PURPOSE: In 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) providing reimbursement for next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for beneficiaries with advanced or metastatic cancer and no previous NGS testing. We examined the association between NCD implementation and NGS utilization trends in Medicare beneficiaries versus commercially insured patients.METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma with a de novo or recurrent advanced diagnosis from January 1, 2011, through December 30, 2019, using a nationwide US electronic health record–derived deidentified database. Patients were classified by insurance and by advanced diagnosis date. NGS testing was assessed by receipt of first NGS test result ≤ 60 days of advanced diagnosis. Interrupted time series analysis assessed NGS utilization pre- and post-NCD effective date by insurance type.RESULTS: The utilization and repeat NGS testing analysis included 70,290 and 4,295 patients, respectively. Use of NGS rose from < 1% in 2011 to > 45% in Q4 2019 in aNSCLC while remaining < 20% in mBC and advanced melanoma. Among patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, or mBC, NGS testing increased post-NCD versus pre-NCD ( P < .05). There was no significant difference in trends pre- and post-NCD between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured patients in any tumor. Repeat NGS testing was similar before the NCD (Medicare v commercial: 24.8% v 28.5%). Post-NCD, fewer Medicare beneficiaries had repeat NGS testing (27.7% v 36.0%; P < .01).CONCLUSION: Trends in NGS utilization significantly changed post-NCD, although the magnitude of change was not significantly different by insurance type, indicating private insurers may also be incorporating NCD guidance. Implementation of the NCD may have limited use of repeat NGS testing in Medicare beneficiaries.

Real-world studies have suggested decreased trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) effectiveness in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who received prior trastuzumab plus pertuzumab (H + P). However, these studies may have been biased toward pertuzumab-experienced patients with more aggressive disease. Using an electronic health record-derived database, patients diagnosed with mBC on/after 1 January 2011 who initiated T-DM1 in any treatment line (primary cohort) or who initiated second-line T-DM1 following first-line H ± P (secondary cohort) from 22 February 2013 to 31 December 2019 were included. The primary outcome was time from index date to next treatment or death (TTNT). In the primary cohort (n = 757), the percentage of patients with prior P increased from 37% to 73% across the study period, while population characteristics and treatment effectiveness measures were generally stable. Among P-experienced patients from the secondary cohort (n = 246), median time from mBC diagnosis to T-DM1 initiation increased from 10 to 14 months (2013–2019), and median TTNT increased from 4.4 to 10.2 months (2013–2018). Over time, prior H + P prevalence significantly increased with no observable impact on T-DM1 effectiveness. Drug approval timing should be considered when assessing treatment effectiveness within a sequence.

Aim:Compare thrombotic risk in people with congenital hemophilia A (PwcHA) to the general non-hemophilia A (HA) population.Patients & methods:US claims databases were analyzed to identify PwcHA. Incidence rates of myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, deep vein thrombosis and device-related thrombosis were compared with a matched cohort without HA.Results:Over 3490 PwcHA were identified and 16,380 individuals matched. PwcHA had a similar incidence of myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism compared with the non-HA population, but a slightly higher incidence of ischemic stroke and deep vein thrombosis. The incidence of device-related thrombosis was significantly higher in PwcHA.Conclusion:This analysis suggests that PwcHA are not protected against thrombosis, and provides context to evaluate thrombotic risk of HA treatments.

PURPOSE: We surveyed oncologists who treat classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) as part of the CONNECT study to understand the treatment decision‐making process, including the impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging. METHODS: US physicians self-identifying as oncologists, hematologists, or hematologists/oncologists with ≥2 years of practice experience who treated ≥1 adult with stage III/IV cHL in the frontline setting in the last year were surveyed (October 19-November 16, 2020). Physician demographics, guideline adherence, and PET/CT utilization, interpretation, and access barriers were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 301 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent of physicians gave somewhat-to-significant consideration to NCCN guidelines. Most physicians (94%; n = 284) reported obtaining a PET/CT scan at diagnosis; of these physicians, 97% reported obtaining an interim PET/CT scan for stage III/IV cHL, with 65% typically obtaining an interim PET/CT scan after cycle 2. The Deauville 5-point scale (5PS) was the primary scoring system used to review PET/CT results by 62% of physicians, with a positive score defined as ≥3 by 44%, ≥4 by 37%, and ≥2 by 12% of physicians. Fifty-five percent of physicians reported difficulty in obtaining PET/CT scans. CONCLUSION: Although most physicians considered NCCN guidelines when treating patients with stage III/IV cHL, interim PET/CT scans after cycle 2 were not universally obtained. When PET/CT scans were obtained, Deauville 5PS scores were not always provided, and variability existed on what defined a positive score. These findings suggest that opportunities exist for education and improved PET-adapted treatment approaches.

Aim: To determine if emicizumab was channeled to clinically complex people with hemophilia A upon approval. Methods: Claims data (16 November 2017, through 31 December 2019) from US-based insurance databases were analyzed to compare the clinical complexity of people with hemophilia A initiating emicizumab with matched individuals receiving factor VIII (FVIII) episodically or prophylactically. People with hemophilia A with evidence of previous bypassing agent use (indicating FVIII inhibitors) were excluded. Outcomes included bleeding events, arthropathy, pain, comorbidities and healthcare costs. Results: A larger proportion of emicizumab users had bleeding events, comorbidities and arthropathy and greater healthcare costs in the year prior to starting emicizumab compared with FVIII users. Conclusion: Claims-based data limitations prevent an absolute conclusion. Nevertheless, emicizumab users appear more clinically complex than FVIII users, suggesting post-approval channeling.

Since Food and Drug Administration approval of brentuximab vedotin in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) as initial therapy for previously untreated CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), there has been limited research on real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed claims of patients with PTCL treated with frontline A + CHP or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) using the Symphony Health Solutions database. Adults with International Classification of Diseases-9/10 PTCL diagnosis codes who initiated A + CHP or CHOP between November 2018 and July 2021 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed that adjusted for potential confounders between groups. A total of 1344 patients were included (A + CHP, n = 749; CHOP, n = 595). Before matching, 61% were men; median age at index was 62 (A + CHP) and 69 (CHOP) years. The most common A + CHP-treated PTCL subtypes were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL; 51%), PTCL-not otherwise specified (NOS; 30%), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 12%); the most common CHOP-treated subtypes were PTCL-NOS (51%) and AITL (19%). After matching, similar proportions of patients treated with A + CHP and CHOP received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (89% vs. 86%, P = .3). Fewer patients treated with A + CHP received subsequent therapy than CHOP overall (20% vs. 30%, P < .001) and specifically with the sALCL subtype (15% vs. 28%, P = .025). Characteristics and management of this real-world PTCL population who were older and had a higher comorbidity burden than that in the ECHELON-2 trial demonstrate the importance of retrospective studies when assessing the impact of new regimens on clinical practice.