Optum, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Eden Prairie, MN.
Sandoz, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Princeton, NJ.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023 Feb;29(2):128-138. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.2.128.
Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia increases the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) and infection with resultant hospitalizations, with substantial health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF) is recommended as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy regimens having more than a 20% risk of FN. Yet, for intermediate-risk (10%-20%) regimens, it should be considered only for patients with 1 or more clinical risk factors (RFs) for FN. It is unclear whether FN prophylaxis for intermediate-risk patients is being optimally implemented. To examine RFs, prophylaxis use, HCRU, and costs associated with incident FN during chemotherapy. This retrospective study used administrative claims data for commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees with nonmyeloid cancer treated with intermediate-risk chemotherapy regimens during January 1, 2009, to March 31, 2020. Clinical RFs, GCSF prophylaxis, incident FN, HCRU, and costs were analyzed descriptively by receipt of primary GCSF, secondary GCSF, or no GCSF prophylaxis. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to examine the association between number of RFs and cumulative FN risk. The sample comprised 13,937 patients (mean age 67 years, 55% female). Patients had a mean of 2.3 RFs, the most common being recent surgery, were aged 65 years or greater, and had baseline liver or renal dysfunction; 98% had 1 or more RFs. However, only 35% of patients received primary prophylaxis; 12% received secondary prophylaxis. The hazard ratio of incident FN was higher with increasing number of RFs during the first line of therapy, yet more than 54% of patients received no prophylaxis, regardless of RFs. Use of GCSF prophylaxis varied more by chemotherapeutic regimen than by number of RFs. Among patients treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride (doxorubicin hydrochloride), vincristine, and prednisone, 76% received primary prophylaxis, whereas only 22% of patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel received primary prophylaxis. Among patients with a first line of therapy FN event, 78% had an inpatient stay and 42% had an emergency visit. During cycle 1, mean FN-related coordination of benefits-adjusted medical costs per patient per month ($13,886 for patients with primary prophylaxis and $18,233 for those with none) were driven by inpatient hospitalizations, at 91% and 97%, respectively. Incident FN occurred more often with increasing numbers of RFs, but GCSF prophylaxis use did not rise correspondingly. Variation in prophylaxis use was greater based on regimen than RF number. Lower health care costs were observed among patients with primary prophylaxis use. Improved individual risk identification for intermediate-risk regimens and appropriate prophylaxis may decrease FN events toward the goal of better clinical and health care cost outcomes. This work was funded by Sandoz Inc., which participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, writing and revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The study was performed by Optum under contract with Sandoz Inc. The author(s) meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Dr Li is an employee of Sandoz Inc. Drs Bell and Lal and Mr Peterson-Brandt were employees of Optum at the time of the study. Ms Anderson and Dr Aslam are employees of Optum. Dr Lyman has been primary investigator on a research grant from Amgen to their institution and has consulted for Sandoz, G1 Therapeutics, Partners Healthcare, BeyondSpring, ER Squibb, Merck, Jazz Pharm, Kallyope, Teva; Fresenius Kabi, Seattle Genetics, and Samsung.
化疗引起的中性粒细胞减少症会增加发热性中性粒细胞减少症 (FN) 和感染的风险,导致住院治疗,大量医疗保健资源利用 (HCRU) 和成本增加。粒细胞集落刺激因子 (GCSF) 被推荐作为具有超过 20% FN 风险的化疗方案的主要预防措施。然而,对于中危 (10%-20%) 方案,只有对于有 1 个或多个 FN 临床危险因素 (RFs) 的患者才应考虑使用。目前尚不清楚中危患者的 FN 预防措施是否得到了最佳实施。为了研究与中危患者 FN 相关的危险因素 (RFs)、预防措施的使用、HCRU 和成本。这项回顾性研究使用了商业保险和医疗保险优势计划中患有非髓性癌症的患者的行政索赔数据,这些患者在 2009 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 3 月 31 日期间接受了中危化疗方案的治疗。根据是否接受初级 GCSF、二级 GCSF 或无 GCSF 预防措施,对临床 RFs、GCSF 预防措施、FN 发生率、HCRU 和成本进行描述性分析。多变量 Cox 回归分析用于研究 RFs 数量与累积 FN 风险之间的关系。样本包括 13937 名患者(平均年龄 67 岁,55%为女性)。患者平均有 2.3 个 RFs,最常见的是近期手术,年龄在 65 岁或以上,且有基线肝或肾功能障碍;98%的患者有 1 个或多个 RFs。然而,只有 35%的患者接受了初级预防措施;12%的患者接受了二级预防措施。随着一线治疗中 RFs 数量的增加,FN 事件的发生率更高,但无论 RFs 如何,超过 54%的患者没有接受预防措施。GCSF 预防措施的使用更多地取决于化疗方案,而不是 RFs 的数量。在接受利妥昔单抗、环磷酰胺、盐酸多柔比星 (阿霉素)、长春新碱和泼尼松治疗的患者中,76%接受了初级预防措施,而接受卡铂/紫杉醇治疗的患者中只有 22%接受了初级预防措施。在一线治疗 FN 事件的患者中,78%有住院治疗,42%有急诊就诊。在第 1 个周期中,每个患者每月 FN 相关协调福利调整后的医疗费用平均为 (接受初级预防措施的患者为 13886 美元,未接受预防措施的患者为 18233 美元),主要由住院治疗产生,分别占 91%和 97%。随着 RFs 数量的增加,FN 事件发生的频率更高,但 GCSF 预防措施的使用并没有相应增加。预防措施的使用差异更大的是基于方案而不是 RF 数量。使用初级预防措施的患者的医疗保健费用较低。对中危方案的个体风险进行更好的识别,并适当进行预防措施,可能会降低 FN 事件的发生,从而达到更好的临床和医疗保健成本结果。这项工作得到了山德士公司的资助,该公司参与了研究的设计、数据的解释、手稿的撰写和修订,以及提交手稿供出版的决定。这项研究是由 Optum 在与山德士公司的合同下进行的。作者符合国际医学期刊编辑委员会推荐的作者标准。作者没有因手稿的编写而获得直接补偿。李博士是山德士公司的员工。Bell 博士、Lal 博士和 Peterson-Brandt 先生在研究期间是 Optum 的员工。Anderson 女士和 Aslam 博士是 Optum 的员工。Lyman 博士曾作为主要研究者参与过一项安进公司资助的研究,也曾为山德士、G1 Therapeutics、Partners Healthcare、BeyondSpring、ER Squibb、Merck、Jazz Pharm、Kallyope、Teva;Fresenius Kabi、西雅图遗传学和三星咨询过。
JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2021-8
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020-9-1
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020-1