Table C48

KQ2: Transfusion Studies

Study IDIntervention (n)Intervention (N)Percentage (%)Control (n)Control(N)Percentage (%)Comments
KQ2 Comparison I. Different Weight-Based Doses
Kunikane 2001 Group A1166.25019
Kunikane 2001 Group B21811.11
Ten Bokkel 1998 Group A2454.44133339.39
Ten Bokkel 1998 Group B64214.29
Thatcher 1999 Group A194245.24264459.09Total number of transfusion significant difference between Group A/B
Thatcher 1999 Group B94420.45
Glaspy 2002 Group A1303.33%113036.67%K-M percentages reported, A) 4% (0; 11), EPO-control 36% (10; 87)
Glaspy 2002 Group B73023.33%B) 22% (6; 37)
Glaspy 2002 Group C73023.33%C) 23% (7; 30)
Glaspy 2002 Group D32910.34%D) 11% (0; 23)
Hedenus 2002 Group A31127.27%51145.45%Excluding first 4 weeks, counting week 5 to end of treatment derived from K-M estimates, arm A) 27% (95% CI 1–54), N=11, control: 45% (16–75), N=11
Hedenus 2002 Group B62227.27%27% (9–46), N=22
Hedenus 2002 Group C32213.64%15% (0–30), N=22
Kotasek 2003 Group A83026.67%235046arm A) 25% (9%–41%), N=30; control 46% (32%–61%), N=50
Kotasek 2003 Group B51729.41%arm B) 28% (7%-51%), N=17
Kotasek 2003 Group C124129.27%arm C) 30% (16%–44%), N=41
Kotasek 2003 Group D72725.93%arm D) 26% (7.5%–41%), N=27
Kotasek 2003 Group E93525.71%arm E) 27% (11%–40%), N=35
Kotasek 2003 Group F73818.42%arm F 19% (6%–32%), N=38
KQ2 Comparison II. Different Fixed Doses
Cazzola 1995 Group A73122.58 Placebo 8 Placebo 29 27.59
Cazzola 1995 Group B52917.24
Cazzola 1995 Group C63119.35
Cazzola 1995 Group D42615.38
Glimelius 1998 3417.3254311.63not significant
Johansson 2001 369040.00%499054.44%
Ollson 2002 309033.33329035.66% reported
Sakai 2004 Group A52222.72
Sakai 2004 Group B42416.66
Sakai 2004 Group C0230
KQ2 Comparison III. Weight-Based versus Fixed-Dose Regimens
Granetto 2003 3722516.443023812.61Only 463 of 546 patients assed (drop outs in first 4 weeks). Transfusion free % reported - -Kaplan Meier Estimate Log rank p=0,32% RR 1,29 (CI 0,78–2,14)
Hesketh 2004 2312218.881912015.83Reported: Fix: 19% (CI:11–27) W: 16% (CI 9–23)
KQ2 Comparison IV. More- versus Less-Frequent Dosing
Cazzola 2003 101159.241611414.03Additional source ASH 2002 Mean Hb in both groups before transfusion 7,4 g/dl P=0,14 Cochrane M.-Haenzel Test adjusted for underlying disease
Steensma 2005 2918215.933518319.13% reported; P= 0.51
KQ2 Comparison V. Front-Loaded versus Reduced or Constant Dosing
Kotasek 2004 8935625.00%8836723.98Week 5 to end of treatment estimate from reported %. A) 24% (CI 19; 28); B) 25% (CI 20; 30)
KQ2 Comparison VI. Titrated versus Constant Dosing
Österborg 1996 Group A274756.25404981.6% of transfused patients during m 2 to 6 reported
Österborg 1996 Group B314864.58
KQ2 Comparison VII. Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Dosing
Justice 2005 215935.59195932.2% reported for week 5 up to end. A)32 (CI 18; 45) B) 35 (CI 20; 50)

From: Appendix C, Evidence Tables

Cover of Comparative Effectiveness of Epoetin and Darbepoetin for Managing Anemia in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment
Comparative Effectiveness of Epoetin and Darbepoetin for Managing Anemia in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 3.
Seidenfeld J, Piper M, Bohlius J, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.