Treatment with anti-anemia drugs may not be safe for multiple myeloma patients

August 4, 2008

A recent study published in American Journal of Hematology demonstrated that Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), a widely used drug to treat anemia, may have a negative impact on the survival of myeloma patients. In the study, 323 multiple myeloma patients were evaluated over a 20 year period in Greece from 1988 to 2007. The investigators reviewed their medical records and observed an association between ESA exposure and a reduction in progression-free and overall survival.

The study demonstrated that ESA administration may influence the course of the disease, in that people who received ESA may progress earlier than those who did not receive ESA. The median survival rate was 31 months for patients who were administered ESAs, compared to 67 months in those who were not exposed to ESAs. The median progression-free survival for patients in the ESA group was 14 months, and 30 months for those without ESA exposure.

For the past 15 years, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents have been used in the management of cancer-related anemia, but researcher Eirini Katodritou stresses the possible harmful effects ESAs may have on cancer patients. "Physicians should use ESAs with caution, based on the International Guidelines for ESA administration in cancer and on certain prognostic indicators to guide their use. Physicians need to identify the appropriate group of cancer patients who will benefit from ESA administration, while avoiding possible detrimental effects," said Katodritou.

The question of whether ESAs are harmful in patients with myeloma is a pressing clinical issue with at least eight prospective controlled clinical trials in the last five years reporting poorer outcomes with ESA use in patients with cancer, according to Dr. David P. Steensma of the Mayo Clinic. However, only two of those studies included some patients with myeloma.

Dr. Steensma pointed out that the patients in the retrospective Greek study were imbalanced for many of the known prognostic markers in myeloma, indicating that sicker patients were given ESAs preferentially and that this group would have been predicted to do more poorly anyway. Although this imbalance might explain the results, Dr. Steensma discussed the importance of additional prospective studies of ESA safety in myeloma and other forms of cancer.

Source: Wiley