Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

A pharmacist check of patients’ infection-related condition prior to drug preparation reduces anticancer drug wastage after mixing: a retrospective study

Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice volume 16, Article number: 5 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

We previously reported that a standardized pharmacist check of medical orders related to the administration criteria of anticancer drugs prior to preparation of injectable anticancer drugs was useful for reducing drug wastage after mixing. To further reduce anticancer drug wastage after preparation, we added a pharmacist check of patients' infection-related condition to the previous protocol and assessed the effectiveness of the modified protocol for reducing injectable anticancer drug wastage.

Methods

In addition to the administration criteria of anticancer drugs, patients’ infection-related condition, which was based on a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) or white blood cell (WBC) count from baseline, was added to pharmacists’ checklist of items used previously to prepare injectable anticancer drugs. We retrospectively compared the number, type and cost of anticancer drugs discarded after preparation and the reasons for discarding these drugs between pre- and post-protocol modification.

Results

The rate at which anticancer drugs were discarded after preparation was significantly reduced after introducing the modified protocol compared to the original protocol (0.288% [18/6253] vs. 0.095% [6/6331], P = 0.013). Furthermore, the number of cases for which mixed anticancer agents were discarded because of infection decreased from 11 (fever: n = 8; elevated CRP or WBC: n = 3) to one (elevated CRP: n = 1) a year.

Conclusions

In addition to the standard administration criteria of anticancer drugs, checking patients’ infection-related condition, defined by a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated CRP or WBC from baseline, before mixing by the pharmacist is useful for reducing anticancer drug wastage after preparation.

Background

The increasing cost of anticancer drugs due to the development of new agents such as molecularly targeted drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors is a growing problem globally [1, 2]. Measures to counter drug wastage are important cost containment strategies for anticancer drugs that do not affect quality of care [3].

One of the most common causes of anticancer drug wastage is the discarding of residual drugs after preparation. As the dosage of anticancer drugs is determined based on each patient’s body weight or body surface area (BSA), there is large interpatient variability associated with dosing, and it can be difficult to completely use up the drug in a vial [4]. Drug vial optimization (DVO), which allows the use of single-use vials for multiple patients, is an effective measure for minimizing leftover anticancer drugs [5, 6]. In addition, rounding drug doses to the nearest vial size, if the difference is less than an established percentage, is also an important measure that can be implemented to minimize drug waste [7,8,9,10].

Another cause of anticancer drug wastage is the discarding of mixed anticancer drugs. Most anticancer drugs have eligibility, start of treatment, dose reduction and discontinuation criteria. Thus, dose adjustment and withdrawal of anticancer drugs must be based on patients’ bone marrow, renal, and liver function and the occurrence of side effects. If a decision to adjust the dosage or discontinue administration of anticancer drugs is made after mixing the necessary agents, the mixed anticancer drugs must be discarded. We previously reported that a pharmacist check of the eligibility, start of treatment, dose reduction and discontinuation criteria for anticancer drugs based on a standardized protocol before the mixing of injectable anticancer drugs was useful for reducing drug wastage after mixing [11].

However, patients with cancer have a high likelihood of developing infections, because treatment-related factors such as chemotherapy and progression of the tumor can increase the risk of infection [12]. Taha et al. reported that fever or infection is the second most common cause, after neutropenia, of chemotherapy delay/cancellation [13]. Ang et al. also demonstrated in a retrospective study that the most common reason for withholding chemotherapy regimens is the presence of signs and symptoms of infection, such as fever [14]. Daily monitoring of infection in patients receiving chemotherapy is, therefore, important. The criteria for body temperature at the start of treatment with anticancer drugs is typically < 38 °C in the past 24 h. Our previous standardized pharmacist check protocol was implemented based on this criterion for body temperature [11]. However, when implementing our protocol, we encountered cases with a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C but < 38 °C for whom the planned anticancer drug dose was discontinued on the day of administration because of concerns related to infection. In these cases, the compounded anticancer drugs had to be discarded if the decision for discontinuation was made after preparation. To further reduce anticancer drug wastage after mixing, it may, therefore, be important for pharmacists to check patients’ infection-related condition, in addition to the administration criteria of anticancer drugs determined in our previous protocol.

