RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the authorisations and funding resolutions for new onco-hematological drugs in Spain between 2017 and 2020, as well as the results of their main trials. METHODS: Observational, cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted between October and December 2022. Onco-hematology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2017 and 2020 were included, according to EFPIA patients W.A.I.T Indicator 2021 Survey. Authorisation information was obtained from the main study of the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). Data were collected on medicines, their authorisation and main study, benefit shown, cost, and status and time to reimbursement. RESULTS: Forty-one new drugs authorised for 49 indications were identified. More than half (58.5%) were targeted therapies, and 61.2% were for the treatment of solid tumors (61.2%). Most had palliative intent (71.4%) and were indicated in relapsed or refractory disease (55.1%). Of the clinical trials, 57.1% were phase III and 63.3% were randomised. The primary endpoint was overall survival in 16.3%, increasing to 25.8% among randomised clinical trials. Regarding licensed drugs based on response rate, the median response rate was 56.4% (IQI 40.0-66.3). In those authorised on the basis of surrogate time-to-event endpoints, the median Hazard Ratio was 0.54 (IQI 0.38-0.57), and among those using overall survival was 0.71 (IQI 0.59-0.77). Globally, 22.4% had shown benefit in overall survival, with a median gain of 4 months (IQI 3.6-16.7). One third (33.3%) of the indications evaluable according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale showed substantial clinical benefit. Of the indications, 75.5% were funded, half (48.6%; 36.7% of the total) with restrictions. The median time to funding was 19.5 months (IQI 11.4-29.3). CONCLUSIONS: Most main clinical trials of new onco-haematology drugs approved in Spain used surrogate primary endpoint and, at the time of authorisation, few had shown to prolong overall survival. More than a third were uncontrolled clinical trials.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The increased risk of severe and life-threatening toxicity in patients with dihydropyridine dehydrogenase deficiency, under treatment with fluoropyrimidines, has been widely studied. An up-to-date overview of systematic reviews summarizing existing literature can add value by highlighting most relevant information and supports decision-making regarding treatment in dihydropyridine dehydrogenase deficient patients. The main objective of this overview is to identify published systematic reviews on the association between germline variations in the DPYD gene and fluoropyrimidine toxicity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was developed following the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist, and the overview of systematic reviews will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library will be searched from inception to 2023. Systematic reviews irrespective of study designs that analyze the association between germline variations in the DPYD and fluoropyrimidine toxicity will be considered. Methodological quality will be assessed using AMSTAR2 checklist (Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2). Two independent investigators will perform the study selection, quality assessment and data collection. Discrepancies will be solved by a third investigator.
Assuntos
Di-Hidropiridinas , Fluoruracila , Pirimidinas , Humanos , Fluoruracila/efeitos adversos , Genótipo , Di-Hidrouracila Desidrogenase (NADP)/genética , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Metanálise como AssuntoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Histamine type-2-receptor antagonist drugs (H2-antagonists) have been used as standard treatment to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) in paclitaxel-containing regimens, however, their use has been strongly questioned. Ranitidine has been the most widely used H2-antagonist. Therefore, especially after its withdrawal from the market, the objective of this study is to determine the impact of its elimination from premedication on HR incidence. METHODS: A cohort, multicenter, observational, prospective, and non-inferiority study, including paclitaxel-naïve cancer patients, designed to determine the incidence of HRs of any grade associated with paclitaxel administration and analyze non-inferiority against the incidence estimated in the literature (20%), with 5% as the maximum difference (Δ). Patients with a solid neoplasm of any type/stage, who initiated treatment with paclitaxel without H2-antagonists in the premedication regimen were enrolled. RESULTS: A total of 441 patients were included, of whom 50 presented 54 HRs of any grade. The cumulative incidence was 11.3% (95%CI 8.5-14.7), thus fulfilling the hypothesis of non-inferiority. Of the overall HRs detected, 15 were grade ≥ 3 with a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (95%CI 1.9-5.5). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the elimination of ranitidine from paclitaxel premedication schedules is non-inferior in the development of HRs of any grade compared to the administration of H2-antagonists.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos Fitogênicos , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas , Neoplasias , Humanos , Antineoplásicos Fitogênicos/uso terapêutico , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/epidemiologia , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/etiologia , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/prevenção & controle , Antagonistas dos Receptores H2 da Histamina/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias/complicações , Paclitaxel/efeitos adversos , Pré-Medicação , Estudos Prospectivos , Ranitidina/efeitos adversosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Antineoplastic drugs are considered high risk, and computerized systems favor safe administration. The objective of the study was to test the usefulness and safety of a new mobile device compared to the standard device for administering these antineoplastic treatments. DATA SOURCES: This multicenter, quasi-experimental pre-post study assessed an intervention in two cancer centers in June and July 2020. Nineteen nurses participated by completing 57 questionnaires. The outcome variables were usefulness, ease of use, efficiency, safety, attitudes, and satisfaction with the new mobile device; they were measured by means of the USE questionnaire (Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of use) and the Technology Attitude Survey (TAS). Professionals rated the new device higher than the standard device and showed a favorable attitude toward technology. CONCLUSION: The tested device was useful, effective, safe, and specific to the antineoplastic treatment administration process, garnering greater satisfaction among professionals than the standard. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: As new technologies can improve care for patients with cancer, it is essential to develop strategies to improve the experience of professionals for optimal implementation.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos , Neoplasias , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Humanos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Advanced therapy drugs have emerged in recent years as new pharmacotherapeutic strategies. In this context, hospital pharmacy services have had to adapt to the new challenges posed by the inclusion of advanced therapies in their roster of services against the background of the complex pharmacotherapeutic process patients typically go through.All the activities carried out in the hospital pharmacy services must abide by the rules established in the Spanish legislation and ensure both the quality of the different drugs they manage and the safety of every single patient.Advanced therapy drugs are associated certain peculiarities, including the need to select and evaluate potential candidates to receive them; recourse to financing mechanisms based on risk sharing; and their extreme fragility, which means that the personnel in charge of handling them must be properly trained to maintain their viability and that special storage conditions, involving temperatures below 180 ºC in the case of chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies, must be maintained. In addition, use of advanced therapy medications in the clinical setting has made it necessary for scientific societies to produce consensus documents recognizing the pivotal role of hospital pharmacists as indispensable members of the multidisciplinary healthcare team and ensuring the same traceability, conservation, custody and pharmacotherapeutical monitoring standards imposed on other drugs to provide for adequate pharmaceutical care. Scientific societies have also highlighted the importance of intensifying clinical research, an essential requirement for the safe incorporation of new therapeutic targets. The present document is intended to describe the challenges pharmacists may face when using advanced therapy drugs at the different stages or processes in the patient's clinical journey.
Los medicamentos de terapia avanzada han emergido en los últimos años como nuevas estrategias farmacoterapéuticas. En este contexto, los servicios de farmacia hospitalaria nos hemos tenido que adaptar al nuevo reto que ha supuesto su inclusión en nuestra cartera de servicios dentro del complejo proceso farmacoterapéutico en el que están inmersos los pacientes. Todas las actividades que se desarrollan en los servicios de farmacia hospitalaria cumplen con una base legal establecida en nuestra legislación y garantizan la calidad y seguridad tanto de los pacientes atendidos como de todos y cada uno de los medicamentos que se gestionan. Los medicamentos de terapia avanzada tienen unas características especiales a considerar que van desde las fases iniciales de selección y evaluación de los pacientes candidatos y su modelo de financiación, basado en riesgo compartido, hasta una fragilidad en su manipulación que requiere de una adecuada y adaptada formación del personal implicado en la logística para mantener su viabilidad, al necesitar unas condiciones de conservación, en ocasiones, a temperaturas de menos 180 ºC, en el caso de las células T con receptores quiméricos de antígenos. Además, la utilización clínica de los medicamentos de terapia avanzada ha necesitado de documentos de consenso de las sociedades científicas que pongan en valor el posicionamiento del farmacéutico hospitalario, como miembro indispensable dentro del equipo multidisciplinar asistencial, y que garanticen, como en cualquier otro medicamento, la trazabilidad, la correcta conservación y custodia y el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico asociado a una adecuada atención farmacéutica de nuestros pacientes, sin olvidar la importancia de la creciente investigación clínica, necesaria e imprescindible para una incorporación segura de nuevas dianas terapéuticas. Por todo ello, consideramos necesario el presente documento, en donde se ponen de manifiesto los retos o necesidades, desde el punto de vista farmacéutico, en cada una de las etapas o procesos a considerar en la utilización de los medicamentos de terapia avanzada dentro de nuestro amplio arsenal terapéutico.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos , Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar , Consenso , Humanos , Conduta do Tratamento Medicamentoso , FarmacêuticosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To learn about the baseline of Oncohematological Pharmacy Units in Spanish hospitals in order to identify areas for improvement. METHOD: A survey in line with the objectives set in GEDEFO 2020 Strategic Plan of Pharmaceutical Care for oncohematological patients was designed. The survey was hosted on GEDEFO's website during March and April 2017. Activity data for 2016 was collected. Results: A total of 95 hospitals responded to the survey. Out of which, 76% had an integrated information system of pharmacotherapeutic process management, where a variability in technological and organizational processes were found. The oncohematological pharmacist led the implementation of the principles of medicine, based on evidence and results obtained in routine clinical practice. It was shown that 88% of hospitals had standardized protocols. As for safety practices, in 83% of hospitals, oncohematological pharmacists actively participated in the development and maintenance of risk management program, implemented to prevent errors. Preparation was centralized in 89% of hospitals. Variability was observed in pharmaceutical care depending on where the patient was attended. In 92% of hospitals, pharmacists served as reference for Oncohematology, although with different levels of training. Major deficiencies were observed in training programs and teaching. Of all oncohematological pharmacists, 53% had been a researcher over the past three years. CONCLUSIONS: These results mark the starting point for Spanish Oncohematological Pharmacy Units to develop strategies for improving the quality of pharmaceutical care offered to oncohematological patients and led by GEDEFO, heads of service, and oncohematological patients themselves.
