Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Oncol Pharm Pract ; : 10781552241265280, 2024 Aug 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39091073

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of cancer is associated with high risk for toxicity and high cost. Strategies to enhance the value, quality, and safety of cancer care are often managed independently of one another. Oncology stewardship is a potential framework to unify these efforts and enhance outcomes. This landscape survey establishes baseline information on oncology stewardship in the United States. METHODS: The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) distributed a 38-item survey composed of demographic, institutional, clinical decision-making, support staff, metrics, and technology sections to 675 HOPA members between 9 September 2022 and 9 October 2022. RESULTS: Most organizations (78%) have adopted general pharmacy stewardship practices; however, only 31% reported having established a formalized oncology stewardship team. More than 70% of respondents reported implementation of biosimilars, formulary management, and dose rounding as oncology stewardship initiatives in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Frequently cited barriers to oncology stewardship included lack of clinical pharmacist availability (74%), lack of oncology stewardship training (62%), lack of physician/provider buy-in (32%), and lack of cost-saving metrics (33%). Only 6.6% of survey respondents reported their organization had defined "value in oncology." Lack of a formalized stewardship program was most often cited (77%) as the rationale for not defining value. CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-third of respondents have established oncology stewardship programs; however, most are providing oncology stewardship practices. This manuscript serves as a call to action for stakeholders to work together to formalize oncology stewardship programs that optimize value, quality, and safety for patients with cancer.

2.
J Patient Cent Res Rev ; 11(2): 81-87, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39044850

RESUMO

Purpose: The impact of central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is contentious. The CNS International Prognostic Index (IPI) calculator offers prognostic guidance in identifying those patients who may be at highest risk of disease progression or relapse to the CNS. However, it is unclear whether this tool has guided clinician decision-making in a real-world setting. Studies have suggested that CNS prophylaxis may not offer clinically significant benefit in terms of preventing CNS disease progression. Given this, we investigated the utilization of CNS prophylaxis within our own population and documentation of the CNS-IPI score. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017. Patients were assessed for receipt of CNS prophylaxis in the form of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy and/or high-dose intravenous (IV) methotrexate. CNS-IPI scores were calculated for all patients who received CNS prophylaxis or those who experienced CNS disease. Long-term outcomes at five years from diagnosis included CNS progression/relapse and survival. Results: Of 234 patients who met criteria, 20 (8.6%) received either IV methotrexate or IT chemotherapy; most received IT methotrexate. No patients in the IT prophylaxis group developed CNS disease, while two of eight IV methotrexate patients experienced CNS disease involvement. The incidence of CNS progression was 3.7% in the no prophylaxis group and 10% in those who received prophylaxis. Conclusions: This study revealed low utilization of CNS prophylaxis and CNS-IPI documentation in a community hospital system. Given large differences between groups, claims of CNS prophylaxis efficacy are unable to be made. CNS relapse rates were consistent with existing literature and promote continued evaluation of the utility of current CNS prophylaxis approaches in DLBCL. New unambiguously effective therapeutic approaches are needed and may encourage a higher rate of standardized use.

3.
Clin Cancer Res ; 27(9): 2408-2415, 2021 05 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33563637

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Restrictive eligibility criteria induce differences between clinical trial and "real-world" treatment populations. Restrictions based on prior therapies are common; minimizing them when appropriate may increase patient participation in clinical trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A multi-stakeholder working group developed a conceptual framework to guide evaluation of prevailing practices with respect to using prior treatment as selection criteria for clinical trials. The working group made recommendations to minimize restrictions based on prior therapies within the boundaries of scientific validity, patient centeredness, distributive justice, and beneficence. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) Patients are eligible for clinical trials regardless of the number or type of prior therapies and without requiring a specific therapy prior to enrollment unless a scientific or clinically based rationale is provided as justification. (ii) Prior therapy (either limits on number and type of prior therapies or requirements for specific therapies before enrollment) could be used to determine eligibility in the following cases: a) the agents being studied target a specific mechanism or pathway that could potentially interact with a prior therapy; b) the study design requires that all patients begin protocol-specified treatment at the same point in the disease trajectory; and c) in randomized clinical studies, if the therapy in the control arm is not appropriate for the patient due to previous therapies received. (iii) Trial designers should consider conducting evaluation separately from the primary endpoint analysis for participants who have received prior therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial sponsors and regulators should thoughtfully reexamine the use of prior therapy exposure as selection criteria to maximize clinical trial participation.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/normas , Oncologia/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/métodos , Gerenciamento Clínico , Humanos , Oncologia/métodos , Projetos de Pesquisa
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA