Safety Of Erythropoiesis-stimulating Agents Research Articles

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their use has been associated with cardiovascular events.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014. To compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD. In this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 29 April 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, a biosimilar epoetin or a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD were considered for inclusion. Two independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (expressed as odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI)) and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed certainty in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes (preventing blood transfusions and death (any cause)) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Sixty-two new studies (9237 participants) were included in this update, so the review now includes 117 studies with 25,237 participants. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in most methodological domains. Overall, results remain similar in this update compared to our previous review in 2014. For preventing blood transfusion, epoetin alfa (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61; low certainty evidence)andepoetin beta (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47; low certainty evidence) may be superior to placebo, and darbepoetin alfa was probably superior to placebo (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.67; moderate certainty evidence). Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.02; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03; very low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.91; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects onpreventing blood transfusion compared to placebo.The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on preventing blood transfusions were uncertain, in low to very low certainty evidence. Effects on death (any cause) were uncertain forepoetin alfa (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.22; low certainty evidence), epoetin beta (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.20; low certainty evidence),methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence),a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.36; low certainty evidence) anda biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.23; very low certainty evidence) comparedto placebo. There was probably no difference between darbepoetin alfa andplacebo on the odds of death (any cause)(OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; moderatecertainty evidence). The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESAon death (any cause) were uncertain in low to very low certainty evidence. Epoetin beta probably increased the odds of hypertension when compared to placebo (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.00; moderatecertainty evidence). Compared to placebo,epoetin alfa (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.59; very low certainty evidence), darbepoetin alfa(OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.14; low certainty evidence) and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.74; low certainty evidence) may increase the odds of hypertension, but a biosimilar epoetin(OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.67; low certainty evidence)and biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.66; low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hypertension.The comparative effects of all ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, and breathlessness were uncertain. Network analysis for fatigue was not possible due to sparse data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The comparative effects of different ESAson blood transfusions, death (any cause and cardiovascular), major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, fatigue and breathlessnesswere uncertain.

The Effect of Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent on the Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia and Tumor Growth in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients

