Reducing Cancer Drug Cost: 3-Year Analysis of Automated Dose Rounding in Electronic Health Records.

PURPOSE: Globally, cancer drug expenditure exceeds $185 in US dollars (USD) billion, with the United States contributing $75 (USD) billion. Many cancer drug doses are calculated on the basis of body weight or body surface area, which often results in leftover drug in partially used single-dose vials (SDVs). The cost of wasted drug is a huge financial burden on the US health care system. We evaluated the cost savings resulting from the reduction of SDV wastage, achieved through the implementation of automated dose rounding rules in electronic health records (EHRs). METHODS: Mayo Clinic implemented automated dose rounding rules within the EHR. These rules were designed to round calculated doses to the nearest SDV if the vial size closely matched the original calculated dose, within a 10% threshold. We assessed doses administered between January 2019 and December 2021, and computed cost-savings, waste reduction, and cost of waste for chemotherapy drugs. RESULTS: In 3 years, 36.1% of doses were rounded down, 35.8% were rounded up, and 28.1% were exact doses. By rounding doses down to a vial size, we achieved cost-savings of $39.75 (USD) million and prevented 62,065 SDV of cancer drugs from going to waste. By rounding doses up, we avoided wasting $9.95 (USD) million worth of drugs. However, there were still instances where the rounding fell outside of the 10%, resulting in wasted drugs worth $25 (USD) million. CONCLUSION: The substantial burden imposed on patients and the US health care system because of cancer drug wastage is of significant concern. Although the automated dose rounding system represents a partial solution for this issue, a comprehensive approach involves the imperative development of policy and legislative solutions to effectively mitigate the challenges associated with cancer drug waste.

Single dose versus multiple doses of rituximab for preemptive therapy of Epstein-Barr virus reactivation after hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation is an unresolved medical issue after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Rituximab treatment is recommended for EBV reactivation after HSCT but the number of doses of rituximab to use is unclear. In this study, risk factors and outcomes of patients who needed 1 dose vs >1 doses of preemptive rituximab to clear EBV viremia were compared. A higher viral load was more likely to be associated with higher doses of rituximab. Patients whose EBV viremia cleared with 1 dose of rituximab were more likely to have a preceding reduction of immunosuppression. Overall survival (OS) in these 2 cohorts was not different (18.7 vs 26.6 months, respectively, p = .96). Since rituximab can have side effects and is fairly costly, a predictive model to determine the number of rituximab doses using viral load would be a useful and cost-effective manner to utilize rituximab for this indication.

Treatment With Bortezomib-based Therapy, Followed by Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation, Improves Outcomes in Light Chain Amyloidosis: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The hematologic response is critical in patients with light chain amyloidosis because a good response is known to improve organ response and overall survival. We present a retrospective analysis to compare the hematologic and organ response in patients who received bortezomib-based therapy before autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) versus those who received non-bortezomib-based therapy before ASCT and those who underwent ASCT at diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of a total of 63 patients who underwent ASCT for light chain amyloidosis, 34 received bortezomib-based therapy before ASCT (Bor-ASCT) and 29 did not receive bortezomib therapy (non-Bor-ASCT). A greater number of patients had involvement of ≥ 3 organs and cardiac involvement in the Bor-ASCT group, suggesting a greater risk at baseline in the Bor-ASCT group. RESULTS: At 3, 6, and 12 months after ASCT, the hematologic response was better in the Bor-ASCT group, with a statistically significance difference at 6 months (partial response or better in 82% vs. 20%; P = .002) and 12 months (partial response or better in 76% vs. 33%; P = .02). Organ responses (66% vs. 21%; P < .001) and median overall survival (not reached vs. 53 months; P = .001) were also greater in the Bor-ASCT group. CONCLUSION: Our study has shown that bortezomib-based therapy before ASCT improves the hematologic response, organ response and overall survival, potentially by decreasing the light chain load before ASCT.

Contradictions in contraindications for drug-drug interactions.

Health-care providers use computerized provider order entry as a component of the electronic medical record system in conjunction with clinical decision support. An important aspect of clinical decision support is screening of drug-drug interactions including contraindications in the labeling approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Currently, there are inconsistencies between the knowledge databases and the official package labeling for contraindications on drug-drug interactions. Unnecessary warnings can cause alert fatigue among clinicians and potentially influence adoption of true contraindications for drug prescribing. Each institution should evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the knowledge databases used for screening of contraindications on drug-drug interactions.