Ruben Mujica-Mota

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model

BACKGROUND End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Associations electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A systematic review and economic evaluation of intraoperative tests [RD-100i one-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA) system and Metasin test] for detecting sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND In breast cancer patients, sentinel lymph node biopsy is carried out at the same time as the removal of the primary tumour to postoperatively test with histopathology for regional metastases in the sentinel lymph node. Those patients with positive test results are then operated on 2-4 weeks after primary surgery to remove the lymph nodes from the axilla (axillary lymph node dissection, ALND). New molecular tests RD-100i [one-step nucleic acid amplification (OSNA); based on messenger RNA amplification to identify the cytokeratin-19 (CK19) gene marker] (Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany) and Metasin (using the CK19 and mammaglobin gene markers) (Cellular Pathology, Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK) are intended to provide an intraoperative diagnosis, thereby avoiding the need for postoperative histopathology and, in positive cases, a second operation for ALND. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using OSNA and Metasin in the NHS in England for the intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph nodes metastases, compared with postoperative histopathology, the current standard. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Health Economic Evaluations Database as well as clinical trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings were searched up to July 2012. REVIEW METHODS A systematic review of the evidence was carried out using standard methods. Single-gate studies were used to estimate the accuracy of OSNA with histopathology as the reference standard. The cost-effectiveness analysis adapted an existing simulation model of the long-term costs and health implications of early breast cancer diagnostic outcomes. The model accounted for the costs of an extended first operation with intraoperative testing, the loss of health-related quality of life (disutility) from waiting for postoperative test results, disutility and costs of a second operation, and long-term costs and disutility from lymphoedema related to ALND, adjuvant therapy, locoregional recurrence and metastatic recurrence. RESULTS A total of 724 references were identified in the searches, of which 17 studies assessing test accuracy were included in the review, 15 on OSNA and two on Metasin. Both Metasin studies were unpublished. OSNA sensitivity of 84.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 74.7% to 91.0%] and specificity of 91.8% (95% CI 87.8% to 94.6%) for patient nodal status were estimated in a meta-analysis of five studies [unadjusted for tissue allocation bias (TAB)]. At these values and a 20% node-positive rate, OSNA resulted in lifetime discounted cost-savings of £498 and a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) loss of 0.048 relative to histopathology, that is, £4324 saved per QALY lost. The most favourable plausible scenario for OSNA in terms of the node-positive rate (range 10-40%), diagnostic accuracy values (91.3% sensitivity and 94.2% specificity, from three reports that adjusted for TAB), the costs of histopathology, OSNA and second surgery, and long-term costs and utilities resulted in a maximum saving per QALY lost of £10,500; OSNA sensitivity and specificity would need to be ≥ 95% for this figure to be ≥ £20,000. LIMITATIONS There is limited evidence on the diagnostic test accuracy of intraoperative tests. The quality of information on costs of resource utilisation during the diagnostic pathway is low and no evidence exists on the disutility of waiting for a second surgery. No comparative studies exist that report clinical outcomes of intraoperative diagnostic tests. These knowledge gaps have more influence on the decision than current uncertainty in the performance of postoperative histopathology in standard practice. CONCLUSIONS One-step nucleic acid amplification is not cost-effective for the intraoperative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastases. OSNA is less accurate than histopathology and the consequent loss of health benefits in this patient group is not compensated for by health gains elsewhere in the health system that may be obtained with the cost-savings made. The evidence on Metasin is insufficient to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002889. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin and darbepoetin) for treating cancer treatment-induced anaemia (including review of technology appraisal no. 142): a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND Anaemia is a common side effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA). OBJECTIVE To investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ESAs in anaemia associated with cancer treatment (specifically chemotherapy). DATA SOURCES The following databases were searched from 2004 to 2013: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, British Nursing Index, Health Management Information Consortium, Current Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites were also searched. Bibliographies of included papers were scrutinised for further potentially includable studies. REVIEW METHODS The clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or systematic reviews of RCTs, of ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) for treating people with CIA were eligible for inclusion in the review. Comparators were best supportive care, placebo or other ESAs. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. When appropriate, data were pooled using meta-analysis. An empirical health economic model was developed comparing ESA treatment with no ESA treatment. The model comprised two components: one evaluating short-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (while patients are anaemic) and one evaluating long-term QALYs. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS Of 1457 titles and abstracts screened, 23 studies assessing ESAs within their licensed indication (based on start dose administered) were included in the review. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current European Union licenses. The results suggest a clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes and an improvement in HRQoL scores. The impact of ESAs on AEs and survival remains highly uncertain, although point estimates are lower, confidence intervals are wide and not statistically significant. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for ESA treatment compared with no ESA treatment ranged from £ 19,429 to £ 35,018 per QALY gained, but sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate considerable uncertainty in these ICERs, including the possibility of overall health disbenefit. All ICERs were sensitive to survival and cost. LIMITATIONS The relative effectiveness of ESAs was not addressed; all ESAs were assumed to have equivalent efficacy. No studies were completely aligned with their European labelling beyond the starting dose evaluated. There is questionable generalisability given that the included trials were published >20 years ago and there have been many changes to chemotherapy as well as to the quality of supportive treatment. Trial quality was moderate or poor and there was considerable unexplained heterogeneity for a number of outcomes, particularly survival, and evidence of publication bias. Adjustments were not made to account for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS ESAs could be cost-effective when used closer to licence, but there is considerable uncertainty, mainly because of unknown impacts on overall survival. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005812. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation followed by induction and maintenance immunosuppressive therapy to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES To systematically review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) and rabbit antihuman thymocyte immunoglobulin (Thymoglobuline,(®) Sanofi) as induction therapy and immediate-release tacrolimus [Adoport(®) (Sandoz); Capexion(®) (Mylan); Modigraf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Perixis(®) (Accord Healthcare); Prograf(®) (Astellas Pharma); Tacni(®) (Teva); Vivadex(®) (Dexcel Pharma)], prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf,(®) Astellas Pharma); belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix,(®) Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) [Arzip(®) (Zentiva), CellCept(®) (Roche Products), Myfenax(®) (Teva), generic MMF is manufactured by Accord Healthcare, Actavis, Arrow Pharmaceuticals, Dr Reddys Laboratories, Mylan, Sandoz and Wockhardt], mycophenolate sodium, sirolimus (Rapamune,(®) Pfizer) and everolimus (Certican,(®) Novartis Pharmaceuticals) as maintenance therapy in children and adolescents undergoing renal transplantation. DATA SOURCES Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted to 7 January 2015 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science [via Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted to 15 January 2015 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Databases (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and EconLit (via EBSCOhost). REVIEW METHODS Titles and abstracts were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria, as were full texts of identified studies. Included studies were extracted and quality appraised. Data were meta-analysed when appropriate. A new discrete time state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed; graft function, and incidences of acute rejection and new-onset diabetes mellitus were used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four non-RCTs were included. The RCTs only evaluated BAS and tacrolimus (TAC). No statistically significant differences in key outcomes were found between BAS and placebo/no induction. Statistically significantly higher graft function (p < 0.01) and less biopsy-proven acute rejection (odds ratio 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.57) was found between TAC and ciclosporin (CSA). Only one cost-effectiveness study was identified, which informed NICE guidance TA99. BAS [with TAC and azathioprine (AZA)] was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) versus no induction (BAS was dominant). BAS (with CSA and MMF) was not predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus no induction (BAS was dominated). TAC (with AZA) was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY versus CSA (TAC was dominant). A model based on adult evidence suggests that at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY, BAS and TAC are cost-effective in all considered combinations; MMF was also cost-effective with CSA but not TAC. LIMITATIONS The RCT evidence is very limited; analyses comparing all interventions need to rely on adult evidence. CONCLUSIONS TAC is likely to be cost-effective (vs. CSA, in combination with AZA) at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Analysis based on one RCT found BAS to be dominant, but analysis based on another RCT found BAS to be dominated. BAS plus TAC and AZA was predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY when all regimens were compared using extrapolated adult evidence. High-quality primary effectiveness research is needed. The UK Renal Registry could form the basis for a prospective primary study. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013544. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Stated preferences for anti-malarial drug characteristics in Zomba, a malaria endemic area of Malawi