The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of adding a check of patients’ infection-related condition, based on a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) or white blood cell (WBC) count from baseline, to our previous pharmacist check protocol on anticancer drug wastage. Pharmacists checked these items before mixing anticancer drugs. We compared the effectiveness of the modified and original protocols for reducing injectable anticancer drug wastage.

Methods

Outline of the problem and modification of the protocol

Through implementing our previous protocol, in which pharmacists checked the eligibility, start of treatment, dose reduction and discontinuation criteria for injectable anticancer drugs prior to mixing, we were able to significantly reduce anticancer drug wastage in our hospital [11]. In some cases, however, patients with a body temperature < 38 °C were identified by medical staff as having possible infection after anticancer agents had already been mixed, leading administration of anticancer drugs for the day to be discontinued. In these cases, the compounded anticancer drugs were discarded.

To eliminate such unnecessary discarding of anticancer drugs after mixing, we decided to modify the protocol. The new protocol includes a check of patients’ infection-related condition based on a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated CRP or WBC from baseline. As in the previous protocol, pharmacists checked the criteria prior to mixing in all in-patients who received injectable anticancer agents except those who received anticancer agents that were not mixed by pharmacists. If the blood test results did not meet the criteria, the pharmacist recommended a dose change or withdrawal of anticancer drugs to the relevant physician based on the present protocol. Moreover, if the body temperature was ≥ 37.5 °C or CRP or WBC increased from baseline, the pharmacist recommended that the physician examine the patient for an infectious disease.

Study design and study setting

This study was a single-center, retrospective chart review conducted at the 614-bed Gifu University Hospital. In-patients who received injectable anticancer agents from April 1, 2019 to March 31, 2020 (before protocol modification) and from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021 (after protocol modification) were enrolled in this study. Patients who received anticancer agents that were not mixed by pharmacists were excluded.

Before protocol modification, pharmacists checked the eligibility, start of treatment, dose reduction and discontinuation criteria for injectable anticancer drugs based on the protocol prior to mixing, as reported in our previous report [11]. After protocol modification, pharmacists additionally checked for a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated CRP or WBC count from baseline (Fig. 1). All in-patients who received injectable anticancer agents, except those who received anticancer agents that were not mixed by pharmacists, were checked prior to preparation of injectable anticancer drugs. If a blood examination was not ordered, the pharmacist recommended such an order to the relevant physician. The pharmacist recommended a dose change or withdrawal of anticancer drugs based on each patient’s laboratory data and body temperature.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Workflow of the prescription, preparation and administration process performed by the pharmacist in charge of preparing injectable drugs

Full size image

We recorded the number and type of anticancer drugs, contents of pharmacist interventions performed prior to mixing injectable anticancer agents, the number of anticancer drugs discarded after mixing and the reason for discarding the drugs in our dedicated database. We compared the findings between pre- and post-protocol modification.

Evaluation of the usefulness of the modified protocol

Specifically, we compared the number and total cost of anticancer agents discarded after mixing between pre- and post-protocol modification. The cost of the discarded anticancer agents was calculated based on the drug price in Japan at the time of drug disposal. Chemotherapy cycle and chemotherapy regimen were defined based on the National Cancer Institute Dictionary of Cancer Terms, which states that a chemotherapy regimen is a treatment plan that specifies the dosage, schedule and duration of treatment with anticancer drugs, and a chemotherapy cycle is a period of treatment followed by a period of rest (no treatment) that is repeated on a regular schedule.

Statistical analyses

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 22 (IBM Japan Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Comparison of the total number of chemotherapy cycles and the number of mixed anticancer drugs discarded between pre- and post-protocol modification was performed using the chi-squared test.

Ethics statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for human studies adopted by the ethics committee of Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, and notified by the Japanese government (institutional review board approval no. 2021-A062). In view of the retrospective nature of the study, subject informed consent was not required.

