ESAs not the culprit: more studies required

Effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents on survival and other outcomes in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies: a study-level meta-analysis

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are approved to treat anemia in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. ESAs reduce transfusion rates, but some clinical studies suggest that ESAs may reduce survival or increase disease progression. This study-level meta-analysis examined the effects of darbepoetin alfa, epoetin alfa or epoetin beta on mortality, disease progression and transfusion incidence in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies, using randomized, controlled trials of patients receiving chemotherapy and ESAs or standard of care. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.34, random-effects model, 10 studies); the risk difference was - 0.01 (95% CI, - 0.03-0.02). The OR for disease progression was 1.02 (95% CI 0.81-1.30, random-effects model, five studies). A lower proportion of ESA-treated patients than controls received transfusions (seven studies). In this meta-analysis, ESAs reduced transfusions with no clear effect on mortality or disease progression in patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies receiving chemotherapy.

Characterization of haematological parameters with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone in newly diagnosed myeloma, with evaluation of long-term outcomes and risk of thromboembolic events with use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: analysis of the VISTA trial

Although haematological toxicities, such as anaemia, are common in multiple myeloma (MM), no clear consensus exists on the use and impact of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) on outcomes in MM. This analysis characterizes haematological toxicities and associated interventions in the phase III VISTA (Velcade(®) as Initial Standard Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Assessment with Melphalan and Prednisone) study of bortezomib plus melphalan/prednisone (VMP, n = 344) versus MP (n = 338) in previously untreated MM patients ineligible for high-dose therapy, and evaluates the impact of ESA use or red-blood-cell (RBC) transfusions on outcomes and thromboembolic risk. Incidence of haematological toxicities was similar with VMP and MP; similar rates of interventions and associated complications (e.g. bleeding, febrile neutropenia) were observed. Two hundred thirty three patients received ESA; 204 had RBC transfusions. Frequency of thromboembolic events was low and not affected by ESA use. Median time-to progression (TTP) was similar between ESA/non-ESA [hazard ratio: 1·03 (95% confidence interval 0·76-1·39); P = 0·8478] in both arms (VMP: 19·9/not reached; MP: 15·0/17·5 months). Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were similar between ESA/non-ESA in each arm. Patients receiving RBC transfusions had significantly shorter OS (P < 0·0001) versus non-RBC-transfusion patients. In conclusion, bortezomib did not add to melphalan haematological toxicity. Concomitant ESA use with VMP/MP in previously untreated MM patients did not adversely affect TTP or OS, or increase thromboembolic risk. However, RBC transfusion was associated with significantly shorter survival.

Update on the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for the management of anemia of multiple myeloma and lymphoma

Anemia is a common side-effect of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and lymphoma. The etiology is complex, but the main cause is the underlying mechanism of anemia of chronic disease, which is characterized among others, by impairment of iron metabolism and consequently iron restricted erythropoiesis (IRE), resulting from the up-regulation of the iron distributing regulator, hepcidin. Erythopoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been the standard of care since early 90's offering high response rates and improving the quality of life of the patients. However, the role of ESAs in the treatment of cancer-related anemia has been questioned recently, due to the growing evidence which support that ESAs may be associated with increased risk for thrombosis and may have a detrimental impact on patients' survival. Under the light of the recent considerations, the place of ESAs in the management of cancer-related anemia has been reassigned. Regarding the management of anemia in MM or lymphoma, the updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Society of Hematology (ASCO/ASH) 2007 clinical practice guidelines on the use of ESAs in cancer-related anemia, recommended that ESAs should be preferably omitted in patients planned to receive chemotherapy and applied in case that anemia does not improve over treatment. The quest for reliable predictors for response to ESAs and for indicators of IRE which plays a major etiological role for the development of anemia of cancer still remains an open issue. In the current review we present an update on ESAs use in anemia of MM and lymphoma.

Biological functions and therapeutic use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents: perplexities and perspectives

Randomized clinical studies, carried out in patients with haematological malignancies and with solid tumours, have consistently demonstrated that treatment with recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo) increases haemoglobin levels, reduces blood transfusion requirements, and improves the quality of life. In addition, identification of erythropoietin receptor (EpoR) expression on many types of non-erythroid and cancer cells has spurred an interest in the extra-haematological activities of Epo itself and other erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Epo and its derivatives have emerged as major tissue-protective cytokines in ischaemic and degenerative damage of cardiovascular, neurological and renal diseases, while their angiogenetic and immunomodulatory properties indicate that their therapeutic potential may extend well beyond erythropoiesis alone. Both preclinical and clinical data, however, have suggested that they may contribute to tumour progression and prejudice survival when administered to anaemic cancer patients, though the results are equivocal and the assumed mechanisms by which tumour growth could be promoted are not fully understood. While these findings offer new perspectives, they nonetheless demand caution in the employment of ESAs. Further, well-designed experimental and clinical studies are warranted.