MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shelf-Life Extension Of Azacitidine: A Cancer Centre Experience On Waste and Cost Reduction In The Treatment Of Myelodysplastic Syndromes

2013· article· en· W2288929049 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hany R. Guirguis, Flay Charbonneau, Ivan Tyono, Matthew C. Cheung, Rena Buckstein

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVialAzacitidineMedicineDosingMedical prescriptionMyelodysplastic syndromesLenalidomideInternal medicinePharmacologyChemistryMultiple myelomaChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Azacitidine (AZA) is a nucleoside metabolic inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). In Canada, it is supplied as a lyophilized powder in 100-mg vials priced at 628 Canadian dollars (C$). The product monograph indicates that the reconstituted drug may be held under refrigerated conditions (2-8°C) for up to a maximum of 8 hours. At a recommended dosing of 75 mg/m2 x 7 days and average body surface areas (BSA) ranging between 1.7-1.9 m2, most patients require more than a single vial reconstituted each day resulting in a drug wastage that might range from 58-72 mg/patient/day. Without strategies to mitigate this wastage, up to 40-50% of the daily dosage for patients of average BSA is thus discarded. At our center, AZA acquisition costs are reimbursed by the provincial funding agency according to mg dispensed and administered (dollars/mg) and not for total vials used; the potential cost of drug wastage is substantial. Walker et al. (Can J Hosp Pharm 2012) recently demonstrated that AZA reconstituted in cold (4°C) sterile water, and stored at -20°C for up to 4 days retained more than 90% of its initial concentration. The Odette Cancer Centre has used this reconstitution and storage strategy since November 2011. In addition, ‘batching’ of AZA patients on the same days and at the same times is attempted wherever possible. We audited AZA prescription use and drug wastage over 1 year after adopting this strategy to determine if the anticipated drug wastage was actually minimized. Methods From December 2011 until November 2012 all patients with MDS treated with at least 1 cycle of AZA were identified via the Cancer Centre pharmacy database. Analysis of the prescribed and wasted doses of AZA was performed. We retrospectively retrieved the mean number of doses administered per patient and per cycle. The mean BSA was determined for all patients, and the mean dose per injection as well as the mean number of cycles per patient was calculated. The total amount of actual drug wastage (based on the pharmacy records) was compared to the projected amount of drug wastage without implementing the new strategy. Results Thirty-one patients (mean BSA of 1.86 m2) received 1167 injections of AZA over 170 cycles of treatment (mean of 5.48 cycles per patient). The mean dose prescribed was 141.7 mg per injection (95% confidence interval 139.43-143.98). Over 12 months a total of 165,370 mg was dispensed at a cost of C$1,038,523.60. The projected amount of AZA that would have been dispensed without adopting the new strategy would have been 233,400 mg, representing potential drug wastage of 68,030 mg at a cost of C$427,228.40. With the mitigating strategies implemented, the actual amount of wasted drug was 2,400 mg at a cost of C$15,072. Expiry on shelf accounted for 52% of the drug wastage (1,240 mg). Drug expiry outside the freezer due to human error, patients failing to arrive on the day of treatment, freezer technical issues, or other causes accounted for 48% of the drug wastage. The average waste per patient per cycle of treatment due to drug expiry on shelf was only 7.3 mg at a cost of C$45.70. If a solitary patient (without patient batching) of average BSA 1.86 m2had been treated without our policy of cold (4°C) water reconstitution and freezing, the drug wastage (cost) would have been 425.6 mg (C$2,672.70)/7 day cycle. In contrast, cold (4°C) sterile water reconstitution with overnight freezing of vials and syringes would result in a drug wastage of 25.6 mg/7 day cycle (C$160.70), a 94% cost savings due to wastage. Conclusions Shelf-life extension with cold (4°C) sterile water reconstitution and freezing of vials and syringes is a simple policy that reduces the waste of AZA by 72-98%. This, in addition to other drug waste minimization strategies like patient batching can lead to significant reductions in drug expenditure and substantial cost-saving. Disclosures: Charbonneau: Hospira: Honoraria; BD Medical: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Hoffman LaRoche: Honoraria. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207