Clinical and Economic Implications of Restrictions on Calcitonin Utilization in a Health System
Background: Hypercalcemia is a relatively common problem that may require hospital admission based on severity. A treatment option for hypercalcemia is calcitonin given intramuscularly or subcutaneously. Purpose: In 2015, calcitonin was on our health system formulary, but due to a sharp rise in cost...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Hospital pharmacy (Philadelphia) 2020-06, Vol.55 (3), p.163-167 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: Hypercalcemia is a relatively common problem that may require hospital admission based on severity. A treatment option for hypercalcemia is calcitonin given intramuscularly or subcutaneously. Purpose: In 2015, calcitonin was on our health system formulary, but due to a sharp rise in cost, restrictions were placed to ensure appropriate utilization. Intervention: These restrictions reserved calcitonin for patients with symptomatic hypercalcemia or severe hypercalcemia, which was defined as an ionized calcium of greater than 1.5 mmol/L and/or total/corrected calcium (Ca) of greater than 13 mg/dL. In addition to providing criteria for its use, calcitonin orders also had an automatic stop date of 24 hours to ensure no more than 2 doses were provided in a 24-hour period. After the initial 24 hours, a patient would have to be reviewed again before any further doses were ordered and administered. If the patient met criteria, an additional 2 doses could be given in the next 24 hours for a total maximum treatment of 4 doses over a 48-hour time frame. Results: An evaluation to assess health system–wide compliance of the usage of calcitonin restrictions regarding utilization, effectiveness, and cost was conducted. In the 2-month study time frame that was examined, there was a decrease in 66 vials of calcitonin that were dispensed. This represents a 43% reduction in usage and an estimated US $450,000 reduction in the total money spent for calcitonin annually. No notable differences in Ca reduction were identified between the groups. Conclusion: This evaluation revealed that putting health system–wide restrictions in use for a high-cost medication can have a major financial impact without compromising clinical efficacy. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0018-5787 1945-1253 |
DOI: | 10.1177/0018578719831976 |