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

Two decades of pegfilgrastim: what have we learned? Where do we go from here?

Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is a medical emergency that may occur in patients with malignancies receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. FN requires early therapeutic intervention since it is associated with increased hospitalizations and high mortality risk of 5%-20%. FN-related hospitalizations are higher in patients with myeloid malignancies than in those with solid tumors due to the myelotoxicity of chemotherapy regimens and the compromised bone marrow function. FN increases the burden of cancer by causing chemotherapy dose reductions and delays. The administration of the first granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), filgrastim, reduced the incidence and duration of FN in patients undergoing chemotherapy. Filgrastim later evolved into pegfilgrastim, which has a longer half-life than filgrastim and was associated with a lower rate of severe neutropenia, chemotherapy dose reduction, and treatment delay. Nine million patients have received pegfilgrastim since its approval in early 2002. The pegfilgrastim on-body injector (OBI) is an innovative device facilitating the time-released auto-injection of pegfilgrastim approximately 27 hours after chemotherapy, as clinically recommended for the prevention of FN, thus eliminating the need for a next-day hospital visit. Since its introduction in 2015, one million patients with cancer have received pegfilgrastim using the OBI. Subsequently, the device has been approved in the United States (US), European Union, Latin America, and Japan, with studies and a postmarketing commitment demonstrating device reliability. A recent prospective observational study conducted in the US demonstrated that the OBI substantially improved the adherence to and compliance with clinically recommended pegfilgrastim therapy; patients receiving pegfilgrastim via the OBI experienced a lower incidence of FN than those receiving alternatives for FN prophylaxis. This review discusses the evolution of G-CSFs leading to the development of the OBI, current recommendations for G-CSF prophylaxis in the clinic, continued evidence supporting next-day pegfilgrastim administration, and improvements in patient care made possible with the OBI.

Economic Perspective of Cancer Care and Its Consequences for Vulnerable Groups

Simple Summary

For cancer patients, many different reasons can cause financial burdens and economic threads. Sociodemographic factors, rural/remote location and income are known determinants for these vulnerable groups. This economic vulnerability is related to the reduced utilization of cancer care and the impact on outcome. Financial burden has been reported in many countries throughout the world and needs to be addressed as part of the sufficient quality of cancer care.

Abstract

Within healthcare systems in all countries, vulnerable groups of patients can be identified and are characterized by the reduced utilization of available healthcare. Many different reasons can be attributed to this observation, summarized as implementation barriers involving acceptance, accessibility, affordability, acceptability and quality of care. For many patients, cancer care is specifically associated with the occurrence of vulnerability due to the complex disease, very different target groups and delivery situations (from prevention to palliative care) as well as cost-intensive care. Sociodemographic factors, such as educational level, rural/remote location and income, are known determinants for these vulnerable groups. However, different forms of financial burdens likely influence this vulnerability in cancer care delivery in a distinct manner. In a narrative review, these socioeconomic challenges are summarized regarding their occurrence and consequences to current cancer care. Overall, besides direct costs such as for treatment, many facets of indirect costs including survivorship costs for the cancer patients and their social environment need to be considered regarding the impact on vulnerability, treatment compliance and abundance. In addition, individual cancer-related financial burden might also affect the society due to the loss of productivity and workforce availability. Healthcare providers are requested to address this vulnerability during the treatment of cancer patients.

A prospective cohort study to evaluate the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving pegfilgrastim on-body injector versus other options for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia: breast cancer subgroup analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer chemotherapy often carries a high risk of febrile neutropenia (FN); guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), such as pegfilgrastim. Neulasta^® Onpro^® on-body injector (OBI) is a delivery device administering pegfilgrastim approximately 27 h after application.

METHODS

This prospective study examined patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy with a high risk of FN, receiving OBI ("OBI") or other options (other G-CSF or none; "other"). The primary endpoint was FN incidence; secondary endpoints included chemotherapy delivery, adherence (G-CSF in all cycles), compliance (G-CSF day after chemotherapy), and FN incidence in patients receiving curative or palliative treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1776 patients with breast cancer were enrolled (OBI, n = 1196; other, n = 580). Across all cycles, FN incidence was lower for OBI (4.4% [95% CI, 3.3-5.6%]) than other (7.4% [5.3-9.6%]). For curative treatment, the FN incidence across all cycles was lower for OBI (4.6% [3.4-5.8%]) than for other (7.1% [5.0-9.3%]). For palliative treatment (OBI, n = 33; other, n = 20), 3 patients (15%) in the other and none in the OBI group had FN. After adjusting for baseline covariates, FN incidence remained lower for OBI (4.6% [3.5-6.1%]) versus other (7.8% [5.7-10.5%]). Adherence was higher for OBI (93.8%) than for other G-CSF (69.8%), as was compliance (90.5 and 53.2%, respectively). Chemotherapy dose delays/reductions were similar for OBI (4.7%/32.3%, respectively) and other (4.7%/30.0%) groups.

CONCLUSION

Pegfilgrastim OBI was associated with a lower FN incidence in patients with breast cancer compared to other options for FN prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , NCT02178475, registered 30 June, 2014.