Results

Patient demographics

During the study period, patients received a total of 6253 and 6331 chemotherapy cycles before and after protocol modification, respectively (Table 1). The difference in chemotherapy regimens was significant between pre- and post-modification. After protocol modification, the number of chemotherapy cycles increased by more than 20% for patients with gynecologic cancer, colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, osteosarcoma, sarcoma, breast cancer and skin cancer, and decreased by more than 20% for those with hepatic cancer, biliary cancer, pancreatic cancer and brain cancer compared to before modification.

Table 1 Total number of chemotherapy cycles before and after protocol modification
Full size table

Comparison of the number of injectable anticancer drugs discarded

After protocol modification, the rate at which anticancer drugs in chemotherapy cycles were discarded after preparation was significantly reduced compared with that before protocol modification (0.288% [18/6253] vs. 0.095% [6/6331], P = 0.013) (Fig. 2A). The total cost of the discarded compounded anticancer drugs was reduced from USD 14,247 before modification to USD 3252 after modification (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparison of the percentage (A) and cost (B) of injectable anticancer drugs discarded after preparation between pre- and post-protocol modification. Data were statistically compared using the chi-squared test

Full size image

The most frequent reason for discarding mixed anticancer agents before protocol modification was fever (n = 8, 44.4%), followed by elevated CRP or WBC (n = 3, 16.7%), myelosuppression (n = 2, 11.1%), patients’ request (n = 2, 11.1%) and other abnormalities in patients’ blood test results (n = 1, 0.6%) (Table 2). After protocol modification, the occurrence of drug wastage for the following four reasons dropped to just one case each: elevated CRP, myelosuppression, patients’ request and other abnormalities in patients’ blood test results. Notably, fever was no longer a reason for discarding anticancer drugs (Table 2).

Table 2 Reasons for discarding mixed injectable anticancer agents before and after protocol modification
Full size table

Contents of interventions by pharmacists before and after protocol modification

The contents of interventions by pharmacists performed prior to mixing injectable anticancer agents before and after protocol modification are shown in Table 3. The total number of interventions performed pre- and post-modification was 141 and 159, respectively. Myelosuppression was the most common intervention in both cases (116 [82.2%] before modification, 125 [78.6%] after modification). Meanwhile, the number of interventions for fever and elevated CRP or WBC increased after protocol modification (fever: 1 [0.7%] vs. 8 [5.0%], elevated CRP or WBC: 2 [1.4%] vs. 8 [5.0%]).

Table 3 Comparison of the contents of pharmacist interventions performed prior to mixing injectable anticancer agents before and after protocol modification
Full size table

Discussion

We found that adding a check by pharmacists of patients’ infection-related condition to a previously devised protocol, based on body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated CRP or WBC from baseline, before anticancer drug mixing significantly reduced anticancer drug wastage after mixing.

In our previous protocol, a body temperature < 38 °C was used as an administration criterion before anticancer drug mixing. However, in 11 cases per year, anticancer drugs were discarded for reasons related to infection. During the same period, pharmacists conducted just three interventions related to infection. After adding a check of patients’ infection-related condition to the previous protocol, the number of cases for which mixed anticancer agents were discarded because of infection decreased from 11 to one a year. In addition, the number of interventions related to infection conducted by pharmacists increased to 16 a year. Consequently, the number of cases in which anticancer drugs were discarded after preparation decreased from 18 cases before protocol modification to six cases afterward. Furthermore, the total cost of discarded compounded anticancer drugs dropped from USD 14,247 before modification to USD 3252 afterward. Ang et al. also reported that the total cost of parenteral cytotoxic wastage for returned chemotherapy regimens in 72 cases a year at a tertiary hospital was 2052 EUR [14]. It is important to note that the savings effect was affected by the type of anticancer drug discarded, although the average price of anticancer drugs has increased [15]. On the other hand, Shayne et al. showed in a retrospective cohort study that infection was one of the risk factors for in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of stay in older patients with cancer [16]. Thus, the protocol reported in the present study may also contribute to the improvement of patient prognosis and reduction of medical expenses by reducing patients’ length of hospital stay.

