Kimberly M Lau, Katrina Derry, Ashley Dalton, Janine Martino
{"title":"大型学术医疗机构限制性抗肿瘤药物的住院治疗结果。","authors":"Kimberly M Lau, Katrina Derry, Ashley Dalton, Janine Martino","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Restricting oncology and hematology medications to outpatient infusion centers may be considered when infrequent administration is required, a low risk of serious adverse effects exists, or when prompt amelioration of a condition is not expected. At the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), we created a new formulary status for medications designated \"formulary, outpatient-restricted use only.\" This designation could optimize payer reimbursement, as well as improve patient comfort, by negating the need for inpatient admission. When the inpatient administration of a restricted medication is requested at UCSD, there ensues a loosely defined review process involving an informal conversation between the requesting prescriber and the oncology pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) chair. Patient outcomes associated with this formulary status and informal request process are limited. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology and hematology medications in the inpatient setting at a single-center, academic, and comprehensive cancer center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was conducted between January 1, 2015 and May 1, 2017. The primary outcome was to determine the percentage of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology or hematology medications that were administered in the inpatient setting and continued to the outpatient setting. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, hospice enrollment, disease progression status, level of evidence supporting the medication usage, and cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three patients and 24 outpatient-restricted medications met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen (54%) medications were continued upon discharge and eight (33%) were not continued in the outpatient setting. Five of those eight medications were discontinued as a result of patient death.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this single-center study, approximately one-third of the outpatient-restricted medications were not continued upon discharge. The findings suggest that our informal approval process could result in the suboptimal use of formulary outpatient-restricted medications for oncology and hematology indications. A more formalized request process might lead to the more effective utilization of these medications.</p>","PeriodicalId":38773,"journal":{"name":"P and T","volume":"44 8","pages":"481-496"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6679954/pdf/ptj4408481.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of Inpatient Administration of Restricted Antineoplastic Medications at a Large Academic Medical Institution.\",\"authors\":\"Kimberly M Lau, Katrina Derry, Ashley Dalton, Janine Martino\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Restricting oncology and hematology medications to outpatient infusion centers may be considered when infrequent administration is required, a low risk of serious adverse effects exists, or when prompt amelioration of a condition is not expected. At the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), we created a new formulary status for medications designated \\\"formulary, outpatient-restricted use only.\\\" This designation could optimize payer reimbursement, as well as improve patient comfort, by negating the need for inpatient admission. When the inpatient administration of a restricted medication is requested at UCSD, there ensues a loosely defined review process involving an informal conversation between the requesting prescriber and the oncology pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) chair. Patient outcomes associated with this formulary status and informal request process are limited. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology and hematology medications in the inpatient setting at a single-center, academic, and comprehensive cancer center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was conducted between January 1, 2015 and May 1, 2017. The primary outcome was to determine the percentage of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology or hematology medications that were administered in the inpatient setting and continued to the outpatient setting. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, hospice enrollment, disease progression status, level of evidence supporting the medication usage, and cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three patients and 24 outpatient-restricted medications met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen (54%) medications were continued upon discharge and eight (33%) were not continued in the outpatient setting. Five of those eight medications were discontinued as a result of patient death.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this single-center study, approximately one-third of the outpatient-restricted medications were not continued upon discharge. The findings suggest that our informal approval process could result in the suboptimal use of formulary outpatient-restricted medications for oncology and hematology indications. A more formalized request process might lead to the more effective utilization of these medications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"P and T\",\"volume\":\"44 8\",\"pages\":\"481-496\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6679954/pdf/ptj4408481.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"P and T\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"P and T","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Outcomes of Inpatient Administration of Restricted Antineoplastic Medications at a Large Academic Medical Institution.
Background: Restricting oncology and hematology medications to outpatient infusion centers may be considered when infrequent administration is required, a low risk of serious adverse effects exists, or when prompt amelioration of a condition is not expected. At the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), we created a new formulary status for medications designated "formulary, outpatient-restricted use only." This designation could optimize payer reimbursement, as well as improve patient comfort, by negating the need for inpatient admission. When the inpatient administration of a restricted medication is requested at UCSD, there ensues a loosely defined review process involving an informal conversation between the requesting prescriber and the oncology pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) chair. Patient outcomes associated with this formulary status and informal request process are limited. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology and hematology medications in the inpatient setting at a single-center, academic, and comprehensive cancer center.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted between January 1, 2015 and May 1, 2017. The primary outcome was to determine the percentage of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology or hematology medications that were administered in the inpatient setting and continued to the outpatient setting. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, hospice enrollment, disease progression status, level of evidence supporting the medication usage, and cost.
Results: Twenty-three patients and 24 outpatient-restricted medications met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen (54%) medications were continued upon discharge and eight (33%) were not continued in the outpatient setting. Five of those eight medications were discontinued as a result of patient death.
Conclusion: In this single-center study, approximately one-third of the outpatient-restricted medications were not continued upon discharge. The findings suggest that our informal approval process could result in the suboptimal use of formulary outpatient-restricted medications for oncology and hematology indications. A more formalized request process might lead to the more effective utilization of these medications.