ArticleP & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management2019
Outcomes of Inpatient Administration of Restricted Antineoplastic Medications at a Large Academic Medical Institution.
Article in P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRestricting oncology and hematology medications to outpatient infusion centers may be considered when infrequent administration is required, a low risk of serious adverse effects exists, or when prompt amelioration of a condition is not expected. At the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), we created a new formulary status for medications designated "formulary, outpatient-restricted use only." This designation could optimize payer reimbursement, as well as improve patient comfort, by negating the need for inpatient admission. When the inpatient administration of a restricted medication is requested at UCSD, there ensues a loosely defined review process involving an informal conversation between the requesting prescriber and the oncology pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) chair. Patient outcomes associated with this formulary status and informal request process are limited. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology and hematology medications in the inpatient setting at a single-center, academic, and comprehensive cancer center.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted between January 1, 2015 and May 1, 2017. The primary outcome was to determine the percentage of formulary, outpatient-restricted oncology or hematology medications that were administered in the inpatient setting and continued to the outpatient setting. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, hospice enrollment, disease progression status, level of evidence supporting the medication usage, and cost.
resultsTwenty-three patients and 24 outpatient-restricted medications met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen (54%) medications were continued upon discharge and eight (33%) were not continued in the outpatient setting. Five of those eight medications were discontinued as a result of patient death.
conclusionIn this single-center study, approximately one-third of the outpatient-restricted medications were not continued upon discharge. The findings suggest that our informal approval process could result in the suboptimal use of formulary outpatient-restricted medications for oncology and hematology indications. A more formalized request process might lead to the more effective utilization of these medications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31447536PMC6679954What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.