Study of the Excess Cost Associated with Drug Wastage Due to Limited Vial Size Options of the Intravenous Drugs for Anti-cancer Treatment, Among Patients Receiving Such Treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital
Download
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: To evaluate the drug wastage and additional costs (in INR) resulting from leftover or unused drugs due to limited vial strength options, and to propose vial size recommendations to pharmaceutical companies tailored to Indian requirements.
Material and Methods: A total of 500 adult patients attending daycare oncology were prospectively evaluated. Mean, median, mode and left over or unused drug dose for each chemotherapy drugs were calculated. The economic loss estimation was done considering the unit cost for the drug.
Result: The overall drug wastage for 500 prescriptions was 57,836 mg, accounting for 8.67% of the total prescribed dose. This resulted in an economic loss of 1,02,562 INR, which is 6.26% of the total cost. The highest proportions of drug wastage were observed for vincristine (28.72%), etoposide (23.20%), bleomycin (18.5%), pemetrexed (17.10%), nab-paclitaxel (16.37%), vinblastine (14.70%), Adriamycin (11.76%), and carboplatin (11.36%). The maximum economic loss was attributed to carboplatin (19.66%), nab-paclitaxel (17%), etoposide (14.5%), oxaliplatin (9.45%), and pemetrexed (7%). In combination chemotherapy regimens, gemcitabine-cisplatin-nab-paclitaxel (18.52%), pemetrexed-carboplatin (11.82%), and carboplatin-etoposide (8.97%) were responsible for the highest monetary losses due to drug wastage.
Conclusion: Drug wastage due to oversized chemotherapy vials imposes significant financial and environmental burdens. We recommend offering additional vial size options for carboplatin, etoposide, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, irinotecan, vincristine, and 5-FU. We hope this will reduce drug wastage to below 1-2%.
Introduction
The burden of cancer incidence is increasing both in India and globally. Cancer treatment has become a significant concern due to the associated costs and safety issues. With the rising number of cancer cases, there has been a corresponding increase in the expenses incurred for cancer treatment [1-4]. Systemic therapy is one of the primary therapeutic modalities for cancer treatment [5]. In countries like India, where the majority of patients belong to the lower-middle socioeconomic status, cancer treatment imposes a significant financial burden on families, as most of the treatment costs are borne by the patients and their families [6].
Cost is a major factor influencing both the choice of cancer treatment and patient compliance [7-10]. Consequently, 10% to 20% of cancer patients either do not start or complete the recommended treatment, or they modify their treatment plans to reduce the financial burden [11-12].
Chemotherapy drugs, whether used alone or in combination, are widely utilized for cancer treatment. The dosage regimen for chemotherapy is calculated based on various criteria, including height, weight, body surface area, renal and hepatic function, age, and sex. Consequently, chemotherapy drug doses can vary among patients even when following the same treatment protocol. Chemotherapy drugs are available in vials of specific strengths. Many existing cancer drugs come in doses that often exceed the prescribed amount for the average patient, leading to wastage of the leftover drug in the vial. Various studies have shown drug wastage ranging from 1% to 41% [13-15]. Additionally, leftover drugs from single-use vials must be discarded as they cannot be used for other patients due to concerns such as the risk of infection from the lack of preservatives in single-use vials [16]. The US Pharmacopeia recommends using single-dose vials exposed to ISO Class 5 or cleaner air within 6 hours of initial needle puncture, and those exposed to air lower than ISO Class 5 within one hour [17].
Another issue with chemotherapy drug wastage is the environmental and occupational health hazards it poses. Hospital waste materials present a wide range of health and safety risks for patients and healthcare workers [18]. Many anti-cancer drugs are mutagenic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, and/or toxic to reproductive systems, classifying them as highly hazardous compounds [19].
Studies by Gopisankar et al. [20], Truong et al. [15], and Ghate et al. [21] indicate that drug wastage and its economic implications significantly increase the cost of cancer care without adding any incremental value to patients. Research in this field has proposed solutions such as vial sharing, dose rounding, and batching patients according to pathology to reduce wastage and lower costs [22].
