Clinical Trial Participation Among Older Adult Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Cancer.

Importance: Clinical trials play a critical role in the development of novel cancer therapies, and precise estimates of the frequency with which older adult patients with cancer participate in clinical trials are lacking. Objective: To estimate the proportion of older adult Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries with cancer who participate in interventional cancer clinical trials, using a novel population-based methodology. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study evaluating clinical trial participation among older adult patients with cancer from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2020, claims data from Medicare FFS were linked with the ClinicalTrials.gov to determine trial participation through the unique National Clinical Trial (NCT) identifier. The proportion of patients with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional clinical trial and receiving active cancer treatment from January 2014 to June 2020 was estimated. Data analysis was performed from November 18, 2020, to November 1, 2021. Exposures: Patients with cancer aged 65 years or older with Medicare FFS insurance, with and without active cancer treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollment in clinical trials among all patients with cancer 65 years and older and among patients receiving active cancer treatments as defined by the presence of at least 1 NCT identifier corresponding to an interventional cancer clinical trial in Medicare claims. Results: Among 1 150 978 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [8.4] years; 49.9% men and 50.1% women) with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015, 12 028 (1.0%) patients had a billing claim with an NCT identifier indicating enrollment in an interventional cancer clinical trial between January 2014 and June 2020. In a subset of 429 343 patients with active cancer treatment, 8360 (1.9%) were enrolled in 1 or more interventional trials. Patients enrolled in a trial tended to be younger, male, a race other than Black, and residing in zip codes with high median incomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study show that clinical trial enrollment among older adult patients with cancer remains low, with only 1.0% to 1.9% of patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional cancer clinical trial as measured by the presence of NCT identifiers in Medicare claims. These data provide a contemporary estimate of trial enrollment, persistent disparities in trial participation, and only limited progress in trial access over the past 2 decades.

Validation of a Population-Based Data Source to Examine National Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requires health care organizations to report the National Clinical Trial (NCT) identifier on claims for items and services related to clinical trials that qualify for coverage. This same NCT identifier is used to identify clinical trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. If linked, this information could facilitate population-based analyses of clinical trial participation and outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the validity of a linkage between fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims and ClinicalTrials.gov through the NCT identifier for patients with cancer enrolled in clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included 2 complementary retrospective analyses for a validation assessment. First, billing data from 3 health care institutions were used to estimate the missingness of the NCT identifier in claims by calculating the proportion of known participants in cancer clinical trials with no NCT identifier on any submitted Medicare claims. Second, the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data set, which includes a subset of all FFS Medicare beneficiaries for whom health insurance claims are linked with cancer registry data, was used to identify adult patients diagnosed with cancer between 2006 and 2015 with an NCT identifier in claims corresponding to an interventional cancer clinical trial. To estimate the accuracy of the NCT identifier when present, the proportion of NCT identifiers that corresponded to trials that were aligned with the patients' known primary or secondary diagnoses was calculated. Data were analyzed from March 2020 to March 2021. Exposures: An NCT identifier present in Medicare claims. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was participating in a clinical trial relevant to patient's cancer diagnosis. Results: A total of 1 171 816 patients were included in analyses. Across the 3 participating institutions, there were 5061 Medicare patients enrolled in a clinical trial, including 3797 patients (75.0%) with an NCT identifier on at least 1 billing claim that matched the clinical trial on which the patient was participating. Among 1 171 816 SEER-Medicare patients, 29 138 patients (2.5%) had at least 1 claim with a value entered in the NCT identifier field corresponding to 32 950 unique patient-NCT identifier pairs. There were 26 694 pairs (81.0%) with an NCT identifier corresponding to a clinical trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 10 170 pairs (38.1%) were interventional cancer clinical trials. Among these, 9805 pairs (96.4%) were considered appropriate. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, this data linkage provided a novel data source to study clinical trial enrollment patterns among Medicare patients with cancer on a population level. The presence of the NCT identifiers in claims for Medicare patients participating in clinical trials is likely to improve over time with increasing adherence with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services mandate.

Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Financial payments from the drug industry to U.S. physicians are common. Payments may influence physicians' clinical decision making and drug prescribing. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether receipt of payments from the drug industry is associated with physician prescribing practices. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EconLit were searched without language restrictions. The search had no limiting start date and concluded on 16 September 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that estimated the association between receipt of industry payments (exposure) and prescribing (outcome). DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers extracted the primary analysis or analyses from each study and evaluated risk of bias (ROB). DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-six studies comprising 101 analyses were included. Most studies (n = 30) identified a positive association between payments and prescribing in all analyses; the remainder (n = 6) had a mix of positive and null findings. No study had only null findings. Of 101 individual analyses, 89 identified a positive association. Payments were associated with increased prescribing of the paying company's drug, increased prescribing costs, and increased prescribing of branded drugs. Nine studies assessed and found evidence of a temporal association; 25 assessed and found evidence of a dose-response relationship. LIMITATION: The design was observational, 21 of 36 studies had serious ROB, and publication bias was possible. CONCLUSION: The association between industry payments and physician prescribing was consistent across all studies that have evaluated this association. Findings regarding a temporal association and dose-response suggest a causal relationship. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Association Between Clinical Value and Financial Cost of Cancer Treatments: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer treatment has increased significantly in recent decades, but it is unclear whether these costs have been associated with commensurate improvement in clinical value. This study aimed to assess the association between the cost of cancer treatment and 4 of the 5 NCCN Evidence Blocks (EB) measures of clinical value: efficacy of regimen/agent, safety of regimen/agent, quality of evidence, and consistency of evidence. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, observational study. We obtained NCCN EB ratings for all recommended, first-line, and/or maintenance treatments for the 30 most prevalent cancers in the United States and calculated direct pharmacologic treatment costs (drug acquisition, administration fees, guideline-concordant supportive care medications) using Medicare reimbursement rates in January 2019. We used generalized estimating equations to estimate the association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost with clustering at the level of the treatment indication. RESULTS: A total of 1,386 treatments were included. Among time-unlimited treatments (those administered on an ongoing basis without a predetermined stopping point), monthly cost was positively associated with efficacy ($3,036; 95% CI, $1,782 to $4,289) and quality of evidence ($1,509; 95% CI, $171 to $2,847) but negatively associated with safety (-$1,470; 95% CI, -$2,790 to -$151) and consistency of evidence (-$2,003; 95% CI, -$3,420 to -$586). Among time-limited treatments (those administered for a predetermined interval or number of cycles), no NCCN EB measure was significantly associated with treatment cost. CONCLUSIONS: An association between NCCN EB measures and treatment cost was inconsistent, and the magnitude of the association was small compared with the degree of cost variation among treatments with the same EB scores. The clinical value of cancer treatments does not seem to be a primary determinant of treatment cost.

The Accuracy and Usefulness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks Affordability Rating.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines' Evidence Blocks has the broadest scope of the several oncology value assessment frameworks. The Evidence Blocks includes the Affordability criterion, which reflects the financial cost of each treatment on a 1-5 scale. The accuracy of Affordability is unknown. METHODS: We calculated Medicare costs for all first-line and maintenance treatments for the 30 cancers with the highest incidence in the USA that had published NCCN Evidence Blocks as of 31 December 2018. We assessed the accuracy and consistency of Affordability across different treatments and cancer types. Among different treatments for the same indication, we determined the frequency with which the Affordability assessment was consistent with calculated treatment costs. RESULTS: There were a total of 1386 treatments in our sample. Lower Affordability scores were associated with higher costs. There was significant variation in cost at each level of Affordability; for treatments with Affordability = 1 (very expensive), costs ranged from $US4551 to $US43,794 per month for treatments administered over an undefined time period and from $US2865 to $US500,982 per course of therapy for treatments administered over a defined time period. Among treatments for the same indication, Affordability was discrepant with calculated treatment costs in 7.9% of pairwise comparisons, identifying the higher-cost treatment as being more affordable. Discrepancies were reduced when we reassigned Affordability scores based on calculated treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence Blocks Affordability generally correlated with treatment costs but contained discrepancies, which may limit its usefulness to clinicians in comparing costs. This study suggests that the Affordability score may be improved by indexing more directly to specified dollar value thresholds.