Why individual-level interventions are not enough: Systems-level determinants of oral anticancer medication adherence

Prophylactic treatment of dacomitinib-induced skin toxicities in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicenter, Phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Dacomitinib significantly improves progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) compared with gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-activating mutations. However, dacomitinib often causes skin toxicities, resulting in treatment discontinuation. We aimed to evaluate a prophylactic strategy for skin toxicity induced by dacomitinib.

METHODS

We performed a single-arm, prospective, open-label, multi-institutional phase II trial for comprehensive skin toxicity prophylaxis. Patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR-activating mutations were enrolled and received dacomitinib with comprehensive prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was the incidence of skin toxicity (Grade ≥2) in the initial 8 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 41 Japanese patients participated between May 2019 and April 2021 from 14 institutions (median age 70 years; range: 32-83 years), 20 were male, and 36 had a performance status of 0-1. Nineteen patients had exon 19 deletions and L858R mutation. More than 90% of patients were perfectly compliant with prophylactic minocycline administration. Skin toxicities (Grade ≥2) occurred in 43.9% of patients (90% confidence interval [CI], 31.2%-56.7%). The most frequent skin toxicity was acneiform rash in 11 patients (26.8%), followed by paronychia in five patients (12.2%). Due to skin toxicities, eight patients (19.5%) received reduced doses of dacomitinib. The median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 4.0-8.6 months) and median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI, 17.0 months-not reached).

CONCLUSION

Although the prophylactic strategy was ineffective, the adherence to prophylactic medication was quite good. Patient education regarding prophylaxis is important and can lead to improved treatment continuity.

Adherence to oral hormonal therapy in advanced prostate cancer: a scoping review

Background:

Orally administrated agents play a key role in the management of prostate cancer, providing a convenient and cost-effective treatment option for patients. However, they are also associated with adherence issues which can compromise therapeutic outcomes. This scoping review identifies and summarizes data on adherence to oral hormonal therapy in advanced prostate cancer and discusses associated factors and strategies for improving adherence.

Methods:

PubMed (inception to 27 January 2022) and conference databases (2020–2021) were searched to identify English language reports of real-world and clinical trial data on adherence to oral hormonal therapy in prostate cancer using the key search terms ‘prostate cancer’ AND ‘adherence’ AND ‘oral therapy’ OR respective aliases.

Results:

Most adherence outcome data were based on the use of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Self-reported and observer-reported adherence data were used. The most common observer-reported measure, medication possession ratio, showed that the vast majority of patients were in possession of their medication, although proportion of days covered and persistence rates were considerably lower, raising the question whether patients were consistently receiving their treatment. Study follow-up for adherence was generally around 6 months up to 1 year. Studies also indicate that persistence may drop further with longer follow-up, especially in the non-mCRPC setting, which may be a concern when years of therapy are required.

Conclusions:

Oral hormonal therapy plays an important role in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Data on adherence to oral hormonal therapies in prostate cancer were generally of low quality, with high heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting across studies. Short study follow-up for adherence and focus on medication possession rates may further limit relevance of available data, especially in settings that require long-term treatment. Additional research is required to comprehensively assess adherence.

Patient- And Provider-Level Predictors of Survival Among Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Initiating Oral Anticancer Agents

PURPOSE

In an era of rapid expansion of FDA approvals for oral anticancer agents (OAAs), it is important to understand the factors associated with survival among real-world populations, which include groups not well-represented in pivotal clinical trials of OAAs, such as the elderly, racial minorities, and medically complex patients. Our objective was to evaluate patient- and provider-level characteristics' associations with mortality among a multi-payer cohort of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who initiated OAAs.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the North Carolina state cancer registry linked to multi-payer claims data for the years 2004 to 2015. Provider data were obtained from North Carolina Health Professions Data System and the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Included patients were individuals with mRCC who initiated an OAA and survived ≥90 days after beginning treatment. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence limits (CL) using Cox hazard models for associations between patient demographics, patient clinical characteristics, provider-level factors, and 2-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The cohort included 207 patients with mRCC who received OAAs. In multivariable models, clinical variables such as frailty (HR: 1.36, 95% CL: 1.11-1.67) and de novo metastatic diagnosis (HR: 2.63, 95%CL: 1.67-4.16) were associated with higher all-cause mortality. Additionally, patients solely on Medicare had higher adjusted all-cause mortality compared with patients with any private insurance (HR: 2.35, 95% CL: 1.32-4.18). No provider-level covariates investigated were associated with all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Within a real-world population of mRCC patients taking OAAs, survival differed based on patient characteristics. In an era of rapid expansion of FDA approvals for OAAs, these real-world data underscore the continued importance of access to high-quality care, particularly for medically complex patients with limited resources.

Disparities in Clinical Care and Research in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Disparities in cancer screening, prevention, therapy, clinical outcomes, and research are increasingly recognized and pervade all malignancies. In response, several cancer research and clinical care organizations have issued policy statements to acknowledge and address barriers to achieving health equity in cancer care. The increasingly specialized nature of oncology warrants a disease-focused appraisal of existing disparities and potential solutions. Although clear improvements in clinical outcomes have been recently observed for patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), these improvements have not been equally shared across diverse populations. This review describes existing RCC cancer disparities and their potential contributing factors and discusses opportunities to improve health equity in clinical research for all patients with RCC.

