Risk of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in intermediate-risk regimens: Clinical and economic outcomes of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: To examine RFs, prophylaxis use, HCRU, and costs associated with incident FN during chemotherapy. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. DISCLOSURES: 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.

Burden of illness in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a relatively new clinical concept describing a variety of ILDs characterized by progressive pulmonary fibrosis with associated lung function decline and worsening chest imaging. Little is known about health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with progressive fibrosing ILDs other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This study analyzed the adjusted HCRU and cost burden among patients with incident non-IPF progressive fibrosing ILD vs matched patients with incident fibrosing ILD that had not yet progressed. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of insured US adults newly diagnosed with non-IPF fibrosing ILD from October 2016 to June 2019, conducted using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Progressive disease was identified using claims-based proxies comprising health care utilization associated with management of progressive fibrosing ILD. Patients in the progressive population were 1:1 propensity score matched to not-yet-progressed patients on the basis of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. All-cause HCRU and health care costs were presented as weighted per-patient-per-month (PPPM) measures to account for variable follow-up. Differences in study outcomes between matched cohorts were evaluated using Z-tests for continuous measures and Rao-Scott tests for binary measures. RESULTS: The postmatch cohorts comprised 11,025 patients with evidence of progression matched to 11,025 patients with not-yet-progressed fibrosing ILD. Mean (SD) weighted PPPM counts of follow-up health care encounters were significantly higher for the progressive vs not-yet-progressed cohort: ambulatory visits, 4.2 (3.6) vs 3.1 (3.3); emergency department visits, 0.3 (0.5) vs 0.1 (0.3); and inpatient (IP) stays, 0.1 (0.2) vs 0.0 (0.1) (P < 0.001 for all). Among patients with an IP stay, those with progressive disease had more inpatient days than those with not-yet-progressed disease (mean [SD] 1.6 [2.4] days vs 1.0 [1.3] days, P < 0.001). Mean weighted PPPM (SD) all-cause health care costs were also significantly higher for progressive vs not-yet-progressed patients, including total costs ($4,382 [$9,597] vs $2,243 [$4,162], P < 0.001), medical costs ($3,662 [$9,150] vs $1,627 [$3,524], P < 0.001), and pharmacy costs ($720 [$2,097] vs $616 [$2,070], P = 0.002). The difference in medical costs between cohorts was driven primarily by higher inpatient costs for progressive vs not-yet-progressed patients ($1,729 [$7,557] vs $523 [$2,118], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Progressive fibrosing ILD carries a substantial economic and health care burden. Among patients with incident non-IPF fibrosing ILD, all-cause HCRU and costs were significantly higher for those with a progressive phenotype than for matched patients whose disease had not yet progressed. The cost differential was driven primarily by hospitalizations, which were longer and more frequent for the progressive cohort. Disclosures: This work was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Drs Conoscenti and Shetty are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim (BI). Dr Singer was an employee of BI at the time the study was conducted. Dr Brown was a paid consultant for BI for this study. Dr Bengtson, Ms Anderson, and Dr Brekke are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BI to conduct the study. Medical writing assistance was provided by Yvette Edmonds, PhD (Optum), and was contracted and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Impact of timing of nintedanib initiation among patients newly diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

AIMS: While nintedanib treatment has been shown to slow the progression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in patients across varying levels of lung function, the effect of treatment timing on outcomes has not been examined. We assessed hospitalization risk and medical costs among patients with IPF based on the timing of nintedanib initiation after IPF diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective administrative claims study included data from 04/01/2014-09/30/2019 for patients aged ≥40 years who initiated nintedanib within 1 year of IPF diagnosis. Patients were assigned to study cohorts based on the time from IPF diagnosis to nintedanib initiation. All-cause hospitalization and all-cause medical costs were modeled using marginal structural models including inverse probability weights to adjust for both baseline and time-varying characteristics. RESULTS: Of 11,195 patients diagnosed with IPF during the identification period, 449 met the study selection criteria (mean age 72.3 years, 68% male, mean follow-up time 13.3 months). Adjusted hospitalization risk and medical costs both varied significantly by the timing of nintedanib initiation (p < .001 and p = .020, respectively). Adjusted weighted hospitalization risk was higher among untreated vs. treated patients in months 2-3, months 4-6, and months 7-12 after diagnosis (hazard ratio [95% CI] 1.97 [1.09-3.56], p = .026; 2.62 [1.22-5.63], p = .014; and 5.57 [2.31-13.45], p < .001, respectively). Medical costs were 69% higher for patients initiating treatment in months 2-3 vs. month 1 (cost ratio [95% CI] 1.69 [1.20-2.38], p = .003). LIMITATIONS: Disease severity could not be assessed because clinical data were unavailable; however, proxies such as oxygen use were included to adjust for between-cohort differences in disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initiate nintedanib promptly after IPF diagnosis may have reduced hospitalization risk and medical costs compared with those who start treatment later. Additional studies are warranted to improve understanding of the impact of prompt antifibrotic therapy on patient outcomes.

Claims-based Prevalence of Disease Progression among Patients with Fibrosing Interstitial Lung Disease Other than Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in the United States.

Rationale: Chronic fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) with a progressive phenotype is a clinical concept describing the broad group of ILDs characterized by progressive pulmonary fibrosis. The prevalence of progressive fibrotic ILDs other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is not well understood. Objectives: We used a novel algorithm to estimate the prevalence range of disease progression among patients with non-IPF fibrotic ILD in a U.S. claims database. Methods: This was a retrospective study including adults with commercial or Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) insurance using administrative claims data from October 2015 to September 2019. Patients likely to have non-IPF fibrosing ILD with a progressive phenotype were identified via an algorithm that incorporated ILD-related diagnosis codes (excluding IPF) and claims-based proxies for fibrotic ILD progression, including pulmonary function tests, chest imaging, oral corticosteroid (OCS) medications, immunosuppressive medications, lung transplant, oxygen therapy, palliative care, and respiratory hospitalization. The prevalence range of non-IPF fibrotic ILD with progressive disease behavior was calculated using strict and lenient case definitions to account for potential imprecision in the progression proxies. Results: Of nearly 9 million study-eligible patients, 17,136 were identified with non-IPF fibrosing ILD. The prevalence of disease progression per 10,000 (95% confidence interval) ranged from 12.14 (11.74-12.54) to 29.05 (28.43-29.67) over a mean observation time of 1.44 years for MAPD enrollees (n = 14,686), and from 0.89 (0.81-0.97) to 2.36 (2.24-2.48) over a mean observation time of 1.29 years for commercial enrollees (n = 2,450). Prevalence estimates increased with age for both insurance types. Among patients with progression, 4,097 met at least two progression proxies not considering OCS (strict case definition) and 9,946 met at least one progression proxy (lenient case definition). The mean (standard deviation) number of proxies met was 2.1 (1.3), and the most common individual proxies met (alone or in combination with other proxies) were OCS use (48.9%), respiratory hospitalization (44.2%), and oxygen therapy (44.1%). Conclusions: This is among the first claims-based estimates of the prevalence of non-IPF chronic fibrosing ILD with a progressive phenotype. Our analysis indicates that this phenotype is rare in the overall population but increases substantially with increasing age.