Association of Pharmacogenomic Phenotypes in CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A5 on Polypharmacy in Veterans.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) utilizes a pharmacogenomic (PGx) program that analyzes specific "pharmacogenes." This study evaluates the effect that pharmacogenes may have on prevalence of polypharmacy. This retrospective cohort study included patients with VA prescriptions who underwent PGx testing. We quantified prescriptions active or recently expired at the time of PGx testing. We constructed two co-primary polypharmacy (≥10 medications) end points: (i) based on all medications and (ii) requiring that at least one medication was affected by a pharmacogene of interest. Pharmacogenes and actionable phenotypes of interest included poor and ultrarapid metabolizers for CYP2D6, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19 and intermediate and normal metabolizers for CYP3A5. Patients were classified as having 0, 1, and 2+ total phenotypes across all genes. Of the 15,144 patients screened, 13,116 met eligibility criteria. Across phenotype cohorts, there was no significant association with polypharmacy using all medications, number of total medications, or number of medications affected by phenotypes. However, there was a significant difference in patients with polypharmacy prescribed ≥1 medication impacted by PGx across phenotype groups: 2,514/4,949 (51%), 1,349/2,595 (52%), 204/350 (58%) (P = 0.03, OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.02-1.67). The median number of medications affected by PGx phenotypes with ≥1 PGx-impacted medication across phenotype groups was a median of 0 (IQR 0, 0), 0 (IQR 0, 0), and 1 (IQR 0, 1) (P < 0.001). In patients prescribed ≥1 medication impacted by PGx, those with more actionable pharmacogenomic phenotypes were more likely to meet polypharmacy criteria.

Integrating pharmacogenomics into precision pain management.

Studies suggest wide heterogeneity in pain management response. Improved methods of pain pharmacotherapy are urgently needed to improve clinical response and safety profile of analgesics. The study or application of how genetics influence response to medications is called pharmacogenomics (PGx). PGx testing is a tool that may support more precise selection and dosing of pain medicines. PGx guidelines exist for drug-gene interactions with high levels of evidence and can be applied in clinical practice for more precise care in patients with cancer. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) is a publicly funded international consortium of experts who curate published PGx data and create peer-reviewed guidelines on how to translate PGx results into actionable prescribing decisions. Given the immense need to improve pain management, it is important to increase awareness and consider application of CPIC guidelines to pain management strategies. This commentary concisely describes how PGx can be used to aid in more precise applications of pain pharmacotherapy based on the CPIC guidelines.

Ordering and Interpreting Precision Oncology Studies for Adults With Advanced Solid Tumors: A Primer.

Background: The promise of precision oncology can only be realized when genetic alterations are identified that can be leveraged to improve response and minimize toxicity. Identifying those alterations requires the knowledge to order the right test and to interpret the results correctly. This primer is designed to help clinicians order the appropriate testing for patients with specific malignancies and to give them an informed approach to interpretation. Observations: Germline DNA is usually acquired from peripheral blood, buccal swab, or saliva collection in patients with a metastatic malignancy and can provide treatment options otherwise not available. However, germline testing does not indicate alterations that arise solely in tumor tissue. Somatic testing may be performed on primary tumor, metastatic biopsy, or circulating tumor DNA when the alteration is present at the time that the tumor developed and expected to be carried through the evolution of the tumor. Conclusions: The rapid growth in technology and ability to enhance understanding of relevant tumor biology continues to improve the therapeutic landscape for individuals dealing with malignancy as does our ability to find targetable genetic alterations with the potential for meaningful clinical benefit.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor Genomic Profiling to Guide First-Line Targeted Therapy Selection in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 10 oncogenes, targeted gene panel testing (TGPT) of 4 oncogenes, and no tumor profiling over the lifetime for patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' perspective was conducted. METHODS: A decision analytic model used 10 000 hypothetical Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma to simulate outcomes associated with CGP (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, MET, NTRK1, NTRK2, NTRK3, RET, ROS1), TGPT (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1), and no tumor profiling (no genes tested). First-line targeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned if actionable gene variants were detected; otherwise, nontargeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned. Model inputs were derived from randomized trials (progression-free survival, adverse events), the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare (drug costs), published studies (nondrug cancer-related management costs, health state utilities), and published databases (actionable variant prevalences). Costs (2019 US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses used 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: No tumor profiling was the least costly/person ($122 613 vs $184 063 for TGPT and $188 425 for CGP) and yielded the least QALYs/person (0.53 vs 0.73 for TGPT and 0.74 for CGP). The costs per QALY gained and corresponding 95% confidence interval were $310 735 ($278 323-$347 952) for TGPT vs no tumor profiling and $445 545 ($322 297-$572 084) for CGP vs TGPT. All probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations for both comparisons surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150 000 per QALY gained). CONCLUSION: Compared with no tumor profiling in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, tumor profiling (TGPT, CGP) improves quality-adjusted survival but is not cost-effective.

