RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-driven oral antineoplastic (OAN) renewal clinic on medication adherence and cost savings. METHODS: This was a preimplementation and postimplementation retrospective cohort evaluation within a single US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system following implementation of a pharmacist-managed OAN refill clinic. The primary outcome was medication adherence defined as the median medication possession ratio (MPR) before and after implementation of the clinic. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who were adherent from pre- to postimplementation and estimated cost-savings of this clinic. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of the most commonly prescribed oral antineoplastic agents at the institution between September 1, 2013 and January 31, 2015. RESULTS: Of preimplementation patients, 96 of 99 (96.9%) were male and all patients (n = 35) in the postimplementation group were male. The mean age of the preimplementation group was 69.2 years while the postimplementation group was 68.4 years. Median MPR in the preimplementation group was 0.94, compared with 1.06 in the postimplementation group (P < .001). Thirty-six (36.7%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent to their OAN regimen compared with zero patients in the postimplementation group. Estimated total cost savings was $36,335 in the postimplementation period. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic was associated with a 12% increase in median MPR while saving an estimated $36,335 during the 5-month postimplementation period.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of IV rituximab for the treatment of a variety of malignant and nonmalignant indications has been associated with significant challenges related to time and labor. To help alleviate some of these logistic challenges, institutions have implemented protocols to shorten the time in which rituximab is infused. The purpose of this study was to support the safe implementation of a 90-minute rapid infusion protocol for rituximab at the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC). METHODS: A 90-minute rituximab protocol was developed, and proactive measures were taken to educate physicians, pharmacists, and nurses on ordering, processing, compounding, and administering rituximab. A weekly report of patients who received rituximab at RLRVAMC was generated November 1, 2018 through April 1, 2019. Patients then were screened for rapid infusion of the drug based on eligibility criteria, and health care providers (HCPs) were notified. After each patient received a rapid infusion, a retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate patient tolerability and assess for any safety concerns that would require protocol modification. The primary endpoint for this study was the incidence of grade 3 and 4 infusion-related reactions (IRRs) associated with rapid infusions of rituximab based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0. RESULTS: Eleven patients received 24 rapid infusions of rituximab. Of these infusions, 1 (4.2%) resulted in a grade 3 IRR; no infusions resulted in a reaction of grade ≥ 4. The use of rapid infusion of rituximab when compared with nonrapid infusion saved 39.3 minutes on average per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The proactive measures that were used to implement the rapid infusion rituximab protocol improved HCP prescribing rates, nursing satisfaction, and the management of IRRs. This study confirmed appropriateness of rapid administration of rituximab in this veteran population and has increased interest in implementing other rapid infusion protocols.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend screening and treatment for cancer-related bone disease and continued monitoring of bone-modifying agents. It is unclear whether a standardized screening tool is utilized to identify eligible patients and ensure appropriate supportive care is implemented. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current prescribing practices and optimize management of bone-modifying agents. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who received hormone deprivation therapy or had bone metastases through Hematology/Oncology or Urology clinics from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017. The primary endpoints of this study were the incidence of completed baseline dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan for patients on hormone deprivation therapy and percent of patients started on a bone-modifying agent for the prevention of skeletal-related events secondary to bone metastasis. Secondary endpoints included percent of patients with dental examinations prior to initiation, adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation, incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw or flu-like symptoms and education, and percent of bisphosphonate doses appropriately adjusted based on renal function. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were assessed for baseline DEXA scans and bone-modifying therapy. Of the 226 patients on hormone deprivation therapy, 111 (49%) patients were appropriately screened with a DEXA scan prior to initiation of hormone deprivation therapy. Among the 149 patients with bone metastases, only 94 (63.1%) patients were started on a bone-modifying agent. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities have been identified to optimize management of patients with cancer-related bone disease. Implementation of standardized tools may increase the rate of appropriate screening and initiation of bone-modifying therapy when warranted.
