Clinical and economic impact of clinical oncology pharmacy in cancer patients receiving injectable anticancer treatments: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Clinical pharmacy can reduce drug-related iatrogenesis by improving the management of adverse effects of drugs, limiting drug-drug interactions, and improving patient adherence. Given the vulnerability of cancer patients and the toxicity of injectable anticancer drugs, clinical pharmacy service (CPS) could provide a significant clinical benefit in cancer care. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on clinical pharmacy's impact on patients treated with intravenous anticancer drugs. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline database from January 2000 to December 2021, associating the keywords: clinical pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, pharmacist, oncology, and chemotherapy. To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to report clinical pharmaceutical services for patients treated with intravenous chemotherapy with a clinical and/or economic impact. RESULTS: Forty-one studies met the selection criteria. Various CPS were reported: medication reconciliation, medication review, and pharmaceutical interview with patient. There was a lack of randomized study (n = 3; 7.3%). In one randomized controlled trial, pharmaceutical intervention significantly improved quality of life of patients receiving pharmaceutical care during injectable anticancer drugs courses. Economical results appear to show positive impact of clinical pharmacy with cost savings reported from 3112.87$ to 249 844€. Although most studies were non-comparative, they highlighted that clinical pharmacy tend to limit chemotherapy side effects and drug-related problems, improve quality of life and satisfaction of patients and healthcare professional, and a positive economic impact. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacy can reduce adverse drug events in cancer patients. More robust and economic evaluations are still required to support its development in everyday practice.

Impact of pharmaceutical care interventions on multidisciplinary care of older patients with cancer: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Optimizing medication use is a major issue in older patients with cancer and pharmacists are increasingly involved in their multidisciplinary care. The implementation of pharmaceutical care interventions must be supported by impact evaluations to enable their development and funding. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence on the impact of pharmaceutical care interventions in older patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases, for articles reporting evaluations of pharmaceutical care interventions for patients with cancer aged 65 years or older. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the selection criteria. Most pharmacists were part of multidisciplinary geriatric oncology teams. Whether in outpatient or inpatient settings, interventions had common components, including patient interview, medication reconciliation, and comprehensive medication review to assess drug-related problems (DRPs). DRPs were identified in 95% of patients with 1.7 to 3 DRPs on average. Pharmacist recommendations resulted in a 20-40% reduction in the total number of DRPs and a 20-25% decrease in the prevalence of DRP. Prevalence of potentially inappropriate or omitted medications and their subsequent deprescribing or addition varied greatly between studies, notably depending on detection tools used. Clinical impact was insufficiently evaluated. Only one study reported a reduction of anticancer treatment toxicities following a joint pharmaceutical and geriatric assessment. A single economic evaluation calculated a potential net benefit of $3,864.23 per patient resulting from the intervention. DISCUSSION: These encouraging results must be confirmed by more robust evaluations to support the involvement of pharmacists in multidisciplinary care of older patients with cancer.

Assessment of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Outpatients Taking Oral Anticancer Drugs Included in the Real-Life Oncoral Program.

Background In previous studies, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve survival in cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by oral anticancer agents (OAAs) using PROs. Methods Between September 2018 and May 2019, outpatients starting OAAs were included in a 12-week follow-up to assess 15 symptoms listed in the National Cancer Institute PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, using a 5-point scale of severity or frequency. Patients were requested to alert a referral nurse or pharmacist when they self-assessed high-level (level 3 or 4) symptoms. Results 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms that were most commonly experienced were fatigue (>9 in 10 patients; 13.2% of symptoms declared), various psychological disorders (>9 in 10 patients; 28.6% of symptoms declared) and general pain (>8 in 10 patients; 9.4% of symptoms declared). Conclusion PROs are appropriate to detect potential adverse events in cancer outpatients treated by OAAs. This study is the first step for integrating the patient's perspective in a digital e-health device in routine oncology care.

Clinical and economic impact of medication reconciliation in cancer patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Medication reconciliation can reduce drug-related iatrogenesis by facilitating exhaustive information transmission at care transition points. Given the vulnerability of cancer patients to adverse drug events, medication reconciliation could provide a significant clinical benefit in cancer care. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on medication reconciliation in cancer patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, associating the keywords "medication reconciliation" and "cancer" or "oncology." RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the selection criteria. Various medication reconciliation practices were reported: performed at admission or discharge, for hospitalized or ambulatory patients treated with oral or parenteral anticancer drugs. In one randomized controlled trial, medication reconciliation decreased clinically significant medication errors by 26%. Although most studies were non-comparative, they highlighted that medication reconciliation led to identification of discrepancies and other drug-related problems in up to 88% and 94.7% of patients, respectively. The impact on post-discharge healthcare utilization remains under-evaluated and mostly inconclusive, despite a trend toward reduction. No comparative economic evaluations were available but one study estimated the benefit:cost ratio of medication reconciliation to be 2.31:1, suggesting its benefits largely outweigh its costs. Several studies also underlined the extended pharmacist time required for the intervention, highlighting the need for further cost analysis. CONCLUSION: Medication reconciliation can reduce adverse drug events in cancer patients. More robust and economic evaluations are still required to support its development in everyday practice.