Impact of the Oncology Care Model on Use of Supportive Care Medications During Cancer Treatment

Provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar utilization in community oncology practices

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars reduce the burden of cost on patients and payers, and so doing, increase access to life-saving care. However, biosimilar uptake in the US has been inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed provider perceptions of barriers to biosimilar use and their relationships to utilization rates in a large, national oncology network and examined if perceptions differed by demographic and practice characteristics.

METHODS

A 28-item survey was administered to 400 network physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and administrators, spanning 25 provider groups, and measured 1) barriers to use categorized into 4 subscales-payer-related, provider-related, operational, and patient-related, using a Likert scale ranging from Never (1) to Always (5); and 2) demographic and practice characteristics. Utilization rates were assessed using aggregated patient-level drug administration data found in the electronic health record system. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to describe responses and assess relationships between variables.

RESULTS

A total of 46 responses were analyzed, with a response rate of 11.5%. Most respondents were female (55.6%), physicians (52.2%), with over 6 years of experience (67%). A majority worked in practices participating in the Oncology Care Model (86.7%) and received continuing education on biosimilars (84.8%). Overall scale score was moderately low (mean=2.31), indicating low levels of perceived barriers. The lowest subscale score was operational barriers (mean=2.21), while payer-related barriers was the highest (mean=2.78). Perceptions of barriers did not differ based on demographic and practice characteristics. The average biosimilar utilization rate was 66.2%, with practices in the West administering biosimilars most frequently (71.8%). Utilization was not impacted by perceptions of barriers.

CONCLUSION

Perceived barriers to biosimilar utilization were not common and not associated with utilization. Infrequent impediments to utilization may be associated with network-wide emphasis on continuing education and a value-based care environment. Future research should consider other practice- and patient-level factors that may impact biosimilar utilization.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Association of Oncologist Participation in Medicare's Oncology Care Model With Patient Receipt of Novel Cancer Therapies

IMPORTANCE

Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM) was an alternative payment model that tied performance-based payments to cost and quality goals for participating oncology practices. A major concern about the OCM regarded inclusion of high-cost cancer therapies, which could potentially disincentivize oncologists from prescribing novel therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether oncologist participation in the OCM changed the likelihood that patients received novel therapies vs alternative treatments.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data and Medicare claims compared patient receipt of novel therapies for patients treated by oncologists participating vs not participating in the OCM in the period before (January 2015-June 2016) and after (July 2016-December 2018) OCM initiation. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in SEER registries who were eligible to receive 1 of 10 novel cancer therapies that received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the 18 months before implementation of the OCM. The study excluded the Hawaii registry because complete data were not available at the time of the data request. Patients in the OCM vs non-OCM groups were matched on novel therapy cohort, outcome time period, and oncologist specialist status. Analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022.

EXPOSURES

Oncologist participation in the OCM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Preplanned analyses evaluated patient receipt of 1 of 10 novel therapies vs alternative therapies specific to the patient's cancer for the overall study sample and for racial subgroups.

RESULTS

The study included 2839 matched patients (760 in the OCM group and 2079 in the non-OCM group; median [IQR] age, 72.7 [68.3-77.6] years; 1591 women [56.0%]). Among patients in the non-OCM group, 33.2% received novel therapies before and 40.1% received novel therapies after the start of the OCM vs 39.9% and 50.3% of patients in the OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 3.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 10.7 percentage points; P = .34). In subgroup analyses, second-line immunotherapy use in lung cancer was greater among patients in the OCM group vs non-OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.8-30.0 percentage points; P = .007), but no differences were seen in other subgroups. Over the entire study period, patients with oncologists participating in the OCM were more likely to receive novel therapies than those with oncologists who were not participating (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that participation in the OCM was not associated with oncologists' prescribing novel therapies to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. These findings suggest that OCM financial incentives did not decrease patient access to novel therapies.

Clinical Characteristics, Prognostic Factors and Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Bone-Only Metastatic Breast Cancer

Introduction

Bone is the most frequent site of breast cancer metastasis. Differences between those who present with de novo bone-only metastasis (BOM) and those who progress to bone-only disease following a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer are not clear. Such differences in clinical course might have an impact on the aggressiveness of treatment. This study presents the clinical and pathological features, along with treatment outcomes, of breast cancer patients with BOM in relation to the timing and type of bone metastasis.

Patients and Methods

Patients with breast cancer and BOM were retrospectively reviewed. De novo BOM was defined as bone metastasis diagnosed at presentation or within the first 4 months of follow-up. Treatment outcomes of patients with de novo, compared to those with subsequent BOM, are presented.

Results

242 patients, median age (range) at diagnosis was 52 (27–80) years were enrolled. The majority of the patients (77.3%) had de novo BOM with multiple sites of bone involvement (82.6%). At a median follow-up of 37.7 months, the median overall survival (OS) for patients with de novo BOM disease was significantly shorter than those who developed so subsequently; 40.8 months (95% CI, 51.1–184.1) compared to 80.9 months (95% CI, 36.4–47.9), p < 0.001. Tumor grade, hormone receptor status and type of bone lesions (lytic versus sclerotic) had a significant impact on survival outcomes.

Conclusion

Breast cancer with de novo BOM is a distinct clinical entity with unfavorable prognosis and is associated with shorter survival. Several risk factors for poor outcomes were identified and might inform treatment plans.

Implementation and Impact of Choosing Wisely Recommendations in Oncology

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.

Finding the Lowest-Cost Pharmacy for Cancer Supportive Care Medications: Not So Easy

PURPOSE

To decrease the financial burden on people with cancer, clinicians and patients increasingly use medication price comparison websites to seek pharmacies where medications may be cheaper. Shopping around at different pharmacies can add additional time and logistic burden to patients and care partners. We sought to determine whether a single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price for symptom control medications.

METHODS

We compiled medications/formulations used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms: nausea/vomiting and anorexia/cachexia. We extracted discounted, lowest price with coupon prices for a typical fill of these medications at nine pharmacies in Minneapolis, MN, using GoodRx. We compared prices across formulations and pharmacies to assess whether a pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price.

RESULTS

We included 24 formulations for nausea/vomiting (14 generic and 10 brand-name) and 19 for anorexia/cachexia (12 generic and seven brand-name). Prices for brand-name formulations were similar across pharmacies, but prices of generic formulations varied widely across pharmacies. For example, the prices of a seven-unit fill of generic 5-mg olanzapine tablets ranged from $4 to $57 US dollars. No single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price across the formulations studied. For example, for the 12 generic formulations for anorexia/cachexia, one pharmacy had the highest price for four formulations and the lowest price for two others.

CONCLUSION

In this study of discounted medication prices, we found that no single pharmacy in an urban zip code consistently offered the lowest price for medications used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms. Well-intentioned efforts to pursue the cheapest source of each medication by visiting multiple pharmacies may add extra time and logistic toxicity to patients and care partners. This approach can increase redundant scripts and expose patients to medication-related adverse events.