Bacground : Erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) increase hemoglobin levels, reduce red blood cell (RBC) transfusion requirements and improve the quality of life (QoL) in patients with chemotherapy-associated anemia (CAA). The purpose of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of ESA for management of anemia caused by chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). And this study estimated quality of life as measured by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scales for anemia (FACT-An) additionally. Until now, several studies suggested that ESA can affect the progression of tumors. This study conducted experiments to confirm whether the results of previous studies were also applied to lymphoma cells.Patients and Methods : This prospective, multicenter, phase II study enrolled 50 Histologically confirmed DLBCL patients who were treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristin, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) chemotherapy. This study enrolled patients who were shown hemoglobin < 10.0 g/dL at least 3 cycles after starting R-CHOP, were planning to receive at least 4 times of darbepoetin, could read Quality of life as measured by FACT-An and agreed with informed consent. However, this study excluded patients who combined iron deficiency anemia, received erythropoietin at least one months before starting darbepoetin, serious pre-existing medical condition, and untreated primary or metastatic CNS(central nervous system) malignancy. This study was registered in clinicaltrial.gov, and more information can be found at NCT02890602. All patients received darbepoietin alfa at fixed dose of 360 mg once every 3 weeks and if the hemoglobin level exceeds 12 g/dL, administration of darbepoietin was stopped temporarily. In addition, DLBCL cell lines or primary DLBCL cells were tested in vitro to investigate if there were any adverse effects of ESAs on the cancer cell growth.Results : Fifty patients were enrolled between Sep 2012 and Oct 2016. The median age was 64.5 years (range: 34-79 years). The baseline clinical features were as follows: female sex, 68.0%; ECOG >1, 75.5%; stage III/IV, 80.0% and International Prognostic Index score (IPI) > 2, 53.3%, and mean serum ferritin level, 648.13±982.52. The baseline mean hemoglobin level was 9.24 g/dL and overall mean change in hemoglobin level was 1.54±1.3 g/dL at 16 weeks. 46% of total enrolled patients achieved an increase in Hb levels of at least 2 g/dL after 16 weeks of darbepoietin administration and median time to response was 8 weeks. The change of OoL was not significant from baseline to finish of ESA. Most adverse events were hematologic complications which were attributed to the primary disease or received chemotherapy. Only one patient had a thrombotic event which was Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade I. Transfusion necessity was determined by clinical judgment and the transfusion rates were 18%. In in vitro study using DLBCL cells, erythropoietin or darbepoietin did not alter cancer cell viability nor rituximab-mediated cytotoxicity under the conditions we have tested.Conclusions : Our study has demonstrated that ESA is effective and safe for patients suffering from anemia after RCHOP chemotherapy. The use of ESA in patients with DLBCL did not deteriorate the quality of life of the patients during chemotherapy. Finally, our research have also shown that the use of ESA does not affect the growth of lymphoma cells. (EPOMA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02890602) DisclosuresNo relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Erythropoietin combined with traditional Chinese medicine for chemotherapy-induced anemias: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background:As far as we know, several systematic review and meta-analysis have assessed the safety and efficacy of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in the patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). But no study assesses the safety and efficacy of ESAs combined with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The aim of our study is to assess the efficacy and safety of ESAs combination with TCM for patients with CIA and will provide a higher level of evidence for clinical applications.Methods:This protocol adheres to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocol statement. The source of literature will be a structured search of the following 7 electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Wanfang Database. Records will be independently evaluated by 2 reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus or third-party adjudication. Review Manager 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen Denmark) will be used to perform meta-analysis. For dichotomous variables, odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals will be obtained by the Mantel–Haenszel method. For continuous data, mean difference with 95% confidence intervals will be used. P < 0.05 will be considered to be statistically significant.Results:This study will be performed to test the efficacy and safety of ESAs combined with TCM for CIA in patients with cancer.Conclusions:The result of this study will be promoted mainly in 2 ways: publish in peer-reviewed journals in the fastest way; and promotion in domestic and foreign conferences.INPLASY registration number:INPLASY202080041.

Early erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in preterm or low birth weight infants.

Early erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in preterm or low birth weight infants.

Early erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in preterm or low birth weight infants.

Early erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in preterm or low birth weight infants.

Increased mortality in haemodialysis patients administered high doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: a propensity score-matched analysis

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are widely used to treat anaemia in patients with chronic kidney disease. The issue of ESA safety has been raised in multiple studies, with correlates derived for elevated cancer incidence and mortality. Whether these associations are related to ESA dose or the typology of the patient remains obscure. A multicentre, observational retrospective propensity score-matched study was designed to analyse the effects of weekly ESA dose in 1679 incident haemodialysis (HD) patients. ESA administration was according to standard medical practice. Patients were grouped as quintiles, according to ESA dose, in order to compare mortality and hospitalization data. Using propensity score matching (PSM), we defined two groups of 324 patients receiving weekly threshold ESA doses of either > or ≤8000 IU. Kaplan-Meier survival curves indicated significant increases in the risk of mortality in patients administered with high doses of ESAs (>8127.4 IU/week). Multivariate Cox models identified a high ESA dose as an independent predictor for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. Moreover, logistic regression models identified high ESA doses as an independent predictor for all-cause, CV and infectious hospitalization. PSM analyses confirmed that weekly ESA doses of >8000 IU constitute an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and hospitalization, even though the adjusted cohort displayed the same demographic features, inflammatory profile, clinical HD parameters and haemoglobin levels. Our data suggest that ESA doses of >8000 IU/week are associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization in HD patients.

Safety of intravenous iron in hemodialysis patients.

