Occurrence and Characteristics of Hospitalizations During First-Line Chemotherapy Among Individuals with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Choosing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) requires balancing clinical effectiveness and risk of complications. This study characterized real-world inpatient/emergency department (ED) hospitalizations during first-line chemotherapy among individuals with mCRC. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from medical and pharmacy claims. All patients had mCRC with ≥1 claim for ≥1 of the 5 most frequently utilized first-line chemotherapy agents (fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, irinotecan, capecitabine). The main outcome was all-cause hospitalizations (inpatient or ED setting) identified from claims via ICD-9/10-CM coding from index date until 30 days after the end of first-line chemotherapy or last available data. RESULTS: A total of 717 individuals (mean age 55 years; 58% male; ECOG 0/1/2+/missing in 44%/39%/6%/11%; median follow-up 116 days) met study criteria. Thirty-four distinct chemotherapy regimens were used. Overall, 40% of patients had ≥1 hospitalization (n=285; total 415 hospitalizations); 12% (n=85) had ≥2 hospitalizations. The median time to first hospitalization was 52 days; median inpatient length of stay was 4 days; infections/neutropenia (21%) and bowel-related complications (17%) were the most common issues associated with inpatient hospitalizations. In univariate analyses, insurance plan type, geographical location, ECOG, and renal disease were associated with hospitalization. In multivariable analyses, ECOG ≥1 was associated with a 67% increase (p<0.01) in the odds of hospitalization vs ECOG= 0. CONCLUSION: Approximately 40% of patients with mCRC were hospitalized during the study period. Hospital stays were typically short. Further research is needed to determine how many of these hospitalizations may be avoidable. We also observed a large amount of variation in regimens used in the first-line setting.

Treatment Patterns by EGFR Mutation Status in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients in the USA: A Retrospective Database Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted therapies, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target the sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are recommended for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Most patients with NSCLC who test positive for the EGFR mutation and receive TKIs develop resistance to these drugs. Questions remain regarding which treatment sequence is optimal for patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, and few studies have evaluated patterns of TKI treatment use in NSCLC, irrespective of EGFR mutation status, in a real-world setting. This population-based study aimed to evaluate treatment patterns at a national level in the USA. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data from the US Oncology Network's iKnowMed database. Patients with advanced NSCLC who initiated first-line therapy with erlotinib and/or intravenous chemotherapy between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2015 and met all other study criteria were included. Descriptive analyses assessed demographic and clinical characteristics and treatment patterns among the overall study cohort, as well as for specific erlotinib treatment subgroups, stratified by EGFR status. RESULTS: Among the 3108 patients identified, 18.5% were EGFR positive, 49.8% were EGFR negative, and 31.7% were EGFR documented unknown. For the overall cohort, 18.4% received first-line erlotinib monotherapy, fewer than 1% received first-line combination therapy (erlotinib plus chemotherapy), 4.7% received second-line erlotinib monotherapy, and 3.3% received second-line combination therapy. First-line erlotinib monotherapy was used in 77.8% of all EGFR positive patients. Almost two-thirds of the overall cohort were not observed to have advanced to second-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: As treatment options evolve, this study provides real-world treatment patterns that suggest concordance with NCCN guidelines and confirm the remaining need to understand sequencing of therapies and related outcomes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Treatment patterns and cost-effectiveness of first line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Medicare patients.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line pemetrexed/platinum and other commonly administered regimens in a representative US elderly population with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study utilized the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry linked to Medicare claims records. The study population included all SEER-Medicare patients diagnosed in 2008-2009 with advanced non-squamous NSCLC (stages IIIB-IV) as their only primary cancer and who started chemotherapy within 90 days of diagnosis. The study evaluated the four most commonly observed first-line regimens: paclitaxel/carboplatin, platinum monotherapy, pemetrexed/platinum, and paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab. Overall survival and total healthcare cost comparisons as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for pemetrexed/platinum vs each of the other three. Unstratified analyses and analyses stratified by initial disease stage were conducted. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 2,461 patients. Greater administrative censorship of pemetrexed recipients at the end of the study period disproportionately reduced the observed mean survival for pemetrexed/platinum recipients. The disease stage-stratified ICER analysis found that the pemetrexed/platinum incurred total Medicare costs of $536,424 and $283,560 per observed additional year of life relative to platinum monotherapy and paclitaxel/carboplatin, respectively. The pemetrexed/platinum vs triplet comparator analysis indicated that pemetrexed/platinum was associated with considerably lower total Medicare costs, with no appreciable survival difference. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included differential censorship of the study regimen recipients and differential administration of radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed/platinum yielded either improved survival at increased cost or similar survival at reduced cost relative to comparator regimens in the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Limitations in the study methodology suggest that the observed pemetrexed survival benefit was likely conservative.

