Risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care of oncology patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms. / [Artículo traducido] Modelo de estratificación de riesgo de atención farmacéutica para pacientes oncológicos con neoplasias sólidas o hematológicas.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop of a risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care (PC) of patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms who required antineoplastic agents or supportive treatments. METHOD: The risk stratification model was collaboratively developed by oncology pharmacists from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH). It underwent refinement through three workshops and a pilot study. Variables were defined, grouped into four dimensions, and assigned relative weights. The pilot study collected and analyzed data from participating centers to determine priority levels and evaluate variable contributions. The study followed the Kaiser Permanente pyramid model, categorizing patients into three priority levels: Priority 1 (intensive PC, 90th percentile), Priority 2 (60th-90th percentiles), and Priority 3 (60th percentile). Cut-off points were determined based on this stratification. Participating centers recorded variables in an Excel sheet, calculating mean weight scores for each priority level and the total risk score. RESULTS: The participants agreed to complete a questionnaire that comprised 22 variables grouped into 4 dimensions: demographic (maximum score =11); social and health variables and cognitive and functional status (maximum = 19); clinical and health services utilization (maximum = 25); and treatment-related (maximum = 41). From the results of applying the model to the 199 patients enrolled, the cutoff points for categorization were 28 or more points for priority 1, 16 to 27 points for priority 2 and less than 16 for priority 3; more than 80% of the total score was based on the dimensions of 'clinical and health services utilization' and 'treatment-related'. Interventions based on the pharmaceutical care model were recommended for patients with solid or hematological neoplasms, according to their prioritization level. CONCLUSION: This stratification model enables the identification of cancer patients requiring a higher level of pharmaceutical care and facilitates the adjustment of care capacity. Validation of the model in a representative population is necessary to establish its effectiveness.

Risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care of oncology patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop of a risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care of patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms who required antineoplastic agents or supportive treatments. METHOD: The risk stratification model was collaboratively developed by oncology pharmacists from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH). It underwent refinement through 3 workshops and a pilot study. Variables were defined, grouped into 4 dimensions, and assigned relative weights. The pilot study collected and analyzed data from participating centers to determine priority levels and evaluate variable contributions. The study followed the Kaiser Permanente pyramid model, categorizing patients into 3 priority levels: Priority 1 (intensive PC, 90th percentile), Priority 2 (60th-90th percentiles), and Priority 3 (60th percentile). Cut-off points were determined based on this stratification. Participating centers recorded variables in an Excel sheet, calculating mean weight scores for each priority level and the total risk score. RESULTS: The participants agreed to complete a questionnaire that comprised 22 variables grouped into 4 dimensions: demographic (maximum score=11); social and health variables and cognitive and functional status (maximum=19); clinical and health services utilization (maximum=25); and treatment-related (maximum=41). From the results of applying the model to the 199 patients enrolled, the cut-off points for categorization were 28 or more points for priority 1, 16-27 points for priority 2, and less than 16 for priority 3; more than 80% of the total score was based on the dimensions of "clinical and health services utilization" and "treatment-related." Interventions based on the pharmaceutical care model were recommended for patients with solid or hematological neoplasms, according to their prioritization level. CONCLUSION: This stratification model enables the identification of cancer patients requiring a higher level of pharmaceutical care and facilitates the adjustment of care capacity. Validation of the model in a representative population is necessary to establish its effectiveness.

