median average CLAS score during chemotherapy. These findings support use of epoetin alfa to increase Hb levels, reduce transfusion use, and improve QOL in anaemic ovarian cancer patients receiving platinum chemotherapy.

Epoetin beta in oncology: examining the current evidence

Anemia is highly prevalent in patients with cancer and its impact on quality of life and long-term outcome in these patients is well documented. Recombinant human erythropoietins, or epoetins, have been used to treat cancer-related or antitumor therapy-induced anemia for many years. Through a combination of clinical studies and extensive experience in the real-life clinical setting, epoetin beta has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated, increasing hemoglobin levels, reducing the need for transfusion and improving quality of life. This favorable efficacy and safety profile has been demonstrated across a broad range of malignancy types, irrespective of the treatment used (platinum or nonplatinum based). The effect of treatment with epoetin beta is rapid, with mean hemoglobin increases of 1 g/dl seen as early as 4 weeks following the start of therapy. Furthermore, there is no evidence that epoetin beta negatively affects overall survival or tumor progression in anemic patients with cancer. The approved 30,000 IU once-weekly dosing regimen (as opposed to the 10,000 IU three-times weekly regimen) provides greater convenience and may result in improved treatment compliance.

Are there clinical benefits with early erythropoietic intervention for chemotherapy-induced anemia?

BACKGROUND

In recent years there has been an increasing debate regarding the benefits of initiating erythropoietic treatment in patients with cancer when anemia is still relatively mild. To address this, a systematic review of studies was conducted that answered the following question: Is there a clinical benefit associated with early erythropoietic intervention (hemoglobin > or = 10 g/dL) for chemotherapy-induced anemia?

METHODS

A systematic review of published literature and meeting abstracts was undertaken to identify relevant studies. Data were extracted from studies meeting prespecified eligibility criteria. For outcome measures not associated with significant heterogeneity, summary measures of relative risk associated with early erythropoietic intervention were estimated using the method of Mantel and Haenszel.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were eligible and were included in the review. Erythropoietic treatment effectively decreased transfusion incidence and the proportion of patients with hemoglobin < 10 g/dL compared with no treatment, with relative risk reductions of 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43, 0.59; 7 studies, P < 0.0001) and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.19, 0.83; 4 studies, P = 0.147), respectively. The findings from both prospective studies and planned subset analyses in which early and late intervention were compared also indicated a reduction in the relative risk of both transfusions and hemoglobin < 10 g/dL after early intervention (0.55 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.73; 5 studies, P < 0.0001] and 0.44 [95% CI, 0.33, 0.57; 2 studies, P < 0.0001], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Collectively, these findings suggest that optimal clinical benefit from erythropoietic treatment of chemotherapy-induced anemia may be achieved through early intervention.

Anaemia management strategies: optimising treatment using epoetin beta (NeoRecormon)

Anaemia has a detrimental impact on quality of life and it is important that this condition is recognised and treated in patients with cancer. Epoetin beta is an effective and well-tolerated treatment of anaemia in patients with a wide range of solid and haematological malignancies. A study in patients with lymphoid malignancies confirms that epoetin beta is equally effective at the same overall weekly dose (30,000 IU weekly) when given once-weekly or three-times weekly. This once-weekly regimen has also proved effective in patients with solid tumours. Once-weekly treatment is more convenient for the patient, potentially improving compliance and is associated with reduced hospital administration costs. The majority of patients with cancer will respond to epoetin therapy with an increase in haemoglobin levels. However, it is of value to identify those patients who are likely to respond, so that cost-effectiveness can be improved. Despite much research into potential predictive factors, follow-up studies are required and clinical judgement remains key to managing the anaemia of cancer. In addition, studies suggest that intravenous iron supplementation can improve response to epoetin therapy in patients with functional iron deficiency. Epoetin beta offers an effective, safe and convenient therapy for the management of anaemia in patients with cancer. Ongoing studies are expected to lead to a greater understanding of the optimal use of epoetins in cancer-related anaemia.

Management of cancer-related anemia with erythropoietic agents: doubts, certainties, and concerns

The management of cancer-related anemia with erythropoietic agents presents many unresolved issues. We reviewed the literature relating to epoetin alfa (Eprex)/Epypo); Ortho Biotech/Janssen-Cilag, High Wycombe, United Kingdom, http://www.orthobiotech.co.uk; Procrit); Ortho Biotech Products, L.P., Bridgewater, NJ, http://www.orthobiotech.com), epoetin beta (NeoRecormon); Hoffman-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland, http://www.roche.com), and darbepoetin alfa (Aranesp); Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, http://www.amgen.com) highlighting the results of published clinical trials, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Studies were identified through MEDLINE and the bibliographies of relevant articles. Epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, and darbepoetin alfa have differing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. They are all effective at reducing transfusion requirements and improving health-related quality-of-life parameters, irrespective of tumor response. A direct comparison between epoetin alfa and darbe poetin alfa is based on limited evidence, which does not allow definitive conclusions about relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness. No predictive factors for response to erythropoietic agents have been validated in prospective trials. The most consistent adverse events are thrombotic and may occur irrespective of an increase in hemoglobin. Recent research indicates that the erythropoietin receptor is expressed in several cancer cell lines, raising the concern of possible stimulation of tumor cell growth by these drugs. Studies on the cost-effectiveness of erythropoietins, particularly compared with transfusion therapy, have been challenging to conduct and analyze and have generated ambiguous results. The use of erythropoietins needs to be optimized in terms of cost-effectiveness, and issues surrounding safety need to be clarified. A stronger methodology for clinical studies and the design of new, randomized, clinical trials is a major priority.