Among end-stage renal disease patients maintained by hemodialysis, anemia has been managed primarily through erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and intravenous (IV) iron. Following concerns about the cardiovascular (CV) safety of ESAs and changes in the reimbursement policies in Medicare's ESRD program, the use of IV iron has increased. IV iron supplementation promotes hemoglobin production and reduces ESA requirements, yet there exists relatively little evidence on the long-term safety of iron supplementation in hemodialysis patients. Labile iron can induce oxidative stress and is also essential in bacterial growth, leading to concerns about IV iron use and risk of CV events and infections in hemodialysis patients. Existing randomized controlled trials provide little evidence about safety due to insufficient power and short follow-up; recent observational studies have been inconsistent, but some have associated iron exposure with increased risk of infections and CV events. Given the widespread use and potential safety concerns related to IV iron, well-designed large prospective studies are needed to assess to identify optimal strategies for iron administration that maximize its benefits while avoiding potential risks.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (biosimilars vs originators) in clinical practice: a population-based cohort study in Italy

ObjectivesTo evaluate the benefit/risk profile of epoetin α biosimilar with the erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) originators when administered to naïve patients from clinical practice.DesignPopulation-based observational cohort study.SettingAll residents in the Lazio...

The effects of erythropoiesis stimulating therapy for anemia in chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BackgroundAlthough anemia is common in chronic heart failure (CHF), the use of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) in CHF patients remains controversial. In this meta-analysis, we sought to clarify the efficacy and safety of ESAs in anemic patients with CHF. MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the U.S. National Institutes of Health registry of clinical trials. We included 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the meta-analysis. The co-primary outcome was all-cause mortality and rehospitalization. The safety analysis outcome was thromboembolic events. ResultsPreliminary analysis showed that ESA-treatment did not have any effect for all-cause mortality and rehospitalization. However, we revealed a significant small-study bias, and used the trim-and-fill method to reduce this bias. The summary effect of ESA-treatment was insignificant for all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59–1.42, p=0.69) and for rehospitalization (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67–1.23, p=0.53). Regarding symptoms, ESA-treatment improved dyspnea (NYHA grade improvement: 1.63, 95% CI 0.65–2.62, p<0.001) and quality-of-life measured by subjective questionnaires. However, in safety analysis, ESAs increased the over-all risk for thromboembolic events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03–1.58, p=0.026), however, no specific increase was observed in severe thromboembolic events. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in ESA-treatment according to the type of ESAs (darbepoetin vs. erythropoietin) and between studies of different follow-up durations (<6months or ≥6months). ConclusionAmong CHF patients with anemia, ESA-treatment has a neutral effect on all-cause mortality and rehospitalization and improves symptoms, but has harmful effects on thromboembolic events.

Iron management in chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO) Controversies Conference.

Before the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in 1989, repeated transfusions given to patients with end-stage renal disease caused iron overload, and the need for supplemental iron was rare. However, with the widespread introduction of ESAs, it was recognized that supplemental iron was necessary to optimize hemoglobin response and allow reduction of the ESA dose for economic reasons and recent concerns about ESA safety. Iron supplementation was also found to be more efficacious via intravenous compared to oral administration, and the use of intravenous iron has escalated in recent years. The safety of various iron compounds has been of theoretical concern due to their potential to induce iron overload, oxidative stress, hypersensitivity reactions, and a permissive environment for infectious processes. Therefore, an expert group was convened to assess the benefits and risks of parenteral iron, and to provide strategies for its optimal use while mitigating the risk for acute reactions and other adverse effects.

Iron therapy in chronic kidney disease: Recent changes, benefits and risks

Anemia is a common complication in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), mainly due to inadequate renal production of erythropoietin. In hemodialysis (HD) patients this condition may be aggravated by iron deficiency (absolute or functional). The correction of this anemia is usually achieved by treatment with erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron (oral or intravenous). Studies questioning the safety of ESAs (especially at higher doses) changed the pattern of anemia treatment in CKD patients. According to the new guidelines, when transferrin saturation is lower than 30% and ferritin lower than 500ng/mL, a trial with iron should be started, to avoid therapy with ESAs or at least to reduce the doses needed to treat the anemia. Recent reports showed increasing ferritin levels, towards values above 800ng/mL, in CKD patients treated according to the guidelines. In this review we focus on the risks of the increased iron use to treat CKD anemia, namely, iron overload and toxicity, increased risk of infections, as well as mortality.

