Comparative cost savings of biosimilar and dose rounding utilization in oncology care.

INTRODUCTION: The exponential rise in cancer costs has led many centers to utilize dose rounding to the nearest vial size when the difference in dose is ≤10% to decrease costs. The recent approval of several biosimilar products has presented another opportunity to mitigate the rising costs of oncology care. Scarce information exists about the expected cost savings of combining dose rounding strategies (DRS) with biosimilar use (BU). We therefore assessed the cost savings of combining DRS and BU. METHODS: Electronic health record data for two health systems in Rhode Island were used to identify patients who received ≥1 of trastuzumab, trastuzumab-anns, bevacizumab, or bevacizumab-awwb from October 1, 2015 to September 1, 2020. Costs were estimated using Medicare drug pricing. Multivariable generalized estimating equations adjusting for age, gender, presence of metastases, dosing weight, and dose administered were used to compare costs per dose between the four exposure groups: DRS + BU, DRS only, BU only, and neither DRS or BU. RESULTS: A total of 1156 patients were administered 15,145 doses of drug. After covariate adjustment, average savings per dose was greatest in the DRS + BU group (vs. the neither DRS nor BU group); $331 for trastuzumab and $497 for bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Combining dose rounding with biosimilar substitution for trastuzumab and bevacizumab resulted in significant cost savings per dose and should be implemented by healthcare systems.

Survival outcomes associated with corticosteroid use before chemoimmunotherapy in patients with advanced lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: How corticosteroid use affects treatment response to chemotherapy and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (CICPIs) remains unknown. We assessed how systemic corticosteroid exposure before CICPI modifies the effect of CICPI on outcomes among patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) or extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records to examine patients with mNSCLC or ES-SCLC who received chemotherapy (CT) between 1st April 2015 and 31st January 2018 or CICPI between 1st February 2018 and 31st August 2019. We excluded those with an actionable driver mutation. Baseline corticosteroid use was defined as systemic corticosteroids within 28 days before the initiation of CT or CICPI, not including premedications. Coprimary outcomes included overall survival (OS), real-world progression (rwP), and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) in CICPI-treated corticosteroid users versus non-users. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPW) to adjust for potential confounding. RESULTS: The cohort of 316 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 67 [61-73] years; 156 [49%] male) included 228 CT-treated and 88 CICPI-treated patients. After applying IPW, characteristics were well-balanced between the CT and CICPI groups, and steroid users and non-users. Using CT-treated steroid non-users as a common comparator, CICPI-treated steroid users were as likely as CICPI-treated steroid non-users to die (users IPW hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.35-1.28 versus non-users IPW-HR = 0.88, 95% C = I0.55-1.42; p = 0.49), have rwP (IPW-HR = 0.35, 95% C = I0.12-0.99 versus IPW-HR = 0.41, 95% C = I0.24-0.70; p = 0.77), or experience rwPFS (IPW-HR = 0.56, 95% C = I0.29-1.09 versus IPW-HR = 0.69, 95% CI0.46-1.03; p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid use before CICPIs was not associated with worse outcomes, suggesting that corticosteroids should be used with CICPIs when indicated.

Pertuzumab-associated diarrhea in HER2/neu-positive breast cancer patients: A comparison of trials to actual practice.

BACKGROUND: Although landmark trials in the metastatic (CLEOPATRA) and neo-adjuvant (NeoSphere; TRYPHAENA) settings identified all-grade diarrhea as a pertuzumab-associated adverse event, it was not classified as dose-limiting. In actual practice, diarrhea is often a reason for treatment modifications. OBJECTIVES: To compare the risk of pertuzumab-associated diarrhea in actual practice to the risks in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of HER2/neu-positive breast cancer patients who received a pertuzumab-containing regimen between January 2012 and August 2015. We calculated the risk of diarrhea with 95% confidence limits (CLs), and then used two-sample t-tests to compare the risk between trials and actual practice. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients in the study cohort received a pertuzumab-containing treatment regimen for HER2/neu-positive breast cancer. The overall risk of all-grade and severe diarrhea in actual practice was 70% (95% CLs 55-90%) and 37% (95% CLs 20-66%), respectively. No severe diarrhea was observed in the metastatic setting, and the risk of all-grade diarrhea (44%, 95% CLs 21-92%) was similar to the CLEOPATRA study (67%). The risk of all-grade diarrhea in the neo-adjuvant setting was 83% (95% CLs 68-100%), compared to 46% in the NeoSphere trial (p = 0.03). The risk of severe diarrhea (Grade 3-4) in the neo-adjuvant setting was 47% (95% CLs 27-80%) versus 6% in the NeoSphere (p < 0.0001) and 12% in the TRYPHAENA (p < 0.01) trials. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of all-grade and severe diarrhea associated with neoadjuvant pertuzumab use for HER2/neu-positive breast cancer was greater in actual practice than in trials.

Use of Charity Financial Assistance for Novel Oral Anticancer Agents.

Novel oral targeted drugs are increasingly used for cancer therapy, but their extreme cost, often exceeding $10,000 per month, poses a significant barrier for patients and insurers alike, leading to the potential breakdown of traditional cost-sharing strategies. Insured patients' routine use of charity assistance to supplement their coverage would indicate a major deficiency in the current health care policies. By using data from a specialty pharmacy affiliated with an academic center (1,557 prescriptions dispensed between January 2014 and March 2017), we examined sources of payment for novel oral anticancer agents, distinguishing contributions from health insurance, patients, and from charitable assistance organizations. Thirty-six percent of 211 patients received charity assistance, including 47% of patients who were 65 years old or older. Charity sources covered 4% of total drug costs and 64% of out-of-pocket expenditures. The proportion of patients receiving financial assistance ranged from 7% when the upfront out-of-pocket requirement was less than $100 to 67% when it exceeded $1,000. When patients' out-of-pocket requirement exceeded $1,000, the median direct cash contribution paradoxically fell to $0 because of extensive use of charity support. Receipt of upfront charity assistance was associated with a longer time to filling the first prescription (median 9 v 7 days; P = .011) and with longer overall duration of therapy (median, 261 v 134 days; P = .014). These findings indicate that high out-of-pocket burden for expensive novel oral anticancer drugs leads to widespread use of charity support in the United States and that a significant financial barrier disparately affects older Medicare beneficiaries.