ESPE Abstracts (2014) 82 P-D-2-2-425

Electronic Devices and Single-Dose Dispensing Systems GH are the Most Efficient and Less Loss of Drug

Ignacio Diez-Lopeza, Ainhoa Sarasua-Mirandaa, Miriam Miriam Elizaldea, Isabel Lorente-Blazqueza, Cristina Minguezb & Carlos Martínez-Martínezb

aChildren’s Endocrinology Section, Pediatric Service, Vitoria/Basque Country, Spain; bPharmacy Service, University Hospital of Alava, Itoria/Basque Country, Spain

Background: Several pharmaceutical formulations marketed GHRH, were being restricted in their choice occasions. Three display groups: single-dose, pre-filled pens/vials and electronic devices, self-injection systems. The choice may contribute to a greater or lesser adherence and a difference in the final cost of treatment (drug loss), attributable to the device itself or presentation. Presentations that require reconstitution device load, partial doses or stop in Pen contribute to overall loss of mg.

Objective: Comparison of costs and product loss between presentations of GH.

Method: Retrospective observational study of comparative costs from the record regarding prescribed dispensed mg: single dose syringes (JM) vs multidose vials (VM) vs electronic devices (DE). Variables: lost mg (and cost) annual/patient environment, noncompliant patients and patients with good fit. Studio 2012 (full 12 months).

Results: 86 cases (100%) valid for loss analysis. Distribution: JM 38/86 (44%), VM 22/86 (26%) of 26/86 (30%). 12 patients collected less medication (14%) and of these three were noncompliant (3.5%). The number patients collected less medication is homogeneous in each subgroup. Globally more drug is collected: total dose prescribed mg 27 553 28 181 doses dispensed mg (628 mg difference (+2.2%) in total additional cost of [eurosign] 6 999.55 (+1.7%)/year. Total expenditure computed in pharmacy. 436 929 75[eurosign]. Lost annually mg were significantly lower in the JM where even less hormone prescribed collected: −1.60 mg/patient per year (−4.50 to +3.8) with the DE: 3.65 mg/patient per year (1.5–5.8) vs the VM 19.08 mg/patient per year (15.40–30.2), P<0.001, for the annual JM dispensation regarding prescribed is <0.45% for most of +1.32% and for VM +5.85% more (depending on device 4.5–10.5%). A real purchase price 2012, for global spending requirements (mgr prescribed/[eurosign]) ([eurosign] 429 929.75) could be a cost computed if everything was JM/DE 2.9% lower, compared to 9.8% higher if everything was VM.

Conclusion: The use of JM and DE, could help prevent the annual loss of drug and thus improve the cost-related treatment, unless that improves the efficiency of VM.

Article tools

My recent searches

No recent searches.