Mark Bensink

Travel burden associated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration in a Medicare aged population: a geospatial analysis

Abstract Objective: Prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) is recommended for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy regimens with a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). G-CSFs should be administered starting the day after chemotherapy, necessitating return trips to the oncology clinic at the end of each cycle. We examined the travel burden related to prophylactic G-CSF injections after chemotherapy in the US. Methods: We used 2012–2014 Medicare claims data to identify a national cohort of beneficiaries age 65+ with non-myeloid cancers who received both chemotherapy and prophylactic G-CSFs. Patient travel origin was based on residence ZIP code. Oncologist practice locations and hospital addresses were obtained from the Medicare Physician Compare and Hospital Compare websites and geocoded using the Google Maps Application Programming Interface (API). Driving distance and time to the care site from each patient ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA) were calculated using Open Street Maps road networks. Geographic and socio-economic characteristics of each ZCTA from the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey were used to stratify and analyze travel estimates. Results: The mean one-way driving distance to the G-CSF provider was 23.8 (SD 30.1) miles and the mean one-way driving time was 33.3 (SD 37.8) minutes. When stratified by population density, the mean one-way travel time varied from 12.1 (SD 10.1) minutes in Very Dense Urban areas to 76.7 (SD 72.1) minutes in Super Rural areas. About 48% of patients had one-way travel times of <20 minutes, but 19% of patients traveled ≥50 minutes one way for G-CSF prophylaxis. Patients in areas with above average concentrations of aged, poor or disabled residents were more likely to experience longer travel. Conclusions: Administration of G-CSF therapy after chemotherapy can present a significant travel burden for cancer patients. Technological improvements in the form and methods of drug delivery for G-CSFs might significantly reduce this travel burden.

Access to the Indian Health Service Care System Is Not Associated with Early Enrollment in Medicaid for American Indian and Alaska Natives with Cancer

Background: For uninsured American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN) diagnosed with cancer, prompt enrollment in Medicaid may speed access to treatment and improve survival. We hypothesized that AIANs who were eligible for the Indian Health Service Care System (IHSCS) at cancer diagnosis may be enrolled in Medicaid sooner than other AIANs. Methods: Using Washington, Oregon, and California State Cancer Registries, we identified AIANs with a primary diagnosis of lung, breast, colorectal, cervical, ovarian, stomach, or prostate cancer between 2001 and 2007. Among AIANs enrolled in Medicaid within 365 days of a cancer diagnosis, we linked cancer registry records with Medicaid enrollment data and used a multivariate logistic regression model to compare the odds of delayed Medicaid enrollment between those with (n = 223) and without (n = 177) IHSCS eligibility. Results: Among AIANs who enrolled in Medicaid during the year following their cancer diagnosis, approximately 32% enrolled >1 month following diagnosis. Comparing those without IHSCS eligibility to those with IHSCS eligibility, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for moderately late Medicaid enrollment (between 1 and 6 months after diagnosis) relative to early Medicaid enrollment (≤1 month after diagnosis) was 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62–1.95] and for very late Medicaid enrollment (>6 months to 12 months after diagnosis), OR was 1.14 (CI, 0.54–2.43). Conclusion: IHSCS eligibility at the time of diagnosis does not seem to facilitate early Medicaid enrollment. Impact: Because cancer survival rates in AIANs are among the lowest of any racial group, additional research is needed to identify factors that improve access to care in AIANs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(2); 362–4. ©2013 AACR.

Response to: McBride A, Campbell K, Bikkina M, et al. Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia. J Med Econ 2017;20:1083–93

McBride et al. recently published what was referred to as “cost-efficiency analyses”. The analyses completed by the authors compared four alternative granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) options including: biosimilar filgrastim, reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector; focusing specifically on the use of these options as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN). We acknowledge that evidence supporting the value of medicines is of substantial interest to decision-makers, including payers, providers, and patients. With this letter, we wish to highlight three major concerns we identified within the McBride et al. analyses; concerns that we felt it was important to highlight to your readers.

Appropriateness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use in patients receiving chemotherapy by febrile neutropenia risk level

Objective Inappropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with myelosuppressive chemotherapy has been reported. Using the Oncology Services Comprehensive Electronic Records electronic medical record database, prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pegfilgrastim/filgrastim) use in cancer patients was assessed by febrile neutropenia risk level. Methods Patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast, head/neck, colorectal, ovarian/gynecologic, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy from June 2013 to May 2014 were included. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use with high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk chemotherapy and distribution of National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk factors with intermediate-risk regimens were assessed. Results Overall, 86,189 patients received ∼4.2 million chemotherapy cycles (high risk, 9%; intermediate risk, 48%; low risk, 43%). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 24% of cycles (high risk, 59%; intermediate risk, 29%; low risk, 11%). For nonmetastatic solid tumors, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 78% (high risk), 31% (intermediate risk), and 6% (low risk) of cycles. For metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given in 50% (high risk), 27% (intermediate risk), and 11% (low risk) of cycles. Among patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, febrile neutropenia risk factors were identified in 56% (95% confidence interval, 51.1–60.9%) of patients with nonmetastatic solid tumors (n = 400) and in 70% (64.5–73.5%) of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (n = 400). Conclusion Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use was appropriately highest for high-risk regimens and lowest for low-risk regimens yet still potentially underused in high risk regimens, overused in low-risk regimens, and not appropriately targeted in intermediate-risk regimens, indicating a need for further education on febrile neutropenia risk evaluation and appropriate granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use.

