Drugs to combat anemia in cancer patients increase risk of death

Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay for drugs, like the anemia medicines, which they dispense in their offices as part of treatment. The anemia drugs are injected or given intravenously in physicians' offices. Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors' purchase price. I am reminded it is still a "chemotherapy concession."

Last year, U.S. Oncology, which funds, develops and helps manage 443 cancer centers in 39 states, complained that patients were harmed by new Medicare coverage policy for anemic cancer patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) decision limited ESA (erythropoiesis-stimulating agents) treatment to a maximum of eight weeks after a chemotherapy session. It also required physicians to wait until hemoglobin levels dropped below 10 g/dl before starting therapy.

Because CMS did not receive any documented cases of negative outcomes from the oncology community, it stuck to its decision. The FDA backed CMS' National Coverage Decision (NCD), which limited use of the drugs because they have been shown to spur tumor growth. The FDA believed the approved labeling and CMS' NCD were generally consistent in their recommendations regarding the use of pharmaceutical EPO in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

However, major insurance companies had not embraced the CMS protocol. It was a "shot over the bow" by the oncology community of government stepping directly into patients lives and saying that they know what is a better course of treatment than doctors. During the ensuing year, we found out that drugs, given by injection, had been heavily advertised, and there was gathering evidence that they had been overused, in part because oncologists could make money by using more of the drug.

Resulting studies had suggested the drugs may make the cancer worse. Much of that evidence came from studies in which patients were treated more aggressively than the drugs' labels recommended. The FDA found mounting evidence of documented effects on survival, tumor progression and thrombotic events which required reassessment of the net benefit of this class of drugs.

Gee, could it be that increased numbers of red cells deliver more oxygen to the tumor cells and thereby their activity across the board, including with respect to invasion, proliferation and metastasis? On one hand we're developing drugs to halt and reverse angiogenesis while on the other hand we're helping the tumor to obtain more oxygen with existing vasculature.

Having said all of this, physicians, scientists and the public occasionally apply their own judgement and determine when the existing evidence is sufficient to support a personal decision to adopt - as opposed to impose upon others - certain drug treatments. No wonder the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship emphasized the need for drastic changes in how physicians are reimbursed for care. Reward doctors for whole patient care - not just treatments.