Successful biosimilar adoption in oncology: strategic approach to system standardization

e18605

Background: In the United States, therapeutic substitution with oncologic biosimilars offer opportunities to reduce the rising costs of cancer care while improving access to safe and effective treatment. Current challenges include integration into clinical practice, state laws for biosimilar interchangeability and payer reimbursement policies. Methods: We developed an approach to standardize biosimilar utilization across our oncology enterprise by leveraging the electronic health record to integrate with clinical algorithm pathways and financial information. Institutionally preferred biosimilars drugs were selected through the oncology Pharmacy & Therapeutics committee as part of the formulary process. Physicians were permitted to opt-out of substitution within the electronic order sets. Patients were divided into two groups based as 1) main medical center 2) affiliated sites to assess feasibility of the enterprise-wide substitution, defined as an 80% compliance rate at the main medical center and a 75% compliance rate at the affiliates sites. This provided a minimum detectable difference of 5.7% and 8.9%, respectively using an exact one-sided Binomial test with 80% of power at 2.5% significance level with Sidak correction. Results: Between January and December 2021, a total of 811 cancer patients who initiated treatment with bevacizumab, rituximab or trastuzumab were identified, of whom 535 were eligible for this analysis (age 18-96; 61% female, 39% male). The overall substitution rate to biosimilars was 83% (76%-97%) compared to baseline of 55%, representing a 51% improvement. The conversion rate was higher at the main medical center compared to the affiliated sites (85% vs. 81%). Among 92 patients who did not have substitution to biosimilars, the most common reasons were off-label indication (35%), patient assistance program (17%), payer preferred alternative brand (15%) and clinician preferred reference brand (12%). Four patients (< 1%) were not converted due to infusion reactions possibly related to biosimilars. Based on the wholesale acquisition cost, we estimate reduction in direct spending of $1.2 million per month or an average 23% cost savings. Conclusions: This real-world data suggest use of an integrated electronic health record to standardize biosimilar utilization in oncology and reduce costs. This approach leverages existing infrastructure for successful biosimilar adoption in oncology while preserving quality and safety.[Table: see text]

Health-system specialty pharmacy impact on oral chemotherapy outcomes

240

Background: Oral chemotherapy usage has grown significantly over the years as it provides a more convenient and less invasive administrative option for patients.In 2019, 89% of large hospitals owned and operated their own Health System Specialty Pharmacies (HSSP)1.Pharmacist-led medication therapy management services are crucial to provide patient education, monitoring of medication adherence and adverse effect management. With the current vertical integration of health plans and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) increasing their dominance over specialty dispensing channels, HSSP are often excluded from specialty networks. The objective of this study is to compare outcomes of oncology patients filling their oral chemotherapy at Cedars Sinai Medical Center (CSMC) Specialty Pharmacy versus those who are filling their medications at outside specialty pharmacies (OSP). Methods: Electronic health records were used to conduct a retrospective chart review of patients started on oral chemotherapy at CSMC between January 2019 to January 2021. Primary endpoints included time to treatment (TTT) and proportion of days covered (PDC). Secondary endpoints included drug-related problems (DRPs) and treatment-related ED visits and hospitalizations. DRPs were categorized by severity and type of intervention. Results: There were 100 patients included in the study: CSMC group (n = 50) and OSP group (n = 50). Patients in the CMSC group had significantly shorter TTT compared to OSP group (4 days vs. 9.5 days, respectively [P < 0.0026]), as well as a higher PDC (99.5% vs 91%, respectively [P < 0.0005]). Pharmacists identified and resolved 31 DRPs in CSMC arm with 19 DRPs categorized as serious and 1 DRP categorized as life-threatening. For the OSP group, 23 preventable DRPs were identified with 12 DRPs categorized as serious and 1 DRP categorized as life-threatening. There were no treatment-related ED visits or hospitalizations in either group. Conclusions: Patients filling their oral chemotherapy at CSMC Specialty Pharmacy had significantly quicker TTT and higher adherence rates as measured by PDC. Numerous DRPs were identified for OSP patients; potential pharmacist-interventions could have led to optimized and safer medication therapy if filled at a HSSP. Continued research comparing treatment outcomes and interventions made between HSSP and OSP can create a strong argument for health plans and PBMs to consider inclusion of HSSPs into their specialty networks. References: Pedersen CA, Schneider PJ, Ganio MC, Scheckelhoff DJ. ASHP national survey of pharmacy practice in hospital settings: Prescribing and transcribing—2019. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. 2020;77(13):1026-1050. doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxaa104

A New Method of Stair Markings for Visually Impaired People

Falls on stairs are a major hazard for elderly persons who are visually impaired. Stair marking is critical in making travel on stairs safe. Two groups of subjects with distinctly different visual impairments—group 1 having cataracts with healthy maculas; group 2 having age-related maculopathy with very little or no cataract development—were assessed to determine preference between two methods of marking stairways. Subjects were exposed to two identical stairways, one marked with traditional horizontal contrasting stripes, the other with a new method of three vertical stripes. Findings show that the newer method was preferred, with group 2 having a higher preference rate than group 1.