Assessment of patient perceptions of counselling on oral antineoplastic agents by a dedicated cancer services pharmacist in an outpatient cancer clinic.

BACKGROUND: Oral antineoplastic agents have caused a paradigm shift in cancer treatment, however, they produce many unique challenges. Although oral antineoplastics can have complex administration regimes, low adherence rates and high possibilities of drug-drug interactions, they are administered unsupervised at home. Cancer services pharmacists have the required skillsets to improve patient outcomes associated with oral antineoplastic treatment by increasing patient health literacy, improving concordance and optimising administration protocols. AIM: To evaluate patients' perceptions, experiences and overall satisfaction with dedicated clinical pharmacist consultations in patients treated with oral antineoplastic agents at a major public hospital. METHOD: In this retrospective cross-sectional study at a quaternary hospital in Western Australia, data were collected by a paper questionnaire (mailed in March 2022) to a random sample of 191 patients initiated on oral antineoplastic drugs between January 2021 and February 2022. Demographics, prescribed antineoplastic drug/s, cancer type data were collected including using 5-point Likert scale questions assess patients' overall satisfaction with the clinical pharmacist consultations. RESULTS: The questionnaire response rate was 27.7% (52/188) (mean age 63.2 years; 57.5% female). Most patients (42/52; 80.8%) were satisfied with pharmacist consultations, trusted the pharmacist's advice (45/52; 86.5%), considered that the pharmacist improved their understanding of how to manage side effects (43/52; 82.7%) and they provided an important service in outpatient care (45/52; 86.5%). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients reported positive perceptions, experiences, and satisfaction with the cancer services pharmacist counselling services during their oral antineoplastic treatment.

Letermovir for pre-emptive cytomegalovirus therapy after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is a common cause of morbidity after allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). Pre-emptive therapy (PET) with valganciclovir (VGC) is associated with haematological toxicity. METHODS: We included alloHCT patients from 2018 to 2021 where letermovir (LTV) was used for CMV PET because of cytopenias. RESULTS: Ten patients were included. Six received VGC prior to LTV. VGC was commenced at median d42, given for median 40 days. LTV was commenced at median d90, given for median 54 days. At commencement of antiviral, CMV viral load was higher for VGC at 3.7 log10 IU/mL, compared to LTV at 2.9 log10 IU/mL. Viral load reduction occurred at 0.18 log10 IU/mL per week for VGC, compared to 0.17 log10 IU/mL per week for LTV. There was no clinically significant CMV viremia after stopping LTV. Cytopenias improved on LTV. CONCLUSION: LTV was effective in controlling CMV viremia when it was given at a lower starting CMV viral load and later post alloHCT than VGC. Further study is required of LTV as upfront PET following alloHCT.

Incidence of Sinusoidal Obstruction Syndrome/Veno-Occlusive Disease and Treatment with Defibrotide in Allogeneic Transplantation: A Multicenter Australasian Registry Study.

Sinusoidal obstruction syndrome/veno-occlusive disease (SOS/VOD) is an established complication in patients undergoing allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Defibrotide is an effective and safe pharmacologic option for treating diagnosed SOS/VOD. By exploring data provided to the Australasian Bone Marrow Transplant Recipient Registry (ABMTRR) by centers in Australia and New Zealand, this study aimed to describe the incidence of SOS/VOD and patterns of defibrotide use from 2016 to 2020. Patients who underwent allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplantation between 2016 and 2020 were identified from the ABMTRR. Data were extracted for a total of 3346 patients, 2692 from adult centers and 654 from pediatric centers, with a median follow-up of 21.5 months and 33.3 months, respectively. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the patient population, including the incidence of SOS/VOD and defibrotide use. Comparisons were made between patients without SOS/VOD and those with SOS/VOD, divided into defibrotide and no defibrotide cohorts. Associations with overall survival (OS) and day 100 survival with such variables as sex, age, disease at transplantation, stem cell source, conditioning agents, SOS/VOD diagnosis, and use of defibrotide, were determined. The reported incidence of SOS/VOD was 4.1% in adult centers and 11.5% in pediatric centers. Defibrotide was administered to 74.8% of adult patients and 97.3% of pediatric patients with SOS/VOD. Significant variability in the use, dosage, and duration of defibrotide was seen across the adult centers. The day 100 survival rate and median OS for patients managed with defibrotide was 51.8% and 103 days, respectively, for adult patients and 90.4% and not reached, respectively, for pediatric patients. In adults, older age at transplantation, an HLA-matched nonsibling relative donor, and a diagnosis of SOS/VOD treated with defibrotide were associated with reduced OS. In pediatric patients, the patient and transplantation characteristics associated with reduced OS were a diagnosis of SOS/VOD and a ≥2 HLA-mismatched related donor. A collaborative approach across Australasia to diagnosing and managing SOS/VOD, particularly with respect to consistent defibrotide use, is recommended.

Learning from error: identifying contributory causes of medication errors in an Australian hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical contexts contributing to harmful medication errors. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted between March and August 2005 at Fremantle Hospital, a 450-bed metropolitan teaching hospital. Twenty-six of 46 staff members (57%) identified by pharmacy staff as having contributed to a significant medication error were interviewed. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most errors were due to slips in attention that occurred during routine prescribing, dispensing or drug administration. Knowledge-based mistakes (eg, failure to follow a protocol) also contributed to prescribing errors. Errors were more likely to occur during tasks being carried out after hours by busy, distracted staff, often in relation to unfamiliar patients. Communication problems with senior staff and difficulty accessing appropriate drug dosing information contributed to knowledge-based prescribing errors. Several medical staff were unaware they had committed an error until their involvement with our study. CONCLUSIONS: Contextual factors that contributed to slips, lapses and knowledge-based mistakes in our sample are likely to be widespread in hospitals, and their impact on medication error may be substantial. Staff need training in how to recognise and deal with error-prone clinical situations. Safe prescribing practices (eg, the absolute requirement to acquire information before prescribing unfamiliar drugs) must be emphasised. Improved access to drug information at the point of prescribing, attention to communication barriers, and increasing staffing levels in particular areas are other potential strategies for reducing error.