North Carolina's multi-institutional pharmacogenomics efforts with the North Carolina Precision Health Collaborative.

The North Carolina Precision Health Collaborative is an interdisciplinary, public-private consortium of precision health experts who strategically align statewide resources and strengths to elevate precision health in the state and beyond. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is a key area of focus for the North Carolina Precision Health Collaborative. Experts from Atrium Health's Levine Cancer Institute, Duke University/Duke Health System, Mission Health and the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill/UNC Health System have collaborated since 2017 to implement strategic PGx initiatives, including basic sciences research, translational research and clinical implementation of germline testing into practice and policy. This institutional profile highlights major PGx programs and initiatives across these organizations and how the collaborative is working together to advance PGx science and implementation.

Evaluation and optimization of a clinical pharmacist driven transitions of care model for malignant hematology.

PURPOSE: To implement and optimize a pilot transitions of care model for scheduled chemotherapy admissions in patients with hematologic malignancies at our institution.Methodology: We utilized the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) quality improvement technique to prospectively measure success of interventions related to improving transitions of care processes that occurred in multiple stages including development of standardized operating procedures, electronic medical record documentation, and education to the malignant hematology multidisciplinary group. Chart review was performed retrospectively for at least nine patients per PDSA cycle. Areas of intervention addressed and measured regarding communication between the ambulatory care and acute care settings included: admission purpose, processes related to insurance benefits investigations for specialty medications required in the post-discharge setting, and plan for growth factors, prophylactic antimicrobials, and follow-up.Results and conclusions: We included 28 patients and performed a total of three PDSA cycles demonstrating specific improvements in: communication regarding status of benefits investigations performed for specialty medications prior to admission, resolution of these benefits investigations at various time points, improvement in efficient use of the electronic medical record for chemotherapy orders, and patient instructions for appropriate use of prophylactic antimicrobials. Although improvement was noted initially with prescribing of discharge antiemetics and antimicrobials, regression to baseline was noted with the third PDSA cycle.

An Evaluation of the Effect of Pharmacist-Led Comprehensive Chemotherapy Consultation Services on Outpatient Appointment Adherence.

BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Cancer Hospital at the University of North Carolina Medical Center serves patients with a variety of malignant conditions and discharges more than 130 patients each month. Processes to improve transitions of care prompted implementation of a first-cycle, pharmacist-led chemotherapy consultation service on the inpatient oncology units. This process provides education to improve patient engagement and activation. High patient activation has been associated with better patient outcomes; poor patient activation has been associated with increased health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of pharmacist-led comprehensive chemotherapy consultation services on adherence to outpatient follow-up appointments within 30 days of discharge. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective chart review. This study consisted of 2 groups: adult patients who received comprehensive consultation services between April 2017 and September 2017 and a 2:1 historical group of adult control patients randomly selected from a list of patients who received their first cycle of chemotherapy during a hospital admission between April 2014 and April 2017. The primary endpoint was the effect of comprehensive consultation services on adherence to outpatient follow-up appointments within 1 month after discharge. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included in this study. The percentage of appointments attended was 98.0% for the intervention group and 92.3% for the control group (P = 0.0018). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that pharmacy consultation in the inpatient oncology setting is associated with improved adherence to outpatient appointments within 30 days of discharge. This represents the first published data on pharmacist interventions resulting in improved outpatient appointment adherence. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA). This publication was also supported by Grant Number UL1TR002489 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health. Auten reports fees from PTCE and ASHP/ACCP, unrelated to this study. Clark reports consulting fees from Ellion Benson Research, unrelated to this study. The other authors do not have any conflicts of interest to report. This study was presented as a trainee poster on April 5, 2019, at the HOPA Ahead 15th Annual Conference in Fort Worth, TX.

A chemotherapy privileging process for advanced practice providers at an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists are advanced practice providers who are highly trained and qualified healthcare professionals that can help support traditional demands on oncologists' increased time in direct patient care. The purpose of this study was to detail and assess the creation of a privileging process for this group of medical professionals within an academic medical center. Obtaining the designation of limited oncology practice provider (LOPP) gives the right to modify chemotherapy orders and to order supportive care medications. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team developed a comprehensive training process inclusive of required educational domains, knowledge goals, and educational activities to become an LOPP. In 2018, five years after the implementation of the privileging process, a survey was distributed to assess perceptions of the training process and integration of LOPPs within oncology practice. RESULTS: Most oncologists noted that working with LOPPs is beneficial to oncology practice (94%) and that they make modifying chemotherapy orders more efficient (87%). Greater than 82% of LOPPs also reported that their privileges streamline the chemotherapy process and make them feel valuable. CONCLUSION: The creation of the LOPP designation is an effective way to integrate nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists within oncology practice. The inclusion of a focused privileging process ensures the safety of cancer care provided and has created a streamlined process for chemotherapy modifications and supportive care.

Demonstrating the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team.

INTRODUCTION: Although many oncology pharmacists are embedded members within the healthcare team, data documenting their contributions to optimal patient outcomes are growing. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team and describe the knowledge, skills, and functions of the oncology pharmacist. METHODS: A systematic literature review of articles that were published on PubMed between January 1951 and October 2018 was completed. Identified abstracts were reviewed and included if they focused on measuring the value or impact of the oncology pharmacist on provider/patient satisfaction, improvement of medication safety, improvement of quality/clinical care outcomes, economics, and intervention acceptance. Review articles, meta-analysis, and studies not evaluating oncology pharmacist activities were excluded. Studies were thematically coded into four themes (clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings) by 10 oncology pharmacists. RESULTS: Four-hundred twenty-two articles were identified, in which 66 articles met inclusion criteria for this review. The selected literature included 27 interventional and 38 descriptive studies. The value of the oncology pharmacist was demonstrated by published articles in four key themes: clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings. CONCLUSION: With an expected shortage of oncology physicians and the ongoing development of complex oncology therapies, the board-certified oncology pharmacist is well suited to serve as a physician extender alongside nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants as the medication expert on the oncology care team. The demonstrated value of the oncology pharmacist supports their role as frontline providers of patient care.

Patient engagement in first cycle comprehensive chemotherapy consultation pharmacist services and impact on patient activation.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and policy makers worldwide are demonstrating interest in shared decision making, which requires patient activation. Patient activation can be measured using a validated tool called the patient activation measure-10. First cycle comprehensive chemotherapy consultation services (3CS) is provided by an oncology pharmacy team member during a patient encounter at the beginning of the patient's treatment for cancer. METHODS: This was a single center, prospective, non-randomized, observational clinical study in patients with cancer who required a new chemotherapy plan. A baseline patient activation measure-10 survey was administered and a pharmacy team member met with the patient to complete the first cycle 3CS encounter. Within two business days of that encounter, a second patient activation measure-10 survey was administered, and thus, patients served as their own control. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled, of which 36 completed the study. Mean patient activation measure-10 scores measured at baseline and two business days after the 3CS encounter were significantly different (68.5 ± SD 14.7 vs. 75.0 ± SD 14.3, p = 0.001). This difference persisted when evaluated by gender (female: 70.0 ± SD 14.8 vs. 81.6 ± SD 10.5, p = 0.001; male: 66.1 ± SD 14.8 vs. 70.8 ± SD 14.7, p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that cancer patients had significantly increased patient activation scores after engagement in a 3CS encounter provided by an oncology pharmacy team. Further studies are needed to verify these data in a larger population, different healthcare settings, and to evaluate for patients who have solid tumor malignancies.

Layered learning pharmacy practice model in Ethiopia.

PURPOSE: Ethiopia is home to a growing population of more than 100 million people. Healthcare in the region functions with a shortage of oncologists. Pharmacists as well as other healthcare providers can assist with expanding patient access to cancer care. A pilot project was proposed to provide education, determine areas to expand pharmacy services in oncology, and recommend interventions at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital and Addis Ababa University. METHODS: A layered learning practice model comprising of a clinical pharmacist, a post-graduate year two oncology pharmacy resident, and two fourth-year student pharmacists was constructed for the experience. Through collaboration with the College of Pharmacy at Addis Ababa University, an international experience was developed to provide education and advance pharmacy practice at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. RESULTS: Based on findings from a needs assessment, the participants collaborated with key stakeholders to develop practices and procedures for the implementation of high-dose methotrexate and for comprehensive chemotherapy order review. In addition, 17 didactic lectures were provided to nine students enrolled in the Master of Pharmacy in Pharmacy Practice at the College of Pharmacy at Addis Ababa University. CONCLUSION: This experience provided educational and clinical impact using a layered learning practice model, consisting of a clinical pharmacist, pharmacy resident, and pharmacy students in an international setting. There is significant potential for clinical pharmacy to positively impact patient care in the oncology setting in Ethiopia. Future initiatives for advancement include the safe handling of hazardous agents, additional therapeutic drug monitoring, and outpatient oncology pharmacist practice.

A comparison of response in the presence or absence of a delay in induction therapy with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.

PURPOSE: Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has emerged as a preferred induction therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) in the United States. Due to lenalidomide's teratogenic risk, patients and prescribers must comply with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program. The REMS program limits dispensing to certain third-party specialty pharmacies, whose average prescription fill times are longer than in-house specialty pharmacies. In practice, a delay in procurement of lenalidomide may mean that patients start therapy with only bortezomib and dexamethasone, delaying the start of more effective triplet therapy. The primary objective of this study is to determine if a delay from start of bortezomib and dexamethasone to start of triplet therapy with lenalidomide impacts rate of achievement of very good partial response (VGPR) after four cycles of RVd. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective review of adults with newly diagnosed MM who received RVd induction therapy at University of North Carolina Medical Center between April 2014 and June 2017. Patients who started lenalidomide ≥10 days after bortezomib comprised the "Delay" group, while those who started lenalidomide concurrently with bortezomib or within 1-9 days after bortezomib comprised the "No Delay" group. The primary outcome was VGPR or better response rate after four cycles of RVd. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Nine patients (23.7%) experienced any delay in initiation of lenalidomide, with a mean delay of 7.8 days (range 1-18). Four patients (10.5%) experienced a delay ≥10 days. No patients in the Delay group were of reproductive potential, compared to 8.8% in the No Delay group (p = 0.54). VGPR or better response rate did not differ between the Delay and No Delay groups (66.7% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.79). The mean number of lenalidomide prescriptions generated per RVd cycle was 1.35 (range 1-5, SD 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not demonstrate an effect on clinical response after delays ≥10 days between bortezomib and lenalidomide initiation. No patients in the delay group were females of reproductive potential, which is the primary target for increased safety behind the REMS program.

Start using a checklist, PRONTO: Recommendation for a standard review process for chemotherapy orders.

Chemotherapy order review by pharmacists requires careful attention to many details, and serious consequences can occur if errors are made. Other high-risk industries have long used checklists to improve accuracy and reduce the risk of errors. Despite the recent expansion of checklist use in other areas of medicine, there is currently no published evidence that checklists are being widely used by pharmacists in the evaluation of chemotherapy orders. This article explains a flexible checklist called PRONTO (Patient, Regimen, Organ Function, Numbers, Toxicity, Order Verification) that has been successfully used by pharmacists in variety of practice settings in two academic centers in North Carolina. Proposed benefits of using a checklist in order review include standardization of review for better communication between collaborating pharmacists, a training tool for new or cross-training pharmacists, and an educational tool for students.

A Comparison of Clofarabine-based (GCLAC) and Cladribine-based (CLAG) Salvage Chemotherapy for Relapsed/Refractory AML.

BACKGROUND: Salvage regimens for patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (rrAML) lack comparative data for superiority. Thus, we conducted a retrospective analysis of clofarabine-based (GCLAC; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [filgrastim], clofarabine, high-dose cytarabine) versus cladribine-based (CLAG; cladribine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [filgrastim]) regimens in rrAML. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 41 consecutive patients with rrAML who had received either GCLAC or CLAG from 2011 to 2014. The primary outcome measure was the complete remission (CR) rate defined according to the International Working Group criteria. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who underwent allogenic stem cell transplantation and the rate of relapse-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: We found no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the patients treated with GCLAC (n = 22) or CLAG (n = 19). The outcomes with these 2 regimens were not significantly different. Patients treated with GCLAC had a CR/CR with incomplete blood count recovery rate of 64% compared with 47% for the patients treated with CLAG (P = .36). Of the GCLAC patients, 45% underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation compared with 26% of the CLAG patients (P = .32). The median relapse-free survival after GCLAC and CLAG was 1.59 years and 1.03 years, respectively (P = .75). The median overall survival after GCLAG and CLAG was 1.03 years and 0.70 years, respectively (P = .08). The drug costs were significantly different for GCLAC versus CLAG. Using an average wholesale price, the cost per patient per cycle was $60,821.60 for GCLAC and $4910.60 for CLAG. CONCLUSION: A single-institutional retrospective analysis found no significant differences in the outcomes between GCLAC and CLAG for rrAML patients, although formal comparisons should be performed in a randomized clinical trial. The cost of GCLAC was greater than that of CLAG, which should be considered when evaluating the choice for the salvage chemotherapy options.