Cost of Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Patients with Lung Cancer: Costecat Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lung cancer (LC) are at significantly higher risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which may lead to increased use of health resources and the cost of management. The main aim of the study was to determine the cost of the management of VTE events in patients with LC treated with Low Molecular Weight Heparins (LMWH) in Spain. METHODS: Costecat was an, observational, ambispective pharmacoeconomic study. Patients with LC, with a first episode of VTE (symptomatic or incidental) in treatment with LMWH, were recruited from six third-level hospitals and followed up for six months. Sociodemographic, clinical and resource use variables of VTE-related implications and its treatment were collected. Direct healthcare costs and direct non-healthcare costs were recorded. Data collection was documented in an electronic case report. Unit costs were obtained from national databases. Costs (€2018) were estimated from the healthcare perspective. Statistical analysis was performed using the statistical program R 3.4.3 version (30 November 2017). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were included. Mean age was 65.4 years, 66.0% were male. The percentage of patients with LC who had metastatic disease was 78.7%. Twenty-three patients (48.9%) needed hospital admissions due to thromboembolic episode. Total average cost of patients with cancer associated VTE (CAT) was €109,696.6 per patient/semester. The hospitalizations represent 65.8% of total costs (7207.3 € SD 13,996.9 €), followed by LMWH therapy which represents 18.6% (2033.8 € SD:630.5 €). CONCLUSIONS: Venous thromboembolism episodes induce an economic impact on patients and healthcare systems. Direct healthcare costs are the major burden of the total cost, in which hospitalizations are the main drivers of cost.

Observational study of clinical toxicity with different formulations of docetaxel in breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the excipients and impurities contained in the various docetaxel products available on the market and find out  whether they may be responsible for any of the different adverse events  associated with the use of docetaxel in patients with breast cancer  receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. METHOD: This is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational, study carried in 26 hospitals in Madrid, Catalonia, Andalusia, and the Valencia Region. The different docetaxel formulations were  characterized in terms of their pH, amount of the active ingredient and  impurities. The cumulative incidence of adverse events of any grade was  evaluated. Adverse events were stratified by drug type and differences  were analyzed by means of a chi-square test. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the different docetaxel formulations in the cumulative per-cycle incidence of: dosage change, anemia, hypersensitivity reactions and  anaphylaxis, neuropathy, palmoplantar and dermal toxicity, ungual toxicity  and facial edema. The formulation with the lowest content of impurities  showed better results in terms of change of dosage, visits to the  emergency room and incidence of anemia and facial edema. However, it  was associated with poorer results regarding hospitalization, febrile  neutropenia, motor neuropathy and palmoplantar toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study showed differences in the incidence of adverse events of the different docetaxel products available in  Spain. Such differences were statistically significant for some of the  variables analyzed. The study was not able to determine which of the  products offered the best toxicity profile. Nor was it possible to establish a  correlation with respect to the composition of excipients or the content of  impurities.

Objetivo: Estudiar los excipientes e impurezas de los diferentes  medicamentos comercializados de docetaxel y conocer la incidencia de  los diversos eventos adversos derivados del uso de docetaxel y su  repercusión clínica en pacientes con cáncer de mama en el contexto de  adyuvancia o neoadyuvancia.Método: Estudio observacional, longitudinal, prospectivo y multicéntrico en 26 hospitales de Madrid, Cataluña, Andalucía y  Comunidad Valenciana. Se caracterizaron las distintas formulaciones de  docetaxel en cuanto a pH, cantidad de docetaxel e impurezas. Se evaluó  la incidencia acumulada de eventos adversos de cualquier grado  estratificados por tipo de medicamento, analizando las diferencias  mediante el test de χ2.Resultados: Se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las distintas formulaciones de docetaxel en cuanto a  la incidencia acumulada por ciclo de: modificación de dosis, anemia,  reacciones de hipersensibilidad y anafilaxia, neuropatía, toxicidad palmo- plantar y dermatológica, toxicidad ungueal y edema facial. La  formulación con un menor contenido en impurezas presentó mejores  resultados en modificación de dosis, visitas a urgencias, e incidencia de  anemia y edema facial, pero peores en hospitalización, neutropenia  febril, neuropatía motora y toxicidad palmo-plantar.Conclusiones: Los resultados muestran diferencias en la incidencia de  los eventos adversos de los distintos medicamentos con docetaxel comercializados en nuestro país, con diferencias significativas  entre ellos en algunas de las variables estudiadas. No se ha podido  identificar un medicamento con un mejor perfil de toxicidad. Tampoco se  ha podido establecer su relación con respecto a la composición de  excipientes e impurezas.