Risks and consequences of travel burden on prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration and incidence of febrile neutropenia in an aged Medicare population

Abstract Objective: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This study examines the impact patient travel burden has on administration of prophylactic G-CSFs and the subsequent impact on FN incidence. Methods: Medicare claims data were used to identify a cohort of beneficiaries age 65+ with non-myeloid cancers at high risk for FN between January 2012 and December 2014. Driving distance and time were calculated from patient residence ZIP code to the location of G-CSF and/or chemotherapy administration. Regression models were used to estimate the odds of G-CSF prophylaxis relative to patient driving distance and time, and odds of FN incidence relative to timing of G-CSF administration (optimal [days 2–4 after chemotherapy], sub-optimal [same day], or none). Results: The 52,389 study patients had a mean age of 73.5 years, and were 82% female and 89% white race; 49% had female breast cancer, 12% lung cancer, 15% ovarian cancer, and 24% non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Of these high FN risk patients, 69% had at least one prophylactic G-CSF administration within at least one chemotherapy cycle. The percentage of patients receiving prophylactic G-CSFs in the first cycle was 56%. Median travel time was slightly longer for patients who did not receive G-CSFs and patients receiving short-acting vs long-acting G-CSFs. The odds of receiving no G-CSFs were 26–52% higher (depending on cancer type) for patients with a >80-min one-way travel time, compared to patients traveling <20-min. Concurrently, the odds of FN (using a “narrow” definition) were 18–93% higher for patients who did not receive G-CSFs in the first cycle of chemotherapy. Conclusions: Travel burden, linked to clinic visits for G-CSF administration following myelosuppressive chemotherapy, is associated with sub-optimal use of G-CSF prophylaxis, which may result in a higher incidence of FN.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with same-day versus next-day pegfilgrastim prophylaxis among patients aged ≥65 years: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

Abstract Background: Two recent evaluations reported that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be higher when pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is administered on same day as chemotherapy rather than per recommendation (1–3 days following chemotherapy). Such evidence is based largely on the experience of younger privately insured adults and may not be generalizable to older patients in US clinical practice. Methods: A retrospective cohort design and data from Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (January 2008–September 2015) were employed. Patients were aged ≥65 years, had breast cancer or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, received chemotherapy with intermediate/high risk for FN, and received PP in ≥1 cycle; cycles with PP were stratified based on administration day (same-day [“Day 0”] vs. 1–3 days following chemotherapy [“Days 1–3”]) and were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on Day 0 versus Days 1–3. Results: Study population included 65,003 patients who received PP in 261,184 cycles; in 5% of cycles, patients received PP on Day 0. Incidence proportion for FN in cycle 1 was 11.4% for Day 0 versus 8.4% for Days 1–3; adjusted OR was 1.4 (p < .001). Incidence proportion for FN when considering all cycles was 7.7% for Day 0 and 6.0% for Days 1–3; adjusted OR was 1.3 (p < .001). Adjusted ORs when considering all cycles and only inpatient FN episodes (1.3, p < .001) and the narrow definition for FN (1.5, p < .001) were similar. Conclusions: Among Medicare patients receiving chemotherapy and PP in US clinical practice, PP was administered before the recommended timing in 5% of cycles and FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles. Along with prior research, study findings support recently updated US practice guidelines indicating that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with early discontinuation of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis: a retrospective evaluation using Medicare claims

Abstract Background: Two recent evaluations reported that many cancer chemotherapy patients discontinue pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) following the first cycle, and that these patients have a higher subsequent risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Such evidence is based principally on the experience of younger adults with private healthcare coverage, and the generalizability of results to elderly Medicare patients is unknown. Methods: A matched-cohort design and data from the Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files were employed. The source population comprised cancer patients aged ≥65 years who received chemotherapy with intermediate/high-risk for FN and first-cycle PP. From the source population, beginning with the second cycle, all patients who received PP in all previous cycles were identified. From this sub-set, patients who did not receive PP in the cycle of interest (“comparison patients”) were matched to those who received PP in that cycle (“PP patients”); the same process was repeated for subsequent cycles. Odds ratios (OR) for FN (broad and narrow definitions) were estimated using generalized estimating equations. Results: Among 77,616 elderly patients in the source population, 5.3% did not receive second-cycle PP and were matched to those who did. In cycle 2, FN odds were significantly higher among comparison patients vs PP patients when employing the broad definition (OR = 1.9, p < .001) and the narrow definition (OR = 2.1, p < .001). Results for subsequent cycles (broad definition: OR = 2.0, p < .001; narrow definition: OR = 2.1, p < .001) and for the last cycle (broad definition: OR = 1.4, p = .060; narrow definition: OR = 1.7, p = .055) were largely comparable. Conclusions: In this large-scale evaluation of elderly Medicare patients who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and first-cycle PP in recent US clinical practice, FN risk was substantially lower among patients who continued to receive PP in subsequent cycles vs those who discontinued PP.

The association between cinacalcet use and missed in‐center hemodialysis treatment rate

Missed in‐center hemodialysis treatments (MHT) are a general indicator of health status in hemodialysis patients. This analysis was conducted to estimate the association between cinacalcet use and MHT rate.