Given that the majority of patients receiving treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, belong to a low socio-economic status, our study aims to estimate drug wastage and the excess costs associated with large vial sizes of intravenous anti-cancer therapy among these patients.
Materials and Methods
This prospective, observational single-centre study was conducted over a period of 6 months at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. The study included twenty different intravenous chemotherapy protocols. A total of 500 adult cancer patients (twenty patients from each protocol) receiving intravenous anti-cancer treatment were enrolled consecutively. The mean, median, and mode for each chemotherapy drug were calculated.
Statistical Analysis
The average prescribed dose was determined by summing all the doses prescribed for each drug and dividing by the number of patients.
The median dose was identified as the middle value of the prescribed doses for each drug, arranged in ascending order.
The mode value of the prescribed dose was the dose most frequently prescribed.
The percentage of leftover drug was calculated for each drug based on the total leftover drug.
The total amount of drug wasted per hundred vials of each drug was calculated using the average prescribed dose for that drug.
Results
A total of 500 parenteral chemotherapy drug prescriptions from 25 commonly used protocols in solid and hematological malignancies were analyzed for drug wastage in our study. 20 prescriptions from each protocol were analyzed.
Drug wastage
In this study, the mean BSA was 1.57/m2 (Range 1.11 - 2.12). The mean, median and mode of prescribed dose for each drug is summarized in Table 1.
Drug name | Total number of prescriptions | Commonest dose prescribed (mg) | Median dose prescribed (mg) | Mean dose prescribed (mg) | Formulations available in the Indian market (mg) | Frequency of administrations with vials matching the prescribed dose (%) |
5 FU | 80 | 2000 | 2000 | 2306.25 | 250, 500 | 18 (22.50) |
Adriamycin | 80 | 100 | 80 | 81.62 | 10, 50 | 20 (25) |
Bleomycin | 40 | 30 | 30 | 27.37 | 15 | 16 (40) |
Carboplatin | 80 | 600 | 600 | 520 | 150, 450 | 21 (26.25) |
Cisplatin | 80 | 50 | 50 | 45.87 | 10, 50 | 24 (30) |
Cyclophosphamide | 80 | 1000 | 1000 | 1168 | 200, 500, 1000 | 22 (27.50) |
Dacarbazine | 20 | 700 | 700 | 710 | 200, 500 | 4 (20) |
Docetaxel | 40 | 80 | 100 | 97.75 | 20, 80, 120 | 8 (20) |
Epirubicin | 20 | 150 | 150 | 145.5 | 10, 50, 100 | 12 (60) |
Etoposide* | 80 | 200* | 200* | 200* | 100 | 11 (13.75) |
Gemcitabine | 100 | 1400 | 1400 | 1484 | 200, 1000 | 30 (30) |
Irinotecan | 60 | 240 | 240 | 275 | 40, 100 | 13 (21.66) |
Leucovorin | 60 | 350 | 350 | 340 | 50 | 60 (100) |
Nabpaclitaxel | 20 | 200 | 200 | 200 | 100 | 2 (10) |
Oxaliplatin | 100 | 150 | 150 | 166 | 50, 100 | 38 (38) |
Paclitaxel | 60 | 260 | 260 | 226 | 30, 100, 260, 300 | 22 (36.67) |
Pemetrexate | 20 | 1000 | 1000 | 965 | 100, 500 | 2 (10) |
Rituximab | 40 | 600 | 600 | 601.25 | 100, 500 | 40 (100) |
Trastuzumab | 40 | 440 | 440 | 395.25 | 150, 440 | 13 (32.50) |
Vinblastin | 20 | 10 | 10 | 11.5 | 10 | 9 (45) |
Vincrestin | 40 | 2 (4) ** | 2 (4)** | 1.9 (4) ** | 1 | 18 (45) |
* Per day drug doses; ** In REPOCH protocol
The results of drug wastage are summarized in Table 2. The drug wastage for individual chemotherapy drug varied from 4.90% to 29%. The overall drug wastage was 57,836 mg (8.67% of the total prescribed dose). The highest proportion of the drug wastage was for vincrestin (28.72%), etoposide (23.20%), bleomycin (18.5), pemetrexate (17.10%), nabpaclitaxel (16.37%), vinblastine (14.70), Adriamycin (11.76%) carboplatin (11.36%) and docetaxel (10.48). (Table 2).
