Evaluation of denosumab in adult oncology patients for the prevention of skeletal related events across a large academic health system

• Published in: Journal of oncology pharmacy practice 2023-01, Vol.29 (1), p.33-39
• Main Authors: Sproat, Michelle R., Burton, Bradley, Burdalski, Catherine, Porter, Timothy, Proctor, Celia, Goldenhorn, Michael, Andoh, Kofi, Gilmore, Steven
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acids; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized - therapeutic use; Bisphosphonates; Bone Density Conservation Agents - therapeutic use; Bone Neoplasms - drug therapy; Calcium; Creatinine; Denosumab - therapeutic use; Diagnosis; Dietary supplements; Diphosphonates - therapeutic use; Electronic medical records; Humans; Intolerance; Lung cancer; Monoclonal antibodies; Multiple myeloma; Multiple Myeloma - drug therapy; Oncology; Prevention; Renal function; Retrospective Studies; Vitamin D; Vitamin D - therapeutic use; Zoledronic acid; Zoledronic Acid - therapeutic use
• ISSN: 1078-1552; 1477-092X
• DOI: 10.1177/10781552211052514

Introduction Denosumab (Xgeva®) and zoledronic acid (Zometa®) are widely utilized for prevention of skeletal related events (SREs) in oncology patients. Drug costs, renal function, ease and logistics of administration, and adverse effect profile are factors frequently considered by patients and/or providers when selecting an optimal agent. Given the significantly higher drug cost of denosumab compared to zoledronic acid, an evaluation of our institution's denosumab use and investigation into opportunities to shift denosumab administrations to zoledronic acid and/or to lower cost sites-of-care was warranted. Methods A single-center, multi-site, retrospective, observational analysis of the electronic medical record (EMR) was conducted for adult oncology patients who received denosumab 120 mg for prevention of SREs from October 1st, 2018 to September 30th, 2019 at three institutions within our health system. Additional information was collected to characterize the patient population based on cancer diagnosis, renal function, and concomitant calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Our primary objective was to evaluate if the use of denosumab met current formulary restrictions of the health system. Results In total, 304 adult oncology patients received 1411 doses of denosumab for the prevention of SREs. The majority of reviewed patients had a primary oncology diagnosis of breast (35%) or lung (24%) cancer. Of the patients who received denosumab, 278 (93%) met the health system's current formulary restrictions. The majority of patients who did not meet formulary restrictions were those with multiple myeloma (MM) (20/22; 91%). Of the 304 patients reviewed, 70 had the appropriate parameters in the EMR to calculate creatinine clearance (CrCl) using Cockcroft-Gault Equation. Of those 70 patients, 59 (84%) would have been eligible to receive zoledronic acid instead of denosumab given that their CrCl >30 mL/min with no documented intolerance to bisphosphonates. Concurrent use of calcium and vitamin D is recommended when using denosumab. Based on the most recent prior to admission (PTA) medication list obtained from the 304 patients evaluated, 222 (73%) had both calcium and vitamin D listed as “taking”. Conclusions Within our health system, denosumab is restricted to those who meet formulary restrictions. Additional education is recommended to help limit the use of denosumab, specifically in MM, to reduce drug costs when zoledronic acid is also an appropriate first-line