Cost comparison of filgrastim versus pegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim biosimilars for inpatient prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia.

INTRODUCTION: The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (The James) uses daily subcutaneous filgrastim as the inpatient granulocyte colony-stimulating factor of choice. The coordination of care associated with filgrastim can often be a barrier to patient discharge. The purpose of this study was to compare the inpatient cost of daily filgrastim to single dose pegfilgrastim and biosimilars. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to The James who received at least one dose of filgrastim between June 1, 2021 and August 31, 2021 were retrospectively identified. This study compared the inpatient cost of filgrastim and biosimilars associated with one chemotherapy cycle to the potential inpatient cost of pegfilgrastim and biosimilars based on average sales price (ASP). Additionally, the number and duration of discharge prescriptions for filgrastim was determined. RESULTS: Of the 44 unique patient encounters that met inclusion criteria, 19 received 300-mcg doses of filgrastim and 25 received 480-mcg doses. The median number of doses administered per admission was eight. If each of these patients were to instead receive the most inexpensive biosimilar, pegfilgrastim reference product, the cost would be 216% higher than with filgrastim-sndz. At discharge, 15 patients (34%) received a prescription for filgrastim to be continued for a median duration of 6 days. CONCLUSION: Based on ASP, pegfilgrastim was more costly than filgrastim. Potential rebates and negotiation power may alter the financial outlook of adding pegfilgrastim to inpatient formulary. Exploration of delays in discharge due to insurance coordination for filgrastim continuation in the outpatient setting may also impact formulary decisions.

Costs associated with United States pharmacopeia compliant infusion clinics.

PURPOSE: As costs continue to rise in oncology, a strategy that has been implemented to limit these costs is use of alternative sites of care. However, there are differences in regulatory standards between common sites of care such as freestanding infusion clinics and hospital outpatient departments. The costs associated with United States Pharmacopeia compliance were evaluated in order to better understand the cost of universally compliant hospital outpatient departments. METHODS: Annual operational costs associated with United States Pharmacopeia compliance were estimated for a 30-chair infusion clinic with United States Pharmacopeia <797> and <800> pharmacy cleanrooms for non-hazardous and hazardous drugs, respectively. Annual United States Pharmacopeia compliance costs included: competency assessments, personal protective equipment, closed system transfer devices, labels, cleaning supplies, and environmental monitoring. One-time costs included initial cleanroom construction and renovations. Published information and benchmarks provided baseline assumptions for patient volume, staffing, and unit costs. If no published data was available, prices were estimated based on a similarly sized clinic. RESULTS: Recurring annual costs for a 30-chair fully compliant infusion clinic were calculated to be $785,207. One-time costs associated with initial construction and renovations were estimated to be $1,365,207-$1,535,207 and $965,207-$1,005,207, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with increased operational oversight and regulatory standards are a major contributing factor to the facility fee of hospital outpatient departments. Ultimately, all sites of care share in the goal to provide optimal patient care while considering all aspects of patient care, including cost. Therefore, a move towards consistent regulatory standards across all settings would aid in preventing discrepancies in care.

The pharmacist's role in chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy.

The emergence and efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy in previously incurable malignancies represents a promising paradigm shift in cancer care. However, it is not without significant clinical, operational, and financial considerations. Pharmacists should be prepared to fulfill the various roles in CAR T cell therapy provision including: policy development; electronic medical record build; patient and staff education; patient selection; procurement, storage, and handling; medication administration and supportive care; management of adverse reactions; and quality tracking. Our commentary provides an overview of the opportunities for pharmacy involvement in the implementation and maintenance of a CAR T cell therapy program with an emphasis on the importance of pharmacy involvement as part of a multidisciplinary approach to care. Although some institutions have dedicated a CAR T cell pharmacist to meet the demands of emerging CAR T cell therapy, we believe that clinical pharmacists practicing in hematopoietic stem cell transplant and hematology/oncology have the skills and training to fulfill the pharmacist's role in CAR T cell therapy.

Demonstrating the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team.

INTRODUCTION: Although many oncology pharmacists are embedded members within the healthcare team, data documenting their contributions to optimal patient outcomes are growing. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team and describe the knowledge, skills, and functions of the oncology pharmacist. METHODS: A systematic literature review of articles that were published on PubMed between January 1951 and October 2018 was completed. Identified abstracts were reviewed and included if they focused on measuring the value or impact of the oncology pharmacist on provider/patient satisfaction, improvement of medication safety, improvement of quality/clinical care outcomes, economics, and intervention acceptance. Review articles, meta-analysis, and studies not evaluating oncology pharmacist activities were excluded. Studies were thematically coded into four themes (clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings) by 10 oncology pharmacists. RESULTS: Four-hundred twenty-two articles were identified, in which 66 articles met inclusion criteria for this review. The selected literature included 27 interventional and 38 descriptive studies. The value of the oncology pharmacist was demonstrated by published articles in four key themes: clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings. CONCLUSION: With an expected shortage of oncology physicians and the ongoing development of complex oncology therapies, the board-certified oncology pharmacist is well suited to serve as a physician extender alongside nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants as the medication expert on the oncology care team. The demonstrated value of the oncology pharmacist supports their role as frontline providers of patient care.

Effect of a Pharmacist-Driven Monitoring Program and Electronic Health Record on Bleeding Log Completeness and Documentation.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists have the ability to enhance comprehensive care for bleeding disorders patients by bridging the gap between hemophilia treatment centers (HTC) and specialty pharmacies, specifically by monitoring bleeding logs. In September 2015, a pharmacist-driven monitoring program was implemented through the specialty pharmacy associated with a medical center to improve bleeding log completeness and electronic documentation for HTC patients. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of a pharmacist-driven bleeding disorder monitoring program on bleeding log completeness, successful bleeding log documentation in the electronic health record (EHR), and pharmacist-driven clinical interventions using an EHR tool. METHODS: A single-group pre-post intervention study was conducted of a pharmacist-driven monitoring program. Pre-implementation (January 1, 2014-December 31, 2014), all patients who received and returned a bleeding log following an appointment at the HTC were included; post-implementation (September 1, 2015-December 30, 2015) included patients seen at the HTC who chose to participate in the program for at least 3 months. Before implementation, patient-completed bleeding logs were scanned into the EHR by clinic staff. After implementation, bleeding logs were completed by a pharmacist and documented using a case management tool in the integrated EHR. Bleeding log records successfully documented in the EHR were collected. Completeness was calculated based on 10 clinical data elements for each bleeding log record. Pharmacist-driven interventions resulting from the program in the post-implementation period were recorded. RESULTS: In the pre-implementation period, 19 of 117 bleeding log records (16.2%) were documented in the EHR; all 15 (100%) records were documented post-implementation (P < 0.001). Among all clinical data elements across all records, 706 of 1,170 data elements were recorded pre-implementation (60.3%), and 120 of 150 (80.0%) were recorded post-implementation (P < 0.001). Pre-implementation, no logs were 100% complete; post-implementation, only 6.7% of logs were fully complete (P = 0.114). For the 15 bleeding log records documented in the EHR during the post-implementation period, 14 documented pharmacist-driven clinical interventions occurred. The majority of interventions fell under coordination of care (8 [57.1%]). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in bleeding log completeness and documentation in the EHR was associated with the use of an EHR tool and pharmacist-driven monitoring program. DISCLOSURES: Not outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.