Introduction: Numerous injectable anticancer drugs are administered at varying doses based on the body surface area and weight of the patients, often resulting in a certain volume of residual medication. Several anticancer drugs are expensive, thus, their increased use has led to a corresponding increase in drug waste and healthcare costs. Two potential solutions to this issue include drug vial optimization (DVO) and dose rounding (DR). However, DR has rarely been implemented in Japan. Here, we evaluated DVO and DR to assess whether DR could be a viable strategy to reduce the number of anticancer drugs discarded and minimize drug-related costs in Japan.
Methods: Patients who received bevacizumab, ramucirumab, gemcitabine, or levofolinate between January and December 2023 at Kanagawa Prefectural Ashigarakami Hospital (Ashigarakami) and Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki) were included in this study. Actual quantities used for each anticancer drug were extracted from electronic medical records, and the quantities used of drugs during the application of DVO and DR were calculated. Based on these findings, we estimated the reduction in drug waste and the associated cost savings for DVO and DR.
Results: DR was more effective than DVO in minimizing the waste of drugs, with 0% waste for gemcitabine at Ogaki and 0% waste for levofolinate at both institutions.
Conclusion: Compared with DVO, DR is not influenced by the number of patients treated or the volume of anticancer drugs administered, making it feasible for implementation across a wide range of institutions and a highly effective strategy for minimizing waste. DR should be advocated as a key approach for reducing drug costs in Japan in the future.
IwamotoT. Drug vial optimization (DVO) for anti-cancer drugs. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho2017; 44: 353–356.
2.
MatsuoKNomuraHUchiyamaM, et al.Estimating the effect of optimizing anticancer drug vials on medical costs in Japan based on the data from a cancer hospital. BMC Health Serv Res2020; 20: 1017.
3.
LiuHZouLSongY, et al.Cost analysis of implementing a vial-sharing strategy for chemotherapy drugs using intelligent dispensing robots in a tertiary Chinese hospital in Sichuan. Front Public Health2022; 10: 936686.
4.
ClarkLCastroAPFortesAF, et al.Ideal vial size for bortezomib: real-world data on waste and cost reduction in treatment of multiple myeloma in Brazil. Value Health2011; 14: S82–S84.
5.
UsamiEKimuraMFukuokaT, et al.Economic loss of remaining contents in molecular target drug preparation and the simulation for cost saving. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho2016; 43: 743–747.
6.
FahrenbruchRKintzelPBottAM, et al.Dose rounding of biologic and cytotoxic anticancer agents: a position statement of the hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association. J Oncol Pract2018; 14: e130–e136.
7.
Dela-PenaJCEschenburgKALaRoccaVW, et al.Financial impact of an automated oncology dose-rounding initiative: one-year analysis. JCO Clin Cancer Inform2021; 5: 805–810.
8.
ShahVSpenceABartelsT, et al.Decreasing drug waste, reducing drug costs, and improving workflow efficiency through the implementation of automated chemotherapy dose rounding rules in the electronic health record system. Am J Health Syst Pharm2022; 79: 676–682.
9.
ShahVSIrvineCMcWilliamsRR, et al.Reducing cancer drug cost: 3-year analysis of automated dose rounding in electronic health records. JCO Oncol Pract2024; 21: 400–407.
10.
FrancisSMHeyligerAMiyaresMA, et al.Potential cost savings associated with dose rounding antineoplastic monoclonal agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract2015; 21: 280–284.
11.
Le TourneauCLeeJJSiuLL. Dose escalation methods in phase I cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst2009; 101: 708–720.
12.
HoBJo LeneLYapP, et al.Determining acceptance and perceptions of chemotherapy dose banding in an ambulatory cancer centre. J Oncol Pharm Pract2024; 30: 474–487.
13.
El BarakaSCherif ChefchaouniABourdaimeA, et al.Evaluating cost savings in cytotoxic leftover management: a prospective study of vial sharing and dose rounding techniques in the Moroccan National Institute of Oncology. J Oncol Pharm Pract2024; 30: 1152–1159.