Use and effectiveness of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice:a retrospective observational study

Background

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinical practice guidelines recommend routine prophylactic coverage with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)—such as pegfilgrastim—for most patients receiving chemotherapy with an intermediate to high risk for FN. Patterns of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis during the chemotherapy course and associated FN risks in US clinical practice have not been well characterized.

Methods

A retrospective cohort design and data from two commercial healthcare claims repositories (01/2010–03/2016) and Medicare Claims Research Identifiable Files (01/2007–09/2015) were employed. Study population included patients who had non-metastatic breast cancer or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and received intermediate/high-risk regimens. Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis use and FN incidence were ascertained in each chemotherapy cycle, and all cycles were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios for FN were estimated for patients who did versus did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in that cycle.

Results

Study population included 50,778 commercial patients who received 190,622 cycles of chemotherapy and 71,037 Medicare patients who received 271,944 cycles. In cycle 1, 33% of commercial patients and 28% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis, and adjusted odds of FN were 2.6 (95% CI 2.3–2.8) and 1.6 (1.5–1.7), respectively, versus those who received pegfilgrastim prophylaxis. In cycle 2, 28% (commercial) and 26% (Medicare) did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis; corresponding adjusted FN odds were comparably elevated (1.9 [1.6–2.2] and 1.6 [1.5–1.8]). Results in subsequent cycles were similar. Across all cycles, 15% of commercial patients and 23% of Medicare patients did not receive pegfilgrastim prophylaxis despite having FN in a prior cycle, and prior FN increased odds of subsequent FN by 2.1–2.4 times.

Conclusions

Notwithstanding clinical practice guidelines, a large minority of patients did not receive G-CSF prophylaxis, and FN incidence was substantially higher among this subset of the population. Appropriate use of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis may reduce patient exposure to this potentially fatal but largely preventable complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-6010-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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.

Hispanic Breast Cancer Patients Travel Further for Equitable Surgical Care at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Purpose: Disparities in surgical breast cancer care have been documented for racial and ethnic minorities. On average, these minorities are less likely to utilize National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and travel shorter distances to receive care. With the growing population of Hispanic patients in California, we analyzed the travel distance and surgical care of Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients at our large referral cancer center.

Methods: Patients included were those who initiated treatment for a new diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer at our NCI-designated cancer center during the period 2010–2014. Ethnicity was dichotomized as Hispanic and non-Hispanic. Google Maps were used to determine the distance from patient zip code to our institution, classified as 0–10, 10–30, 30–60, and >60 miles.

Results: A total of 1765 non-Hispanic and 173 Hispanic patients were identified. Clinical stage by tumor size and nodal status were comparable between the two groups. Hispanic patients were younger (p<0.001) and more had Medicaid insurance (p<0.001). Hispanic patients traveled further when compared with non-Hispanics (p<0.001). In non-Hispanics and Hispanics, rates of breast conservation were 57.4% and 52.3% (p=0.30), unilateral mastectomy 34.2% and 36.2% (p=0.44), bilateral mastectomy 8.4% and 11.5% (p=0.24), and immediate postmastectomy reconstruction 42.6% and 50.6% (p=0.34), respectively. Hispanic ethnicity was not associated with different odds of receiving breast conservation (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, confidence interval [CI] 0.73–1.40), unilateral mastectomy (OR 1.05, CI 0.75–1.44), bilateral mastectomy (OR 1.37, CI 0.81–2.31), or immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction (OR 1.27, CI 0.86–1.88), when compared with non-Hispanic ethnicity, after controlling for patient age, insurance status, and distance traveled.

Conclusions: Surgical care was similar for Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients treated at our NCI-designated cancer center. However, this Hispanic population traveled further than non-Hispanic patients. Our findings suggest that accessibility to transportation and institutional practices are instrumental in delivering equitable breast cancer surgical care for Hispanic patients.

Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by day of pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in US clinical practice from 2010 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Pegfilgrastim prophylaxis (PP) is recommended 1-3 days following administration of chemotherapy during the cycle. Some patients, however, receive PP before or after the recommended timing. While evidence suggests that risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) may be lower when PP is administered per recommendation, such evidence is based on older data. We undertook a new study to compare FN risk between patients who received PP on the last day of chemotherapy ("day 0") or 4-5 days following chemotherapy ("days 4-5"), versus 1-3 days following chemotherapy ("days 1-3"), using recent data from US clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort design and data from two US private healthcare claims repositories (2010-2016) were employed. Patients received intermediate/high-risk chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and PP in ≥1 cycle; all cycles with PP were pooled for analyses. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) for FN during the cycle were estimated for patients who received PP on day 0 or days 4-5, vs. days 1-3, using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The study population included 53,814 patients who received PP in 217,273 cycles; in 9% of cycles, patients received PP on day 0 (8%) or days 4-5 (<1%). Odds of FN in cycle 1 were significantly higher among patients receiving PP on day 0 (OR: 1.4 [95% CI: 1.2-1.7]) or days 4-5 (1.9 [1.2-3.0]), vs. days 1-3, in that cycle. Results for subsequent cycles of chemotherapy were comparable to those for the first cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large-scale retrospective evaluation of cancer chemotherapy patients receiving PP in recent US clinical practice, PP was administered before or after the recommended timing in 9% of cycles. FN incidence was significantly higher in these cycles providing additional real-world evidence that PP should be administered the day after chemotherapy in alignment with recently updated US practice guidelines.