User login
Real-World Evidence of Safety Trends Using Rituximab-PVVR in Clinic Infusions
BACKGROUND
The safety and efficacy of biosimilars are carefully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the biosimilar meets the high standards for approval. However, safety concerns from infusion nursing staff prompted a review of rituximab-PVVR and rituximab for any new trends in National VA, primary literature, and facility adverse events.
METHODS
Utilizing the VA ADERS (Veteran’s Affairs Adverse Drug Event Reporting System), data was analyzed from 01/01/21 thru 04/01/23. No clear trends were identified to support an increased reaction rate for Rituximab-PVVR or Rituximab. A total of 104 Rituximab product (both parent and biosimilar products) adverse reactions were reported nationally. Of those reported, about half 56 ADEs (54%) were specifically to Rituximab-PVVR.
RESULTS
Reviewing our facility specific VA ADERS data, Birmingham VA reported 7 ADEs. Similarly other sites reported a range of 0 to 13 Rituximab product ADEs. The total number of unique patients to receive a rituximab product in the Birmingham VA since 2021 is 106, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 6.6%.
DISCUSSION
Based on the recent publication, Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology “adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of biosimilars.” This prospective clinical trial published in 2021, reported grade 1 rituximab related infusion events in 7.1% of patients (n=83) which correlates closely to the reported incidence at our facility referenced above (6.6%). Our current pre-medications include acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and steroid 30 minutes prior to infusion. Although our interdisciplinary team deemed this appropriate, to improve and minimize infusion reaction symptoms, the following interventions were instituted including changing ORAL Diphenhydramine to intravenous Diphenhydramine 25mg IV and providing education to infusion nursing staff on the safety and efficacy of the rituximab and biosimilar products.
CONCLUSIONS
Following the intervention (04/07/23), 36 total unique patients received rituximab products with zero incidents reported. Although the results are limited, the data may suggest IV diphenhydramine reduces the severity of ADEs which may alter reporting or show a potential “nocebo” effect could be a factor with any rituximab infusion needing further evaluation.
BACKGROUND
The safety and efficacy of biosimilars are carefully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the biosimilar meets the high standards for approval. However, safety concerns from infusion nursing staff prompted a review of rituximab-PVVR and rituximab for any new trends in National VA, primary literature, and facility adverse events.
METHODS
Utilizing the VA ADERS (Veteran’s Affairs Adverse Drug Event Reporting System), data was analyzed from 01/01/21 thru 04/01/23. No clear trends were identified to support an increased reaction rate for Rituximab-PVVR or Rituximab. A total of 104 Rituximab product (both parent and biosimilar products) adverse reactions were reported nationally. Of those reported, about half 56 ADEs (54%) were specifically to Rituximab-PVVR.
RESULTS
Reviewing our facility specific VA ADERS data, Birmingham VA reported 7 ADEs. Similarly other sites reported a range of 0 to 13 Rituximab product ADEs. The total number of unique patients to receive a rituximab product in the Birmingham VA since 2021 is 106, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 6.6%.
DISCUSSION
Based on the recent publication, Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology “adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of biosimilars.” This prospective clinical trial published in 2021, reported grade 1 rituximab related infusion events in 7.1% of patients (n=83) which correlates closely to the reported incidence at our facility referenced above (6.6%). Our current pre-medications include acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and steroid 30 minutes prior to infusion. Although our interdisciplinary team deemed this appropriate, to improve and minimize infusion reaction symptoms, the following interventions were instituted including changing ORAL Diphenhydramine to intravenous Diphenhydramine 25mg IV and providing education to infusion nursing staff on the safety and efficacy of the rituximab and biosimilar products.
CONCLUSIONS
Following the intervention (04/07/23), 36 total unique patients received rituximab products with zero incidents reported. Although the results are limited, the data may suggest IV diphenhydramine reduces the severity of ADEs which may alter reporting or show a potential “nocebo” effect could be a factor with any rituximab infusion needing further evaluation.
BACKGROUND
The safety and efficacy of biosimilars are carefully reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the biosimilar meets the high standards for approval. However, safety concerns from infusion nursing staff prompted a review of rituximab-PVVR and rituximab for any new trends in National VA, primary literature, and facility adverse events.
METHODS
Utilizing the VA ADERS (Veteran’s Affairs Adverse Drug Event Reporting System), data was analyzed from 01/01/21 thru 04/01/23. No clear trends were identified to support an increased reaction rate for Rituximab-PVVR or Rituximab. A total of 104 Rituximab product (both parent and biosimilar products) adverse reactions were reported nationally. Of those reported, about half 56 ADEs (54%) were specifically to Rituximab-PVVR.
RESULTS
Reviewing our facility specific VA ADERS data, Birmingham VA reported 7 ADEs. Similarly other sites reported a range of 0 to 13 Rituximab product ADEs. The total number of unique patients to receive a rituximab product in the Birmingham VA since 2021 is 106, resulting in an overall incidence rate of 6.6%.
DISCUSSION
Based on the recent publication, Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology “adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of biosimilars.” This prospective clinical trial published in 2021, reported grade 1 rituximab related infusion events in 7.1% of patients (n=83) which correlates closely to the reported incidence at our facility referenced above (6.6%). Our current pre-medications include acetaminophen, an antihistamine, and steroid 30 minutes prior to infusion. Although our interdisciplinary team deemed this appropriate, to improve and minimize infusion reaction symptoms, the following interventions were instituted including changing ORAL Diphenhydramine to intravenous Diphenhydramine 25mg IV and providing education to infusion nursing staff on the safety and efficacy of the rituximab and biosimilar products.