Target Hemoglobin May Be Achieved with Intravenous Iron Alone in Anemic Patients with Cardiorenal Syndrome: An Observational Study

Background: The treatment of anemia in patients with cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) is based mainly on intravenous (IV) iron therapy and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). There are concerns about the safety of ESAs due to a potentially higher risk for stroke and malignancy. Objective: We aimed to explore whether IV iron alone is sufficient to improve anemia in CRS patients and to define the predictors of treatment response. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of 81 CRS patient treated for anemia at our clinic. All patients received IV iron for 6 weeks. A subset of patients was additionally given subcutaneous ESAs. The end point was the improvement from baseline in hemoglobin (Hb) and ferritin levels at week 7. Results: We retrieved the files of 81 patients; 34 received IV iron alone and 47 were given IV iron and ESAs (the combination group). The Hb levels significantly increased in both groups (in the IV iron alone group: 10.6 ± 1.1 to 11.9 ±1.1 g/dl, p < 0.001; in the combination group: 10.2 ± 0.9 to 12.4 ± 1.3 g/dl, p < 0.001), but more pronouncedly in the combination group (2.17 vs. 1.24 g/dl; p = 0.001). The platelet count decreased significantly in the IV iron alone group but was unchanged in the combination group. Eighty percent of patients attained a Hb target of 11 g/dl, with no significant difference between the two groups (73.5 vs. 85.1%; p = 0.197). Low baseline Hb was the only predictor of a favorable outcome to treatment. Conclusion: Our observational study suggests that IV iron treatment without ESAs may substantially raise the Hb level to ≥11 g/dl in CRS patients. This treatment strategy may reduce the use of ESAs and hence its potential adverse effects.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis.

Several erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are available for treating anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Their relative efficacy (preventing blood transfusions and reducing fatigue and breathlessness) and safety (mortality and cardiovascular events) are unclear due to the limited power of head-to-head studies. To compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, or methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs, against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD. We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 11 February 2014 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, or biosimilar ESA) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD and that reported prespecified patient-relevant outcomes were considered for inclusion. Two independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed by random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore for sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed our confidence in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes within network meta-analysis (preventing blood transfusions and all-cause mortality) according to adapted GRADE methodology as very low, low, moderate, or high. We identified 56 eligible studies involving 15,596 adults with CKD. Risks of bias in the included studies was generally high or unclear for more than half of studies in all of the risk of bias domains we assessed; no study was low risk for allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment and attrition from follow-up. In network analyses, there was moderate to low confidence that epoetin alfa (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59), epoetin beta (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.38), darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57), and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.70) prevented blood transfusions compared to placebo. In very low quality evidence, biosimilar ESA therapy was possibly no better than placebo for preventing blood transfusions (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.47) with considerable imprecision in estimated effects. We could not discern whether all ESAs were similar or different in their effects on preventing blood transfusions and our confidence in the comparative effectiveness of different ESAs was generally very low. Similarly, the comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality were imprecise.All proprietary ESAs increased the odds of hypertension compared to placebo (epoetin alfa OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; epoetin beta OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.23 to 5.39; darbepoetin alfa OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.21; methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.92), while the effect of biosimilar ESAs on developing hypertension was less certain (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.99). Our confidence in the comparative effects of ESAs on hypertension was low due to considerable imprecision in treatment estimates. The comparative effects of all ESAs on cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and vascular access thrombosis were uncertain and network analyses for major cardiovascular events, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), fatigue and breathlessness were not possible. Effects of ESAs on fatigue were described heterogeneously in the available studies in ways that were not useable for analyses. In the CKD setting, there is currently insufficient evidence to suggest the superiority of any ESA formulation based on available safety and efficacy data. Directly comparative data for the effectiveness of different ESA formulations based on patient-centred outcomes (such as quality of life, fatigue, and functional status) are sparse and poorly reported and current research studies are unable to inform care. All proprietary ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta) prevent blood transfusions but information for biosimilar ESAs is less conclusive. Comparative treatment effects of different ESA formulations on other patient-important outcomes such as survival, MI, stroke, breathlessness and fatigue are very uncertain.For consumers, clinicians and funders, considerations such as drug cost and availability and preferences for dosing frequency might be considered as the basis for individualising anaemia care due to lack of data for comparative differences in clinical benefits and harms.

