ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor used to treat several malignancies, is associated with immune-related adverse events (IrAEs). Original dosing for melanoma was 3 mg/kg (maximum 240 mg) every 2 weeks (Q2W). Based on simulation studies depicting similar efficacy and toxicity to original dosing, extended interval dosing of 6 mg/kg (maximum 480 mg) every 4 weeks (Q4W) was introduced. OBJECTIVE: This study will compare safety between Q2W and Q4W dosing at BC Cancer in melanoma patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review for reported incidence, onset, and severity of IrAEs in melanoma patients treated with nivolumab Q2W and Q4W dosing was completed. Fisher's test was conducted for first incidence IrAEs using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were identified (Q2W n = 35, Q4W n = 36). Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No statistically significant difference was found in incidence of IrAEs between Q2W and Q4W dosing (Q2W 40% vs Q4W 50%, p = 0.477). Rash was most common (Q2W 79% vs Q4W 50%) followed by hypothyroidism (Q2W 33% vs Q4W 20%). Median onset of IrAEs seemed later with Q4W dosing (Q2W cycle 1 vs Q4W cycle 4). Regardless of dosing, most IrAEs were grade 1-2 in severity (Q2W 100% vs Q4W 89%). CONCLUSION: Q4W dosing is associated with comparable incidence and potentially later onset of IrAEs compared to Q2W dosing. Most IrAEs in both dosing groups were similar and mild. Therefore, Q4W dosing offers a safe alternative to Q2W dosing while providing benefits including decreased workload for staff, decreased clinic visits, and viral exposure by patients.
ABSTRACT
Oncology pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and assistants are key members of the multidisciplinary health care team (MHT) caring for patients receiving immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) developed this position statement to provide guidance on the role of oncology pharmacy practitioners in caring for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.Four key recommendations were identified: 1) participation as an integrated, collaborative member of the MHT;2) provision of education and training for patients, students, residents, fellows and other members of the MHT;3) involvement in clinical governance to optimise the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and4) involvement in research and development in the field of immunotherapy.In summary, oncology pharmacy practitioners play essential roles within the MHT in caring for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Pharmaceutical Services , Pharmacy , Humans , Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pharmacists , ImmunotherapyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Venetoclax is used to treat relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (r/r CLL). Tumour lysis syndrome (TLS) is a serious toxicity associated with venetoclax, and real-world studies suggest that the incidence may be higher than in clinical trials. The purpose of this study is to describe the incidence of venetoclax toxicities in British Columbia (BC). METHODS: Retrospective review of electronic medical charts for patient characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients treated with venetoclax for r/r CLL in BC. Patients were classified according to their risk for developing TLS. The incidence of TLS was categorized based on laboratory metrics or clinical diagnosis. Other non-TLS toxicities were also collected. RESULTS: Of 33 patients identified, 40%, 33%, and 27% were at low, intermediate, and high risk for TLS, respectively. Laboratory TLS occurred in 1/33 patients (3%), and no clinical TLS was reported. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurred in 19/33 patients (58%). Of these, neutropenia was the most common, occurring in 16 patients (84%) followed by thrombocytopenia, which occurred in 8 patients (42%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of TLS in patients treated with venetoclax for r/r CLL in BC was lower than in other real-world studies. Findings may warrant further investigation to determine if the higher incidence of TLS in real-world reports may be mitigated through modifying TLS risk categorization and associated prophylactic measures. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 venetoclax toxicity reported, and the incidence in BC is comparable to other centres.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents , Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell , Neutropenia , Tumor Lysis Syndrome , Humans , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell/drug therapy , British Columbia/epidemiology , Incidence , Tumor Lysis Syndrome/epidemiology , Tumor Lysis Syndrome/etiology , Tumor Lysis Syndrome/drug therapy , Recurrence , Neutropenia/chemically inducedABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Antineoplastic drugs are widely used in the treatment of cancer. However, some are known carcinogens and reproductive toxins, and incidental low-level exposure to workers is a health concern. CAREX Canada estimated that approximately 75,000 Canadians are exposed to antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings. While policies and guidelines on safe handling of antineoplastic drugs are available, evidence suggests that compliance is low. In this paper, we identify barriers and facilitators for safe handling of antineoplastic drugs in workplace settings. METHODS: We utilized a unique method to study public policy which involved compiling policy levers, developing a logic model, conducting a literature review, and contextualizing data through a deliberative process with stakeholders to explore in-depth contextual factors and experiences for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. RESULTS: The most common barriers identified in the literature were: poor training (46%), poor safety culture (41%), and inconsistent policies (36%). The most common facilitators were: adequate safety training (41%), leadership support (23%), and consistent policies (21%). Several of these factors are intertwined and while this means one barrier can cause other barriers, it also allows healthcare employers to mitigate these barriers by implementing small but meaningful changes in the workplace. CONCLUSION: The combination of barriers and facilitators identified in our review highlight the importance of creating work environments where safety is a priority for the safe handling of antineoplastic drugs. The results of this study will assist policy makers and managers in identifying gaps and enhancing strategies that reduce occupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents , Neoplasms , Occupational Exposure , Humans , Canada , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Workplace , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Neoplasms/drug therapyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Cancer drug therapy costs continue to rise and threaten the sustainability of Canada's public healthcare system. Previous studies have calculated potential savings utilizing different dosing regimens of cancer treatments. Our objectives were to determine the financial impact of drug wastage and to explore cost-effective dosing regimens for pembrolizumab. METHODS: This was a retrospective study reviewing data for non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma patients at all six BC Cancer Regional Centres during fiscal years 2017 and 2018. Pembrolizumab waste amounts recorded in pharmacy wastage logs were totalled. Estimates of the number of vials used were compared between vial sharing and non-vial sharing practices to determine the cost differences. Costs for dosing regimens used during fiscal years 2017 and 2018 were compared to 2 mg/kg weight-based dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg), 2 mg/kg dosing rounding down within 5% and 10%, and flat dosing of 200 mg. RESULTS: There were a total of 202 non-small cell lung cancer and 182 melanoma patients with 2948 doses dispensed. Documented wastage was valued at $1,829,047.44 (8.65%) and across all six centres, vial sharing could reduce costs by $3,207,600.00 using the 100 mg vials. Compared to fiscal years 2017 and 2018, 2 mg/kg dosing (to a maximum of 200 mg) was the most cost-effective, decreasing costs by $222,719.20; flat dosing of 200 mg was the most expensive, increasing costs by $6,625,260.40. CONCLUSIONS: Having smaller vial sizes, practicing vial sharing, and using weight-based dosing all improve cost savings. Further investigations on the allocation of resources to optimize drug use and minimize wastage are needed.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/administration & dosage , Cost Savings/statistics & numerical data , Drug Costs/statistics & numerical data , Drug Utilization Review/statistics & numerical data , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/economics , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/economics , British Columbia/epidemiology , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/economics , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/epidemiology , Cost Savings/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis/statistics & numerical data , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Utilization Review/economics , Drug Utilization Review/methods , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/economics , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Male , Melanoma/drug therapy , Melanoma/economics , Melanoma/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Skin Neoplasms/drug therapy , Skin Neoplasms/economics , Skin Neoplasms/epidemiologyABSTRACT
This article will provide an overview of the evolving nature of cancer treatment, the benefits and challenges of these new treatments, and the leadership strategies required to manage the evolution from a system perspective. The number and complexity of novel cancer therapies, while offering improved patient outcomes, has become a challenge for the healthcare system due to the high cost of these new therapies. In Canada, the implementation of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review and the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance helps to streamline the review and negotiating process and to ensure consistency across provinces. Strategies to support these processes include ensuring safe patient treatment, patient counselling, clinician education, and practice innovation.
Subject(s)
Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/therapy , Canada , Humans , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/organization & administrationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Studies examining healthcare workers' exposure to antineoplastic drugs have focused on the drug preparation or drug administration areas. However, such an approach has probably underestimated the overall exposure risk as the drugs need to be delivered to the facility, transported internally and then disposed. The objective of this study is to determine whether drug contamination occurs throughout a facility and, simultaneously, to identify those job categories that are potentially exposed. METHODS: This was a multi-site study based in Vancouver, British Columbia. Interviews were conducted to determine the departments where the drugs travel. Subsequent site observations were performed to ascertain those surfaces which frequently came into contact with antineoplastic drugs and to determine the job categories which are likely to contact these surfaces. Wipe samples were collected to quantify surface contamination. RESULTS: Surface contamination was found in all six stages of the hospital medication system. Job categories consistently found to be at risk of exposure were nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacy receivers. Up to 11 job categories per site may be at risk of exposure at some point during the hospital medication system. CONCLUSION: We found drug contamination on select surfaces at every stage of the medication system, which indicates the existence of an exposure potential throughout the facility. Our results suggest that a broader range of workers are potentially exposed than has been previously examined. These results will allow us to develop a more inclusive exposure assessment encompassing all healthcare workers that are at risk throughout the hospital medication system.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer (45-60%) use natural health products (NHPs). Pharmacists often find it difficult to advise these patients effectively. OBJECTIVE: To explore pharmacists' perceptions of the information needed to advise cancer patients on NHPs and develop a structured counseling approach. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using a focus group of pharmacists from an integrated cancer care organization in Canada. The outcome measures were the definitions of and reasons for the information needed to advise patients on NHPs and a counseling approach using laymen terms. RESULTS: Eight focus group sessions took place, from which 6 categories of information emerged: role of the advisor, evaluation of evidence, assessment of efficacy, assessment of toxicity, monitoring parameters, and provision of a closure. A patient counseling approach was developed based on this information. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provided a description of and rationale for categories of information needed to advise cancer patients on NHPs. A structured, step-by-step approach to counseling these patients was developed.