We examined patients’ infection-related condition based on a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C or elevated CRP or WBC from baseline in this study. According to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 [17], fever is defined as a body temperature > 38 °C, and febrile neutropenia (FN), a critical complication associated with mortality in patients receiving chemotherapy, is defined as an oral temperature > 38.3 °C. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines defines FN as two consecutive readings of > 38.0 °C in 1 h [18]. The body temperature criterion for starting treatment with almost any anticancer drug is, therefore, set at < 38 °C. However, several research studies have defined ‘normal’ body temperature as < 37.5 °C, and use a body temperature ≥ 37.5 °C for diagnosing infection [19, 20]. In this study, the number of interventions conducted by pharmacists in a year increased from one to eight after we changed the criteria for body temperature from < 38.0 to < 37.5 °C, and the number of discarded mixed anticancer agents related to suspected infection decreased from eight to zero.

We also added a check for elevated CRP or WBC from baseline to the modified protocol. The number of interventions related to elevated CRP or WBC conducted by pharmacists in a year increased from two to eight, and the number of discarded mixed anticancer agents related to elevated CRP or WBC decreased from three to one. CRP level and WBC count have been used as early biomarkers of infection [21, 22]. However, it should be noted that elevated levels of these biomarkers are also observed in other inflammation reactions, especially cancer development and progression [23,24,25].

There were six cases in which compounded anticancer drugs were discarded after protocol modification. Of these, three cases that met the administration criteria of anticancer drugs discontinued treatment due to a decision by their physicians. In the other three cases, treatment was discontinued due to sudden changes in the patients’ condition on the day of anticancer drug administration, which is difficult to prevent.

Study limitations

There were several limitations in the present study. First, as the study was conducted under a retrospective and non‐randomized observational design, various unknown patient selection processes may have biased the outcome. Second, we could not evaluate the burden of implementing the present measure on human resources. Finally, an analysis from the perspective of the medical safety of anticancer drug administration could not be conducted.

Conclusions

This study showed that checking patients’ infection-related condition, in addition to the administration criteria of anticancer drugs, before mixing by the pharmacist is useful for reducing anticancer drug wastage after preparation.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets obtained and analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

DVO:

Drug vial optimization

CRP:

C-reactive protein

WBC:

White blood cell

CTCAE:

The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

FN:

Febrile neutropenia

ESMO:

European Society for Medical Oncology

References

  1. Prasad V, De Jesús K, Mailankody S. The high price of anticancer drugs: origins, implications, barriers, solutions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14:381–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shibata S, Matsushita M, Saito Y, Suzuki T. Anticancer drug prescription patterns in Japan: future directions in cancer therapy. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52:718–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lien K, Cheung MC, Chan KK. Adjusting for drug wastage in economic. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12:e369–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Desoize G, Robert J. Individual dose adaptation of anticancer drugs. Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(6):844–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Matsuo K, Nomura H, Uchiyama M, Miyazaki M, Imakyure O. Estimating the effect of optimizing anticancer drug vials on medical costs in Japan based on the data from a cancer hospital. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Suzuki S, Gilbar P, Yu B, Matsuyama C, Yamaguchi M. Current status of drug vial optimization use to prevent waste associated with injectable anticancer agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019;25(1):244–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dooley MJ, Singh S, Michael M. Implications of dose rounding of chemotherapy to the nearest vial size. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:653–6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bach PB, Conti RM, Muller RJ, Schnorr GC, Saltz LB. Overspending driven by oversized single dose vials of cancer drugs. BMJ. 2016;352: i788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel S, Le A. Rounding rituximab dose to nearest vial size. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2013;19(3):218–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Francis SM, Heyliger A, Miyares MA, Viera M. Potential cost savings associated with dose rounding antineoplastic monoclonal agents. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2015;21(4):280–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yamada H, Kobayashi R, Shimizu S, Yamada Y, Ishida M, Shimoda H, Kato-Hayashi H, Fujii H, Iihara H, Tanaka H, Suzuki A. Implementation of a standardised pharmacist check of medical orders prior to preparation of anticancer drugs to reduce drug wastage. Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74(4): e13464.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rolston KV. Infections in cancer patients with solid tumors: a review. Infect Dis Ther. 2018;66:69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Taha A, Vinograd I, Sakhnini A, Eliakim-Raz N, Farbman L, Baslo R, Stemmer SM, Gafter-Gvili A, Leibovici L, Paul M. The association between infections and chemotherapy interruptions among cancer patients: prospective cohort study. J Infect. 2015;70(3):223–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ang ZY, Cheah KY, Abdullah NB, Samsuri SB, Lee SH, Yem AW, Sriraman MA. Parenteral cytotoxic drug wastage at a tertiary hospital in Kuala Lumpur: how much and why? J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020;26(6):1306–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Shih Y-CT, Xu Y, Liu L, Smieliauskas F. Rising prices of targeted oral anticancer medications and associated financial burden on medicare beneficiaries. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2482–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shayne M, Culakova E, Poniewierski MS, Dale DC, Crawford J, Wogu AF, Lyman GH. Risk factors for in-hospital mortality and prolonged length of stay in older patients with solid tumor malignancies. J Geriatr Oncol. 2013;4(4):310–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 5.0. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2021.