Drug name | Total number of prescriptions | Total amount of prescribed drug in vials (mg) | Total amount of drug wasted (mg) | Percentage of drug wastage (%) | Total cost of drug wastage INR | Percentage of cost of drug wastage (%) |
Vincrestin | 40 | 118 | 33.9 | 28.72 | 1685.02 | 1.65 |
Etoposide | 80 | 53600 | 12435 | 23.2 | 14922 | 14.55 |
Bleomycin | 40 | 1095 | 203 | 18.5 | 6191.5 | 6.05 |
Pemetrexate | 20 | 19300 | 3300 | 17.1 | 7236.76 | 7.05 |
Nabpaclitaxel | 20 | 4000 | 655 | 16.37 | 17615.85 | 17.17 |
Vinblastin | 20 | 230 | 33.8 | 14.7 | 710.47 | 0.7 |
Adriamycin | 80 | 6530 | 768 | 11.76 | 2539.8 | 2.46 |
Carboplatin | 80 | 41610 | 4730 | 11.36 | 20171.66 | 19.66 |
Docetaxel | 40 | 3910 | 410 | 10.48 | 911.68 | 0.9 |
DTIC | 20 | 14200 | 1480 | 10.42 | 3239.88 | 3.15 |
Cisplatin | 80 | 8450 | 786 | 9.3 | 3450.5 | 3.36 |
Oxaliplatin | 100 | 16600 | 1472 | 8.86 | 9671.08 | 9.45 |
Cyclophosphamide | 80 | 92290 | 7380 | 8.65 | 413.22 | 0.4 |
5 FU | 80 | 221000 | 14250 | 6.45 | 470.2 | 0.45 |
Irinotecan | 60 | 16530 | 945 | 5.7 | 4656.24 | 4.54 |
Epirubicin | 20 | 2910 | 155 | 5.32 | 1612 | 1.57 |
Gemcitabine | 100 | 150800 | 7980 | 5.3 | 4364.81 | 4.25 |
Paclitaxel | 60 | 13560 | 665 | 4.9 | 2699.4 | 2.64 |
There was no drug wastage for trastuzumab, rituximab and leucovorin.
BEP (19.4%), Carboplatin-etoposide (18.40%), Cisplatin-etoposide (17.40%), Pemetrexed-carboplatin (14.2%), REPOCH (13.15%), ABVD (11.50%), and Paclitaxel-carboplatin (10.60%) were the combination chemotherapy protocols with more than 10% drug wastage of the total prescribed doses (Table 3).
