Oncology pharmacy practice in the United States: Results of a comprehensive, nationwide survey.

Introduction: This study was designed to describe the landscape of oncology pharmacy practice at patient facing institutional healthcare organizations throughout the United States. Methods: The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) Practice Outcomes and Professional Benchmarking Committee conducted a multi-organization, voluntary survey of HOPA members between March 2021 and January 2022. Four overarching domains were targeted: institutional description, job function, staffing, and training/certification. Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 68 responses were analyzed including 59% and 41% who self-identified their organization as academic and community centers, respectively. The median number of infusion chairs and annual infusion visits were 49 (interquartile range (IQR): 32-92) and 23,500 (IQR: 8300-300,000), respectively. Pharmacy departments reported to a business leader, physician leader, and nursing leader 57%, 24%, and 10% of the time, respectively. The median oncology pharmacy full-time equivalents was 16 (IQR: 5-60). At academic centers, 50% (IQR: 26-60) of inpatient and 30% (IQR: 21-38) of ambulatory pharmacist FTEs were dedicated to clinical activities. At community centers, 45% (IQR: 26-65) of inpatient and 50% (IQR: 42-58) of ambulatory pharmacist FTEs were dedicated to clinical activities. As many as 18% and 65% of organizations required or encouraged certification for oncology pharmacists, respectively. The median number of Board-Certified Oncology Pharmacists was 4 (IQR: 2-15). Conclusion: As the number of patients with cancer rises, the oncology workforce must grow to support this expanding population. These results describe the practice landscape of oncology pharmacy at US healthcare institutions to serve as a foundation for future research evaluating metrics and benchmarks.

Real world practices of luspatercept at an academic medical center.

Introduction: Luspatercept is approved for patients with very low-to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Dosing is based on pre-dose hemoglobin levels and transfusion requirements. This study aims to evaluate if a site with a pharmacist prospectively reviewing luspatercept doses achieves dose optimization, compared to a site that does not have a pharmacist prospectively reviewing doses. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review involving patients age ≥18 years or older with MDS at a major academic medical center main campus, which does not have a pharmacist prospectively review luspatercept doses, and a satellite campus infusion center, which has a pharmacist prospectively reviewing doses. Patients included received at least one dose of luspatercept between January 1, 2017 through August 31, 2022. The primary endpoint is the percentage of off-label luspatercept doses not consistent with prescribing information (PI) recommended dose adjustments. Results: The study included 17 patients. Of the 162 doses evaluated, 37 (23%) were off-label. Off-label dosing at the main campus was more common than at a satellite location (29.6% vs. 2.4%; p < 0.003). More patients achieved transfusion independence at the satellite compared to the main campus (83.3% vs. 27.3% p < 0.39). Conclusions: There was a higher percentage of off-label dosing at a center without a pharmacist's prospective review vs. a center with a pharmacist's prospective review. On-label dose optimization may lead to a higher percentage of patients achieving transfusion independence. Enhancements in the current ordering and review process can be improved with the involvement of a pharmacist's prospective involvement at both centers.

Evaluation of rivaroxaban use in patients with gynecologic malignancies at an academic medical center: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gynecologic malignancies are at an increased risk for venous thromboembolism. National guidelines recommend treatment of an acute venous thromboembolism with low molecular weight heparin for 5-10 days followed by long-term secondary prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for at least six months. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants are not currently recommended to be used in cancer patients for the management of venous thromboembolism because robust data on their efficacy and safety have yet to become available in cancer patients. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of gynecologic oncology patients with venous thromboembolism using rivaroxaban compared to warfarin or low molecular weight heparin as well as compare the safety and efficacy of these anticoagulants. METHODS: This study was a retrospective pilot analysis of adult patients with gynecologic malignancies who received either rivaroxaban, warfarin or low molecular weight heparin for treatment of venous thromboembolism at Augusta University Medical Center from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015. Statistical comparisons between the enoxaparin and rivaroxaban group were made using T-tests and Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, where appropriate. RESULTS: Out of the 49 patients, 37% (18) patients were on rivaroxaban, 53% (26) on enoxaparin, and 10% (5) on warfarin. Only one patient (4%) in the enoxaparin group experienced a recurrent deep vein thrombosis while there were no cases of recurrent venous thromboembolism in the rivaroxaban and warfarin group. The incidence of major bleeding was 17% (n = 2), 20% (n = 1), and 8% (n = 2) in patients receiving rivaroxaban, enoxaparin, and warfarin, respectively. The rate of switching to a different anticoagulant than originally prescribed was 42% (n = 14) in the enoxaparin arm, and 5.5% (n = 1) in the rivaroxaban arm. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of our gynecologic oncology patients received rivaroxaban for the management of venous thromboembolism. The sample size of this pilot analysis was too small to draw any conclusions regarding efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin and warfarin. High rate of rivaroxaban use in gynecologic oncology patients at our institution highlights the need for larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials to confirm the safety and efficacy of its use in this population.