Shah, Vishal

Abstract Purpose The objective of this quality improvement process was to identify quality gaps in compliance with regulatory requirements and reduce the loss of revenue resulting from noncompliance with documentation of single-dose vial waste. Methods This quality improvement initiative employed process mapping and quality gap identification to address challenges related to compliance and revenue generation. A fishbone diagram and the 5 whys technique were used to identify and analyze the root causes of missed waste documentation and workflow inconsistencies. These root causes were categorized into key areas: missing documentation, divergent workflows, inconsistencies, insufficient surveillance, and staffing issues. Leveraging these insights, we developed comprehensive educational resources such as quick reference guides and updated on-the-job training materials for the pharmacy department. Additionally, reliable, reproducible reports were created to monitor waste documentation, facilitating timely interventions whereby technicians were contacted to complete missing documentation within the 96-hour charge capture window. Results This study evaluated a total of 5,801 orders placed from October 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, for the preimplementation period. Of these 5,801 orders, 803 (13.8%) were missing waste documentation, resulting in a total revenue loss of $362,594 when converted to the average sales price (ASP). For the postimplementation period from April 1 to September 30, 2023, a total of 10,464 orders were inspected for missing waste documentation. Only 181 orders (1.7%) were found to have incomplete waste documentation, resulting in a total revenue loss of $44,343 when converted to ASP. The postimplementation period yielded a revenue capture of $318,250, representing significant improvement in compliance with waste documentation. Conclusion This quality improvement initiative significantly reduced revenue loss from noncompliance with waste documentation for compounded sterile products. Comprehensive education and reliable reporting increased adherence to waste documentation workflows and regulatory compliance.

Introduction Taxane medications, paclitaxel, and docetaxel, are chemotherapy agents that have a higher incidence of reported hypersensitivity and infusion reactions. To help classify these reactions, the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) is utilized. Prophylactic medications have been used to decrease the incidence and severity of these events. At our institution, medications that patients can receive prior to the initiation of a taxane infusion are a histamine 1 receptor antagonist (H1RA), histamine 2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), a steroid or a combination of these medications. The purpose of this retrospective review was to compare the rates and severity of infusion reactions based on the timing of prophylactic medication administration in the first and second doses of taxane infusions. Methods Patients who received paclitaxel or docetaxel from January 30 th , 2022, through January 30 th , 2023, were included in the analysis. To assist in the identification of a reaction, taxane administrations were flagged for review if a rescue medication was administered after the start of a paclitaxel or docetaxel infusion. The rates and severity of infusion reactions were analyzed based on the timing of prophylactic medication administration. A sub-group analysis comparing infusion reaction characteristics between taxanes given, was performed. Results Of the 1486 taxane infusions that were completed within the year, 249 infusion reactions were confirmed and graded utilizing the NCI CTCAE. When examining the first and second doses of a taxane (N = 536), we identified 222 infusions reactions. The odds of a patient having an infusion reaction, during the first and second doses, was found to be less likely for patients given a prophylactic medication 30 min prior to receiving a taxane compared to those who did not receive a pre-medication (p = 0.037). Conclusion This multisite retrospective study showed that administration of prophylactic medications 30 to 80 min prior to the first and second infusion of a taxane was the optimal timing to decrease the likelihood of patients having an infusion reaction. No difference in the severity of the reaction was seen. Most patients were able to complete the entire infusion, regardless of what rescue medications were used following the infusion reaction.

4591 Background: EV-302 and CheckMate 901 demonstrated significant survival benefit with enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab (EVPembro) and gemcitabine-cisplatin-nivolumab (GemCisNivo) as 1L therapy, respectively, in patients (pts) with la/mUC. However, whether these treatments are cost-effective or not remains unclear. Methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free, progression and death) was developed. State utilities were derived from published literature. State transition probabilities were informed from point-probabilities and hazard ratios for OS and PFS obtained from the latest follow-up of eligible trials. Average sales price (2024 USD) for individual treatments (excluding ancillary charges) were obtained from the center of medicare and medicaid services (US payer’s perspective). Treatment strategies were modeled in accordance with the dose/schedule reported in the eligible trials. Pts who received GemCis or Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) and did not progress were modeled to receive Avelumab maintenance. Half-cycle corrected costs and utilities were accrued over a 10-year lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3%. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 100,000$ per QALY was used. Results: In cisplatin-eligible pts, GemCisNivo demonstrated a 0.8 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 21,127 ($/QALY). GemCisNivo was also associated with an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of 63,099$ relative to GemCis. EVPembro demonstrated a 2.4 QALY gain over GemCis at an ICER of 915,283 and a 1.6 QALY gain over GemCisNivo at an ICER of 1,406,308. In cisplatin-ineligible pts, EVPembro demonstrated a 2.4 QALY gain over Gem-carboplatin (GemCarbo) at an ICER of 934,761. Price threshold analyses demonstrated that EVPembro is likely to be cost-effective at a cost of 12,344$ for cisplatin-eligible and 13,374$ per cycle for cisplatin-ineligible pts (original cost: 35,665.60$ per cycle). Sensitivity analysis using a total of 12 cycles for EVPembro showed cost-effectiveness at an ICER of 69,594 relative to GemCisNivo in cisplatin-eligible pts, and at an ICER of 53,099 relative to GemCarbo in cisplatin-ineligible pts. Conclusions: In terms of US payer’s perspective, GemCisNivo is most likely to be cost-effective in cisplatin-eligible pts at the WTP of 100,000 $/QALY. Limiting the number of cycles for EVPembro may render it as a cost-effective 1L treatment in la/mUC pts regardless of cisplatin-eligibility status.