Chemotherapy regimen name | Total number of prescriptions | The total amount of available drug in vial (mg) | Total amount of drug wastage (mg) | Percentage of drug wastage |
BEP | 20 | 24100 | 4678 | 19.41 |
Carboplatin etoposide | 20 | 23100 | 4250 | 18.4 |
Cisplatin etoposide | 20 | 14970 | 2604 | 17.4 |
Pemetrexate carboplatin | 20 | 31200 | 4440 | 14.2 |
REPOCH | 20 | 48650 | 6401.2 | 13.15 |
ABVD | 20 | 15925 | 1832.8 | 11.5 |
Paclitaxel carboplatin | 20 | 14530 | 1540 | 10.6 |
Gemcitabine | 20 | 34200 | 2920 | 8.5 |
Adriamycin cyclophosphamide | 20 | 22860 | 1740 | 7.6 |
Docetaxel | 20 | 2190 | 165 | 7.5 |
Docetaxel oxaliplatin 5 FU (DOF) | 20 | 78020 | 5265 | 6.75 |
Gemcitabine cisplatin Nabpaclitaxel | 20 | 31600 | 2030 | 6.4 |
Mfolfirinox | 20 | 66470 | 4210 | 6.3 |
Irinotecan | 20 | 6370 | 385 | 6 |
Epirubicin Cyclophosphamide | 20 | 22710 | 1215 | 5.35 |
Gemcitabine cisplatin | 20 | 32980 | 1757 | 5.3 |
Capecitabine Oxaliplatin | 20 | 4300* | 215 | 5 |
Gemcitabine Oxaliplatin | 20 | 35500 | 1775 | 5 |
Gemcitabine carboplatin | 20 | 35310 | 1630 | 4.6 |
RCHOP | 20 | 39428 | 1585.7 | 4 |
mFolfox | 20 | 104550 | 4032 | 3.9 |
Paclitaxel | 20 | 5040 | 175 | 3.5 |
Paclitaxel trastuzumab | 20 | 11450 | 290 | 2.5 |
mFolfiri | 20 | 107340 | 2560.25 | 2.4 |
Trastuzumab | 20 | 8250 | 0 | 0 |
* Only parentral chemotherapy drug
Cost expenditure
The overall drug wastage in 500 drug administrations was 57,836 mg, (8.67% of the total prescribed dose). This drug wastage resulted in an economic loss of 1,02,562 INR (6.26% of the total cost) in 500 prescriptions.
Carboplatin (19.66%), nabpaclitaxel (17%), etoposide (14.5%), oxaliplatin (9.45%) and Pemetrexate (7%) were responsible for the maximum drug cost wastage (Table 2). For combination chemotherapy protocols, the highest cost wastage was observed with gemcitabine-cisplatin- nabpaclitaxel (18.52%), followed by pemetrexate- carboplatin (11.82%), carboplatin-etoposide (8.97%), BEP (7.58%), ABVD (6.84%), and paclitaxel-carboplatin (6.40%) (Table 4).
Chemotherapy regimen name | Total number of prescriptions | Total cost of drug wastage INR (USD) | Percentage of cost of drug wastage |
Gemcitabine cisplatin Nabpaclitaxel | 20 | 18996.6 | 18.5 |
Pemetrexate carboplatin | 20 | 12130.62 | 11.8 |
Carboplatin etoposide | 20 | 9210 | 8.97 |
BEP | 20 | 7782.65 | 7.6 |
ABVD | 20 | 7020.05 | 7.15 |
Paclitaxel carboplatin | 20 | 6560.6 | 6.4 |
REPOCH | 20 | 6225.3 | 6 |
mfolfirinox | 20 | 4206.3 | 4.1 |
Gemcitabine carboplatin | 20 | 4185.45 | 4.07 |
Docetaxel oxaliplatin 5 FU (DOF) | 20 | 4193 | 4.01 |
Cisplatin etoposide | 20 | 3632 | 3.5 |
Gemcitabine Oxaliplatin | 20 | 2446.55 | 2.4 |
mfolfox | 20 | 2303.24 | 2.25 |
Irinotecan | 20 | 1894.2 | 1.85 |
Epirubicin Cyclophosphamide | 20 | 1671.36 | 1.6 |
Gemcitabine cisplatin | 20 | 1641.26 | 1.6 |
Gemcitabine | 20 | 1597 | 1.55 |
Capecitabine Oxaliplatin | 20 | 1412.55 | 1.37 |
Docetaxel | 20 | 1304.38 | 1.27 |
Paclitaxel trastuzumab | 20 | 1177.4 | 1.15 |
mfolfiri | 20 | 1114.04 | 1.08 |
Paclitaxel | 20 | 710 | 0.7 |
RCHOP | 20 | 625.72 | 0.6 |
Adriamycin cyclophosphamide | 20 | 521.76 | 0.5 |
Chemotherapy drug dose and vial size matching
The frequency of prescribed doses exactly matching the available dose strengths of chemotherapy drugs is summarized in Table 1. For leucovorin and rituximab, all the prescribed doses match the available dose strengths.
