Trends in Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use and blood transfusions for chemotherapy-induced anemia throughout FDA's risk evaluation and mitigation strategy lifecycle.

PURPOSE: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), indicated for treating some patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA), may increase the risk of tumor progression and mortality. FDA required a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to mitigate these risks. We assessed REMS impact on ESA administration and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion as surrogate metrics for REMS effectiveness. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including data from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2018 for beneficiaries ≥65 years enrolled in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Parts A/B with a cancer diagnosis; patients with other indications for ESA use were excluded. Study time was divided into five periods demarcated by issuance of CMS National Coverage Determination (NCD) (Pre-NCD, Pre-REMS) and REMS milestones (Grace Period, REMS, post-REMS). Study outcomes were monthly proportion of chemotherapy episodes (CTEs) with concomitant ESA administration, with post-CTE ESA administration, and with RBC transfusions. RESULTS: Of 1 778 855 beneficiaries treated with CT, 308742 received concomitant ESA for CIA. The proportion of CTEs with concomitant and post-CTE ESA administration decreased Pre-REMS (9.0 percentage points [pp] and 3.5 pp, respectively). There were no significant post-REMS changes in the proportion of CTEs with concomitant (0.0 pp) and post-CTE ESA administration (0.1 pp). Fluctuation in RBC transfusions was <4 pp throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries showed a substantive decrease in ESA administration after NCD, with minimal impact by the REMS and its removal. Small changes in RBC transfusion over the study period were likely due to a national secular trend.

Association Between Changes in CMS Reimbursement Policy and Drug Labels for Erythrocyte-Stimulating Agents With Outcomes for Older Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis Covered by Fee-for-Service Medicare.

IMPORTANCE: In 2011, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) changed its reimbursement policy for hemodialysis to a bundled comprehensive payment system that included the cost of erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs). Also in 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration revised the drug label for ESAs, recommending more conservative dosing in patients with chronic kidney disease. In response to concerns that these measures could have adverse effects on patient care and outcomes, the CMS and the FDA initiated a collaboration to assess the effect. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of the changes in reimbursement policy and the ESA drug label on patients who underwent incident hemodialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For this retrospective cohort study, patients 66 years or older who had undergone incident hemodialysis, and were enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, or D for at least 12 months prior to hemodialysis initiation between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, were recruited from hemodialysis centers across the United States. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on their date of hemodialysis initiation and followed: January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009, for the prepolicy cohort and July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013, for the postpolicy cohort, with the exclusion of January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, as a transition period. INTERVENTIONS: Changes in CMS reimbursement policy for dialysis and the FDA label for ESAs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and all-cause mortality; hospitalized congestive heart failure (H-CHF); venous thromboembolism; and red blood cell transfusions. Secondary outcomes included evaluating effects on black and other patient subgroups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 69 718 incident hemodialysis patients were similar between cohorts. Compared with the prepolicy period, the risk of MACE, death, H-CHF, and venous thromboembolism were similar in the postpolicy period, and the risk of stroke decreased (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.93; P = .01); the use of ESAs also decreased, and the rate of blood transfusions increased (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12; P < .001). In the post-postpolicy period, black patients had a significant reduction in risk of MACE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P < .001) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After the bundling policy and ESA labeling changes in 2011, the risks of MACE and death for patients 66 years or older and covered by fee-for-service Medicare who had undergone incident hemodialysis did not change; the risk of stroke was reduced, and the rate of blood transfusions modestly increased. Black patients had substantial reductions in the risks of MACE and death.

Comparative Risk of Anaphylactic Reactions Associated With Intravenous Iron Products.

IMPORTANCE: All intravenous (IV) iron products are associated with anaphylaxis, but the comparative safety of each product has not been well established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of anaphylaxis among marketed IV iron products. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective new user cohort study of IV iron recipients (n = 688,183) enrolled in the US fee-for-service Medicare program from January 2003 to December 2013. Analyses involving ferumoxytol were limited to the period January 2010 to December 2013. EXPOSURES: Administrations of IV iron dextran, gluconate, sucrose, or ferumoxytol as reported in outpatient Medicare claims data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Anaphylaxis was identified using a prespecified and validated algorithm defined with standard diagnosis and procedure codes and applied to both inpatient and outpatient Medicare claims. The absolute and relative risks of anaphylaxis were estimated, adjusting for imbalances among treatment groups. RESULTS: A total of 274 anaphylaxis cases were identified at first exposure, with an additional 170 incident anaphylaxis cases identified during subsequent IV iron administrations. The risk for anaphylaxis at first exposure was 68 per 100,000 persons for iron dextran (95% CI, 57.8-78.7 per 100,000) and 24 per 100,000 persons for all nondextran IV iron products combined (iron sucrose, gluconate, and ferumoxytol) (95% CI, 20.0-29.5 per 100,000) , with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 2.6 (95% CI, 2.0-3.3; P < .001). At first exposure, when compared with iron sucrose, the adjusted OR of anaphylaxis for iron dextran was 3.6 (95% CI, 2.4-5.4); for iron gluconate, 2.0 (95% CI 1.2, 3.5); and for ferumoxytol, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.1-4.3). The estimated cumulative anaphylaxis risk following total iron repletion of 1000 mg administered within a 12-week period was highest with iron dextran (82 per 100,000 persons, 95% CI, 70.5- 93.1) and lowest with iron sucrose (21 per 100,000 persons, 95% CI, 15.3- 26.4). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients in the US Medicare nondialysis population with first exposure to IV iron, the risk of anaphylaxis was highest for iron dextran and lowest for iron sucrose.