Patient, provider, and hospital factors associated with oral anti-neoplastic agent initiation and adherence in older patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Oral anti-neoplastic agents (OAAs) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are associated with increased cancer-specific survival. However, racial disparities in survival persist and older adults have the lowest rates of cancer-specific survival. Research from other cancers demonstrates specialty access is associated with high-quality cancer care, but older adults receive cancer treatment less often than younger adults. We therefore examined whether patient, provider, and hospital characteristics were associated with OAA initiation, adherence, and cancer-specific survival after initiation and whether race, ethnicity, and/or age was associated with an increased likelihood of seeing a medical oncologist for diagnosis of mRCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)Medicare data to identify patients ≥65 years of age who were diagnosed with mRCC from 2007 to 2015 and enrolled in Medicare Part D. Insurance claims were used to identify receipt of OAAs within twelve months of metastatic diagnosis, calculate proportion of days covered, and to identify the primary cancer provider and hospital. We examined provider and hospital characteristics associated with OAA initiation, adherence, and all-cause mortality after OAA initiation.

RESULTS

We identified 2792 patients who met inclusion criteria. Increased OAA initiation was associated with access to a medical oncologist. Patients were less likely to begin OAA treatment if their primary oncologic provider was a urologist (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.77). Provider/hospital characteristics were not associated with differences in OAA adherence or mortality. Patients who started sorafenib (odds ratio [OR] 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86), were older (aged >81 OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.92), and those living in high poverty ZIP codes (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.29-0.80) were less likely to adhere to OAA treatment. Furthermore, provider characteristics did not account for differences in mortality once an OAA was initiated. Last, only age > 81 years was statistically and clinically associated with a decreased relative risk of seeing a medical oncologist (risk ratio [RR] 0.87; CI 0.82-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Provider/hospital factors, specifically, being seen by a medical oncologist for mRCC diagnosis, are associated with OAA initiation. Older patients were less likely to see a medical oncologist; however, race and/or ethnicity was not associated with differences in seeing a medical oncologist. Patient factors are more critical to OAA adherence and mortality after OAA initiation than provider/hospital factors.

Financial assistance programs for cancer patients

Background:

The high costs of oncology care can lead to financial stress and have deleterious effects on the well-being of patients and their families. However, only a handful of financial assistance programs for cancer patients have been implemented and evaluated to date.

Recent findings:

Key features of reported programs include instrumental support through financial navigation or education for patients, and financial or charitable support for healthcare costs. Only one of the programs successfully reduced actual out-of-pocket costs for patients, though others were associated with psychosocial benefits or increased knowledge of financial resources. Four of the 5 programs evaluated to date were pilot studies with small sample sizes, and most lack control groups for comparison.

Conclusions:

Additional studies are needed that include larger sample sizes and with comparison groups of cancer patients in order to determine whether the counseling and navigator programs are effective in addressing financial distress in this patient population. Of particular interest are programs designed for low-income patients and those who lack health care insurance. Financial assistance programs that implement solutions at different levels of the healthcare system (individual patients, providers, healthcare institutions) are more likely to be effective. Multi-level interventions are needed that address the systems in which patients access care, the actual costs of services and drugs, and the individual needs of patients in order to reduce financial hardship for cancer patients.

Provider- and patient-level predictors of oral anticancer agent initiation and adherence in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background

Improving oral anticancer agent (OAA) initiation and adherence is the important quality‐of‐care issues, particularly since one fourth of anticancer agents being developed will be administered orally. Our objective was to identify provider‐ and patient‐level characteristics associated with OAA initiation and adherence among individuals with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods

We used state cancer registry data linked to multi‐payer claims data to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed in 2004–2015. Provider data were obtained from North Carolina Health Professions Data System and the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence limits (CLs) using modified Poisson regression to evaluate factors associated with OAA initiation and adherence.

Results

Among the 207 (out of 687) patients who initiated an OAA following mRCC diagnosis and survived 90 days, median proportion of days covered was 0.91. Patients with a modal provider specializing in hematology/medical oncology were much more likely to initiate OAAs than those seen by other specialties. Additionally, patients with a female provider were more likely to initiate OAAs than those with a male provider. Compared to patients treated by providers practicing in both urban and rural areas, patients with providers practicing solely in urban areas were more likely to initiate OAAs, after controlling for patient‐level factors (RR = 1.37; 95% CL: 1.09–1.73). Medicare patients were less likely to be adherent than those with private insurance (RR = 0.61; 95% CL: 0.42–0.87).

Conclusions

Our results suggest that provider‐ and patient‐level factors influence OAA initiation in patients with mRCC but only insurance type was associated with adherence.

Why individual-level interventions are not enough: Systems-level determinants of oral anticancer medication adherence

Nonadherence to oral anticancer medications (OAMs) in the United States is as low as 33% for some cancers. The reasons for nonadherence to these lifesaving medications are multifactorial, yet the majority of studies focus on patient-level factors influencing uptake and adherence. Individually based interventions to increase patient adherence have not been effective, and this warrants attention to factors at the payor, pharmaceutical, and clinical systems levels. Based on the authors' research and clinical experiences, this commentary brings fresh attention to the long-standing issue of OAM nonadherence, a growing quality-of-care issue, from a systems perspective. In this commentary, the key driving factors in pharmaceutical and payor systems (state and federal laws, payor/insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies), clinical systems (hospitals and providers), and patient contexts that have trickle-down effects on patient adherence to OAMs are outlined. In the end, the authors' recommendations include examining the influence of laws governing OAM drug pricing, OAM supply, and provider reimbursement; reducing the need for prior authorization of long-approved OAMs; identifying cost-effective ways for providers to monitor nonadherence; examining issues of provider bias in OAM prescriptions; and further elucidating in which contexts patients are likely to be able to adhere. These recommendations offer a starting point for an examination of the chain of systems influencing patient adherence and may help to finally resolve persistently high levels of OAM nonadherence.