Survey of oncohematological pharmaceutical care situation in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To learn about the baseline of Oncohematological Pharmacy Units in Spanish hospitals in order to identify areas for  improvement. METHOD: A survey in line with the objectives set in GEDEFO 2020  Strategic Plan of Pharmaceutical Care for oncohematological patients  was designed. The survey was hosted on GEDEFO's website during  March and April 2017. Activity data for 2016 was collected. Results: A total of 95 hospitals responded to the survey. Out of which, 76% had an integrated information system of  pharmacotherapeutic process management, where a variability in  technological and organizational processes were found. The  oncohematological pharmacist led the implementation of the principles  of medicine, based on evidence and results obtained in routine clinical  practice. It was shown that 88% of hospitals had standardized  protocols. As for safety practices, in 83% of hospitals,  oncohematological pharmacists actively participated in the development  and maintenance of risk management program, implemented to prevent  errors. Preparation was centralized in 89% of hospitals. Variability was observed in pharmaceutical care depending on  where the patient was attended. In 92% of hospitals, pharmacists  served as reference for Oncohematology, although with different levels  of training. Major deficiencies were observed in training programs and  teaching. Of all oncohematological pharmacists, 53% had been a  researcher over the past three years. CONCLUSIONS: These results mark the starting point for Spanish  Oncohematological Pharmacy Units to develop strategies for improving  the quality of pharmaceutical care offered to oncohematological patients  and led by GEDEFO, heads of service, and oncohematological  patients themselves.

Objetivo: Conocer la situación basal de las unidades de farmacia  oncohematológica de los hospitales españoles para detectar ámbitos de  mejora.Método: Se diseñó una encuesta acorde con los objetivos establecidos en el Plan Estratégico de Atención Farmacéutica al paciente  oncohematológico del Grupo de Farmacia Oncológica de la  Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (GEDEFO 2020). La  encuesta se alojó en la página web de GEDEFO durante marzo y abril de  2017. Se recogieron datos de actividad del año 2016.Resultados: Respondieron la encuesta 95 hospitales. Un 76%  disponían de un sistema de información integral de gestión del proceso farmacoterapéutico, encontrándose variabilidad en los procesos  tecnológicos y organizativos. El farmacéutico oncohematológico lideraba  la aplicación de los principios de medicina basada en la evidencia y de  los resultados obtenidos en la práctica clínica habitual, y se comprobó  que un 88% de los hospitales contaba con protocolos estandarizados. En  cuanto a prácticas de seguridad, en un 83% de los hospitales el  farmacéutico oncohematológico participaba activamente en el desarrollo  y mantenimiento del programa de gestión de riesgos  aplicado a la prevención de errores. La preparación estaba centralizada  en un 89% de los hospitales. Se observó variabilidad en la atención  farmacéutica en función de dónde se atendía al paciente. En el 92% de  los hospitales existía farmacéutico  de referencia para oncohematología,  aunque con distintos niveles de capacitación. Las mayores deficiencias  se observaron en los programas de formación y docencia. Un 53% de  los farmacéuticos oncohematológicos había sido investigador en los  últimos tres años.Conclusiones: Estos resultados marcan el punto de partida de las  unidades de farmacia oncohematológicas españolas para el desarrollo de estrategias de mejora de la calidad de la atención farmacéutica ofrecida a los pacientes oncohematológicos liderado por GEDEFO, jefes de  servicio y los propios farmacéuticos oncohematológicos.

Variability of carboplatin dose calculation methods in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze the variability in carboplatin dosing strategies in Spanish hospitals. METHODS: We designed a questionnaire consisting of 19 multiple-choice items structured in two sections (hospital characteristics and carboplatin dosing data). The questionnaire was sent by e-mail to all the oncology pharmacists included in the register of the Spanish Oncology Pharmacy Group (GEDEFO), and we analyzed the completed questionnaires. RESULTS: Response rate was 33.5% from a total of 185 pharmacy services invited to take part in the survey. All hospitals used the Calvert formula to calculate carboplatin dose with glomerular filtration rate estimated by a formula, most commonly the Cockcroft-Gault equation (80.7%). Carboplatin doses were capped in most hospitals (91.9%): 54.8% capped creatinine clearance at 125 mL/min, 11.3% capped serum creatinine, and 19.3% capped both creatinine clearance and serum creatinine. Serum creatinine cut-off values ranged from 0.36 mg/dL to 1 mg/dL. The most commonly used body weight was actual body weight for underweight, normal weight, and overweight patients. The use of adjusted ideal body weight increased in obese and especially in morbidly obese patients. CONCLUSION: The results from this survey show the variability that exists in carboplatin dose calculation methods among Spanish hospitals and the need to continue investigating to find the optimum dose calculation method and unify criteria to avoid differences between sites that can affect effectiveness and toxicity of carboplatin-containing treatments.