New Guidelines on Anaemia Management in Patients with Cancer: How Do These Affect Clinical Practice?

Anaemia is a condition that frequently occurs in patients with cancer, but a recent survey has cast doubt over whether it is being appropriately treated. These findings are disappointing considering the wealth of data showing the effectiveness of epoetin therapy in patients with cancer. Recently, evidence-based guidelines have been published that aim to provide physicians with the latest information required for optimal management of anaemia in patients with cancer. By increasing physician awareness of the appropriate therapy for anaemia management, more patients may receive the benefits of epoetin therapy.

Recombinant human erythropoietin in oncology: current status and further developments

Anaemia effects up to 90% of cancer patients, with more than 60% requiring blood transfusion during or after treatment. With the advent of recombinant human erythropoietins (rHuEPO), an alternative to red blood cell transfusion has become available. So far, three drugs have been approved for the treatment of anaemia in patients with malignancies (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alfa). New concepts for the use of erythropoietin in cancer patients include 3- and 4-weekly dosing, as well as loading-dose concepts. Important factors helping to judge the impact of erythropoietin in cancer treatment include pharmacoeconomics and better predictive factors. Lately, the influence of erythropoietin therapy on survival in cancer patients has been discussed very intensively, because conflicting data have emerged. Studies aimed at correcting anaemia in cancer patients had indicated a possible survival advantage of those patients receiving erythropoietin. In contrast, two recent trials aimed at correction of haemoglobin levels beyond anaemia reported a poorer survival of patients receiving erythropoietin. This might grossly be attributed to a higher risk of thrombosis in these patients. The largest systematic review on the use of erythropoietin in cancer patients undergoing treatment indicates a suggestive but not significant survival advantage of erythropoietin-treated patients. In addition, very recent results of a Food and Drug Administration meeting on safety and survival of patients treated with erythropoietin are presented.

Recombinant Human Erythropoietin and Overall Survival in Cancer Patients: Results of a Comprehensive Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical and economic factor in the treatment of malignant diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the efficacy of erythropoietin to prevent or treat anemia in cancer patients with regard to red blood cell transfusions, hematologic response, adverse events, and overall survival. We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, and other databases for relevant articles published from January 1985 to December 2001. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared the use of recombinant human erythropoietin (plus transfusion, if needed) with no erythropoietin treatment (plus transfusion, if needed). Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated under a fixed-effects model. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were examined with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression. Statistical tests for effect estimates were two-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 27 trials involving 3287 adult patients. Patients treated with erythropoietin had a lower relative risk of having a blood transfusion than untreated patients (RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.73). Erythropoietin-treated patients with baseline hemoglobin levels lower than 10 g/dL were more likely to have a hematologic response than untreated patients (RR = 3.60, 95% CI = 3.07 to 4.23). The relative risk for thromboembolic complications after erythropoietin treatment was not statistically significantly increased (RR = 1.58, 95% CI = 0.94 to 2.66) compared with that of untreated patients. There is suggestive but inconclusive evidence that erythropoietin may improve overall survival (adjusted data: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.99; unadjusted data: HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Erythropoietin treatment may reduce the risk for blood transfusions and improve hematologic response in cancer patients. However, our favorable survival outcome is in contrast to two large (N = 351 and 939) recently published randomized controlled trials in which erythropoietin-treated patients had statistically significantly worse survival than untreated patients. Possible reasons for the disparity with our results include differences in study population and design, higher target hemoglobin levels and higher risk of thromboembolic complications, and concerns that erythropoietin may stimulate tumor growth.

Evolving treatment strategies for anaemia in cancer: experience with epoetin beta

Epoetin represents the standard of care in the management of cancer therapy-related anaemia, increasing haemoglobin levels, reducing transfusion need and improving patient quality of life (QoL). Recent research aimed at improving convenience and ease of use has involved all epoetins. In particular, it has confirmed that epoetin beta 30,000 IU once weekly is equally effective as the conventional 10,000 IU three-times weekly regimen in alleviating cancer-related anaemia. Ongoing research aimed at improving still further the effectiveness of epoetins in anaemia treatment is examining the role of concomitant intravenous iron during epoetin beta therapy. With the recent debate over whether epoetin therapy has an effect on treatment outcome and survival, well-designed trials specifically powered to assess survival are required. The BReast cancer-Anaemia and the Value of Erythropoietin (BRAVE) trial is such a study, assessing the impact of epoetin beta on survival and QoL of patients with metastatic breast cancer scheduled to receive anthracycline- and/or taxane-based chemotherapy. The findings of such studies are expected to lead to a greater understanding of the optimal use of epoetins in cancer-related anaemia.