Objetivo: Conocer la situación basal de las unidades de farmacia oncohematológica de los hospitales españoles para detectar ámbitos de mejora.Método: Se diseñó una encuesta acorde con los objetivos establecidos en el Plan Estratégico de Atención Farmacéutica al paciente oncohematológico del Grupo de Farmacia Oncológica de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (GEDEFO 2020). La encuesta se alojó en la página web de GEDEFO durante marzo y abril de 2017. Se recogieron datos de actividad del año 2016.Resultados: Respondieron la encuesta 95 hospitales. Un 76% disponían de un sistema de información integral de gestión del proceso farmacoterapéutico, encontrándose variabilidad en los procesos tecnológicos y organizativos. El farmacéutico oncohematológico lideraba la aplicación de los principios de medicina basada en la evidencia y de los resultados obtenidos en la práctica clínica habitual, y se comprobó que un 88% de los hospitales contaba con protocolos estandarizados. En cuanto a prácticas de seguridad, en un 83% de los hospitales el farmacéutico oncohematológico participaba activamente en el desarrollo y mantenimiento del programa de gestión de riesgos aplicado a la prevención de errores. La preparación estaba centralizada en un 89% de los hospitales. Se observó variabilidad en la atención farmacéutica en función de dónde se atendía al paciente. En el 92% de los hospitales existía farmacéutico de referencia para oncohematología, aunque con distintos niveles de capacitación. Las mayores deficiencias se observaron en los programas de formación y docencia. Un 53% de los farmacéuticos oncohematológicos había sido investigador en los últimos tres años.Conclusiones: Estos resultados marcan el punto de partida de las unidades de farmacia oncohematológicas españolas para el desarrollo de estrategias de mejora de la calidad de la atención farmacéutica ofrecida a los pacientes oncohematológicos liderado por GEDEFO, jefes de servicio y los propios farmacéuticos oncohematológicos.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Hematológicas/tratamento farmacológico , Assistência Farmacêutica , Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Erros Médicos/prevenção & controle , Conduta do Tratamento Medicamentoso , Segurança do Paciente , Farmacêuticos , Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar/organização & administração , Gestão de Riscos , Espanha , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The economic evaluation of the drug olaratumab is carried out in the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. METHOD: The data were analyzed following the recommendations contained in the MADRE program of the GENESIS-SEFH report model. RESULTS: Progression free survival and overall survival results published in the pivotal clinical trial; Tap, WD. et al. (2016) were improvement of 2.5 months in median progression free survival (primary endpoint) HR = 0.672; IC95% (0.442-1.021) and gain of 11.8 months in median OS (secondary endpoint) HR = 0.463; IC95% (0.301-0.710). A cost-effectiveness analyses was performed considering 2 scenarios; scenario 1: with use of whole vials and scenario 2: use of whole vials and associating non-pharmacological costs (day hospital visits, mucositis, neutropenia and dexrazoxane use). In both cases we considered the cost of drugs and the efficacy data of the pivotal clinical trial. In Scenario 1, we would have an Incremental-Cost-Effectiveness-Ratio of 28,443.81/month of progression-free survival and 72,560.74 per year of life gained and in scenario 2 we would have an incremental-cost-effectivenessratio of 30,879.79/ progression-free survival and 78,774.99/ year of life gained. The budgetary impact of this drug would range from 61,759.592 to 92,639.388 estimated to be 800 to 1,200 patients likely to receive treatment in Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Olaratumab is a drug that provides a significant benefit in overall survival but not in progression free survival. To be used in soft tissue sarcoma and to be cost-effective, the acquisition cost of the 500 mg vial should be between 101.91 and 506.54 and that of the 190 mg vial between 39.31 and 195.37.