Discussion
Tata Memorial Hospital is a large tertiary cancer center that caters to approximately 400 patients (both General and Private categories) per day at its day care center for intravenous anti-cancer therapy. Given that the majority of patients receiving treatment at TMH belong to low socio-economic status, drug wastage has a significant financial impact, along with environmental hazards.
In our study, 500 patients from 25 different chemotherapy protocols were analyzed. The mean BSA was 1.58 m² (range 1.11 – 2.12). Ninety percent of the patients had a BSA ranging from 1.30 m² to 1.90 m². Overall, 57,836 mg (8.67% of the total prescribed dose) was wasted. This drug wastage resulted in an economic loss of 102,562 INR (6.26% of the total prescribed drug cost). Considering this loss across 500 prescriptions, and extrapolating to all daily prescriptions over a month, the monetary and total loss nationwide would be substantial. In this study, drug wastage for various chemotherapy drugs varied from 4.9% to 29%. Various studies on drug wastage have shown a range from 1% to 41% [13-15, 23-25]. Similar to our findings, a study by Fasola et al. [26] reported that drug wastage accounted for 8.3% of the annual drug expenditure. In another study by D’Souza et al. [13], 6.1% of the reconstituted drugs were wasted, with the cost analysis amounting to 11.1% of the total drug cost. Adede et al., in a study from Morocco, reported drug wastage of 7.2% and an economic loss of 13.9% [27]. In the same context, two other similar Indian studies by Ghate et al. [21] and Gopisankar et al. [20] reported drug wastage of 19.61% and 17.72%, respectively. The cost expenditure for these studies was 28.98% and 17.14%, respectively. Drug wastage and cost expenditure in these studies were higher than in our study. The study by Ghate et al. was conducted in a pediatric population. The reason for the lower wastage in our study may be the availability of more vial sizes at our institute. Our study uniquely evaluated drug wastage within combination drug regimens. We found that regimens containing carboplatin and etoposide had particularly high levels of wastage. This was primarily due to the limited vial size options available.
Overall, there was no drug wastage for leucovorin, rituximab, and trastuzumab. For trastuzumab, the mean leftover drug was 50 mg when used as a single-agent regimen and 72 mg in combination regimens. Due to its 28-day shelf life, the leftover trastuzumab was utilized in subsequent cycles, resulting in no wastage. A study by Ritesh M. Pabari et al. [28] supports this, showing that trastuzumab intravenous solutions remain physically and structurally stable when stored at 2-8°C for 28 days.
The most significant factor contributing to drug wastage is the available vial size. Other important factors include the patient’s weight, height, and body surface area.
Future prospectives
Drug wastage increases financial burden and causes environmental and occupational hazards. Various mitigation strategies have been tried to decrease drug wastage. A study conducted in three hospitals in Toronto by Leung et al. demonstrated that these strategies reduced the cost of wasted drugs by 1% to 2% of the total drug cost [29]. Another study by Fasola et al. [26] found that rounding drug dosages within 5% of the calculated dose to match vial strength, sharing multidose vials between patients with 24-hour stability, and scheduling chemotherapy sessions by grouping patients according to pathology or drug type reduced drug cost expenditure by 45%. However, rounding up to the full vial quantity, also known as ‘flat’ or ‘fixed’ dosing, cannot be used as it may result in some patients receiving much higher or lower doses than the FDA-approved amount, potentially causing toxicity or underdosing.
Although vial sharing appears promising, most chemotherapy drugs are available as single-dose vials due to the lack of preservatives. Another issue with vial sharing is maintaining strict sterility and the associated risk of infection. Guidance on vial sharing is also inconsistent. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services essentially encourage it, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that it is unsafe [30-31].
