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

  1. Atul Tiwari ,
  2. Sheetal Kulkarni ,
  3. Bhagyashree Jadhav ,
  4. Nandini Menon ,
  5. Kumar Prabhash ,
  6. Vanita Nonronha ,
  7. Shafak Madaan ,
  8. Snehal Bhosale ,
  9. Chaitynaya Sagvekar ,
  10. Preeti Nikam ,
  11. Amit Joshi

Vol 9 No 4 (2024)

DOI 10.31557/apjcc.2024.9.4.679-685

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.

Table 1. Mean, Median and Mode for the Prescribed Doses of Various Drugs.

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).

Table 2. Drug Wastage and Cost Wastage for Individual Drugs.

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).

Table 3. Drug Wastage for Combination Drug Regimen.

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).

Table 4. Drug Cost Wastage in Various Chemotherapy Protocols.

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.

Table 5. Recommended New Vial Size Option for Various Drugs.

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


  1. 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 . .
  2. Economic Burden of Cancer in India Chakrabarty J. Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development.2017;8. CrossRef
  3. 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
  4. Financial toxicity in cancer care O'Connor JM , Kircher SM , Souza JA . The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology.2016;14(3). CrossRef
  5. WHO | Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment. World Health Organization. Available from: http://www.who.int/cancer/treatment/en/. Accessed on 27.06.2019 .
  6. Drug pricing: A major barrier to access to cancer care in India | Request PDF ResearchGate.. CrossRef
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Factors affect in patient adherence to medication regimen Kalogianni A.. 2011;5.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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. .
  17. United States Pharmacopeia, ed. USP< 797> Guidebook to pharmaceutical compounding-sterile preparations. United States Pharmacopeial Convention 2008.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Opportunities to significantly reduce expenditure associated with cancer drugs Gilbar PJ , Chambers CR , Gilbar EC . Future Oncology (London, England).2017;13(15). CrossRef
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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 .
  31. 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 .

Copyright

© Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Care , 2024

Author Details

Atul Tiwari
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Dr.atul2410n@gmail.com

Sheetal Kulkarni
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Bhagyashree Jadhav
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Nandini Menon
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Kumar Prabhash
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Vanita Nonronha
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Shafak Madaan
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Snehal Bhosale
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Chaitynaya Sagvekar
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Preeti Nikam
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

Amit Joshi
Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.

How to Cite

Tiwari, A., Kulkarni, S., Jadhav, B., Menon, N., Prabhash, K., Nonronha, V., Madaan, S., Bhosale, S., Sagvekar, C., Nikam, P., & Joshi, A. (2024). 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. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Care, 9(4), 679-685. https://doi.org/10.31557/apjcc.2024.9.4.679-685
  • Abstract viewed - 97 times
  • PDF (FULL TEXT) downloaded - 31 times
  • XML downloaded - 0 times