Impact of pharmacy services on time to elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor initiation.

BACKGROUND: The approval of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) expanded highly effective cystic fibrosis transmembrane receptor modulator therapy to approximately 90% of persons aged 12 years and older with cystic fibrosis. Clinical pharmacists and pharmacy technicians played a key role in planning for ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval as well as initiating therapy after approval. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of pharmacy services on time to ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation. METHODS: A retrospective chart review evaluated 146 patients aged at least 12 years with cystic fibrosis qualifying for ELX/TEZ/IVA at a single health system between October 21, 2019, and April 1, 2020. RESULTS: Patients filling ELX/TEZ/IVA at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) vs an outside specialty pharmacy (SP) started on therapy an average of 10.8 days sooner (10.8 days ± 14.0 vs 21.6 days ± 18.8, respectively; P = 0.006). More patients filling at an HSSP received ELX/TEZ/IVA within 14 days of the prescription being written compared with outside SPs (82.0% vs 41.4%, respectively; P = 0.001). Before ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation, patients were hospitalized for a cystic fibrosis-related complication for an average of 6.26 days (range = 0-183) compared with 1.16 days (range = 0-91) after ELX/TEZ/IVA initiation. Lastly, an estimated $134,810 was saved in hospitalization dollars in the 105 patients that were able to fill ELX/TEZ/IVA at an HSSP by initiating the drug an average of 10.8 days sooner than outside SPs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate the value of an integrated HSSP model. The ability to fill specialty medications at an integrated HSSP may optimize medication access, control costs, and improve patient outcomes for patients receiving care within a health system. DISCLOSURES: Dr Loucks has accepted payment for reviewing content of Lexicomp through Wolters Kluwer Consulting and for presenting and attending the American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP) Summer Meeting in June 2022. Dr Loucks is also a Workgroup Chair for the ASHP Pharmacist Section of Specialty Pharmacy Practitioners - Section Advisory Group on Outcomes and Value. Dr Simonsen was a participant in the Vertex Pharmaceuticals Advisory Board in April 2019 and accepted payment for travel and expenses. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose. This work is in part supported by the Statistical Expertise and Network (StatNet) Award of Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Effects of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim on outcomes of DA-R-EPOCH for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Our study aimed to compare the median and average last dose level reached with DA-R-EPOCH, which includes the chemotherapy agents etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab, in patients using filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim as febrile neutropenia primary prophylaxis. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center chart review from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2019, at The University of Kansas Health System identified patients > 18 years old who received at least four cycles of DA-R-EPOCH in an inpatient or outpatient setting for any subtype of lymphoma along with at least one dose of filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. Data was collected to compare dosing levels reached, appropriate discontinuation of daily filgrastim when ANC > 5000 cells/mm3, completion of at least twice weekly complete blood count (CBC) monitoring after chemotherapy administration, the incidence of infections, FN, hospitalizations from infections or FN, and bone pain. RESULTS: We hypothesized that patients receiving pegfilgrastim will achieve similar median and average dose levels of DA-EPOCH, event-free survival rates, overall response rates, completion of at least twice weekly CBC monitoring, and incidence of infections, FN, hospitalizations for infections or FN, and bone pain compared to patients receiving filgrastim. CONCLUSIONS: The use of pegfilgrastim as a supportive care agent resulted in similar efficacy and safety outcomes compared to filgrastim with DA-R-EPOCH in terms of dose intensity levels and incidence of infections, FN, and bone pain.