Impact of limiting erythropoiesis‐stimulating agent use for chemotherapy‐induced anemia on the United States blood supply margin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a national coverage determination that limited erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) utilization in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). This study evaluated the impact of limiting the use of ESAs for CIA on the US blood supply margin. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A modeling simulation was employed to compare the number of red blood cell (RBC) units transfused in CIA patients treated with ESAs to the number of RBC units that would be transfused if ESAs were limited or discontinued. The excess number of RBC units that would be required with limited ESA treatment was contrasted with the available marginal blood supply from 2004 and 2008. Model inputs were obtained from published literature or empirical evidence when published information was unavailable. RESULTS: The model predicted that up to 18 and 15 percent of the respective 2004 and 2008 marginal US blood supply would be required to cover the incremental demand for blood that would arise from a 25 percent decrease in ESA use. For ESA use reductions of 50 and 75 percent, the model predicted 17 to 21 percent (134,667 units) and 26 to 31 percent (202,001 units) of the 2008 and 2004 marginal US blood supply would be required, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study showed that limiting ESA use in CIA patients would impose considerable pressure on the available blood supply margin given the small margin between usable blood and transfusion demand. The public health consequences of such an outcome should be taken into account when revisions to ESA use are being considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".