BackgroundThe evidence on determinants of individuals’ choices for anti-malarial drug treatments is scarce. This study sought to measure the strength of preference for adult antimalarial drug treatment attributes of heads of urban, rural and peri-urban households in a resource-limited malaria-endemic area of sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsDiscrete choice experiments were conducted with 508 heads of household interviewed face-to-face for a household population survey of health-seeking behavior in Zomba District, Malawi. The interviews were held in Chichewa and the choice experiment questions were presented with cartoon aids. The anti-malarial drug attributes included in the stated preference experiment were: speed of fever resolution, side effects (pruritus) risk, protection (duration of prophylactic effect), price, duration of treatment course and recommendation by a health professional. Sixteen treatment profiles from a fractional factorial design by orthogonal array were paired into choice scenarios, and scenarios were randomly assigned to participants so that each participant was presented with a series of eight pairwise choice scenarios. Respondents had the option to state indifference between the two profiles or decline to choose. Data were analysed in a mixed logit model, with normally distributed coefficients for all six attributes.ResultsThe sex ratio was balanced in urban areas, whereas 63% of participants in rural areas were male. The proportion of individuals with no education was considerably higher in the rural group (25%) than in the urban (5%) and peri-urban (6%) groups. All attributes investigated had the expected influence, and traded-off in most respondents’ choices. There were heterogeneous effects of price, pruritus risk, treatment recommendation by a professional, and duration of prophylaxis across respondents, only partly explained by their differences in education, household per capita expenditure, sex and age. Individuals´ demand elasticity (simulated median, inter-quartile range) was highest (most responsive) to speed of symptom resolution (0.88, 0.80-0.89) and pruritus risk (0.25, 0.08-0.62).ConclusionsMost adult antimalarial users are willing to use treatments without recommendation from health professional, and may be influenced by price. Future studies should investigate the magnitude of differences in price and treatment attribute sensitivity between adult anti-malarial drug users in rural, peri-urban and urban areas in order to determine optimal price subsidies.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellences (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS Given NICEs current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