Use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of anemia in patients with systolic heart failure.

To determine the efficacy and safety of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for the treatment of anemia in patients with systolic heart failure. A search of MEDLINE (1946-January 2014) and EMBASE (1947-January 2014) was conducted using the search terms erythropoietin and systolic heart failure. In addition, bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed for additional citations. All English language randomized controlled trials evaluating clinical outcomes or adverse events when using ESAs in the setting of systolic heart failure were included. A total of 9 studies were reviewed. All studies examining hematological parameters found a statistically significant increase in hemoglobin levels with active treatment versus placebo. Of the 7 trials evaluating exercise tolerance or capacity, only 4 demonstrated statistically significant improvement in these measures in patients receiving ESAs, whereas the remainder showed no clinical benefit. Four studies examined quality-of-life measures. Although numerical improvements were observed in most trials, statistical significance was reached in only 2 trials. A nonsignificant trend for decreased mortality in patients treated with darbepoetin with a similar adverse event profile compared to placebo was shown in one study; however, the largest trial to date showed no benefit in all-cause mortality or heart failure-related hospitalizations with the use of ESAs. Additionally, a statistically significant increase in the number of cerebrovascular events and thrombotic events was found. There is inconclusive evidence to suggest that the use of ESAs in treating anemia in patients with heart failure is beneficial. Although ESAs demonstrated a clear ability for increasing hemoglobin levels, the data regarding clinical outcomes such as exercise parameters, quality of life, and hospitalizations are conflicting. In addition, a mortality benefit has not been shown; therefore, the potential for improved symptomatology must be weighed against the potential for adverse events.

Current Status of Use of Erythropoietic Agents in Cancer Patients

Anemia is frequently observed in cancer patients and can cause symptoms and result in red cell transfusions. The erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) have been shown to increase hemoglobin levels and reduce transfusion requirements in anemic subjects with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. Initially, these benefits motivated broad use of the ESAs in oncology. Over the past 10 years, recognition of the adverse events that can be associated with ESA use in these patients, particularly venous thrombosis, has resulted in a rethinking of the issue of who are the correct candidates for treatment. Different health care systems have come to different conclusions based upon the available data and additional data are still being generated. This article will review the data concerning the safety of ESAs in cancer patients, including the results of additional trials published in the past 2 years. This will include a discussion of the potential of ESAs to impact tumor progression or survival. Thrombosis remains the most important and best documented adverse event associated with ESA therapy in oncology. The mechanism(s) through which ESAs alter thrombosis risk are still very poorly understood.

Safety of off-label erythropoiesis stimulating agents in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis

Erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs) are used to treat anemia in critically ill patients. This indication is off-label, because it is not licensed by regulatory authorities. Recently ESAs were suspected to harm critically ill patients. Our objective was to assess the safety of ESAs in off-label indications in critically ill patients. Eleven databases were searched up to April 2012. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies in any language that compared off-label ESAs treatment with other effective interventions, placebo or no treatment in critically ill patients. Two authors independently screened and evaluated retrieved records, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of reporting. We used frequentist and Bayesian models to combine studies, and performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses. From 12,888 citations, we included 48 studies (34 RCTs; 14 observational), involving 944,856 participants. Harm reporting was of medium to low quality. There was no statistically significant increased risk of adverse events in general, serious adverse events, the most frequently reported adverse events, and death in critically ill patients treated with ESAs. These results were robust against risk of bias and analysis methods. There is evidence that ESAs increase the risk of clinically relevant thrombotic vascular events, and there is some less certain evidence that ESAs might increase the risk for venous thromboembolism. In critically ill patients, administration of ESAs is associated with a significant increase in clinically relevant thrombotic vascular events but not with other frequently reported adverse events and death.