  18. Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, Rapoport B, Maschmeyer G, Aapro M, Herrstedt J, ESMO Guidelines Committee. Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(Suppl 5):v111–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Shobugawa Y, Saito R, Sato I, Kawashima T, Dapat C, Dapat IC, Kondo H, Suzuki Y, Saito K, Suzuki H. Clinical effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors–oseltamivir, zanamivir, laninamivir, and peramivir—for treatment of influenza A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09 infection: an observational study in the 2010–2011 influenza season in Japan. J Infect Chemother. 2012;18(6):858–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ryuko H, Otsuka F. A comprehensive analysis of 174 febrile patients admitted to Okayama University Hospital. Acta Med Okayama. 2013;67(4):227–37.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sproston NR, Ashworth JJ. Role of C-reactive protein at sites of inflammation and infection. Front Immunol. 2018;9:754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yusa T, Tateda K, Ohara A, Miyazaki S. New possible biomarkers for diagnosis of infections and diagnostic distinction between bacterial and viral infections in children. J Infect Chemother. 2017;23(2):96–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hart PC, Rajab IM, Alebraheem M, Potempa LA. C-reactive protein and cancer-diagnostic and therapeutic insights. Front Immunol. 2020;11: 595835.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mahmoud FA, Rivera NI. The role of C-reactive protein as a prognostic indicator in advanced cancer. Curr Oncol Rep. 2020;4:250–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stikbakke E, Richardsen E, Knutsen T, Wilsgaard T, Giovannucci EL, McTiernan A, Eggen AE, Haugnes HS, Thune I. Inflammatory serum markers and risk and severity of prostate cancer: the PROCA-life study. Int J Cancer. 2020;147(1):84–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank DMC Corp. (www.dmed.co.jp; http://www.dmed.co.jp/) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Funding

This study did not receive funding from any funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy, Gifu University Hospital, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan

    Hirotsugu Yamada, Yuto Yamada, Hirotoshi Iihara, Ryo Kobayashi & Akio Suzuki

  2. United Graduate School of Drug Discovery and Medical Information Sciences, Gifu University, Gifu, Japan

    Hirotsugu Yamada & Hiroyuki Tanaka

  3. Laboratory of Advanced Medical Pharmacy, Gifu Pharmaceutical University, Gifu, Japan

    Ryo Kobayashi & Akio Suzuki

  4. Laboratory of Immunobiology, Department of Biofunctional Analysis, Gifu Pharmaceutical University, Gifu, Japan

    Hiroyuki Tanaka

Authors
  1. Hirotsugu Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuto Yamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hirotoshi Iihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryo Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hiroyuki Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Akio Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceived and designed the research: HY, YY, AS; wrote the manuscript: HY, YY, AS; analyzed the data: HY, YY, RK; contributed in critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: HI, HT. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akio Suzuki.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for human studies adopted by the ethics committee of Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, and notified by the Japanese government (institutional review board approval no. 2021-A062). In view of the retrospective nature of the study, subject informed consent was not required.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yamada, H., Yamada, Y., Iihara, H. et al. A pharmacist check of patients’ infection-related condition prior to drug preparation reduces anticancer drug wastage after mixing: a retrospective study. J of Pharm Policy and Pract 16, 5 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00518-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-023-00518-3

Keywords

Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice

ISSN: 2052-3211

Contact us