Cancer outpatients during the COVID-19 pandemic: what Oncoral has to teach us about medical drug use and the perception of telemedicine.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare access and telemedicine has been widely deployed. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of this health crisis on treatment consumption and telemedicine development in outpatients treated by oral anti-cancer agents and followed by the Oncoral hospital/community multidisciplinary program where continuity care is maintained by a pharmacist/nurse pair. METHODS: A prospective monocentric study was conducted among cancer patients who received Oncoral telephone follow-up during the 1st lockdown in France using a 56-item questionnaire which covered sociodemographic data, patient medication management, and telehealth. RESULTS: 178 patients received Oncoral follow-up during the 1st lockdown and 67.4% responded to the questionnaire. During lockdown, 9.2% of patients took medication or CAM for fatigue, 6.7% for mood alteration, 10.8% for sleep disorder, 11.7% for stress and anxiety, and 12.5% to get more energy. Homeopathy consumption was triggered by the pandemic. Habits about getting drugs from the pharmacy changed significantly (p < 0.001), while other treatment habits did not. 83% of patients were satisfied by the telephone follow-up established, 69% would be in favor of repeating this in case of a new epidemic wave. Those most in favor of using telemedicine seemed to be the youngest (p < 0.001), with several dependent children (p < 0.007), high school degree or higher education (p = 0.023), and in work (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Health system reorganization enables to limit the impact of the crisis on patients' drug use in oncology care. Telemedicine is a promising public health tool.

Real-life drug-drug and herb-drug interactions in outpatients taking oral anticancer drugs: comparison with databases.

PURPOSE: Due to polypharmacy and the rising popularity of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), oncology patients are particularly at risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI) or herb-drug interactions (HDI). The aims of this study were to assess DDI and HDI in outpatients taking oral anticancer drug. METHOD: All prescribed and non-prescribed medications, including CAM, were prospectively collected by hospital pharmacists during a structured interview with the patient. DDI and HDI were analyzed using four interaction software programs: Thériaque®, Drugs.com®, Hédrine, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) database. All detected interactions were characterized by severity, risk and action mechanism. The need for pharmaceutical intervention to modify drug use was determined on a case-by-case basis. RESULTS: 294 patients were included, with a mean age of 67 years [55-79]. The median number of chronic drugs per patient was 8 [1-29] and 55% of patients used at least one CAM. At least 1 interaction was found for 267 patients (90.8%): 263 (89.4%) with DDI, 68 (23.1%) with HDI, and 64 (21.7%) with both DDI and HDI. Only 13% of the DDI were found in Thériaque® and Drugs.com® databases, and 125 (2.5%) were reported with similar level of risk on both databases. 104 HDI were identified with only 9.5% of the interactions found in both databases. 103 pharmaceutical interventions were performed, involving 61 patients (20.7%). CONCLUSION: Potentially clinically relevant drug interaction were frequently identified in this study, showing that several databases and structured screening are required to detect more interactions and optimize medication safety.

Thromboembolic events and thromboprophylaxis associated with immunomodulators in multiple myeloma patients: a real-life study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess international guidelines implementation concerning thromboprophylaxis strategy in myeloma patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs. METHODS: This retrospective study includes multiple myeloma patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs between 2014 and 2017 in the Hematology department of a teaching hospital (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France) and followed by the multidisciplinary care plan for cancer outpatients ONCORAL (ONCological care for outpatients with ORAL anticancer drugs). Data from immunomodulatory drugs administration, thromboprophylaxis strategy and thrombotic events were collected from medical files. Adherence to 2010 International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines was assessed. RESULTS: 213 patients received at least one immunomodulatory drug: lenalidomide (60.9%), pomalidomide (24.0%) and thalidomide (15.1%). About two third of treatment lines (66.2%) were in accordance with IMWG recommendations. Among the others, 30.5% and 69.5% had thromboprophylaxis, respectively, superior or inferior to IMWG recommendations. 37 venous thrombotic events and 4 arterial thromboembolisms (one patient experienced both a stroke and deep venous thrombosis simultaneously) were reported. CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis was systematically performed in myeloma patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs in this real-life retrospective cohort. However, the choice of anticoagulant or anti-platelet agent remains debatable, as adherence to existing guidelines was variable.