A Comprehensive Review of Methods to Measure Oral Oncolytic Dose Intensity Using Retrospective Data.
Journal
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
ISSN: 2376-1032
Titre abrégé: J Manag Care Spec Pharm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101644425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
entrez:
27
9
2019
pubmed:
27
9
2019
medline:
11
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Understanding the real-world use of oral oncolytics is essential to assess drug effectiveness. Retrospective analyses using medical and pharmacy claims data allow observation of drug use patterns and health outcomes. However, studies of medication adherence to oral oncolytics may not be sufficient in characterizing exposure because they typically measure refill frequency, not the administered dose or dose changes. Patients who appear fully adherent by traditional measures may be receiving different doses and experiencing differing effectiveness. Relative dose intensity (RDI) is a measure that has been used for intravenous drugs to capture the amount of a particular chemotherapeutic agent administered per unit of time (dose intensity), expressed as the fraction of the amount recommended in evidence-based guidelines. Such a measure would be useful for real-world studies of comparative effectiveness to characterize patient exposure to oral oncolytics. To identify studies that used administrative claims data to measure real-world oral oncolytic dose intensity, RDI, or similar constructs. Two health sciences librarians conducted a literature search (PubMed, January 1, 1809-February 6, 2018) including terms in each of the following concept areas: oncology drugs, dosage, and retrospective data sources. At least 2 reviewers scanned each title and abstract of publications retrieved from PubMed. Abstracts that indicated the study reported dose or related concepts and oral oncolytics using retrospective data sources were marked for full-text review. During full-text review, papers were excluded if they did not study oral oncolytics (i.e., only described intravenous chemotherapy); if they did not report drug dosage; or if the study was not retrospective. Resulting studies were included for full-text data extraction. Of the 1,640 publications returned from the search, 41 were marked for full-text review. Full-text review established that 17 studies addressed a concept related to dose of oral oncolytics using retrospective data. Twenty-four studies were excluded: 11 did not measure dose; 9 did not study oral oncolytics; and 4 were not retrospective studies. Among the 17 articles marked for extraction, 5 articles reported dose intensity or RDI using medical records or electronic health record (EHR) data. This study reveals not only the need for a claims-based measure of dose intensity for oral oncolytics, but also provides a basis for the development of such a measure based on previous EHR-based studies. While several claims data studies have characterized oral oncolytic dosing and duration, we found that no studies combined these dimensions into a single measure such as dose intensity. Methods using EHR data may be translatable to a claims data study. Future research is needed to develop and validate such measures. Novartis Pharmaceuticals provided funding for this study and is a manufacturer of oral onalytics, which is under study in this article. Arcona and Zacker are employees of Novartis. Slejko reports grants from PhRMA, PhRMA Foundation, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals and consulting fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Stuart reports consulting fees from the University of Maryland during the study. The other authors have nothing to disclose. The preliminary findings of this study were presented in a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018, October 22-25, 2018, in Orlando, FL.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Understanding the real-world use of oral oncolytics is essential to assess drug effectiveness. Retrospective analyses using medical and pharmacy claims data allow observation of drug use patterns and health outcomes. However, studies of medication adherence to oral oncolytics may not be sufficient in characterizing exposure because they typically measure refill frequency, not the administered dose or dose changes. Patients who appear fully adherent by traditional measures may be receiving different doses and experiencing differing effectiveness. Relative dose intensity (RDI) is a measure that has been used for intravenous drugs to capture the amount of a particular chemotherapeutic agent administered per unit of time (dose intensity), expressed as the fraction of the amount recommended in evidence-based guidelines. Such a measure would be useful for real-world studies of comparative effectiveness to characterize patient exposure to oral oncolytics.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To identify studies that used administrative claims data to measure real-world oral oncolytic dose intensity, RDI, or similar constructs.
