Oncology pharmacy practice in the United States: Results of a comprehensive, nationwide survey.

Introduction: This study was designed to describe the landscape of oncology pharmacy practice at patient facing institutional healthcare organizations throughout the United States. Methods: The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) Practice Outcomes and Professional Benchmarking Committee conducted a multi-organization, voluntary survey of HOPA members between March 2021 and January 2022. Four overarching domains were targeted: institutional description, job function, staffing, and training/certification. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 68 responses were analyzed including 59% and 41% who self-identified their organization as academic and community centers, respectively. The median number of infusion chairs and annual infusion visits were 49 (interquartile range (IQR): 32-92) and 23,500 (IQR: 8300-300,000), respectively. Pharmacy departments reported to a business leader, physician leader, and nursing leader 57%, 24%, and 10% of the time, respectively. The median oncology pharmacy full-time equivalents was 16 (IQR: 5-60). At academic centers, 50% (IQR: 26-60) of inpatient and 30% (IQR: 21-38) of ambulatory pharmacist FTEs were dedicated to clinical activities. At community centers, 45% (IQR: 26-65) of inpatient and 50% (IQR: 42-58) of ambulatory pharmacist FTEs were dedicated to clinical activities. As many as 18% and 65% of organizations required or encouraged certification for oncology pharmacists, respectively. The median number of Board-Certified Oncology Pharmacists was 4 (IQR: 2-15). Conclusion: As the number of patients with cancer rises, the oncology workforce must grow to support this expanding population. These results describe the practice landscape of oncology pharmacy at US healthcare institutions to serve as a foundation for future research evaluating metrics and benchmarks.

Anxiety exacerbation in a patient with chronic myeloid leukemia receiving dasatinib and venlafaxine.

INTRODUCTION: Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) use leads to near-normal life expectancy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML); unfortunately for some patients, adverse drug effects (ADEs) and medication burden associated with TKI therapy can lead to decreased quality of life. Additionally, TKIs have drug interactions that may negatively impact patients' management of co-morbidities or lead to increased ADEs. CASE REPORT: A 65-year-old female with a history of anxiety treated and controlled with venlafaxine experienced increased and resistant anxiety and insomnia after starting dasatinib for CML. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: On dasatinib, the patient experienced worsening anxiety and insomnia. The stress of a new leukemia diagnosis, drug interactions, and ADEs from dasatinib were considered possible causes. Dose adjustments to dasatinib and venlafaxine were made to control the patient's symptoms. However, the patient's symptoms did not resolve. After being on dasatinib for 2.5 years, the patient discontinued TKI therapy due to being in a deep molecular remission and given ongoing challenges managing anxiety. Within 4 months of stopping dasatinib, the patient reported an improvement in anxiety and overall emotional wellbeing. She continues to feel better and remains in a complete molecular remission 20 months off treatment. DISCUSSION: This case demonstrates a possible previously unknown drug interaction with dasatinib as well as a possible rarely reported ADE of dasatinib. Additionally, it highlights the difficulties patients with psychiatric disorders may face on TKI therapy and challenges providers may have in identifying rare psychiatric ADEs, thus emphasizing the need for documentation of these types of cases.

Real world practices of luspatercept at an academic medical center.

Introduction: Luspatercept is approved for patients with very low-to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Dosing is based on pre-dose hemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements. This study aims to evaluate if a site with a pharmacist prospectively reviewing luspatercept doses achieves dose optimization, compared to a site that does not have a pharmacist prospectively reviewing doses. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review involving patients age ≥18 years or older with MDS at a major academic medical center main campus, which does not have a pharmacist prospectively review luspatercept doses, and a satellite campus infusion center, which has a pharmacist prospectively reviewing doses. Patients included received at least one dose of luspatercept between January 1, 2017 through August 31, 2022. The primary endpoint is the percentage of off-label luspatercept doses not consistent with prescribing information (PI) recommended dose adjustments. Results: The study included 17 patients. Of the 162 doses evaluated, 37 (23%) were off-label. Off-label dosing at the main campus was more common than at a satellite location (29.6% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.003). More patients achieved transfusion independence at the satellite compared to the main campus (83.3% vs. 27.3% p < 0.39). Conclusions: There was a higher percentage of off-label dosing at a center without a pharmacist's prospective review vs. a center with a pharmacist's prospective review. On-label dose optimization may lead to a higher percentage of patients achieving transfusion independence. Enhancements in the current ordering and review process can be improved with the involvement of a pharmacist's prospective involvement at both centers.

