Utility of Urine Cultures During Febrile Neutropenia Workup in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Recipients Without Urinary Symptoms.

The utility of obtaining screening urine cultures for febrile neutropenia (FN) during hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) is unknown. In 667 adult HCT patients with FN, only 40 (6%) were found with bacteriuria. Antibiotics were modified in 3 patients (0.4%) based on urine cultures and none developed urinary-associated infectious complications.

Correlation of Engraftment and Time from Melphalan Administration to Stem Cell Infusion.

Single-agent, high-dose melphalan continues to be the most commonly used conditioning regimen for transplantation-eligible patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation. The timing of melphalan administration with respect to stem cell infusion has not been clearly defined. Many institutions require a minimum of 24 hours between melphalan administration and stem cell infusion; however, some institutions have adopted shorter intervals based on melphalan's short half-life. Some studies have suggested that shortening the interval between melphalan administration and stem cell infusion may contribute to delays in engraftment, but this correlation has not been clearly evaluated or defined. This multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluated the times to neutrophil and platelet engraftment in patients who received stem cells at least 24 hours after melphalan (≥24 hours cohort) compared with those who received stem cells within 24 hours of melphalan (<24 hours cohort. The study included a total of 723 adult patients, 502 patients in the ≥24 hours cohort and 221 in the <24 hours cohort, treated at 3 transplantation centers between January 1, 2016, and September 30, 2019. Patient characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. The Fisher exact test was used to compare nominal categorical variables between the 2 cohorts, and the nonparametric van der Waerden test or Mood median test was used to compare ordinal or continuous variables. The median time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 days for both the ≥24 hours cohort (interquartile range [IQR], 11 to 12 days) and the <24 hours cohort (IQR, 11 to 13 days) (P = .07). The median time to platelet engraftment was 19 days for both the ≥24 hours cohort (IQR, 17 to 22 days) and <24 hours cohort (IQR, 17 to 20 days) (P = .25). The median time between melphalan administration and stem cell infusion in the <24 hours cohort was 18 hours, with a minimum time of 12 hours. The existing literature has not clearly defined the impact of the timing between melphalan administration and stem cell infusion on engraftment in autologous transplantation. The ability to safely shorten the interval between chemotherapy and transplantation could increase logistical flexibility and/or decrease the length of hospital stay. This large multicenter retrospective study did not identify a statistical or clinical impact on engraftment when melphalan was infused <24 hours or ≥24 hours before autologous stem cell infusion.

Outpatient initiation of venetoclax in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: Venetoclax is a treatment option in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in both the front-line and relapsed/refractory settings. Initiation of therapy has been previously restricted to the inpatient setting at some institutions due to a risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and limitations in medication access efficiency given the high cost of therapy. METHODS: We assessed the safety of initiating venetoclax in the outpatient setting through a single-arm, retrospective study of adult AML patients between April 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients started venetoclax during this time, with 47 (57%) patients initiated in the outpatient setting. Fifty-five percent of patients received venetoclax as first-line treatment for AML (n = 45) and 45% of patients received venetoclax for relapsed/refractory AML (n = 37). Successful initiation, defined as no hospitalizations secondary to TLS within seven days of therapy initiation, occurred in 98% of patients. The rate of TLS was 2.1% (n = 1) following venetoclax initiation. TLS symptoms were managed during hospitalization, requiring only one day of missed AML therapy. Median turnaround time for medication access was three days. Hospitalizations within seven days occurred in 17% of patients (n = 8), with the majority due to febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study provide further evidence for the safety and feasibility of initiating venetoclax in the outpatient setting with a pharmacist-led interdisciplinary protocol.

Impact of Oncology Pharmacists on the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of Clinicians to Enhance Patient Engagement of Self-Administered Oral Oncolytics.

Oncology clinical pharmacists are uniquely positioned to make interventions to impact the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of clinicians as well as patient activation and engagement. To accomplish this goal, pharmacists can target health system-related, provider-related, and patient-related factors to enhance patient-centered care and drive behavioral health changes. Interventions that pharmacists must tackle include educating team members and patients on the medication acquisition process, communicating urgency of treatment, optimizing workflows, facilitating guideline recommendations, preventing, and managing treatment toxicities, and promoting patient self-advocacy through education and shared decision-making. As crucial members of the healthcare team, oncology pharmacists can simplify highly complex treatment regimens to facilitate and optimize patients' ownership of their care. This narrative review will focus on the example of venetoclax treatment in acute myeloid leukemia to demonstrate the impact that pharmacists provide that leads to behavioral change of patients and clinicians.

Impact of an electronic health record transition on chemotherapy error reporting.

BACKGROUND: Incident reporting systems allow for frontline employees to report errors and are a critical component of healthcare patient safety programs. Although incident reporting systems cannot quantify total errors, organizations can utilize incident reporting systems to help identify risks and trends to act upon. The objective of this article is to utilize incident reporting systems to evaluate trends in medication error reporting before and after implementation of a new electronic health record system. METHODS: A five-month pre- and post-analysis was completed in a cancer hospital following electronic health record conversion by reviewing medication errors reported via the institution's voluntary incident reporting systems. Error reports included medication error category, date error was reported/occurred, patient location at time of error, harm severity score, medication(s) involved, medication use system node error originated/discovered in, medication source, narrative summary, and contributing factors. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics within Office Excel. RESULTS: Oncology medication error reports submitted pre- and post-electronic health record were 68 vs. 57, respectively. During the pre- and post-electronic health record conversion, a majority of errors had a harm severity index of 0 or 1; 12 (18%) in pre-electronic health record and 3 (5%) in post-electronic health record were level 2, and one (1%) in pre-electronic health record vs. 0 in post-electronic health record were level 3. Reported medication errors originated most commonly during the prescribing, administration, and preparation/dispensing phase and were primarily identified in the administration phase of the medication use process. The most frequently reported error category was 'wrong dose' followed by 'other' and 'overdose' in the pre-electronic health record phase and 'missing dose/delayed delivery' and 'order incorrect' in the post-electronic health record phase. The most frequently reported medications included methotrexate, chemotherapy (unspecified), and cisplatin. CONCLUSION: Analyzing data from incident reporting system reports allowed our institution to understand different trends of reporting in the cancer hospital following electronic health record adoption. Utilization of incident reporting systems must be combined with proactive risk identification approaches to enable systems-focused improvements to improve patient safety.