Objetivo: Desarrollar la evaluación económica del fármaco olaratumab en el tratamiento del sarcoma de partes blandas.Método: Los datos se analizaron siguiendo las recomendaciones contenidas en el programa MADRE del modelo de informe GENESIS-SEFH.Resultados: Los resultados de supervivencia libre de progresión y supervivencia global publicados en el ensayo clínico pivotal: Tapm WD. et al. (2016) fueron: la ganancia en supervivencia libre de progresión (variable principal) en términos absolutos fue de 2,5 meses, HR = 0,672; IC95% (0,442- 1,021). La ganancia absoluta en supervivencia global (variable secundaria) fue de 11,8 meses, HR = 0,463; IC95% (0,301-0,710). Se realizó un análisis coste- efectividad considerando dos escenarios; escenario uno: sin aprovechamiento de viales; y escenario dos: sin aprovechamiento de viales y asociando costes no farmacológicos. En ambos casos se consideraron los costes de adquisición de los medicamentos y los datos de eficacia del ensayo clínico pivotal. En el primero determinamos una ratio coste-efectividad-incremental de 28.443,81 euros/mes libre de progresión ganado y 72.560,74 euros/año de vida ganado. En el segundo obtenemos una ratio coste-efectividad incremental de 30.879,79 euros libre de progresión ganado y 78.774,99 euros/año de vida ganado. El impacto económico estatal, por tanto, se situaría entre 61.759.592 millones de euros y 92.639.388 de euros, considerando una población diana de 800-1.200 pacientes a nivel nacional.Conclusiones: Olaratumab es un fármaco que aporta un beneficio significativo en la supervivencia global, no así en la supervivencia libre de progresión. Para poder utilizarse en el sarcoma de partes blancas y que resultase costeefectivo, el coste de adquisición del vial de 500 mg debería situarse entre 101,91 y 506,54 euros y el del vial de 190 mg entre 39,31 y 195,37 euros.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economia , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Sarcoma/tratamento farmacológico , Sarcoma/economia , Neoplasias de Tecidos Moles/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias de Tecidos Moles/economia , Antibióticos Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Anticorpos Monoclonais/administração & dosagem , Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Análise Custo-Benefício , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Doxorrubicina/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
Nintedanib is a triple angiokinase inhibitor that has been approved by the European Agency Medicines (EMA) in combination with docetaxel for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced, metastatic or locally recurrent non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) of adenocarcinoma tumour histology, after first-line chemotherapy. In LUME-Lung 1 clinical trial, the combination of nintedanib plus docetaxel vs. placebo plus docetaxel improved progression free survival (PFS) in NSCLC patients, and improved overall survival in the population of adenocarcinoma patients, particularly in those with progression within 9 months after first line treatment initiation, median 10.9 months ( [95% CI 8.5-12.6] vs. 7.9 months [6.7-9.1]; HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.92], p=0.0073). The toxicity profile of the combination included a higher incidence of neutropenia, gastro-intestinal (GI) disorders, and liver enzyme elevations; however, this did not cause a detrimental effect on patient quality of life. According to data from the clinical trial mentioned, the addition of nintedanib to docetaxel would lead to an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per year of life with PFS in the overall population of 134,274.47 (notified price). In the adenocarcinoma population per each life of year gained (LYG), the ICER of adding nintedanib to docetaxel would be 40,886.14 ; while by implementing a sensitivity analysis with a 25% discount in the drug price, the cost per LYG would be 32,364.05 , and would place it close to the threshold of cost-effectiveness usually considered acceptable in our setting. In view of efficacy and safety results the proposed positioning is to recommend its inclusion in the Hospital Formulary only for adult patients with metastatic or locally recurrent NSCLC with adenocarcinoma histology after first line chemotherapy, with progression < 9 months from the initiation of first line treatment, taking into account the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the pivotal clinical trial.
