Dataset Information

Prevalence of off-label use and spending in 2010 among patent-protected chemotherapies in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The prevalence of off-label anticancer drug use is not well characterized. The extent of off-label use is a policy concern because the clinical benefits of such use to patients may not outweigh costs or adverse health outcomes.

Methods

Prescribing data from IntrinsiQ Intellidose data systems, a pharmacy software provider maintaining a population-based cohort database of medical oncologists, was analyzed. Use of the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs ("chemotherapies") that were patent protected and administered intravenously to patients in 2010 was examined. Use was classified as "on-label" if the cancer site, stage, and therapy line met the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication. All other use was "off-label." Off-label use was divided by whether it conformed to National Comprehensive Care Network (NCCN) Compendium recommendations, a basis of insurer coverage policies. IMS Health National Sales Perspectives was used to estimate national spending by use category.

Results

Ten chemotherapies met inclusion criteria. On-label use amounted to 70%, and off-label use amounted to 30%. Fourteen percent of use conformed to an NCCN-supported off-label indication, and 10% of off-label use was associated with an FDA-approved cancer site, but an NCCN-unsupported cancer stage and/or line of therapy. Total national spending on these chemotherapies amounted to $12 billion (B; $7.3B on-label, $2B off-label and NCCN supported; $2.5B off-label and NCCN unsupported).

Conclusion

Commonly used, novel chemotherapies are more often used on-label than off-label in contemporary practice. Off-label use is composed of a roughly equal mix of chemotherapy applied in clinical settings supported by the NCCN and those that are not.

SUBMITTER: Conti RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3595423 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prevalence of off-label use and spending in 2010 among patent-protected chemotherapies in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists.

Conti Rena M RM Bernstein Arielle C AC Villaflor Victoria M VM Schilsky Richard L RL Rosenthal Meredith B MB Bach Peter B PB

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20130219 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>The prevalence of off-label anticancer drug use is not well characterized. The extent of off-label use is a policy concern because the clinical benefits of such use to patients may not outweigh costs or adverse health outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Prescribing data from IntrinsiQ Intellidose data systems, a pharmacy software provider maintaining a population-based cohort database of medical oncologists, was analyzed. Use of the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs ("chemotherapies ...[more]

PMID: 23423747

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdvances in the evaluation and treatment of breast cancer have made the clinical decision-making context much more complex. A second opinion from a medical oncologist may facilitate decision making for women with breast cancer, yet little is known about second opinion use.ObjectiveTo investigate the patterns and correlates of second opinion use and the effect on chemotherapy decisions.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 1901 women newly diagnosed with stages 0 to II breast cancer between July 2013 and September 2014 (response rate, 71.0%) were accrued through 2 population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles County, California) and surveyed about their experiences with medical oncologists, decision making, and chemotherapy use.Main outcomes and measuresFactors associated with second opinion use were evaluated using logistic regression. Also assessed was the association between second opinion and chemotherapy use, adjusting for chemotherapy indication and propensity for receiving a second opinion. Multiple imputation and weighting were used to account for missing data.ResultsA total of 1901 patients with stage I to II breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 61.6 [11.0] years; 1071 [56.3%] non-Hispanic white) saw any medical oncologist. Analysis of multiply imputed, weighted data (mean n = 1866) showed that 168 (9.8%) (SE, 0.74%) received a second opinion and 54 (3.2%) (SE, 0.47%) received chemotherapy from the second oncologist. Satisfaction with chemotherapy decisions was high and did not differ between those who did (mean [SD], 4.3 [0.08] on a 1- to 5-point scale) or did not (4.4 [0.03]) obtain a second opinion (P = .29). Predictors of second opinion use included college education vs less education (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.24-2.75), frequent use of internet-based support groups (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.12-4.11), an intermediate result on the 21-gene recurrence score assay (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.11-3.09), and a variant of uncertain significance on hereditary cancer genetic testing (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.09-9.59). After controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, second opinion use was not associated with chemotherapy receipt (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.71-1.52).Conclusions and relevanceSecond opinion use was low (<10%) among patients with early-stage breast cancer, and high decision satisfaction regardless of second opinion use suggests little unmet demand. Along with educational level and use of internet support groups, uncertain results on genomic testing predicted second opinion use. Patient demand for second opinions may increase as more complex genomic tests are disseminated.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to identify disparities in geographic access to medical oncologists at the time of diagnosis.Data sources/study setting2014-2016 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR), 2019 CMS Base Provider Enrollment File (BPEF), 2018 CMS Physician Compare, 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA), and 2015 Area Deprivation Index (ADI).Study designSpatial regressions were used to estimate associations between geographic access to medical oncologists, measured with an enhanced two-step floating catchment area measure, and demographic characteristics.Data collection/extraction methodsMedical oncologists were identified in the 2019 CMS BPEF and merged with the 2018 CMS Physician Compare. Provider addresses were converted to longitude-latitude using OpenCage Geocoder. Newly diagnosed cancer patients in each census tract were identified in the 2014-2016 PCR. Census tracts were classified based on rurality and socioeconomic status using the 2010 RUCA Codes and the 2015 ADI.Principal findingsLarge towns and rural areas were associated with spatial access ratios (SPARs) that were 6.29 lower (95% CI -16.14 to 3.57) and 14.76 lower (95% CI -25.14 to -4.37) respectively relative to urban areas. Being in the fourth ADI quartile (highest disadvantage) was associated with a 12.41 lower SPAR (95% CI -19.50 to -5.33) relative to the first quartile. The observed difference in a census tract's non-White population from the 25th (1.3%) to the 75th percentile (13.7%) was associated with a 13.64 higher SPAR (Coefficient = 1.10, 95% CI 11.89 to 15.29; p < 0.01), roughly equivalent to the disadvantage associated with living in the fourth ADI quartile, where non-White populations are concentrated.ConclusionsRurality and low socioeconomic status were associated with lower geographic access to oncologists. The negative association between area deprivation and geographic access is of similar magnitude to the positive association between larger non-White populations and access. Policies aimed at increasing geographic access to care should be cognizant of both rurality and socioeconomic status.

Dataset Information

Prevalence of off-label use and spending in 2010 among patent-protected chemotherapies in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Prevalence of off-label use and spending in 2010 among patent-protected chemotherapies in a population-based cohort of medical oncologists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets