Evaluation of a pharmacist-driven rapid infusion rituximab conversion protocol at a multisite cancer center

Implementation of an Accelerated Infusion Protocol (90-Minute Infusion) of Rituximab and Its Safety in Patients With Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases at a Tertiary Veterans Affairs Center

Background Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting the CD20 protein on the surface of B cells, is used to treat several rheumatologic and oncologic diseases. The standard infusion duration of rituximab is four hours. Objective Evaluating the safety of administering the accelerated 90-minute protocol at our Veterans Affairs center to patients with rheumatologic diseases and monitoring for any infusion-related reactions. This study is unique as it examines infusion rates faster than those most described (120 minutes). Methods Patients treated with rituximab for autoimmune diseases between June 2020 and June 2022 at our center were included in the study. Our patients were over 18 years of age, met the inclusion criteria, and had received previous rituximab infusions without prior infusion-related reactions. They received the accelerated protocol of 90 minutes over their next cycles and were monitored for any reactions during their infusions. Results A total of 34 patients receiving 76 infusions were included in the analysis. Most of the patients were males (n = 27). The most prevalent indication for rituximab infusion was rheumatoid arthritis (n = 20). Out of 76 infusions, only two infusion-related reactions were recorded (2.6% incidence). The first patient had itching and a sore throat, indicating a grade 1A reaction. The second patient developed chest pain and dyspnea, which resolved with diphenhydramine and albuterol. For both, the infusion was completed after appropriate management. Conclusion The incidence of infusion-related reactions during the accelerated 90-minute rituximab infusion was remarkably low and well-tolerated by our rituximab-experienced patients. Only two infusions were complicated by a reaction, an incidence comparable to or even lower than other reported 120-minute infusion protocols. This protocol is time- and cost-efficient, allowing for more infusions per chair per day at our center.

The Rate of Infusion Represents an Important Aspect of Administering Anticancer Agents

Background

Infusion rate is one of the essential elements that should be included in all intravenous orders. Patients may experience adverse consequences or risks associated with inappropriate infusion. Meanwhile, there is growing pressure on the chemotherapy unit to deliver treatment quickly, efficiently, and safely, and thus it is very necessary to improve the chemotherapy process and service to cancer patients. Clinicians should consider how to further standardize infusion therapy, and innovate new infusion strategies to increase efficacy, reduce toxicity, improve patient satisfaction and save health resource costs. Sporadic studies have evaluated the effects of infusion rates of anticancer agents on clinical outcomes, economic benefits, and administration efficiency. However, an update review has not been available.

Methods

Relevant literature was identified by search of PubMed until September 2023.

Results

Infusion rates may have significant effect on the efficacy of anticancer agents (e.g., methotrexate, fluorouracil, and arsenic trioxide). Slow infusion is safer for platinum compounds, doxorubicin and carmustine, whereas fast infusion is safer than slow infusion of gemcitabine. Optimal flow rates of paclitaxel and fluorouracil are based on the balance between multiple risks of toxicity. Optimal infusion rate may bring economic benefits. If efficacy and safety are not compromised, shortened infusion may result in higher patient satisfaction, improved institutional efficiency and more nursing time available for other activities (e.g., biosimilar products, endostar). Other concerns about infusion rate include clinical indications (eg, paclitaxel and rituximab, methotrexate), severity and type of hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., platinum compounds), formulation features (e.g., paclitaxel, doxorubicin), and genetic polymorphism (e.g., gemcitabine, methotrexate).

Conclusion

The latest knowledge of infusion rate concerns will enhance the appropriateness and accuracy in intravenous administration. Interdisciplinary teams should collaborate and implement relevant risk management and healthcare policy. It is worthwhile to conduct comparative studies of intravenous therapy with different infusion speeds.

Impact of electronic interventions on guideline concordant ordering of rituximab infusion rate

INTRODUCTION

Rituximab carries a boxed warning for severe or fatal infusion reactions; most occurring with the initial infusion. Prior studies established that if the initial rituximab infusion is tolerated, subsequent infusions can be given safely over 90 min. The University of Chicago Medicine (UCM) did not have a standardized method to document infusion reactions for outpatient chemotherapy patients, making it challenging for providers to know a patients' eligibility for rapid infusion. This quality improvement project focused on a series of interventions to improve documentation and electronic ordering of rituximab.

METHODS

A flowsheet for nurses to record patients' tolerance of chemotherapy infusions was created within the electronic health record (EHR). Following results of flowsheet impact, a second intervention was implemented to modify ordering of rituximab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of guideline concordant rate ordering of rituximab. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of accurate chair time scheduling pre- and post-interventions and nursing compliance with flowsheet documentation.

RESULTS

Prior to flowsheet implementation, 85% of patients were infused at the guideline concordant rate, compared to 79% post-implementation. Prior to modification of rituximab ordering in the EHR, 85% of patients were infused at the guideline concordant rate, compared to 87% after implementation. Complete nursing documentation was done 89% of the time when the flowsheet was utilized, compared to 11% pre-interventions.

CONCLUSION

No difference in primary or secondary endpoints was found following our interventions. However, the infusion documentation flowsheet, when used, provided more complete reaction data compared to when it was not used.