Continuous Care Provided Through Comprehensive Medication Management in an Acute Care Practice Model.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy practice models that foster pharmacists' accountability for medication-related outcomes are imperative for the profession. Comprehensive medication management (CMM) is an opportunity to advance patient care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a CMM practice model in the acute care setting on organizational, patient, and financial outcomes. METHODS: Three adult service lines focused on at-risk patients identified using internal risk stratification methodology were implemented. Core CMM elements included medication reconciliation, differentiated clinical pharmacy services, inpatient MTM consultations, discharge services, and documentation. Mixed methods compared the effect of the CMM model before and after implementation. Historical patients served as comparative controls in an observational design. Pharmacists completed a 60-minute interview regarding their experiences. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic coding to characterize perception of the model. RESULTS: Three pharmacists implemented the model on cardiology, hematology/oncology, and surgery transplant services and provided services to 75 patients during the study. A total of 145 medication-related problems were identified and resolved. CMM was associated with a nonsignificant reduction of 8.8% in 30-day hospital readmission rates ( P = 0.64) and a 24.9% reduction in 30-day hospital utilization ( P = 0.41) as well as a significant reduction of 86.5% in emergency department visits ( P = 0.02). Patients receiving discharge prescriptions from our outpatient pharmacies increased by 21.4%, resulting in an 11.3% increase in discharge prescription capture and additional revenue of $5780. Themes identified from qualitative interviews included CMM structure, challenges, value, and resources. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated successful implementation of a CMM model that positively affected organizational, patient, and financial outcomes.

Expanding care through a layered learning practice model.

PURPOSE: The outcomes of a patient-centered layered learning practice model (LLPM) in which the clinical specialist acted as the attending pharmacist and managed a pharmacy team to provide direct patient care were evaluated. METHODS: Two 30-day evaluations were conducted on the acute care malignant hematology and medical oncology services of the University of North Carolina Medical Center in 2011. The primary objective of this study was to design an LLPM that used a team to expand the pharmacist care services offered. The primary outcome was the frequency of pharmacy team encounters at discharge (medication reconciliation and counseling), termed the discharge capture rate. RESULTS: During the study months, 42 and 78 malignant hematology and medical oncology patients were eligible for study inclusion, respectively. The overall discharge capture rate was 51%. Sixty-one patients received discharge medication reconciliation services during patient counseling. Patients included in the malignant hematology group received a mean of 11 prescriptions at discharge, compared with 9.83 in the medical oncology group. Means of 1.26 and 2.1 medication-related problems per patient were identified in the malignant hematology and medical oncology studies, respectively, during discharge medication reconciliation. The overall mean face time spent per patient was 21.3 minutes. CONCLUSION: Patients in malignant hematology and medical oncology services were counseled and provided discharge medication reconciliation by a pharmacy student or resident whose activities were managed and reviewed by an attending pharmacist using an LLPM, resulting in an improvement in all clinical outcomes and measures.

A Study of Layered Learning in Oncology.

Objective. To explore use of pharmacy learners as a means to expand pharmacy services in a layered learning practice model (LLPM), to examine whether an LLPM environment precludes achievement of knowledge-based learning objectives, and to explore learner perception of the experience. Design. An acute care oncology pharmacy practice experience was redesigned to support the LLPM. Specifically, the redesign focused on micro discussion, standardized feedback (eg, rubrics), and cooperative learning to enhance educational gain through performing clinical activities. Assessment. Posttest scores evaluating knowledge-based learning objectives increased in mean percentage compared to pretest values. Learners viewed the newly designed practice experience positively with respect to perceived knowledge attainment, improved clinical time management skills, contributions to patient care, and development of clinical and self-management skills. A fifth theme among students, comfort with learning, was also noted. Conclusion. Layered learning in an oncology practice experience was well-received by pharmacy learners. Data suggest a practice experience in the LLPM environment does not preclude achieving knowledge-based learning objectives and supports further studies of the LLPM.

The role of screening and monitoring for bleomycin pulmonary toxicity.

Bleomycin-induced pulmonary toxicity can have a significant impact on patient outcomes. However, no guidelines for ideal screening and monitoring are available. This paper reviews the literature to identify the best way to monitor and reduce patient risk for bleomycin pulmonary toxicity. We have created evidence-based guidelines to help healthcare professionals identify patient risk factors and provide appropriate assessment and monitoring for patients receiving bleomycin therapy.