Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Previous research suggests that erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA) administration in dialysis is a time-consuming task and switching to less frequently dosed ESAs may offer operational efficiencies. Our objective was to describe and measure the time spent on tasks in the ESA administration process in US dialysis centers, and to estimate potential efficiency gains of using weekly (QW) administration vs three-times-per-week (TIW) administration.Methods: We conducted a time and motion study of staff time required to prepare, administer and document ESA doses. Dialysis centers using intravenous administration of TIW epoetin alfa (EPO) or QW darbepoetin alfa (DPO) were selected in pairs (one EPO, one DPO) from the same organization to help control for differences in ESA protocols and staffing patterns across organizations. ESA-related tasks were timed by trained observers. Time savings of TIW vs QW administration were estimated. Staff were interviewed about alternate activities that could be accomplished if time were saved in the ESA process.Results: A total of 200 administrations were observed (81 DPO, 119 EPO). A mean of 2.26 (95% CI: 2.1-2.5) minutes per dose were required for ESA administration. ESA process time per administration did not vary significantly between EPO and DPO (p = 0.83). Estimated potential monthly staff time savings for an average facility of 70 patients totaled 23 hours, due to fewer ESA administrations using QW DPO. Patient education and fulfillment of care plans were identified as opportunities for improved care processes that could be implemented if staff time was freed up from the ESA process.Limitations: Results should not be generalized to other countries, ESAs and/or dosing frequencies.Conclusions: Switching from TIW EPO to QW DPO can result in time savings due to fewer administrations and provide opportunities to redirect nurse time towards activities aimed at improving patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]