CONCLUSIONS
Following the intervention (04/07/23), 36 total unique patients received rituximab products with zero incidents reported. Although the results are limited, the data may suggest IV diphenhydramine reduces the severity of ADEs which may alter reporting or show a potential “nocebo” effect could be a factor with any rituximab infusion needing further evaluation.
Standardize Documentation of at Least 3 or More Toxicities of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors to Improve Patient-Reported Outcomes
Purpose
Ensuring that patients/families are engaged as partners in their health care is an effective way to measure the quality of patient care. Self-reported patient data, such as symptom burden, provides an accurate and effective way to measure patient-reported outcomes. Our team reviewed 20 patient charts, randomly, to assess for documentation of at least 3 or more domains of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The baseline comprehensive documentation rate was 50%. Our goal is to improve the documentation rate to 80% for our first process improvement cycle.
Aim Statement
Increase documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors to a goal rate of 80%.
Methods
A free online patient monitoring checklist tool was printed and provided to patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (on their infusion day) during the check-in process. The patients were instructed to complete the tool prior to the provider clinic visit, while in the waiting area. The completed tool was given to the provider on the day of their visit. Prior to the start of this Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, all providers were “reminded”/ instructed to ensure documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors. The cycle lasted for 3 weeks. At the end of the 3 weeks, our team reviewed the charts of those patients.
Results
Documentation rate of 3 or more toxicities increased from 50% to 90%.
Conclusions
When completed patient monitoring tools were provided to the providers during the clinic visit, the providers increased their documentation rate of the toxicities. There is literature supporting improving patient satisfaction using self-reported symptoms monitoring tools. Also, given the burden of documentation and shorter visit times, providers found this to be an easy way to address patient symptoms. While electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tools are ideal for ongoing symptom monitoring, this is a simple way to address the same in low-resourced communities. For our next cycle, we plan on using patient feedback to improve the documentation form incorporating larger fonts for patients with low vision.
Purpose
Ensuring that patients/families are engaged as partners in their health care is an effective way to measure the quality of patient care. Self-reported patient data, such as symptom burden, provides an accurate and effective way to measure patient-reported outcomes. Our team reviewed 20 patient charts, randomly, to assess for documentation of at least 3 or more domains of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The baseline comprehensive documentation rate was 50%. Our goal is to improve the documentation rate to 80% for our first process improvement cycle.
Aim Statement
Increase documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors to a goal rate of 80%.
Methods
A free online patient monitoring checklist tool was printed and provided to patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (on their infusion day) during the check-in process. The patients were instructed to complete the tool prior to the provider clinic visit, while in the waiting area. The completed tool was given to the provider on the day of their visit. Prior to the start of this Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, all providers were “reminded”/ instructed to ensure documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors. The cycle lasted for 3 weeks. At the end of the 3 weeks, our team reviewed the charts of those patients.
Results
Documentation rate of 3 or more toxicities increased from 50% to 90%.
Conclusions
When completed patient monitoring tools were provided to the providers during the clinic visit, the providers increased their documentation rate of the toxicities. There is literature supporting improving patient satisfaction using self-reported symptoms monitoring tools. Also, given the burden of documentation and shorter visit times, providers found this to be an easy way to address patient symptoms. While electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tools are ideal for ongoing symptom monitoring, this is a simple way to address the same in low-resourced communities. For our next cycle, we plan on using patient feedback to improve the documentation form incorporating larger fonts for patients with low vision.
Purpose
Ensuring that patients/families are engaged as partners in their health care is an effective way to measure the quality of patient care. Self-reported patient data, such as symptom burden, provides an accurate and effective way to measure patient-reported outcomes. Our team reviewed 20 patient charts, randomly, to assess for documentation of at least 3 or more domains of toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The baseline comprehensive documentation rate was 50%. Our goal is to improve the documentation rate to 80% for our first process improvement cycle.
Aim Statement
Increase documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors to a goal rate of 80%.
Methods
A free online patient monitoring checklist tool was printed and provided to patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (on their infusion day) during the check-in process. The patients were instructed to complete the tool prior to the provider clinic visit, while in the waiting area. The completed tool was given to the provider on the day of their visit. Prior to the start of this Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, all providers were “reminded”/ instructed to ensure documentation of 3 or more toxicities immune checkpoint inhibitors. The cycle lasted for 3 weeks. At the end of the 3 weeks, our team reviewed the charts of those patients.
Results
Documentation rate of 3 or more toxicities increased from 50% to 90%.
Conclusions
When completed patient monitoring tools were provided to the providers during the clinic visit, the providers increased their documentation rate of the toxicities. There is literature supporting improving patient satisfaction using self-reported symptoms monitoring tools. Also, given the burden of documentation and shorter visit times, providers found this to be an easy way to address patient symptoms. While electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tools are ideal for ongoing symptom monitoring, this is a simple way to address the same in low-resourced communities. For our next cycle, we plan on using patient feedback to improve the documentation form incorporating larger fonts for patients with low vision.