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.
Introduction To describe pharmacist interventions as a result of an independent double check during cognitive order verification of outpatient parenteral anti-cancer therapy. Methods A single-center, retrospective analysis of all individual orders for outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer agents within a hematology/oncology infusion center during a 30 day period was conducted. The primary endpoint was error identification rates during first and second verification. Secondary endpoints included the type, frequency, and severity of errors identified during second verification using a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention Index. Results A total of 1970 anti-cancer parenteral orders were screened, from which 1645 received an independent double check and were included. The number of errors identified during first and second verification were 30 (1.8%) and 10 (0.6%) respectively; second verification resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. The 10 errors identified during second verification included: four rate transcriptions to optimize pump interoperability, three rate and/or volume modifications, two dosage adjustments, and one treatment deferral due to toxicity. The severity was classified as Category A for four (40%), Category C for three (30%), and Category D for three (30%) errors. This correlated to a low capacity for harm for seven (70%) and a serious capacity for three (30%) errors. Conclusions Second verification of outpatient, parenteral anti-cancer medication orders resulted in a 33.3% increase in corrected errors. Three errors detected during second verification were determined to have a serious capacity for harm, supporting the value of independent double checks during pharmacist cognitive order verification.
Introduction: Due to the abbreviated approval pathway and extrapolation to non-studied indications, an increased importance is placed on post-marketing surveillance of biosimilars to supplement existing evidence and enhance patient and provider confidence. Bevacizumab-awwb (ABP 215, Mvasi) was the first biosimilar approved to bevacizumab (Avastin), a recombinant humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody that inhibits the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Purpose: To evaluate utilization, safety, and financial outcomes of bevacizumab-awwb compared to bevacizumab at a national cancer institute (NCI)-designated cancer center. Methods: A single center, retrospective, 1:1 indication-matched cohort study of adult patients who received bevacizumab or bevacizumab-awwb between October 1, 2019 and October 1, 2020 was performed. Thirty-four patients received bevacizumab-awwb during the study period and were matched by indication to 34 randomly selected patients who received bevacizumab. Indications for both groups included: colorectal cancer (n = 19), gynecologic cancer (n = 10), glioblastoma (n = 3), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1), and lung cancer (n = 1). Results: Baseline and medication utilization characteristics were similar for this indication-matched cohort of 68 patients receiving bevacizumab-awwb or bevacizumab. Patients in the bevacizumab group had a higher proportion of public payer coverage (64.7% vs 38.2%, P = .029). A higher proportion of patients in the bevacizumab-awwb group remained on active treatment at the end of the study period (52.9%) as compared to the bevacizumab group (35.3%); however, differences in final treatment status and reasons for discontinuation were not statistically significant ( P = .218). Rates of worsened hypertension (44.1% vs 44.1%) and worsened proteinuria (38.2% vs 23.5%, P = .077) were common in both groups. Grade 3 adverse drug events in the bevacizumab group included: gastrointestinal perforation (n = 1), gastrointestinal bleed (n = 1), hypertension (n = 2), and venous thromboembolism (n = 2). Grade 3 adverse drug events in the bevacizumab-awwb group included: epistaxis (n = 1), gastrointestinal bleed (n = 1), hypertension (n = 1), intracerebral hemorrhage (n = 1), venous thromboembolism (n = 3), and arterial thromboembolism (n = 1). One patient in the bevacizumab-awwb group experienced grade 4 hypertension. Median drug cost per dose and per milligram for bevacizumab-awwb was less than bevacizumab, representing a 15.8% and 12.1% discount, respectively. Conclusion: Utilization and safety outcomes were similar for this indication-matched cohort of 68 patients receiving bevacizumab or bevacizumab-awwb across a wide range of disease states.
Purpose: To describe the development of a comprehensive framework of safeguarding strategies to address observed/anticipated errors with organizational high-alert medications. Methods: Observed/anticipated errors were identified for organizational high-alert medications and medication classes based on a review of external literature and alerts as well as internal voluntary error reporting. Anticipated or frequently reported errors were categorized into common cause error types. Error reduction strategies to address each common cause error were identified in collaboration with medication safety specialists and specialty practice pharmacists. Results: The review of externally and internally reported errors identified 101 observed/anticipated common cause errors across the 19 high-alert medication classes (median 5 error types per medication class, interquartile range 3-6). Safeguarding strategies specific to high-alert medications were identified in the following domains: separate or sequestered storage; restricted ordering; active alerts; dispensing in patient-specific dosing, unit of use, or unit-dose packaging; dispensing from pharmacy only; auxiliary labeling; level of care restriction; required monitoring; independent double checks; certification/privileging of staff; specific guidelines for use/monitoring; and other/miscellaneous. Identification of the observed/anticipated errors and the associated safeguarding strategies facilitated the development of a comprehensive tool and visual framework for addressing common cause errors associated with organizational high-alert medications. Conclusion: A comprehensive framework of safeguarding strategies to address anticipated errors with organizational high-alert medications is proposed. Although individual safeguards are institution-specific, the framework can be leveraged by all hospitals in order to take inventory of error-reduction strategies and prospectively identify gaps to address common cause errors.
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.