Treatment patterns and burden of myelosuppression for patients with small cell lung cancer: A SEER-medicare study.

PURPOSE: To depict the treatment journey for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and evaluate health care resource utilization (HCRU) associated with myelosuppression, a complication induced by chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus radiation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive, retrospective study of patients with SCLC aged ≥65 years, identified from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data curated between January 2012 and December 2015. Treatment types (chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery) were classified as first, second, or third line, depending on the temporal sequence in which regimens were prescribed. For each year, the proportions of patients completing 4- or 6-cycle chemotherapy regimens, with hospital admissions associated with myelosuppression, or who used granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), blood/platelet transfusions, or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), were calculated. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was administered as initial treatment in 7,807/11,907 (65.6%) patients whose treatment journey was recorded. Approximately one-third (n = 3,985) subsequently received radiation therapy. In total, 5,791 (57.8%) patients completed the guideline-recommended 4-6 cycles of chemotherapy. Among all chemotherapy-treated patients, 10,370 (74.3%) experienced ≥1 inpatient admission associated with myelosuppression (anemia, 7,366 [52.8%]; neutropenia, 4,642 [33.3%]; thrombocytopenia, 2,375 [17.0%]; pancytopenia, 1,983 [14.2%]). Supportive care interventions included G-CSF (6,756 [48.4%] patients), ESAs (1,534 [11.0%]), and transfusions (3,674 [26.3%]). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy remains a cornerstone of care for patients with SCLC. Slightly over half of patients completed the recommended number of cycles, underscoring the frailty of patients and aggressiveness of SCLC. HCRU associated with myelosuppression was prominent, suggesting a substantial burden on older patients with SCLC.

Budget impact analysis of trilaciclib for decreasing the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression, which commonly manifests as neutropenia, anemia, and/or thrombocytopenia, is a frequent and severe complication of standard treatment regimens for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Trilaciclib is a first-in-class myeloprotective therapy indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression when administered prior to a platinum-/etoposide-containing regimen or topotecan-containing regimen for ES-SCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy to manage chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in adults with ES-SCLC from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of introducing trilaciclib to a hypothetical 1 million-member health insurance plan. The model compared 2 market scenarios: a current scenario of standard treatments for ES-SCLC without trilaciclib, and an alternative scenario of standard treatment plus trilaciclib. Population, clinical, and cost inputs were derived from published literature and trilaciclib clinical trial data. Model outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs), costs of treatment, costs of AE management, total cost, and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs. The budget impact of trilaciclib was calculated as the difference in cost (2021 US dollars) between the 2 scenarios over a 1- to 5-year time horizon. Scenario and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty around key model inputs. RESULTS: An estimated total of 301 patients were eligible for treatment with trilaciclib over a 5-year period. The use of trilaciclib was estimated to reduce the number of myelosuppressive AEs over a 5-year period (events avoided included 108 for neutropenia, 7 for febrile neutropenia, 23 for anemia, and 46 for thrombocytopenia) compared with the scenario without trilaciclib. The adoption of trilaciclib was associated with a cost saving of $801,254 ($0.013 PMPM) over 5 years. The acquisition cost for trilaciclib ($3,704,199) was offset by the reduction in AE management cost ($4,282,748) and reduction in prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor use ($222,704). The cost savings associated with trilaciclib began in year 1 (total $34,388; $0.003 PMPM) and accrued over time. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition cost of trilaciclib is projected to be offset by a reduction in the costs of managing AEs related to myelosuppression when added to standard chemotherapy regimens for ES-SCLC. The net budget impact of trilaciclib is estimated to be a cost saving. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc., and implemented by ZS Associates, an independent consultancy that collated the model inputs and performed the budget impact analysis. The study sponsor was involved in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. The journal open access fee was funded by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Moran, Chioda, and Huang are employed by G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Chioda and Huang report stocks and stock options for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Goyal and Deniz are employed by ZS Associates. Goyal reports consulting fees from G1 Therapeutics, Inc. Abraham reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for G1 Therapeutics, Inc. MacDonald reports consulting fees from Coherus, G1 Therapeutics, Inc. (unrelated to this study and manuscript), Mylan/Viatris, and Sandoz. Deniz reports no disclosures. A synopsis of the current study was presented in poster format at the Virtual AMCP Annual Meeting, April 12-16, 2021.

Trilaciclib and the economic value of multilineage myeloprotection from chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression among patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy.

