Jiyeon Joy Park1, Lauren Boutillier1, Joseph E Cruz2, GaEun Joung1, Jeffrey Nemeth1. 1. 1 Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, New Jersey. 2. 2 Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, Englewood, New Jersey, and Rutgers University Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infliximab dose rounding is a commonly accepted practice at many institutions to contain costs. Currently, there is limited data on the clinical and financial implications of infliximab dose rounding standardization. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether standardized infliximab dose rounding is comparable with nonstandardized dosing in patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis in terms of cost and efficiency, using a cost comparison between the 2 dosing methods at an outpatient infusion center attached to a community teaching hospital. METHODS: A retrospective electronic chart review was conducted to identify patients who received infliximab for ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease over a 6-month period. The primary endpoint was cost comparison between the 2 dosing methods. The secondary outcomes were estimated time taken for order verification, number of order clarifications, increase in dose or frequency of infliximab, number of patients who switched to alternative therapy, and use of medications for adverse drug effects. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for data analysis. RESULTS: 72 patients met the inclusion criteria. Because of patient overlap during the study period, 45 patients (62.5%) were in the standardized rounding arm, and 69 patients (95.8%) were in the nonstandardized rounding arm. One patient in each arm required an increased dose or frequency of infusion (2.2% vs. 1.5%, P = 1.000). Standardized infliximab dose rounding had a theoretical cost savings of at least $104,640 per year (based on our rough annual census of 480 patients) compared with the nonstandardized method that had been used previously. The cost savings can also be translated as $218 per patient per month on average. The mean times to order verification were 10 vs. 12 minutes in the nonstandardized and standardized groups, respectively. Two patients in the nonstandardized group switched to alternative therapy. There was no difference in usage of rescue medications for adverse drug effects. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of infliximab dose rounding resulted in increased efficiency in the pharmacy workflow by reducing time for order verification. Furthermore, standardized dose rounding resulted in a significant reduction in expenditure for infliximab for the institution. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this research. The authors have nothing to disclose. This research was presented as a poster at the ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting & Exhibition 2017; December 3-7, 2017; Orlando, FL.
BACKGROUND: Infliximab dose rounding is a commonly accepted practice at many institutions to contain costs. Currently, there is limited data on the clinical and financial implications of infliximab dose rounding standardization. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether standardized infliximab dose rounding is comparable with nonstandardized dosing in patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis in terms of cost and efficiency, using a cost comparison between the 2 dosing methods at an outpatient infusion center attached to a community teaching hospital. METHODS: A retrospective electronic chart review was conducted to identify patients who received infliximab for ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease over a 6-month period. The primary endpoint was cost comparison between the 2 dosing methods. The secondary outcomes were estimated time taken for order verification, number of order clarifications, increase in dose or frequency of infliximab, number of patients who switched to alternative therapy, and use of medications for adverse drug effects. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for data analysis. RESULTS: 72 patients met the inclusion criteria. Because of patient overlap during the study period, 45 patients (62.5%) were in the standardized rounding arm, and 69 patients (95.8%) were in the nonstandardized rounding arm. One patient in each arm required an increased dose or frequency of infusion (2.2% vs. 1.5%, P = 1.000). Standardized infliximab dose rounding had a theoretical cost savings of at least $104,640 per year (based on our rough annual census of 480 patients) compared with the nonstandardized method that had been used previously. The cost savings can also be translated as $218 per patient per month on average. The mean times to order verification were 10 vs. 12 minutes in the nonstandardized and standardized groups, respectively. Two patients in the nonstandardized group switched to alternative therapy. There was no difference in usage of rescue medications for adverse drug effects. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization of infliximab dose rounding resulted in increased efficiency in the pharmacy workflow by reducing time for order verification. Furthermore, standardized dose rounding resulted in a significant reduction in expenditure for infliximab for the institution. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this research. The authors have nothing to disclose. This research was presented as a poster at the ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting & Exhibition 2017; December 3-7, 2017; Orlando, FL.
Authors: Congqiao Jiang; Pingsheng Zhu; Yi Shi; Wujun Xiang; Sitang Ge; Zongbing Zhang; Lugen Zuo Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2019-07-30