A Brett Hauber1, Brennan Mange1, Mark A Price2, Daniel Wolin3, Mark Bensink4, James A Kaye5, David Chandler4. 1. RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 2. RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. mprice@rti.org. 3. RTI Health Solutions, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. 5. RTI Health Solutions, Waltham, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although clinical guidelines recommend administration of pegfilgrastim 1-4 days after a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), some physicians administer pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy administration. A novel on-body injector (OBI) that automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy is also available. Our objective was to estimate patient and physician preferences among the pegfilgrastim administration options. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients receiving pegfilgrastim and physicians prescribing pegfilgrastim. Respondents' preferences for pegfilgrastim administration options were elicited using direct elicitation; the relative importance of features associated with the options was estimated in a point-allocation exercise. Physicians considered two hypothetical patient profiles when completing the exercises. RESULTS: The samples included 200 patients and 200 physicians. Patients generally preferred the administration option with which they had experience. Among patients, 48.5% with previous in-clinic injections 24 hours after chemotherapy preferred this option; 56.8% with previous OBI administration preferred this option. For a clinically compromised patient, 37.5% of physicians preferred an in-clinic injection option; 49.5% preferred the OBI. For a less compromised patient, 55.5% preferred an in-clinic injection option; 28.0% preferred the OBI. Avoiding the need to return to the clinic was chosen most often as the most important treatment feature for patients and physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians identified that returning clinic visits for pegfilgrastim administration may be burdensome. A potential solution to mitigate this burden is the OBI, which allows adherence to the labeled use of pegfilgrastim without return visits to the clinic.
OBJECTIVE: Although clinical guidelines recommend administration of pegfilgrastim 1-4 days after a myelosuppressive chemotherapy cycle to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), some physicians administer pegfilgrastim on the same day as chemotherapy administration. A novel on-body injector (OBI) that automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy is also available. Our objective was to estimate patient and physician preferences among the pegfilgrastim administration options. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients receiving pegfilgrastim and physicians prescribing pegfilgrastim. Respondents' preferences for pegfilgrastim administration options were elicited using direct elicitation; the relative importance of features associated with the options was estimated in a point-allocation exercise. Physicians considered two hypothetical patient profiles when completing the exercises. RESULTS: The samples included 200 patients and 200 physicians. Patients generally preferred the administration option with which they had experience. Among patients, 48.5% with previous in-clinic injections 24 hours after chemotherapy preferred this option; 56.8% with previous OBI administration preferred this option. For a clinically compromised patient, 37.5% of physicians preferred an in-clinic injection option; 49.5% preferred the OBI. For a less compromised patient, 55.5% preferred an in-clinic injection option; 28.0% preferred the OBI. Avoiding the need to return to the clinic was chosen most often as the most important treatment feature for patients and physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Patients and physicians identified that returning clinic visits for pegfilgrastim administration may be burdensome. A potential solution to mitigate this burden is the OBI, which allows adherence to the labeled use of pegfilgrastim without return visits to the clinic.
Authors: Stephen H Landy; M Chris Runken; Christopher F Bell; Rachel L Higbie; Lisa S Haskins Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Charles L Vogel; Marek Z Wojtukiewicz; Robert R Carroll; Sergei A Tjulandin; Luis Javier Barajas-Figueroa; Brian L Wiens; Theresa A Neumann; Lee S Schwartzberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah Marion; Spiros Tzivelekis; Christina Darden; Mark A Price; Bintu Sherif; Jacob Garcia; James A Kaye; David Chandler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Thomas J Smith; Kari Bohlke; Gary H Lyman; Kenneth R Carson; Jeffrey Crawford; Scott J Cross; John M Goldberg; James L Khatcheressian; Natasha B Leighl; Cheryl L Perkins; George Somlo; James L Wade; Antoinette J Wozniak; James O Armitage Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Collin A Hovinga; Miya R Asato; Ranjani Manjunath; James W Wheless; Stephanie J Phelps; Raj D Sheth; Jesus E Pina-Garza; Wendy M Zingaro; Lisa S Haskins Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2008-05-09 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: Jeffrey Crawford; David C Dale; Nicole M Kuderer; Eva Culakova; Marek S Poniewierski; Debra Wolff; Gary H Lyman Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jolly Patel; Rebecca Ann Rainess; Miranda J Benfield; Kate M L Rogers; Donald C Moore; Chris Larck; Justin R Arnall Journal: Hosp Pharm Date: 2019-08-02
Authors: Michael Metz; Dieter Semsek; Gunther Rogmans; Ulrich Hutzschenreuter; Thomas Fietz; Johanna Harde; Stefan Zacharias; Carsten Hielscher; Andreas Lorenz; Mark-Oliver Zahn; Dagmar Guth; Steffen Liebers; Michael Berghorn; Sina Grebhardt; Christiane D Matillon; Gerlinde Egerer; Karin Potthoff Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.603