AIMS: Proliferating hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) are susceptible to chemotherapy-induced damage, resulting in myelosuppressive adverse events (AEs) such as neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia that are associated with high health care costs and decreased quality of life (QoL). In this study, a trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to help assess the economic impact of administering trilaciclib, a myeloprotective therapy that protects multilineage HSPCs from chemotherapy-induced damage, prior to standard first-line chemotherapy, using data from a pivotal Phase II study of trilaciclib in the setting of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC, NCT03041311). METHOD: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone among patients with ES-SCLC from a United States payer perspective. Data on the rate and frequency of myelosuppressive AEs and health utility were derived from the pivotal study of trilaciclib. Costs of managing myelosuppressive AEs and costs of chemotherapy treatment were sourced from published literature. Outcomes included the number of myelosuppressive AEs, costs (in 2021 US dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost, incremental QALY, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Administering trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was associated with a reduction in neutropenia (82%), febrile neutropenia (75%), anemia (43%), and thrombocytopenia (96%) compared with chemotherapy alone. Additionally, trilaciclib prior to chemotherapy was cost-saving compared with chemotherapy alone ($99,919 vs $118,759, respectively) and associated with QALY improvement (0.150 vs 0.145, respectively). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed 58% of iterations projecting cost savings and QALY improvement with trilaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the use of trilaciclib prior to first-line chemotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC can be cost-beneficial owing to fewer myelosuppressive AEs and lower costs, together with a favorable QoL profile.

Whence and whither health insurance? A revisionist history.

Throughout the postwar era in federal health policy, policymakers have sought to expand both public and private insurance coverage, while wrestling with the cost consequences of the demand generated by the insurance-financing mechanisms thus created. This essay advances the view that the limits to insurance expansion have been reached and that public and private plan sponsors will henceforth continually "thin out" the coverage they offer. In this environment, policymakers seeking to mitigate access concerns may need to consider strategies that promote direct service delivery. This emerging regime, it is argued, will have important implications for the future of innovation in health care.

Pharmaceutical "charge compression" under the Medicare outpatient prospective payment system.

Analysis of the actual acquisition costs of a sample of pharmaceuticals demonstrates that payment rates for pharmaceutical therapies under the Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS) are systematically biased against fully reimbursing high cost pharmaceutical therapies. Under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS') methodology, which assumes a constant markup, a bias in the cost estimate occurs when hospitals apply below average markups in establishing their charges for pharmaceutical products with above average costs. We developed a model of the relationship between product costs and charge markups. The logarithmic model shows that an increase in the acquisition cost per episode can be expected to lead to a reduction in the charge markup multiple. When markups for pharmaceuticals decline as acquisition cost increases, a rate-setting methodology that assumes a constant markup results in reimbursement for higher cost products that can be far below acquisition cost. The incentives in the payment system could affect site of care choices and beneficiary access.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003: summary analysis and preliminary assessment of implications for radiology.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 contains dozens of provisions of interest to radiology. Beyond enacting a new drug benefit, the bill contains hundreds of amendments affecting all aspects of Medicare payment policy. This article identifies those provisions most likely to affect radiological practice, and provides a preliminary assessment of the implications of these policies for radiologists.

Estimating the cost of the Medicare Pharmacist Services Coverage Act of 2001.

BACKGROUND: In recent years considerable attention has focused on pharmacists' professional evolution toward patient care-oriented practice. The Pharmacist Provider Coalition (PPC), established in 2000, seeks recognition and payment for pharmacists' patient care services. Concerted effort by the PPC on this issue resulted in the introduction of the Medicare Pharmacist Services Coverage Act of 2001, which would have amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to create new types of covered services under Medicare and recognize pharmacist practitioners as providers. However, the legislation was not passed by the 107th Congress. STUDY OBJECTIVES: The PPC engaged The Moran Company to measure the potential net cost to the United States government of the Medicare Pharmacist Services Coverage Act of 2001, and to perform this measurement in a manner that is consistent with the cost-projection methods used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). DESIGN: The model is anchored to the 10-year projection of revenues and spending within the federal government developed annually by the CBO. It examines the anticipated magnitude and cost of patient care services with respect to chronic disease and pharmaceutical therapy management, in both facility and nonfacility settings. RESULTS: The methodology yields a final cost estimate of 427 million dollars in 2004, the first year of implementation, and a 10-year estimate of 13 billion dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of pharmacists as providers of selected drug therapy management services under Medicare will have a considerable financial impact. It is instructive, however, to view the 10-year cost estimate of 13 billion dollars for pharmaceutical therapy management in light of the CBO's projected 1.5 trillion dollars estimate, over the same time frame, for drug spending among the Medicare population.