[Off-label use of oncology drugs: national survey results]. / Uso de medicamentos fuera de ficha la técnica en oncohematología: resultado de una encuesta nacional.

PURPOSE: identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments. METHODS: a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year. RESULTS: in 42.1% of the hospitals it's needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department's report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT. CONCLUSIONS: there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval.

Objetivo: identificar mediante una encuesta los tratamientos fuera de la ficha tecnica (FFT) que mas frecuentemente se utilizan en el area de oncohematologia. Conocer los procedimientos y criterios que se han establecido para autorizar estos tratamientos. Método: se diseno una encuesta con cuatro secciones: 1) datos demograficos y de actividad del hospital, 2) procedimiento de utilizacion de medicamentos FFT, 3) criterios de aprobacion y 4) tratamientos oncologicos FFT tramitados durante el ano anterior. Resultados: en el 42,1% de los centros la proporcion en la que es necesaria autorizacion previa a la dispensacion es mayor del 80%. El factor mas importante que influye en el circuito de autorizacion-dispensacion de estos farmacos es la evidencia disponible. El procedimiento de autorizacion mas habitual es la autorizacion de la direccion del hospital previo informe del servicio de farmacia. En un 55,3% de los hospitales se han establecido criterios especificos del paciente que ayudan a la toma de decisiones, junto con los aspectos de eficacia y seguridad de los farmacos en la indicacion solicitada. En la mayoria de los centros se acepta un menor nivel de evidencia en el caso de que no existan alternativas terapeuticas, asi como en los tumores de baja prevalencia. La mayor parte de los centros no tienen claramente establecido un criterio de eficacia para considerar un beneficio como clinicamente relevante, y tampoco el umbral coste-eficacia para aprobar un FFT. Conclusiones: existe una gran variabilidad en el procedimiento de utilizacion de los FFT y en los criterios que se utilizan para su aprobacion.

Dosing of chemotherapy in obese and cachectic patients: results of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: It is not unusual to find obese and cachectic patients in the hematology oncology setting. However, information on dosage in these groups is scarce. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were to explore the dosing strategies applied in the treatment of obese and cachectic cancer patients and to determine whether these strategies are applied in clinical trials. SETTING: Members of the Spanish Group for the Development of Hematology-Oncology Pharmacy (GEDEFO). METHODS: We invited all cancer hospital pharmacists to participate in a survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Descriptive statistics of the dosing strategies approaches. RESULTS: We invited 159 eligible hospitals to participate, and 38 responded to the survey. A total of 50 surveys were received: different strategies were applied by different physicians from the same hospital and by hematology and oncology departments. Body mass index was used to define obesity and cachexia in 40 and 30 % of the cases, respectively. Capping the body surface area (BSA) was the approach most commonly followed (64.1 %) in obese patients, whereas no specific approach was adopted in cachectic patients. In hematology patients, the BSA calculation was based on ideal body weight or adjusted body weight in 16.0 % of cases (n = 2) and 50.0 % of cases (n = 6), respectively; in oncology patients, use of adjusted or ideal body weight was negligible. Actual body weight was the main approach in obese patients (35 surveys) and cachectic patients (48 surveys). Creatinine clearance was assessed mainly using the Cockcroft and Gault equation (around 76.0 % of responses). As for clinical trials, 64.1 % of the respondents (n = 25 hospitals) considered the criteria from each clinical trial individually. CONCLUSIONS: Dose adjustments are more frequent in obese patients than in cachectic patients. In cancer oncology patients, dose is adjusted mainly by hematology and hematopoietic cell transplant teams. Capping BSA is the most frequent strategy, followed by calculating actual body weight.