Appropriate use of medication among home care adult cancer patients at end of life: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Medications are commonly used for symptom control in cancer patients at the end of life. This study aimed to evaluate medication utilization among home care palliative patients with cancer at the end of life and assess the appropriateness of these medications. METHOD: This retrospective observational study included adult cancer patients who received home care in 2020. Medications taken during the last month of the patient's life were reviewed and classified into three major categories: potentially avoidable, defined as medications that usually have no place at the end of life because the time to benefit is shorter than life expectancy; medications of uncertain appropriateness, defined as medications that need case-by-case evaluation because they could have a role at the end of life; and potentially appropriate, defined as medications that provide symptomatic relief. RESULTS: In our study, we enrolled 353 patients, and 2707 medications were analyzed for appropriateness. Among those, 1712 (63.2%) were classified as potentially appropriate, 755 (27.9%) as potentially avoidable, and 240 (8.9%) as medications with uncertain appropriateness. The most common potentially avoidable medications were medications for peptic ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease (30.5%), vitamins (14.6%), beta-blockers (9.8%), anticoagulants (7.9%), oral antidiabetics (5.4%) and insulin products (5.3%). Among the potentially appropriate medications, opioid analgesics were the most frequently utilized medications (19.5%), followed by laxatives (19%), nonopioid analgesics (14.4%), gamma-aminobutyric acid analog analgesics (7.7%) and systemic corticosteroids (6%). CONCLUSION: In home care cancer patients, approximately one-third of prescribed medications were considered potentially avoidable. Future measures to optimize medication use in this patient population are essential.

Should INCB Consumption Data Be Utilized to Guide Opioids Policy?

CONTEXT: The International Narcotics Control Board's (INCB) opioids consumption data are often cited in the literature and by policy makers to benchmark the adequacy of pain management among different countries. This practice may be inaccurate as INCB data does not account for variations in disease burden and use of other pain medications and only controls for population sizes differences among countries. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that INCB consumption data may not be an accurate/sensitive indicator for pain management adequacy due to significant inter-country variations in disease burden and in the use of pain medications that are not reported by INCB. METHODS: We compared opioid consumption data between 2012 and 2016 for Jordan and King Hussein Cancer Center vs five high-income countries (United States of America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Japan) taking into consideration the cancer burden in those countries. In addition, we examined the significance of tramadol utilization in the setting of cancer pain management. RESULTS: Jordan's INCB-reported opioid consumption is ostensibly low at a median of 291 sDDD/million inhabitants/day. Compared to Jordan, the median consumption in the five HICs is 34 (range 4-172) times that of Jordan. However, when consumption is adjusted to cancer burden data, the gap is significantly reduced to a median of 2 (range 0.2-24) times that of Jordan and in the case of one institution's experience, the gap is eliminated. Furthermore, Jordan's tramadol's median consumption between 2012-2016 of 176 kg is equivalent to 127% of morphine consumption on an equianalgesic basis. CONCLUSION: INCB data should not be utilized to benchmark the adequacy of pain management among different countries without taking into consideration variations in disease burden and the use of tramadol and other pain drugs.

Descriptive study of clinical pharmacist interventions in adult hospice and palliative care at a comprehensive oncology center in Jordan.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have evaluated the role of a clinical pharmacist in hospice and palliative care in oncology. We aimed to describe the intervention of a clinical pharmacist in hospice and palliative care at a comprehensive oncology center in Jordan. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study at a comprehensive oncology center in Jordan between 2006 and 2019. Quantifi® pharmacy documentation system was used to retrieve the clinical pharmacists' interventions in three hospice and palliative care settings, inpatient hospice and palliative care, outpatient hospice and palliative care clinics and home health care. Where clinical pharmacists document their interventions, significance and acceptance of the interventions by the physician is done using Quantifi®. RESULTS: Over 13 years, 27,720 documented interventions were retrieved in the three settings of hospice and palliative care: inpatient hospice and palliative care, outpatient hospice and palliative care clinics and home health care setting. The most common reported interventions were drug therapy recommendation/discontinuation (41%), followed by medication reconciliation (21.7%) and patient counseling (16.8%). The medication classes most commonly associated with the hospice and palliative care clinical pharmacist interventions were analgesics (20.9%), antibiotics (19.7%), followed by medications for the nervous system (12.4%). The acceptance rate of the interventions by physicians was around (90%) and 100% of the interventions were considered significant. CONCLUSION: Our study showed the high impact of the hospice and palliative care clinical pharmacist in oncology providing the high number of clinical pharmacists' interventions.

The impact of pharmacist telephone calls after discharge on satisfaction of oncology patients: A randomized controlled study.

Purpose The aim of the study was to determine the impact of telephone follow-up calls on satisfaction in oncology patients after hospital discharge. Method A randomized controlled study, in which patients were randomized into two groups: The experimental group with the telephone follow-up (TFU) calls (intervention) and the control group (no intervention). The telephone follow-up call was conducted within 72 h after discharge. During the call, patients were asked about their medications, namely, whether they received them, understood how to take them, and whether they developed any medication-related adverse effect. Both groups were contacted by phone two weeks later to assess their satisfaction with the discharge medication instructions and the provided pharmaceutical services, using the 5-point Likert scale. In addition, hospital records were reviewed for emergency room visits and hospital readmissions within 30 days after discharge. Results There was no difference in the percentage of patients who reported being very satisfied between both the intervention and the control groups (45% intervention vs. 48% control, P = 0.68). The mean time of the intervention phone call was 3 ± 1.7 (SD) min. During the telephone follow-up call, medication-related problems were identified in 20% of the patients. There was no significant difference in emergency room visits and hospital readmissions in the intervention group vs. control (44% vs. 53%, P = 0.123) and (37% vs. 43%, P = 0.317), respectively. Conclusion Telephone follow-up calls conducted by a pharmacist to discharged oncology patients did not improve patients' satisfaction, emergency room visits or hospital readmissions; however, they helped to identify medication-related adverse effects in the oncology patients.

Revision and validation of a medication assessment tool for chronic cancer pain management.

The medication assessment tool for cancer pain management (MAT-CP) measures the quality of medication use in relation to guidelines. The original MAT-CP was reviewed, modified and tested at a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan. The tool comprised 30 criteria covering six different aspects of pain management. Seventy patients were included, males 41 (59%), females 29 (41%), mean age 49 (range, 20-79) years. The overall level of adherence to guidelines was 78% with good inter-rater reliability (κ= 0.899). The tool's implementation showed opportunities for improvement in pain management at our institution. The MAT-CP was revised and validated for the first time outside Europe. This tool can be routinely used to assess and compare the quality of pain management in different institutions.