METHODS
METHODS
Two health sciences librarians conducted a literature search (PubMed, January 1, 1809-February 6, 2018) including terms in each of the following concept areas: oncology drugs, dosage, and retrospective data sources. At least 2 reviewers scanned each title and abstract of publications retrieved from PubMed. Abstracts that indicated the study reported dose or related concepts and oral oncolytics using retrospective data sources were marked for full-text review. During full-text review, papers were excluded if they did not study oral oncolytics (i.e., only described intravenous chemotherapy); if they did not report drug dosage; or if the study was not retrospective. Resulting studies were included for full-text data extraction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 1,640 publications returned from the search, 41 were marked for full-text review. Full-text review established that 17 studies addressed a concept related to dose of oral oncolytics using retrospective data. Twenty-four studies were excluded: 11 did not measure dose; 9 did not study oral oncolytics; and 4 were not retrospective studies. Among the 17 articles marked for extraction, 5 articles reported dose intensity or RDI using medical records or electronic health record (EHR) data.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study reveals not only the need for a claims-based measure of dose intensity for oral oncolytics, but also provides a basis for the development of such a measure based on previous EHR-based studies. While several claims data studies have characterized oral oncolytic dosing and duration, we found that no studies combined these dimensions into a single measure such as dose intensity. Methods using EHR data may be translatable to a claims data study. Future research is needed to develop and validate such measures.
DISCLOSURES
BACKGROUND
Novartis Pharmaceuticals provided funding for this study and is a manufacturer of oral onalytics, which is under study in this article. Arcona and Zacker are employees of Novartis. Slejko reports grants from PhRMA, PhRMA Foundation, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals and consulting fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Stuart reports consulting fees from the University of Maryland during the study. The other authors have nothing to disclose. The preliminary findings of this study were presented in a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018, October 22-25, 2018, in Orlando, FL.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31556821
doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.10.1125
pmc: PMC10398302
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1125-1132Références
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2012 Jan;12(1):80-5
pubmed: 21883785
J Med Econ. 2016;19(5):462-8
pubmed: 26652893
Important Adv Oncol. 1988;:121-41
pubmed: 3042601
Acta Oncol. 2017 Dec;56(12):1769-1775
pubmed: 28723233
J Manag Care Pharm. 2009 Nov-Dec;15(9):728-40
pubmed: 19954264
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015 Aug;13(4):e285-e295
pubmed: 25541325
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006 Aug;15(8):565-74; discussion 575-7
pubmed: 16514590
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014 May;20(5):477-84
pubmed: 24761819
J Med Econ. 2017 Jan;20(1):63-71
pubmed: 27603674
Anticancer Res. 2017 May;37(5):2593-2599
pubmed: 28476832
Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Apr;30(4):529-36
pubmed: 24156689
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016 Jun;22(6):723-732u
pubmed: 27231799
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Int J Hematol. 2012 Mar;95(3):263-73
pubmed: 22351162
Adv Ther. 2017 May;34(5):1145-1156
pubmed: 28405961
Cancer Med. 2014 Dec;3(6):1517-26
pubmed: 25045157
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Dec 20;34(36):4323-4328
pubmed: 27998234
Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(6):481-96
pubmed: 17523753
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014 Dec;12(6):413-21
pubmed: 25163396
Oncologist. 2016 Mar;21(3):354-76
pubmed: 26921292
BJU Int. 2010 May;105(9):1247-54
pubmed: 19863525
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2018 Jul;24(5):348-353
pubmed: 28457192
J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2016 Dec;22(6):741-748
pubmed: 26419691
Value Health. 2008 Jan-Feb;11(1):44-7
pubmed: 18237359
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Sep;5(9):1397-403
pubmed: 20644495
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013 Jun;11(2):161-7
pubmed: 23267717
Cancer Med. 2016 Aug;5(8):1776-82
pubmed: 27228415
Ann Hematol. 2008 Apr;87(4):277-83
pubmed: 17952688
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001 Mar;28(2 Suppl):11-6
pubmed: 11291207
Curr Med Res Opin. 2014 Oct;30(10):2041-50
pubmed: 24983741
Can J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jul;27(7):393-6
pubmed: 23862169
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2013 Jul;12(4):455-63
pubmed: 23510293
Urology. 2011 Apr;77(4):825-830.e1
pubmed: 21256539
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014 Aug;12(8):1113-21
pubmed: 25099443
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015 Nov;13(11):1383-93
pubmed: 26553767