The impact of sugammadex dosing and administration practices on potential cost savings for pharmacy departments.

PURPOSE: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are commonly used during surgery, and restoring neuromuscular function at the end of surgery is vital in preventing complications of residual paralysis. Recent guidelines from the American Society of Anesthesiology recommend using sugammadex over neostigmine; however, sugammadex is significantly more expensive than neostigmine and may increase drug expenditure for pharmacy departments. This review summarizes evidence evaluating sugammadex dose adjustments and the potential of these dose adjustments to lead to cost savings for pharmacy departments. SUMMARY: We found evidence suggesting that the manufacturer-recommended sugammadex dose may not be needed in many patients and that dosing based on an adjusted body weight or based on depth of neuromuscular blockade may lead to lower sugammadex usage. Combining sugammadex with neostigmine could also decrease the dose of sugammadex required. We have highlighted the importance of objective neuromuscular monitoring to guide sugammadex dosing and evaluation for residual neuromuscular blockade. Cost savings for pharmacy departments may be realized by these alternative dosing strategies and/or vial-splitting practices. CONCLUSION: Implementing practices related to sugammadex vial splitting and dose adjustment based on body weight and depth of neuromuscular blockade shows potential benefits in terms of sugammadex cost savings.

Economic impact of improving patient safety using Sugammadex for routine reversal of neuromuscular blockade in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular blocking (NMB) agents are often administered to facilitate tracheal intubation and prevent patient movement during surgical procedures requiring the use of general anesthetics. Incomplete reversal of NMB, can lead to residual NMB, which can increase the risk of post-operative pulmonary complications. Sugammadex is indicated to reverse neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium or vecuronium in adults. The aim of this study is to estimate the clinical and economic impact of introducing sugammadex to routine reversal of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) with rocuronium in Spain. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed reflecting a set of procedures using rocuronium that resulted in moderate or deep NMB at the end of the procedure. Two scenarios were considered for 537,931 procedures using NMB agents in Spain in 2015: a scenario without sugammadex versus a scenario with sugammadex. Comparators included neostigmine (plus glycopyrrolate) and no reversal agent. The total costs for the healthcare system were estimated from the net of costs of reversal agents and overall cost offsets via reduction in postoperative pneumonias and atelectasis for which incidence rates were based on a Spanish real-world evidence (RWE) study. The model time horizon was assumed to be one year. Costs were expressed in 2019 euros (€) and estimated from the perspective of a healthcare system. One-way sensitivity analysis was carried out by varying each parameter included in the model within a range of +/- 50%. RESULTS: The estimated budget impact of the introduction of sugammadex to the routine reversal of neuromuscular blockade in Spanish hospitals was a net saving of €57.1 million annually. An increase in drug acquisition costs was offset by savings in post-operative pulmonary events, including 4806 post-operative pneumonias and 13,996 cases of atelectasis. The total cost of complications avoided was €70.4 million. All parameters included in the model were tested in sensitivity analysis and were favorable to the scenario with sugammadex. CONCLUSIONS: This economic analysis shows that sugammadex can potentially lead to cost savings for the reversal of rocuronium-induced moderate or profound NMB compared to no reversal and reversal with neostigmine in the Spanish health care setting. The economic model was based on data obtained from Spain and from assumptions from clinical practice and may not be valid for other countries.

Sugammadex: routine use vs restrictive use.

Worldwide, the use of sugammadex for the reversal of neuromuscular blocking agents worldwide is restricted. This article reflects on how more liberal use of sugammadex might alter patient experience, anaesthetic delivery and surgical techniques.

Reducing Medication Waste While Improving Access to Sugammadex: A Quality Improvement Project in Medication Stewardship.

The relatively high cost of sugammadex compared to neostigmine limits its widespread use to reverse neuromuscular blockade, despite its faster onset and more complete clinical effect. While ensuring timely access to sugammadex is important in improving perioperative safety, it is also vital to control unnecessary spending. We describe a quality improvement initiative to reduce excess spending on sugammadex while improving access for anesthesia providers. Monthly spending on sugammadex decreased by 52% ($70,777 vs $33,821), while medication access increased via automated medication dispensers in each operating room. Clinical usage decreased by one-third, with presumed increased adherence to dosing guidelines.

