Biosimilar strategic implementation at a large health system.

PURPOSE: This article highlights one health system's response to the market influx of biosimilars with the establishment of a process for formulary review and selection of preferred agents and support for therapeutic interchanges. SUMMARY: Through assessment of available literature, insurance payor coverage, and manufacturer-anticipated approvals of biosimilars, a strategic stance was developed to guide biosimilar order preparation, review, adoption, and implementation. The electronic medical record (EMR) is prepared for biosimilar implementation at least 6 to 12 months ahead of anticipated formulary review. The review includes assessment of a class (reference product and available biosimilars) after at least 2 biosimilars become available. Key health-system departments and clinicians are enlisted to support review of clinical, safety, and economic implications. Implementation of a preferred product relies on standard education, formulary availability, and staff awareness to address any perceived patient safety concerns and gather provider support. The standard steps developed now apply to all future biosimilar reviews, adoption plans, and ongoing monitoring. Barriers evaluated include changes in payor coverage and challenges in preparation of the EMR for future biosimilars, meeting precertification team education needs, and providing operational support for pharmacy inventory. CONCLUSION: To date, use of 5 preferred biosimilar products has led to significant cost savings to the institution, and the process has been endorsed by providers. The institution's successes can be attributed to clear communication with stakeholders and the development of a deliberate process, led by a multidisciplinary leadership team, for managing formulary, safety, and operational barriers in a thoughtful and systematic manner.

Serum electrolyte dynamics in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

AIM: High-dose melphalan followed by autologous haematopoietic cell transplantation remains the standard-of-care therapy for multiple myeloma (MM). Gastrointestinal toxicity concomitant with electrolyte derangement is a primary cause of morbidity from transplant. Here, we assessed the dynamics of electrolyte imbalances and its role in hematologic counts and engraftment. Ω Patients and Methods One hundred and eighteen MM patients that received transplant were studied. RESULTS: Engraftment speed (ES) was calculated as the period between the first rise in the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and full engraftment defined as the first of three consecutive days with ANC > 500 × 106 /L. The defined median ES was 2 days (range 0-5 days) and 40 patients had ES ≤2 days. Engraftment occurred at a median of 10 days. The median time-to-nadir for phosphorus and potassium was 10 and 4.28 days, respectively. The drop in phosphorus and potassium serum level was statistically greater in patients with an ES ≤2 days compared to patients with ES ≥2 days. Magnesium level were not significantly affected and there was no significant difference between the drop in serum phosphorus and potassium based on severity of nausea or oral mucositis. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that there is a significant correlation between the magnitude of drop in potassium and phosphorous levels and a steep rise in neutrophil counts around the engraftment period following stem cell transplant. These events indicate a "genesis syndrome" characterized by a rapid, massive transfer of electrolytes into proliferating cells as has been previously described after HCT for certain high-grade lymphomas and leukemias.

Itraconazole vs. posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing intensive chemotherapy: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare itraconazole with posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with AML received either itraconazole or posaconazole for antifungal prophylaxis while undergoing intensive chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was incidence of prophylaxis failure (change in antifungal agent due to suspected invasive fungal infection [IFI], drug intolerance, drug interaction, or adverse event). RESULTS: From February 2016 to January 2018, 90 patients were included in the itraconazole group and 45 patients in the posaconazole group. Prophylaxis failure occurred in 88% of itraconazole recipients compared with 33% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The primary reason for prophylaxis failure with itraconazole was suspected IFI (58%) whereas for posaconazole, failure predominantly related to drug interaction (60%). An antifungal regimen was continued upon discharge in 47% of itraconazole recipients compared with 9% of posaconazole recipients (P<0.001). The use of breakthrough IFI diagnostic tests was not significantly different in the two groups. A larger proportion of drug concentrations were collected in the posaconazole group. CONCLUSIONS: In AML patients undergoing intensive chemotherapy, posaconazole was associated with significantly lower rates of prophylaxis failure and less need for continued antifungal therapy on discharge compared with itraconazole.