Meta‐analysis of epoetin beta and darbepoetin alfa treatment for chemotherapy‐induced anemia and mortality: Individual patient data from Japanese randomized, placebo‐controlled trials

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) reduce the need for transfusions and improve the quality of life in patients receiving chemotherapy, but several clinical trials have suggested that ESA might have a negative impact on survival. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESA, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alfa, including their impact on overall survival and thromboembolic events, we conducted an individual data-based meta-analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials studying Japanese patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia. All trials were conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice. A total of 511 patients with solid tumor or lymphoma (epoetin beta or darbepoetin alfa, n=273; placebo, n=238) were included. The ESA significantly reduced the risk of transfusion (relative risk, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.76). No significant effect of the ESA on overall survival was observed (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.34). A prespecified subgroup analysis showed no strong interaction between the baseline hemoglobin concentration and the effect of ESA on overall survival. Among the ESA-treated patients, the highest hemoglobin achieved during the treatment period in each patient had no impact on mortality. No increase in thromboembolic events was observed in the ESA-treated patients (0.7% vs 1.7% placebo). The ESA reduced the risk of transfusion without a negative impact on the survival of patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia.

Emerging topics in anaemia and cancer

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) increase red blood cell (RBC) production by activating the erythropoietin receptor on erythrocytic progenitor cells. ESAs are approved in the United States and Europe for treating anaemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. ESA safety issues include thromboembolic events and there have been concerns about disease progression and/or mortality in cancer patients. This educational supplement paper is based on two recently published papers. We review both clinical trial data on ESAs and disease progression and preclinical data on how ESAs could affect tumour growth. We conclude that ESAs may have little effect on disease progression in chemotherapy patients, and preclinical data indicate a direct or indirect effect of ESAs on tumour growth is not strongly supported. We also summarise the mechanisms and clinical consequences of iron deficiency and anaemia in cancer patients. Randomised clinical trials have shown superior efficacy of i.v. iron over oral or no iron in reducing blood transfusions, increasing haemoglobin, and improving quality of life in ESA-treated anaemic advanced cancer patients. Furthermore, i.v. iron without additional ESA should be evaluated as potential treatment in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia. at recommended doses, i.v. iron is well tolerated, particularly compared with oral iron, but caution should be used in some specific situations.

Update on Safety of ESAs in Cancer-Induced Anemia

Patients with cancer frequently develop a multifactorial anemia. The past decade has seen a dramatic improvement in understanding of the biology of the anemia of chronic disease, which has increased interest in studies of parenteral iron or antihepcidin strategies in these patients. Randomized trials have shown that therapy with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) is associated with a reduction in transfusion rates in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. More recently, some studies have suggested that ESA therapy may increase the risk of tumor progression or reduce survival in patients with cancer. This topic was extensively reviewed previously. This update supplements prior reviews with data generated over the past 4 years. During this interval, interest in thrombosis and its role in cancer biology has increased, and concerns about the thrombotic risks of ESAs has moved to the fore-front. Until additional safety data are forthcoming, ESAs should be used only to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia, with the goal of preventing transfusions. Patients and physicians should be aware of the safety data for these products.

Effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review

Current evidence suggests that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), including erythropoietin and darbepoetin, may have a direct cardio-protective effect. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of ESAs in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have yielded heterogeneous results. Here, we performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to assess whether the administration of ESAs can improve cardiac functional parameters, such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and attenuate infarct size in patients with acute STEMI. The PubMed, EBSCO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for relevant RCT studies on ESAs published before May 13, 2011. A total of nine RCTs involving 1,244 participants were identified. The original data of these studies were aggregated using fixed effect models. Compared with controls, the administration of ESAs showed a slight but significant improvement in LVEF (1.38%; 95% confidence interval 0.38-2.37%; p = 0.007). However, no significant improvement in LVEDV, LVESV, and infarct size was observed, and no increase in all-cause severe adverse effect was indicated. Our meta-analysis indicates that the superiority of ESAs over conventional therapy in patients with acute STEMI is limited using current procedures. However, there is evidence to suggest that the timing and dosing of ESA administration may be optimized. Moreover, the long-term cardio-protective effect of ESAs in this patient population may be beneficial and worth exploring.