Optimising Anaemia Management with Epoetin Beta

The contribution of epoetin beta to the management of cancer-related anaemia over the past decade has been a significant one; increased haemoglobin (Hb) levels, reduced transfusion need and improved patient quality of life (QoL) have been well documented in patients across a wide range of malignancies. In recent years, concerns have been raised over the inconvenience and costs associated with the conventional three-times weekly (tiw) epoetin dosing regimen. As a result, optimising therapy through less frequent dosing (i.e. once weekly) has become a focus of research. The NeoRecormon Once Weekly (NOW) study compared the efficacy and tolerability of epoetin beta 30,000 IU once weekly with a standard 10,000 IU tiw regimen in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies. The study showed that the once weekly regimen was equally effective as the tiw regimen in increasing Hb levels and reducing transfusion need. Furthermore, the response to once weekly treatment was rapid, with 1 and 2 g/dl increases in Hb level seen at approximately 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. Studies with other erythropoietic agents have also shown the efficacy of the once weekly dosing strategy. Epoetin beta 30,000 IU is now approved for once weekly administration in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies receiving antitumour therapy, and can be administered using a new 30,000 IU pre-filled syringe. Once weekly administration of epoetin beta offers greater convenience and should reduce administration costs compared with the tiw regimen.

EORTC guidelines for the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer

Anaemia is frequently diagnosed in patients with cancer, yet it is difficult to identify a single cause due to its multifactorial aetiology. We conducted a systematic literature review (1996-2003) to produce evidence-based guidelines on the use of erythropoietic proteins in anaemic patients with cancer (see ). Level I evidence exists for a positive impact of erythropoietic proteins on haemoglobin (Hb) levels when administered to patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease, when used to prevent cancer anaemia, in patients undergoing cancer surgery and following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. The Hb level at which erythropoietic protein therapy should be initiated is difficult to determine as it varied between studies; a large number of Level I studies in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease enrolled patients with a Hb concentration </=105 g/L, but none compared the effect of different baseline Hb levels on the response to treatment. Similarly, several studies defined the target Hb concentration as 120-130 g/L following treatment with erythropoietic proteins, but none specifically addressed the correlation between target Hb level and clinical benefit in a randomised fashion. Level I evidence shows that red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements are significantly reduced with erythropoietic protein therapy in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or when used to prevent cancer anaemia (approximately 20% reduction compared with controls). We found indirect Level I and III evidence that patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease initially classified as non-responders to standard doses proceed to respond to treatment following a dose increase (absolute increases in response rate ranged from 8% to 18%). However, none of these studies examined the effect on response rates of a longer treatment period at the lower dose, or performed a randomised comparison of a dose increase versus an unchanged dose. There is Level I evidence to show that quality-of-life (QOL) is significantly improved in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia and in those with anaemia of chronic disease, particularly in patients achieving a Hb response to erythropoietic protein therapy. There are insufficient data to determine the effect on survival following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. There is Level I evidence that dosing of erythropoietic proteins less frequently than three times per week (TIW) is efficacious when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia. There is Level III evidence that initial doses of erythropoietic proteins considered to be higher than current standard practice produce higher haematological responses in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or anaemia of chronic disease. Level I evidence demonstrates that several baseline patient parameters (e.g., low endogenous erythropoietin [EPO] concentration, age <60 years, Hb concentration >/=90 g/L) impact upon the response to erythropoietic proteins when used to treat chemotherapy-induced anaemia or prevent cancer anaemia. Evidence indicates that endogenous EPO concentration impacts on response in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies, but is not a valid parameter in patients with solid tumours. There is Level I evidence that fixed doses of erythropoietic proteins can be used at the start of therapy to treat patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia, but maintenance doses should be titrated individually. There is no evidence that pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) occurs following treatment with erythropoietic proteins in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia or when used prophylactically in patients with cancer. There is Level I evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events and hypertension are slightly elevated in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia receiving erythropoietic proteins. Level I evidence supports the effectiveness of erythropoietic proteins to prevenroteins to prevent anaemia in non-anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or in those undergoing cancer surgery. However, these are non-licensed indications and we do not currently recommend the prophylactic use of erythropoietic proteins to prevent anaemia in patients who have normal Hb values at the start of treatment. Additional trials are warranted, especially on the issues of iron replacement and cost-effectiveness of erythropoietic protein therapy, as well as on tumour response/progression and survival.