We suggest offering additional vial size options for drugs to reduce wastage. We recommend that manufacturers provide a reasonable range of vial sizes to minimize the amount of wasted medication.
We recommend additional vial size options for carboplatin (50 mg), paclitaxel (10 mg), etoposide (50 mg and 10 mg), 5-FU (50 mg and 100 mg), gemcitabine (50 mg and 100 mg), irinotecan (20 mg), nab-paclitaxel (10 mg and 50 mg), and vincristine (0.5 mg) as detailed in Table 5.
Drug name | Formulations available in the Indian market (mg) | Recommended vial size (mg) |
Paclitaxel | 30mg, 100mg, 260mg, 300mg | 10mg |
Etoposide | 100mg | 10mg, 50mg |
Carboplatin | 150mg, 450mg | 50mg |
Gemcitabine | 200mg, 1000mg | 50mg, 100mg |
Nabpaclitaxel | 100mg | 10mg, 50mg |
VCR | 1mg | 0.5mg |
5 FU | 250mg, 500mg | 50mg, 100mg |
Irinotecan | 40mg, 100mg | 20mg |
We anticipate that the availability of these vial sizes will likely reduce drug wastage to below 1-2%. This reduction will mitigate environmental hazards and alleviate financial burdens on patients’ families and the country. For every hundred prescriptions of these drugs, an estimated 1.51 lakh INR could be saved. Considering that approximately 20 million patients receive chemotherapy annually in India, this could have a significant impact on patients, their caregivers, families, and the national economy.
Acknowledgments
Statement of Transparency and Principals:
• Author declares no conflict of interest
• Study was approved by Research Ethic Committee
of author affiliated Institute.
• Study’s data is available upon a reasonable request.
• All authors have contributed to implementation of this research.
References
- Estimating the Economic Burden of Cancer at a Tertiary Public Hospital: A Study at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bidhu Kalyan Mohanti , Abhiroop Mukhopadhyay , Sanghamitra Das , Kuldeep Sharma , Soumitra Dash . .
- Economic Burden of Cancer in India Chakrabarty J. Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development.2017;8. CrossRef
- Financial toxicity and implications for cancer care in the era of molecular and immune therapies Tran G, Zafar SY . Annals of Translational Medicine.2018;6(9). CrossRef
- Financial toxicity in cancer care O'Connor JM , Kircher SM , Souza JA . The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology.2016;14(3). CrossRef
- WHO | Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment. World Health Organization. Available from: http://www.who.int/cancer/treatment/en/. Accessed on 27.06.2019 .
- Drug pricing: A major barrier to access to cancer care in India | Request PDF ResearchGate.. CrossRef
- Factors affecting therapeutic compliance: A review from the patient's perspective Jin J, Sklar Ge , Min Sen Oh V, Chuen Li S. Therapeutics and clinical risk management.2008;4(1). CrossRef
- Factors influencing adherence to cancer treatment in older adults with cancer: a systematic review Puts Mte , Ha Tu, Tourangeau A, Howell D, Fitch M, Springall E, Smh Alibhai. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.2014;25(3). CrossRef
- Adherence influencing factors - a systematic review of systematic reviews T M, T J, D P. Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique.2014;72(1). CrossRef
- Factors affect in patient adherence to medication regimen Kalogianni A.. 2011;5.
- Financial impact of oral chemotherapy wastage on society and the patient Monga V, Meyer C, Vakiner B, Clamon G. Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice: Official Publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners.2019;25(4). CrossRef
- High cancer drug prices in the United States: reasons and proposed solutions Kantarjian H, Steensma D, Rius Sanjuan J, Elshaug A, Light D. Journal of Oncology Practice.2014;10(4). CrossRef
- Financial audit of wastage of anticancer drugs: Pilot study from a tertiary care center in India D'Souza VR , Palatty PL , George T, Adnan M, Rao S, Baliga MS . Indian Journal of Cancer.2019;56(2). CrossRef
- Overspending driven by oversized single dose vials of cancer drugs Bach PB , Conti RM , Muller RJ , Schnorr GC , Saltz LB . BMJ (Clinical research ed.).2016;352. CrossRef
- The impact of cancer drug wastage on economic evaluations Truong J, Cheung MC , Mai H, Letargo J, Chambers A, Sabharwal M, Trudeau ME , Chan KKW . Cancer.2017;123(18). CrossRef
- Sentinel Event Alert, Issue 52. A complimentary publication of The Joint Commission Issue 52, June 16, 2014 available from httpsc://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/SEA_52.pdf. .