Effect of a Cognitive Aid on Reducing Sugammadex Use and Associated Costs: A Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The authors observed increased pharmaceutical costs after the introduction of sugammadex in our institution. After a request to decrease sugammadex use, the authors implemented a cognitive aid to help choose between reversal agents. The purpose of this study was to determine if sugammadex use changed after cognitive aid implementation. The authors' hypothesis was that sugammadex use and associated costs would decrease. METHODS: A cognitive aid suggesting reversal agent doses based on train-of-four count was developed. It was included with each dispensed reversal agent set and in medication dispensing cabinet bins containing reversal agents. An interrupted time series analysis was performed using pharmaceutical invoices and anesthesia records. The primary outcome was the number of sugammadex administrations. Secondary outcomes included total pharmaceutical acquisition costs of neuromuscular blocking drugs and reversal agents, adverse respiratory events, emergence duration, and number of neuromuscular blocking drug administrations. RESULTS: Before cognitive aid implementation, the number of sugammadex administrations was increasing at a monthly rate of 20 per 1,000 general anesthetics (P < 0.001). Afterward, the monthly rate was 4 per 1,000 general anesthetics (P = 0.361). One month after cognitive aid implementation, the number of sugammadex administrations decreased by 281 per 1,000 general anesthetics (95% CI, 228 to 333, P < 0.001). In the final study month, there were 509 fewer sugammadex administrations than predicted per 1,000 general anesthetics (95% CI, 366 to 653; P < 0.0001), and total pharmaceutical acquisition costs per 1,000 general anesthetics were $11,947 less than predicted (95% CI, $4,043 to $19,851; P = 0.003). There was no significant change in adverse respiratory events, emergence duration, or administrations of rocuronium, vecuronium, or atracurium. In the final month, there were 75 more suxamethonium administrations than predicted per 1,000 general anesthetics (95% CI, 32 to 119; P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive aid implementation to choose between reversal agents was associated with a decrease in sugammadex use and acquisition costs.

Is lower-dose sugammadex a cost-saving strategy for reversal of deep neuromuscular block? Facts and fiction.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex, a γ-cyclodextrin derivative, belongs to a new class of selective relaxant binding agents. Sugammadex was approved 10-years ago by the European medicines agency and today is used in clinical anesthesia and emergency medicine globally. In this review, indications for neuromuscular block, the challenge of neuromuscular monitoring and the practice of under-dosing of sugammadex as a potential cost-saving strategy are discussed. MAIN BODY: Reversal of neuromuscular block is important to accelerate the spontaneous recovery of neuromuscular function. Sugammadex is able to reverse a rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular block rapidly and efficiently from every depth of neuromuscular block. However, since sugammadex was introduced in clinical anesthesia, several studies have reported administration of a lower-than-recommended dose of sugammadex. The decision to under-dose sugammadex is often motivated by cost reduction concerns, as the price of sugammadex is much higher than that of neostigmine outside the United States. However, under-dosing of sugammadex leads to an increased risk of recurrence of neuromuscular block after an initial successful (but transient) reversal. Similarly, when not using objective neuromuscular monitoring, under-dosing of sugammadex may result in residual neuromuscular block in the postoperative care unit, with its attendant negative pulmonary outcomes. Therefore, an appropriate dose of sugammadex, based on objective determination of the depth of neuromuscular block, should be administered to avoid residual or recurrent neuromuscular block and attendant postoperative complications. Whether the reduction in perioperative recovery time of the patient can be translated into additional procedural cases performed, faster operative turnover times, or improved organizational resource utilization, has yet to be determined in actual clinical practice that includes verification of neuromuscular recovery prior to tracheal extubation. CONCLUSIONS: The current review addresses the indications for neuromuscular block, the challenge of neuromuscular monitoring, the practice of under-dosing of sugammadex as a potential cost-saving strategy in reversal of deep neuromuscular block, the economics of sugammadex administration and the potential healthcare cost-saving strategies.