Search

Objectives: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a life-threatening complication of chemotherapy that can lead to hospitalizations, chemotherapy dose reductions or delays, and mortality. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis reduces the incidence of FN, enabling patients to undergo and remain on myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We estimate the benefits of continuing current G-CSF use patterns and an alternative that aligns prophylactic G-CSF use with guideline recommendations., Study Design: Using The Health Economics Medical Innovation Simulation microsimulation, we estimated lifetime social value (SV) of prophylactic G-CSF for a nationally representative US population with breast, lung, and gynecological cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphoma., Methods: SV estimates included the cost of G-CSF, FN, chemotherapy relative dose intensity (RDI) less than 85% (RDI<85%), medical spending, and deaths for 3 scenarios: current use (current G-CSF use), targeted use (100% G-CSF use among patients with high FN risk), and reduced use (current G-CSF use reduced by 20% across all FN risk categories)., Results: Over 10 years, current use, compared with no G-CSF use, would decrease cases of FN by 3.3 million, prevent 354,000 cases of RDI<85%, and generate $96 billion in SV. Compared with current use, targeted use would decrease cases of FN by an additional 3.3 million, prevent 355,000 more cases of RDI<85%, and generate another $119 billion in SV. Reduced use would increase FN and RDI<85%, lowering SV by $18 billion compared with current use., Conclusions: Current use of G-CSF prophylaxis would provide $96 billion in SV over the next 10 years. Targeting G-CSF prophylaxis to align with guidelines would more than double SV, highlighting the substantial value of appropriate FN risk assessment and targeted G-CSF prophylaxis. more...

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. more...

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. more...

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...