- United States Pharmacopeia, ed. USP< 797> Guidebook to pharmaceutical compounding-sterile preparations. United States Pharmacopeial Convention 2008.
- Composition and quantity of cytotoxic waste from oncology wards_A survey of environmental characterization and source management of medical cytotoxic waste Ghafuri Y, Nabizadeh R. Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm.2017;10(3):438-444.
- Fate and effects of the residues of anticancer drugs in the environment Heath E, Filipič M, Kosjek T, Isidori M. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International.2016;23(15). CrossRef
- Cancer chemotherapy drug wastage in a tertiary care hospital in India-A 3-month prospective and 1-year retrospective study Gopisankar M. G., Wahlang J, Jagtap V, Sarkar C, Purnima Devi L., Harris C. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.2019;85(10). CrossRef
- Quantification of Chemotherapy Drug Wastage and Incurred Financial Loss in Paediatric Cancer Care: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Tertiary Care Public Hospital in India Ghate S, Patil S, Kadhe N, Fulsoundar R, Pawar S. Cureus.2024;16(1). CrossRef
- Opportunities to significantly reduce expenditure associated with cancer drugs Gilbar PJ , Chambers CR , Gilbar EC . Future Oncology (London, England).2017;13(15). CrossRef
- Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States Hess LM , Cui ZL , Li XI , Oton AB , Shortenhaus S, Watson IA . Journal of Medical Economics.2018;21(8). CrossRef
- A real-world analysis of cancer drug wastage due to oversized vials Liran O, Prus J, Gordon N, Almog V, Gruenewald T, Goldstein DA . Journal of the American Pharmacists Association: JAPhA.2018;58(6). CrossRef
- Impact of clinical oral chemotherapy program on wastage and hospitalizations Khandelwal N, Duncan I, Ahmed T, Rubinstein E, Pegus C. Journal of Oncology Practice.2011;7(3 Suppl). CrossRef
- Drug waste minimization as an effective strategy of cost-containment in oncology Fasola G, Aprile G, Marini L, Follador A, Mansutti M, Miscoria M. BMC health services research.2014;14. CrossRef
- Centralization impact and cost-saving study in a Moroccan hospital's centralized unit of chemotherapy preparation Adade CA , Benabbes M, Belahcen MJ , Rahali Y. Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice: Official Publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners.2020;26(7). CrossRef
- Physical and structural stability of the monoclonal antibody, trastuzumab (Herceptin®), intravenous solutions Pabari RM , Ryan B, Ahmad W, Ramtoola Z. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology.2013;14(2). CrossRef
- Financial Impact of Cancer Drug Wastage and Potential Cost Savings From Mitigation Strategies Leung CYW , Cheung MC , Charbonneau LF , Prica A, Ng P, Chan KKW . Journal of Oncology Practice.2017;13(7). CrossRef
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Safe use of single dose/single use medications to prevent healthcare-associated infections. 2012 www.cms.gov/Medicare/ Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/SurveyCertificationGenInfo/Downloads/Survey-andCert-Letter-12-35.pdf .
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Protect patients against preventable harm from improper use of single-dose/single-use vials. 2012 www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/ CDCposition-SingleUseVial.html .
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright
© Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Care , 2024
Author Details
How to Cite
- Abstract viewed - 97 times
- PDF (FULL TEXT) downloaded - 31 times
- XML downloaded - 0 times