Evaluation of pegfilgrastim use at an academic medical center. (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tang, Kathy; Duffy, Alison; Gilmore, Steven
• Is Part Of: Journal of oncology pharmacy practice. Volume 24:Number 8(2018)
• Page Start: 604
• Page End: 608
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Pegfilgrastim -- granulocyte colony stimulating factor -- cost savings -- febrile neutropenia; Cancer -- Chemotherapy -- Periodicals; Clinical pharmacology -- Periodicals; 616.994061
• DOI: 10.1177/1078155217722046
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-1552

Abstract

Purpose: Pegfilgrastim is indicated to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. As a cost-savings initiative, Pegfilgrastim Process Guidelines were developed and implemented at a large, academic teaching institution to improve appropriate use of pegfilgrastim and to decrease costs of outpatient infusion center administration by deferring doses to home self-administration for eligible patients. Methods: A retrospective medical record review was conducted post-implementation of the Pegfilgrastim Process Guideline to evaluate the use of pegfilgrastim and to assess the safety and efficacy of transferring pegfilgrastim orders from outpatient infusion center to home administration for eligible patients. Results: Fifty-nine patients were included in the study, with 35 patients receiving pegfilgrastim in the outpatient infusion center, 13 patients self-injecting at home, and 11 patients receiving doses in both settings. The total wholesale cost avoidance for pegfilgrastim orders transferred to self-administration at home during this time period totaled $205, 163. The revenue from outpatient prescriptions of pegfilgrastim totaled $291, 111.93. The percentage of febrile neutropenia admissions was 11.4%, 0%, and 9.1% in the outpatient infusion, home, and outpatient/home group, respectively. Conclusion: Implementation of the Pegfilgrastim Process Guidelines demonstrated decreased total pegfilgrastim orders to be dispensed by the infusion center and a cost avoidance of $205, 163 in four months without any perceivable changes in patient outcomes. This represents a significant cost-savings opportunity.