Incidence of bleeding events in patients on concomitant tyrosine kinase inhibitors and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aim to determine the risk of bleeding or thrombosis with concurrent use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used to treat CML, and serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with CP-CML cared for at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) between April 2016 to February 2021. Participants were included if diagnosed with CP-CML and began TKI treatment (imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, or ponatinib) after April 2016. RESULTS: One hundred patients were evaluated, eighty of whom were taking TKIs only (median age 55, 40% female), and twenty were taking TKI and SSRI concomitantly (median age 53.5, 55% female). Baseline demographics between these groups were similar across all variables. Patients in the TKI only group had 9 bleeding events and 3 thrombotic events. Patients in the combination group had 6 bleeding events and 1 thrombotic event. There was no difference between overall rates of major bleeding (4% v. 10%, p = 0.26) or thrombotic events (4% v. 5%, p = 1). However, patients in the combination group were more likely to have major intracranial bleeding events (0% v. 10%, p = 0.04), and there was a trend to significance for minor bleeding events (7.5% v. 20%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of TKIs and SSRIs does not appear to increase the total risk of bleeding or thrombotic events compared to patients on TKIs only. However, concomitant use of TKIs and SSRIs may increase risk of intracranial bleeding. Further work is needed to fully assess this risk.

Development of oral oncolytic nonadherence estimator (ORACLE): A pretreatment nonadherence risk assessment for oral oncolytics.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there is no adherence estimator to identify risk of nonadherence prior to initiating oral oncolytics. METHODS: A workgroup was assembled through the National Community Oncology Dispensing Association and tasked with creating a tool to meet this need. Tool constructs were defined after a review of the literature identifying top barriers to adherence. A second literature search was conducted to identify questions targeting specific barriers from validated adherence questionnaires. Once a finalized draft was complete, the risk assessment tool was built into an electronic survey where a risk category can be automatically calculated for the patient. RESULTS: The six most impactful factors affecting compliance to oral oncolytics were identified as patient's confidence, health literacy, perception of treatment, quality of life, social support, and complexity of chemotherapy regimen. A six-item questionnaire was created with five patient-directed questions and one clinician-directed question. Examples and descriptions were provided for clinicians to consider when categorizing complexity of a regimen. The tool was designed for responses to each question to be indexed into categories through a 10-point system. Results will be stratified into low, moderate, or high risk for nonadherence. CONCLUSION: The creation of a tool to predict nonadherence prior to starting therapy is an unmet need for patients initiating oral oncolytics. The aim of this tool is to meet those needs and better guide clinicians to provide patients with strategies to better manage nonadherence. Next steps include tool validation and piloting in clinical practice.

Oral oncolytic monitoring pilot with patient-reported outcomes and adherence assessments.

INTRODUCTION: Patients on oral oncolytics are responsible for self-monitoring adherence and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Oncology pharmacists are in position to focus on quality and safety of care for patients on oncolytics while providing communication between the patient, physician, and specialty pharmacies. This pilot aimed to monitor patients treated by our leukemia team initiated on oral oncolytics. METHODS: From July 2020 to February 2021, patients treated by our leukemia team newly started on oncolytics were included. Pharmacists performed medication reconciliation and drug interaction screening on initiation of oral oncolytic. Pharmacists followed up at predefined intervals. On follow up adherence was assessed using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8 (MMAS-8) and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-r). After each follow-up, a note was placed in the chart with assessment scores and recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were screened with 19 patients included. Oral oncolytics included: imatinib (4), dasatinib (5), ponatinib (1), gilteritinib (2), enasidenib (1), and venetoclax (6). Fourteen drug interactions were identified, 11 medications discontinued, nine medications added, and two medications doses were changed. Twenty-six adherence assessments were performed with 21, 4, and 1 assessment demonstrating adherence, medium adherence, and low adherence, respectively. 62 ESAS-r assessments were performed with 64% reported as no symptoms, 17% as mild, 13% as moderate, and 5% as severe symptoms. Twenty laboratory tests were ordered from pharmacist recommendation on initiation and follow-up. CONCLUSION: This pilot demonstrated the role pharmacists play in oral oncolytic monitoring and symptom management.

Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HSCT) Recipients on levofloxacin prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients are not uniformly considered as "high risk" enough to receive fluoroquinolone (FQ) prophylaxis. The risks versus benefits of FQ prophylaxis in autologous HSCT require further investigation. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients > 19 years old who received an autologous HSCT at Nebraska Medicine analyzed two time periods (period 1: no prophylaxis [2013-2015] versus period 2: levofloxacin prophylaxis [2015-2016]) to characterize the clinical impact of levofloxacin prophylaxis on autologous HSCT recipients. RESULTS: A total of 224 autologous HSCT were screened with 214 included. Febrile neutropenia (FN) developed in 101/113 (89%) versus 60/101 (59%) patients in the no prophylaxis (NPx) versus prophylaxis (Px) group (P < .01). Time to onset of FN was a median 6 versus 7 days (P = .01), and total bloodstream infections (BSI) were 33/113 (29%) versus 7/101 (7%) (P < .01) in NPx and Px groups, respectively. Gram-negative BSI were absent in the Px group. Viridans group streptococci were the most common Gram-positive BSI overall, with FQ-resistance more common in Px recipients. Rates of Clostridium difficile infections, length of hospital stay, or death at 100 days post-HSCT did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis introduced into autologous HSCT care at our institution in 2015 resulted in prevention of Gram-negative BSI, decreased rates of FN, microbiologically documented infections, and a delay in time to onset of FN compared with the prior NPx. FQ prophylaxis in autologous HSCT recipients should be evaluated per individual institution.

Evaluation of rivaroxaban use in patients with gynecologic malignancies at an academic medical center: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gynecologic malignancies are at an increased risk for venous thromboembolism. National guidelines recommend treatment of an acute venous thromboembolism with low molecular weight heparin for 5-10 days followed by long-term secondary prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for at least six months. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants are not currently recommended to be used in cancer patients for the management of venous thromboembolism because robust data on their efficacy and safety have yet to become available in cancer patients. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of gynecologic oncology patients with venous thromboembolism using rivaroxaban compared to warfarin or low molecular weight heparin as well as compare the safety and efficacy of these anticoagulants. METHODS: This study was a retrospective pilot analysis of adult patients with gynecologic malignancies who received either rivaroxaban, warfarin or low molecular weight heparin for treatment of venous thromboembolism at Augusta University Medical Center from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015. Statistical comparisons between the enoxaparin and rivaroxaban group were made using T-tests and Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, where appropriate. RESULTS: Out of the 49 patients, 37% (18) patients were on rivaroxaban, 53% (26) on enoxaparin, and 10% (5) on warfarin. Only one patient (4%) in the enoxaparin group experienced a recurrent deep vein thrombosis while there were no cases of recurrent venous thromboembolism in the rivaroxaban and warfarin group. The incidence of major bleeding was 17% (n = 2), 20% (n = 1), and 8% (n = 2) in patients receiving rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and warfarin, respectively. The rate of switching to a different anticoagulant than originally prescribed was 42% (n = 14) in the enoxaparin arm, and 5.5% (n = 1) in the rivaroxaban arm. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of our gynecologic oncology patients received rivaroxaban for the management of venous thromboembolism. The sample size of this pilot analysis was too small to draw any conclusions regarding efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin and warfarin. High rate of rivaroxaban use in gynecologic oncology patients at our institution highlights the need for larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials to confirm the safety and efficacy of its use in this population.

Cobimetinib.

OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize data on cobimetinib, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2015 for use in combination with vemurafenib for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAFV600E or V600K mutation. DATA SOURCES: A literature search using PubMed was conducted using the terms cobimetinib, MEK inhibitor, and melanoma from January 2000 to June 2016. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: The literature search was confined to human studies published in English. Trials of cobimetinib for melanoma were prioritized. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cobimetinib is a reversible inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2. Its FDA approval was based on a phase III, randomized trial of vemurafenib monotherapy (n = 248) or vemurafenib and cobimetinib (n = 247) in unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma with a BRAFV600 mutation. Cobimetinib was administered as 60 mg orally daily for 21 days/7 days off, whereas vemurafenib was administered as 960 mg twice daily. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib were associated with an objective response rate of 68%, and median progression-free survival of 9.9 months. The overall survival was not reached at the time of first interim analysis. Clinically relevant grade ≥3 adverse events were diarrhea (6%), rash (6%), photosensitivity (2%), elevated liver function tests (LFTs) (8%-12%), increased creatine kinase (11%), and retinal detachment (3%). CONCLUSION: Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib is an alternative BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAFV600 mutation. The role of cobimetinib in melanoma and other solid tumors is likely to expand as the results from ongoing studies become available.

Oral Antineoplastics in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: A Comprehensive Review.

AML is a biologically and clinically heterogeneous disease that is associated with poor overall long-term survival. The expanding knowledge of genomic landscape in AML as well as advancements in molecular and chemical biology over the pathway in AML. After 40 years of stagnancy, the recent approval of numerous novel oral anti-leukemic agents for the treatment of AML has changed both the armamentarium of medications and treatment paradigms. These agents have unique clinical considerations in terms of administration, adverse effects, and monitoring parameters which may differ from clinician's historical expectations. Understanding the data, indication and clinical considerations for such novel oral anti-leukemic agents is paramount for clinicians caring patients with AML.

The Relationship Between Antibiotic Agent and Mortality in Patients With Febrile Neutropenia due to Staphylococcal Bloodstream Infection: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background: Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a common cause of bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients with febrile neutropenia, but treatment practices vary, and guidelines are not clear on the optimal regimen. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of MSSA BSI in febrile neutropenia. We divided patients into 3 treatment groups: (1) broad-spectrum beta-lactams (ie, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, meropenem); (2) narrow-spectrum beta-lactams (ie, cefazolin, oxacillin, nafcillin); and (3) combination beta-lactams (ie, both narrow- and broad-spectrum). We used multivariable logistic regression to compare 60-day mortality and bacteremia recurrence while adjusting for potential confounders. Results: We identified 889 patients with MSSA BSI, 128 of whom had neutropenia at the time of the index culture: median age 56 (interquartile range, 43-65) years and 76 (59%) male. Of those, 56 (44%) received broad-spectrum beta-lactams, 30 (23%) received narrow-spectrum beta-lactams, and 42 (33%) received combination therapy. After adjusting for covariates, including disease severity, combination therapy was associated with a significantly higher odds for 60-day all-cause mortality compared with broad spectrum beta-lactams (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-8.89; P = .013) and compared with narrow spectrum beta-lactams, although the latter was not statistically significant (aOR, 3.30; 95% CI, .80-13.61; P = .071). Conclusions: Use of combination beta-lactam therapy in patients with MSSA BSI and febrile neutropenia is associated with a higher mortality compared with treatment with broad-spectrum beta-lactam after adjusting for potential confounders. Patients in this study who transitioned to narrow-spectrum beta-lactam antibiotics did not have worse clinical outcomes compared with those who continued broad-spectrum beta-lactam therapy.

Incidence of Invasive Fungal Infections in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Without Antifungal Prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Antifungal prophylaxis during induction for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) varies according to local rates of invasive fungal infections (IFIs). We evaluated fluconazole prophylaxis and no antifungal prophylaxis, as a natural interrupted time-series study to assess survival and infection complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with AML ≥ 18 years old undergoing induction chemotherapy during 2 time periods: period 1, fluconazole prophylaxis from August 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015, and period 2, no prophylaxis from October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017. The primary outcome was incidence of proven or probable IFI. Secondary outcomes included types of IFIs and 60-day overall survival (OS). IFI was defined by the 2002 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group Consensus criteria. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four patients received induction chemotherapy over the 2 time periods. In the prophylaxis versus no-prophylaxis groups, the rate of proven or probable IFIs was 4 (5%) of 87 versus 12 (21%) of 57 (P = .01). The total number of proven IFIs was 3 (3%) of 87 versus 4 (7%) of 57 (P = .44), whereas probable IFIs were 1 (1%) of 87 versus 8 (14%) of 57 (P < .01). No difference was observed in fungemia. Incidence of IFIs was too low to detect resistance patterns. OS at 60 days was improved in with fluconazole prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis (hazard ratio, 0.329; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.89; P = .028). CONCLUSION: Observed rates of proven or probable IFI were lower in the fluconazole prophylaxis group versus the no-prophylaxis group. Sixty-day OS was higher with fluconazole prophylaxis. Further study is required to evaluate how fluconazole may impart the differences in survival seen in this analysis.