PURPOSE Globally, cancer drug expenditure exceeds $185 in US dollars (USD) billion, with the United States contributing $75 (USD) billion. Many cancer drug doses are calculated on the basis of body weight or body surface area, which often results in leftover drug in partially used single-dose vials (SDVs). The cost of wasted drug is a huge financial burden on the US health care system. We evaluated the cost savings resulting from the reduction of SDV wastage, achieved through the implementation of automated dose rounding rules in electronic health records (EHRs). METHODS Mayo Clinic implemented automated dose rounding rules within the EHR. These rules were designed to round calculated doses to the nearest SDV if the vial size closely matched the original calculated dose, within a 10% threshold. We assessed doses administered between January 2019 and December 2021, and computed cost-savings, waste reduction, and cost of waste for chemotherapy drugs. RESULTS In 3 years, 36.1% of doses were rounded down, 35.8% were rounded up, and 28.1% were exact doses. By rounding doses down to a vial size, we achieved cost-savings of $39.75 (USD) million and prevented 62,065 SDV of cancer drugs from going to waste. By rounding doses up, we avoided wasting $9.95 (USD) million worth of drugs. However, there were still instances where the rounding fell outside of the 10%, resulting in wasted drugs worth $25 (USD) million. CONCLUSION The substantial burden imposed on patients and the US health care system because of cancer drug wastage is of significant concern. Although the automated dose rounding system represents a partial solution for this issue, a comprehensive approach involves the imperative development of policy and legislative solutions to effectively mitigate the challenges associated with cancer drug waste.

Introduction The treatment of cancer is associated with high risk for toxicity and high cost. Strategies to enhance the value, quality, and safety of cancer care are often managed independently of one another. Oncology stewardship is a potential framework to unify these efforts and enhance outcomes. This landscape survey establishes baseline information on oncology stewardship in the United States. Methods The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) distributed a 38-item survey composed of demographic, institutional, clinical decision-making, support staff, metrics, and technology sections to 675 HOPA members between 9 September 2022 and 9 October 2022. Results Most organizations (78%) have adopted general pharmacy stewardship practices; however, only 31% reported having established a formalized oncology stewardship team. More than 70% of respondents reported implementation of biosimilars, formulary management, and dose rounding as oncology stewardship initiatives in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Frequently cited barriers to oncology stewardship included lack of clinical pharmacist availability (74%), lack of oncology stewardship training (62%), lack of physician/provider buy-in (32%), and lack of cost-saving metrics (33%). Only 6.6% of survey respondents reported their organization had defined “value in oncology.” Lack of a formalized stewardship program was most often cited (77%) as the rationale for not defining value. Conclusions Less than one-third of respondents have established oncology stewardship programs; however, most are providing oncology stewardship practices. This manuscript serves as a call to action for stakeholders to work together to formalize oncology stewardship programs that optimize value, quality, and safety for patients with cancer.

Background: Pharmacist order verification is a critical step in ensuring medication safety for patients. While the second pharmacist verification (SPV) before dispensing anticancer therapies has been a longstanding practice, its continued necessity in the context of modern electronic health systems lacks robust evidence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the frequency of interventions performed by a second pharmacist to determine the ongoing effectiveness of the SPV process. Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted at the Mayo Clinic, encompassing all anticancer therapy orders that necessitated an SPV. The study period extended from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2021, and included inpatient and outpatient anticancer orders. The quantification and reporting of alterations made to discrete order fields subsequent to initial pharmacist verification of clinical significance were performed, utilizing the total number of anticancer therapy orders as the denominator. Results: Approximately 300 000 anticancer therapy orders were screened for inclusion criteria and 2.6% (N = 7634) of orders were modified on the SPV. Most changes were in the categories of rate (N = 1962), order start time (N = 1219), and pharmacy communication note (N = 777). Dosing changes greater than 10% accounted for 0.03% (N = 99) of the orders, with 10 anticancer therapies responsible for more than 50% of these changes. Conclusion and relevance: This study represents the largest report on the impact of SPV in a modern era. Our results suggest the SPV may be valuable for a small proportion of chemotherapy orders but raises questions about the necessity for broad application of this practice.

Abstract Background Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Methods A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs). Results Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI. Conclusions Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.

PURPOSE Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

Objective: This study is a comprehensive review of the clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and clinical applicability of amivantamab-vmjw for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (exon20ins) mutation. Data Synthesis: The literature search to identify clinical trials returned only the CHRYSALIS phase 1 study. In a phase I trial, amivantamab-vmjw was associated with an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% (95% CI, 29–51) in the EGFR exon20ins NSCLC patient population (n = 81) after platinum-based chemotherapy. There were 3 complete responses (CRs) and 29 partial responses (PRs). The median duration of response (DOR) was 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.9—not reached; NR). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5–10.9), and overall survival (OS) was 22.8 months (95% CI, 14.6—NR). Application to Clinical Practice: This review summarizes the pharmacology, clinical evidence, and use of amivantamab-vmjw for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon20ins mutation. Conclusion: The FDA approval of amivantamab-vmjw, the first bispecific antibody to target the exon20ins mutation, represents an important advancement in the treatment of patients with NSCLC with limited effective treatment options. The initial findings of the CHRYSALIS trial demonstrate an overall tumor response benefit with an acceptable safety profile.