Transfusion practice patterns in patients with anemia receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy for nonmyeloid cancer: results from a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: The decision to prescribe packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA) includes assessment of clinical features such as the patient's cancer type and treatment regimen, severity of anemia symptoms, and presence of comorbidities. We examined contemporary transfusion practices in patients with nonmyeloid cancer and CIA. METHODS: Key inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years with nonmyeloid cancer, receiving first/second-line myelosuppressive chemotherapy, baseline hemoglobin (Hb) ≤ 10.0 g/dL, and planned to receive ≥ 1 PRBC transfusions. Exclusion criteria were receipt of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents within 8 weeks of screening and/or chronic renal insufficiency. Data were collected from patients' medical records, laboratory values, and physician/provider questionnaires. Proportion of patients for each clinical consideration leading to a decision to prescribe a PRBC transfusion and 95% exact binomial confidence intervals were determined. RESULTS: The study enrolled 154 patients at 18 sites in USA; 147 (95.5%) received a PRBC transfusion. Fatigue was the most common symptom affecting the decision to prescribe a PRBC transfusion (101 [69.2%] patients). Of the three reasons selected as primary considerations for prescribing a PRBC transfusion, anemia symptoms (106 [72.1%] patients) was the most frequently reported, followed by Hb value (37 [25.2%] patients) and medical history (4 [2.7%] patients). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the primary consideration for prescribing a PRBC transfusion was anemia symptoms in 72.1% of patients, with only 25.2% of patients prescribed a transfusion based exclusively on Hb value. Results indicate that clinical judgment and patient symptoms, not just Hb value, were used in decisions to prescribe PRBC transfusions.

Pharmacy Student Monitoring of Direct Oral Anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Best practice recommendations are lacking. Thus far, literature has described pharmacist-led DOAC monitoring. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe a DOAC monitoring program involving pharmacy students. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of a quality improvement initiative. A clinical pharmacist preceptor identified clinic patients taking DOACs by running a report using the electronic medical record. Pharmacy students conducted chart reviews, called pharmacies for 6-month refill histories, and interviewed and educated patients. Findings were communicated to the care team and interventions were performed as applicable with the preceptor. RESULTS: Of 90 patients included, the mean age was 63 years, 54% were female, and 65.6% were black or African American. Rivaroxaban and apixaban were used most commonly. Sixty-two percent of DOACs were prescribed for atrial fibrillation/flutter, while 32.2% for venous thromboembolism. The mean MPR was 77.1%, with 27.7% of patients having an MPR ≤60%. Of the 136 student-led interventions, 25.2% involved medication access, 24.4% adherence education, 20.7% processing refills, 14.8% laboratory monitoring recommendations, 8.9% switching or recommending switching to another anticoagulant, and 4.4% stopping a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or aspirin. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy students can help to ensure medication safety and effective use of DOACs.

Using the 21-gene assay from core needle biopsies to choose neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: A multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the Oncotype Dx® 21-gene Recurrence Score (RS) could guide neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) to facilitate breast conserving surgery (BCS) for hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancers. METHODS: This study enrolled patients with HR+, HER2-negative, invasive breast cancers not suitable for BCS (size ≥ 2 cm). Core needle biopsy blocks were tested. For tumors with RS < 11, patients received hormonal therapy (NHT); patients with RS > 25 tumors received chemotherapy (NCT); patients with RS 11-25 were randomized to NHT or NCT. Primary endpoint was whether 1/3 or more of randomized patients refused assigned treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled. Of 33 patients with RS 11-25, 5 (15%) refused assignment to NCT. This was significantly lower than the 33% target (binomial test, P = 0.0292). Results for clinical outcomes (according to treatment received for 55 subjects) included successful BCS for 75% of tumors with RS < 11 receiving NHT, 72% for RS 11-25 receiving NHT, 64% for RS 11-25 receiving NCT, and 57% for RS > 25 receiving NCT. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RS to guide NST is feasible. These results suggest that for patients with RS < 25 NHT is a potentially effective strategy.