MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the financial impact of beyond use date in a publicly funded cancer system.

2017· article· en· W2604893790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erin Redwood, Kathy Vu, Ron Fung, Heekyung Han, Megan Teimoortagh, Elaine Meertens, Leta Forbes, Vishal Kukreti, Daniella Santaera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVialMedicinePharmacyDatabaseComputer scienceFamily medicineChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

13 Background: According to USP 797 and the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities standards, the Beyond Use Date (BUD) based on sterility for single-dose vials is 6 hours, after which the contents must be discarded. In Ontario, centres have traditionally based BUD on stability data, not sterility data. This change presents concern about potential drug waste so an analysis was done to estimate the financial impact to the 76 systemic treatment facilities in Ontario. Methods: Using an administrative database that records the daily total dose of drugs administered by facility, annual drug waste cost was calculated using daily dose administered, cost per milligram, and available vial size(s) for 26 publicly funded drugs. Two different methods were used to determine the amount of drug waste. Method 1 used the largest vial size matched to the closest amount of drug required. Method 2 used the optimal vial size mix, when there are multiple vial sizes, to minimize wastage across all configurations of vial size. Some assumptions made include: 1) each facility had access to all available vial sizes, and 2) single-dose vial contents were true to the stated quantity as per the manufacturer. Results: The 10 facilities with the highest waste estimates are summarized in the table. The total waste estimates for all facilities are $25,927,861 (method 1) and $12,945,353 (method 2). Waste estimates were also calculated by drug, with rituximab, bevacizumab and pemetrexed having the highest waste costs. These drugs are only available in vials with a large range in size (100 and 500 mg), but could waste more than drugs with more size options or less variance between sizes. Conclusions: Assigning a BUD based on 6 hour sterility standards will have significant financial implications to facilities in Ontario. Development of mitigation strategies should be explored to provide guidance to Ontario and other jurisdictions on how to curtail the budget impact.[Table: see text]

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.663
GPT teacher head0.631
Teacher spread0.031 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic DrugsFrench-language works237,207