Nintedanib es un inhibidor de la angiogenesis tumoral que esta autorizado por la EMA en combinacion con docetaxel para el tratamiento de pacientes adultos con cancer de pulmon no microcitico (CPNM) localmente avanzado, metastasico o localmente recurrente con histologia tumoral de adenocarcinoma despues de la quimioterapia de primera linea. De acuerdo con los resultados del ensayo LUME-Lung 1, la combinacion de nintedanib mas docetaxel frente a monoterapia con docetaxel muestra una mejora en la supervivencia libre de progresion (SLP) en los pacientes con CPNM y mejora la supervivencia global en el grupo de pacientes con histologia de adenocarcinoma, sobre todo en aquellos cuya progresion tras el inicio a la primera linea fue antes de 9 meses. El perfil de toxicidad de la combinacion muestra un aumento en la incidencia de neutropenia, trastornos digestivos y aumento de transaminasas; sin embargo, esto no produjo mayor deterioro en la calidad de vida de los pacientes. Segun los datos del citado ensayo, con la adicion de nintedanib a docetaxel el coste estimado de cada ano de vida con SLP en la poblacion global con el precio notificado seria de 134.274,47 . En el grupo de adenocarcinoma, por cada ano de vida ganado (AVG) con la adicion de nintedanib al docetaxel el coste eficacia incremental (CEI) seria de 40.886,14 , mientras que aplicando un analisis de sensibilidad que supusiera un descuento de un 25% el coste por AVG seria de 32.364,05 , situandose cerca del umbral de coste-efectividad generalmente considerado en nuestro medio como aceptable. A la vista de los resultados de eficacia y seguridad, el posicionamiento propuesto es recomendar su inclusion en la Guia Farmacoterapeutica solo en pacientes adultos con CPNM metastasico o localmente recurrente con histologia tumoral de adenocarcinoma despues de la quimioterapia de primera linea y en los que la progresion sea < 9 meses desde el inicio de primera linea teniendo en cuenta los criterios de inclusion y exclusion del ensayo pivotal.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/administração & dosagem , Antineoplásicos Fitogênicos/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economia , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células não Pequenas/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Docetaxel , Humanos , Indóis/administração & dosagem , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economia , Taxoides/administração & dosagem , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Durante la última década, el conocimiento de nuevos mecanismos implicados en el desarrollo del cáncer ha permitido el diseño de nuevos fármacos para su tratamiento y la mayor parte de ellos son fármacos que se administran por vía oral. Uno de los principales problemas de los pacientes oncohematológicos es la desnutrición, que suele tener causas multifactoriales (de la propia enfermedad, de los pacientes y de los diferentes tratamientos administrados). Para minimizar el impacto de la desnutrición es necesaria una intervención nutricional, ya sea adaptando la dieta o mediante la instauración de soporte nutricional artificial, en función de la gravedad de cada caso. En cualquier paciente que esté recibiendo un tratamiento oncológico hay que evaluar las posibles interacciones que pueden existir con el soporte nutricional instaurado, ya sea dieta oral, suplementación oral o nutrición enteral. Estas interacciones pueden disminuir la eficacia, aumentar la toxicidad de los tratamientos o producir déficits nutricionales. Se detallan las principales interacciones que se pueden producir, las interacciones entre los tratamientos oncológicos y el soporte nutricional.
Assuntos
Desnutrição/terapia , Neoplasias/terapia , Apoio Nutricional/métodos , Antineoplásicos , Dieta , Humanos , Desnutrição/etiologia , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
PURPOSE: identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments. METHODS: a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year. RESULTS: in 42.1% of the hospitals it's needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department's report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT. CONCLUSIONS: there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval.
Objetivo: identificar mediante una encuesta los tratamientos fuera de la ficha tecnica (FFT) que mas frecuentemente se utilizan en el area de oncohematologia. Conocer los procedimientos y criterios que se han establecido para autorizar estos tratamientos. Método: se diseno una encuesta con cuatro secciones: 1) datos demograficos y de actividad del hospital, 2) procedimiento de utilizacion de medicamentos FFT, 3) criterios de aprobacion y 4) tratamientos oncologicos FFT tramitados durante el ano anterior. Resultados: en el 42,1% de los centros la proporcion en la que es necesaria autorizacion previa a la dispensacion es mayor del 80%. El factor mas importante que influye en el circuito de autorizacion-dispensacion de estos farmacos es la evidencia disponible. El procedimiento de autorizacion mas habitual es la autorizacion de la direccion del hospital previo informe del servicio de farmacia. En un 55,3% de los hospitales se han establecido criterios especificos del paciente que ayudan a la toma de decisiones, junto con los aspectos de eficacia y seguridad de los farmacos en la indicacion solicitada. En la mayoria de los centros se acepta un menor nivel de evidencia en el caso de que no existan alternativas terapeuticas, asi como en los tumores de baja prevalencia. La mayor parte de los centros no tienen claramente establecido un criterio de eficacia para considerar un beneficio como clinicamente relevante, y tampoco el umbral coste-eficacia para aprobar un FFT. Conclusiones: existe una gran variabilidad en el procedimiento de utilizacion de los FFT y en los criterios que se utilizan para su aprobacion.