1038PDA COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF ERYTHROPOIESIS-STIMULATING AGENTS FOR TREATING CANCER-TREATMENT INDUCED ANAEMIA

N. Huxley1, T. Snowsill2, M. Hoyle3, L. Crathorne2, M. Haasova4, S. Briscoe3, H. Coelho3, A. Medina-Lara3, R. Mujica-Mota3, M. Napier5, C. Hyde2 Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK Peninsula Technology Assessment Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK Medical School, Veysey Building, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK PenTAG, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK Oncology, North Devon District Hospital, Barnstaple, Devon, UK

1498PWHAT IS THE CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF ERYTHROPOIESIS STIMULATING AGENTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF CANCER TREATMENT-INDUCED ANAEMIA?

Aim: Anaemia is a common side-effect of cancer treatments and can lead to a reduction in quality of life. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are licensed for use in conjunction with red blood cell transfusions (RBCTs) to improve cancer treatment-induced anaemia (CIA). We aim to review the clinical-effectiveness evidence for ESAs for treating CIA. Methods: The clinical effectiveness review followed principles published by the NHS CRD. Electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched up to December 2013. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ESAs in accordance with their EU licenses (based on start dose administered) with best supportive care, placebo, or other ESA in adults with CIAwere included. Anaemia- and malignancy-related outcomes, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and adverse events (AEs) were extracted from primary studies. Where appropriate, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: Twenty-three RCTs were included in the review. None of the RCTs were completely aligned with current EU licenses. Results suggest that there is clinical benefit from ESAs for anaemia-related outcomes. Sixty-three percent of participants who received ESAs achieved a haematological response compared with 18% of participants who did not receive ESAs, and there was a reduction in requirement for RBCT by an estimated 37% with ESAs. Data also suggest some improvement in HRQoL scores (FACT-F, FACT-G and FACT-An). The impact of ESAs on malignancy-related outcomes and AEs is uncertain. The overall survival (OS) results (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83, 1.13, I 2 of 42.4%) suggest no effect of ESAs on OS. Although all AEs were relatively rare (max. 6%), an increased risk for thromboembolic events, pruritus and hypertension was found. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses suggested that the effectiveness for some outcomes was improved when ESAs were evaluated ‘closer to licence’. Conclusions: Although results from the review suggest that ESAs may be beneficial when used closer to their licensed indications, this trend should be interpreted with caution due to high statistical heterogeneity, wide confidence intervals, multiple testing, and the licence interpretation. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.