Prescriber and pharmacist understanding of revised Rhode Island pain management regulations.

INTRODUCTION: Federal agencies and national associations have implemented action plans in response to the opioid crisis. Furthermore, over 30 states have enacted legislation with opioid-related restrictions, guidance, or requirements. Following recommendations from the governor-appointed Overdose Prevention and Intervention Task Force, the Rhode Island Department of Health developed an original and updated version of Pain Management Regulations in March 2017 and July 2018, respectively. Our study aimed to identify disparities in interpretation and misconceptions of the updated Rhode Island Department of Health new Pain Management Regulations. METHODS: Our 29-question survey evaluated pharmacist and prescriber knowledge of regulations, with special attention given to pain management in patients with cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-two prescribers and 33 pharmacists completed the survey. The survey identified significant variance in regulation knowledge. Pharmacists correctly identified diagnosis exclusions 13-84% of the time, with a much greater understanding when diagnosis language was used instead of ICD-10 codes. Prescribers correctly identified exclusions 24-46% of the time, with little difference noted when using diagnosis language versus ICD-10 codes. The majority (59.3%) of pharmacists misclassified patients with no prescription dispensed in 30 days as patients who would be considered opioid-naïve. Both prescribers and pharmacists commonly misidentified the frequency with which the prescription drug monitoring program needs to be checked, although in both scenarios were stricter than the regulations themselves. In addition, there were significant differences in interpretation regarding naloxone co-prescribing requirements and patient awareness of naloxone co-prescribing between prescribers and pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Our findings outline several misinterpretations that affect access to chronic and cancer-related pain opioid prescriptions, despite several Rhode Island Department of Health-initiated interventions. When adopting regulations, states should proactively develop educational initiatives to avoid access challenges for patients with diagnoses of exclusion.

Prospective evaluation of drug-drug interactions in ambulatory cancer patients initiated on prophylactic anticoagulation.

INTRODUCTION: Drug options for VTE prophylaxis are increasing for ambulatory cancer patients and data regarding anticoagulant-drug interactions and their relationship to VTE and bleeding are needed to improve care. METHODS: Over one year, 108 cancer patients with high VTE risk were prospectively identified. Potential anticoagulant-drug interactions were ascertained by chart review and graded on need for intervention. Providers selected anticoagulant prophylaxis based on potential drug interactions and patient-provider discussion. A cross-sectional analysis was performed thereafter to evaluate VTE and bleeding endpoints within one year of anticoagulant initiation. RESULTS: The average number of potential drug interactions per patient was higher for warfarin than others (3.04 vs. 1.28 (apixaban), 1.02 (rivaroxaban), and 0.98 (LMWH)). The severity of the interactions based on grade was, for apixaban: 1.6% grade X, 50.8% grade D, and 47.5% grade C; for rivaroxaban: 2.1% grade X, 64.9% grade D, 33.0% grade C; for LMWH, 0% grade X, 66.7% grade D, 33.3% grade C; and for warfarin, 0% grade X, 29.4% grade D, 70.6% grade C. At the end of the investigational period, 11 bleeds and 7 VTEs were reported. Drug combinations significantly associated with an increased bleeding risk were crizotinib with apixaban or rivaroxaban and PPIs with warfarin. The use of sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim with warfarin was associated with an increased VTE risk. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs had fewer DDIs than warfarin, although interaction severity differed between anticoagulants. Some anticoagulant-drug interactions were associated with bleeding or VTE. Although not powered for analysis, DDI severity did not affect bleeding rates and inversely correlated with VTE risk.

Oral Anticancer Therapy: Management of Drug Interactions.

Oral anticancer therapy is increasingly integrated into the care of patients with cancer. Recognition and management of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is critical to providing efficacious and safe anticancer treatment. DDIs with QTc-prolonging agents, anticoagulants, enzyme inducers and inhibitors, antidepressants, and acid suppressants are commonly encountered with anticancer therapies. Here, we review frequently observed DDIs and outline literature-supported suggestions for their management.