Enhancing the Budget Impact Model for Institutional Use: A Tool with Practical Applications for the Hospital Oncology Pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer care is increasing, and tools are needed to understand the economic impact of new drugs on the hospital pharmacy budget. OBJECTIVE: To develop an interactive budget impact model (BIM) through a collaborative effort of industry, academia, and modeling experts to evaluate the use of a new agent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); this BIM included an institutional module specific to the needs of practices that purchase medications for use in institutional settings. METHODS: Treatment regimens, doses, duration of therapy, toxicity, and cost data are from published sources. All input data may be modified to match the local population. Outputs include cost of care, reimbursement, and margin overall and by treatment regimen. RESULTS: The base case assumes 20 NSCLC patients progressing after initial therapy (3 receiving ramucirumab+docetaxel, 2 bevacizumab+erlotinib, 3 docetaxel, 6 erlotinib, and 6 pemetrexed), wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) purchase price, and reimbursement at WAC+4.3%. The model estimated the total cost and reimbursement for the institutional oncology pharmacy to be $699,413 and $729,487, respectively, resulting in a margin of $30,075 (difference due to rounding) for the year for regimens utilized in the treatment of NSCLC in the post-progression setting. Results will vary depending on the input data. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing need for institutional pharmacies to plan ahead and anticipate the impact of new drugs on their oncology budgets. This interactive Excel-based institutional BIM may provide evidence-based support for pharmacy decision making.

Accuracy and precision of manufacturer-supplied liquid medication administration devices before and after patient education.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy and precision of a manufacturer-supplied dropper versus a pharmacy-supplied syringe when measured by a trained student pharmacist and to evaluate patients' ability to accurately measure a prescribed amount of medication with these devices before and after counseling on their use. METHODS: This was a two-phased study with a pretest/posttest design of 125 community pharmacy patrons of Virginia community pharmacies. Deliverable volume was measured by a student pharmacist for nystatin suspension and digoxin elixir using the manufactured-supplied device. Patients at pharmacies were asked to complete a short survey, then asked to measure a specified dose of nystatin suspension and digoxin elixir (using the manufacturer-supplied administration device). The patients repeated this a second time after a student provided education on how to properly use each administration device. The main outcomes measure was whether education on an administration device would provide more measurement accuracy using medications with different physical properties. RESULTS: For nystatin, 88% and 85.6% of patients measured with an error of greater than or equal to 20% before and after counseling, respectively. For digoxin, the totals were 24.8% before counseling and 4% after. A statistically significant (P < 0.05) difference was observed in the percent measurement error before and after counseling for nystatin and digoxin both for patients who had been educated before the study and for those who had not been counseled. CONCLUSION: In general, the accuracy of medication dosage devices seems to be most affected by viscosity of the liquid being measured. With education on proper use, the oral syringe provides a statistically and clinically significant improvement in dosing accuracy for viscous medications compared with the manufacturer-supplied dropper. Pharmacists must review with patients the proper way to use a manufacturer- or pharmacy-supplied oral delivery device for appropriate dosing measurements.