Real-World Patient Characteristics, Utilization Patterns, and Outcomes of US Patients with HR+, HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated with Abemaciclib.

BACKGROUND: Abemaciclib is the most recent oral cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4 & 6i) to receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to treat hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Administrative claims data were used to describe patient characteristics and select clinical and economic outcomes in US patients treated in routine clinical practice. Prior analyses from electronic health records data indicate approximately 25% of patients received either palbociclib or ribociclib for MBC before initiating abemaciclib treatment; this work further explored these findings and associated outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed medical and pharmacy claims from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Databases between 1 January 2007 to 31 January 2020. Patients with HR+, HER2- MBC newly initiating abemaciclib between 1 September 2017 and 31 October 2019 were included and grouped by concomitant therapy (+aromatase inhibitor (AI), +fulvestrant (F), 200 mg abemaciclib monotherapy (Mono), or +other), and outcomes were analyzed by prior CDK4 & 6i use. Patient and treatment characteristics were summarized with descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier methods assessed time-to-discontinuation (TTD; i.e., persistency) and time-to-chemotherapy (TTC). Adherence (defined by the medication possession ratio) and drug wastage were determined. RESULTS: This analysis included 454 patients (mean age 57.7 years), with 35.0% (n = 159) in the +F group, 29.3% (n = 133) in the +AI group, 10.4% (n = 47) in the 200 mg Mono group, and 25.3% (n = 115) in the +other group. Prior chemotherapy and CDK 4 & 6i use were present in 23.8% and 49.8% of all patients, respectively. Visceral metastases were present at abemaciclib initiation in 50.4% in the +AI group; 49.7% in the +F group; and 55.3% in the 200 mg Mono group. Liver metastases were present in 33.7% of the overall population. Among patients without prior CDK4 & 6i use, the median TTD for patients receiving abemaciclib + AI was not reached [95% CI 430-not reached (NR) days], abemaciclib + F [531 days (95% CI 281-NR)], and abemaciclib mono [141 days (95% CI 80-NR)]. Median TTC for abemaciclib + AI and abemaciclib + F groups were not reached and the median TTC for abemaciclib mono was 535 days (95% CI 181-NR). Medication adherence was 88.7% and medication wastage costs among those with at least one dose modification were $808.12 and $452.2 per patient per month based on amount paid and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), respectively. Mean length of follow-up for all patients was 350 days (SD 187). CONCLUSION: These real-world data complement clinical trial results by examining abemaciclib use among patients treated in routine clinical practice. The sizeable number of patients treated with prior CDK4 & 6i, chemotherapy, and/or visceral metastases at abemaciclib initiation suggest that many patients had very advanced disease and/or were in later stages of their treatment. These data confirm a higher percentage of patients treated with previous CDK4 & 6i than reported previously, reinforcing the importance of the ongoing, prospective clinical trials evaluating outcomes following progression on CDK4 & 6i.

Development of a Prognostic Factor Index Among Women With HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer in a Community Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the impact of multiple prognostic factors on patient overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study used electronic health record data of patients in the United States from community oncology practices from January 1, 2008 to April 30, 2017. Eligibility included HR+/HER2- MBC diagnosis in 2008 or later and prior systemic therapy for MBC. An index variable was created to assess the effect of multiple clinical prognostic factors collectively, including liver metastases (LM), primary endocrine resistance (PER), negative progesterone receptor (PR-) status, and high tumor grade (TG). Patients were grouped based on the number of prognostic factors present at MBC diagnosis: 0, 1, and 2+. Differences in rwPFS and OS from start of first-line therapy were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Approximately 29.1% of the 378 eligible patient sample had 0, 36.0% had 1, and 34.9% had 2+ prognostic factors. For the patients with 1 of the prognostic factors, 24.3% had high TG, 14.7% were LM+, 39.7% had PER, and 21.3% were PR-. Univariate and multivariate results showed that rwPFS and OS were significantly (P < .05) shorter in patients with 1 and 2+ prognostic factors compared with patients with 0. CONCLUSIONS: The individual prognostic factors and the prognostic factor index may enable early identification of patients with a less favorable prognosis across the HR+/HER2- MBC population and help inform treatment decisions in difficult-to-treat populations.

Effects of a pharmacist-driven intervention program on hospital readmissions.

PURPOSE: Results of a study to determine whether routine use of a multifaceted medication-focused intervention at a safety-net hospital was feasible and could reduce hospital readmissions in a Medicare fee-for-service population are reported. METHODS: A quality-improvement cohort study of 1,059 admissions of 667 patients at an inner-city hospital was conducted. Patients in the intervention groups received some or all components of the multifaceted "Medication REACH" intervention, with direct pharmacist involvement from admission through postdischarge aftercare. A pharmacist reconciled medications, provided patient-centered education, collaborated with healthcare providers to optimize therapy, ensured access to medications, and followed up with patients at home as needed. Rates of unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge in the full- and partial-intervention groups and in patients who received standard discharge care were compared. RESULTS: Among patients who received the full Medication REACH intervention, 30 of 305 admissions (9.8%) resulted in unplanned readmissions within 30 days, as compared with a readmission rate of 20.4% (110 of 538 patients) among patients who received standard discharge care (p < 0.001). Linear regression modeling, with adjustments for patient age, sex, ethnicity, and case-mix index, indicated an adjusted risk difference favoring the full-intervention group of 9.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 4.3-14.6 percentage points; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Rates of 30-day readmission were substantially lower with pharmacist involvement and collaboration with other healthcare team members during patient transitions from the hospital to the home setting.