Impact of a Statewide Oral Oncolytic Initiative on Five Participating Practices

Managing medications for patients with cancer and chronic conditions: It's time for collaboration between primary care and oncology pharmacists

OBJECTIVE

To provide a rationale for a collaborative care model involving oncology and primary care pharmacists to improve the coordination of care of medications for cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions.

DATA SOURCES

A review of selected literature and the authors' own research was used. Studies illustrating the gaps in care for medications and pharmacists' roles in oncology and primary care settings from PubMed were reviewed.

DATA SUMMARY

There has been a substantial increase in the development and utilization of oral anticancer agents (OAAs). Although OAAs offer convenience and flexibility, they also introduce challenges related to medication adherence, monitoring, and managing side effects. Up to 17.5% of patients experience moderate to severe symptoms from OAAs and about 30% report less than excellent medication adherence. Further, studies showed that 30% to 53% of adult cancer patients have at least one chronic condition that complicates their treatment plan due to the need for medications, increasing the risk of drug interactions, side effects, and non-adherence. The Primary Care Oncology Model (PCOM) incorporates both primary care and oncology pharmacists with comprehensive medication review and patient-reported outcome measure, respectively, to enhance medication appropriateness and effectiveness, and improve overall patient experience.

CONCLUSION

Implementing PCOM may improve the medication management of patients taking OAAs for active cancer treatment and chronic medications for their multiple chronic conditions. This collaborative approach can transform patient care by leveraging the expertise of both primary care and oncology pharmacists.

Patient-reported outcomes collected in ambulatory oncology practices: Feasibility, patterns, and correlates

OBJECTIVE

To examine the feasibility of soliciting outcomes from adults who received chemotherapy treatment for cancer and describe the patterns and correlates of patient-reported toxicities.

DATA SOURCES

Patient survey data from 29 Michigan ambulatory oncology practices collected in 2017.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of patient survey data. Descriptive statistics were generated at the patient and practice levels. Thematic analysis of open-text comments identified clusters of frequently reported toxicities.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Patients completed 11 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Using a 5-point Likert scale, patients rated the frequency of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain; the severity of nausea, vomiting, constipation, numbness/tingling, and pain; and how much numbness/tingling and pain interfered with usual or daily activities. Patients could also report two toxicities in open-text comments. Finally, patients reported unplanned health care service for toxicity or side effect management.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of 3565 eligible patients, 2245 participated (63%) and 457 (20%) rated at least one toxicity as severe/very severe. Across practices, the proportion of patients who reported at least one severe/very severe toxicity ranged from 8% to 50%. Troubling toxicities included pain frequency (mean 2.3, SD 1.3), pain severity (2.1, 1.1), and diarrhea frequency (1.9, 1.0). From completed assessments, 1653 (74%) reported at least one toxicity in open-text comments; fatigue (n = 182), stomach discomfort (n = 53), and skin/nail changes (n = 41) were most frequently reported. Regarding consequences, 156 patients (7%) reported unplanned health care service use: 41 (26%) visited an emergency department and 32 (21%) were admitted to a hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Querying patients on chemotherapy treatment experiences and toxicities was feasible. Toxicity rates varied across practices, which informed quality improvement. Toxicity severity and service use incidence exceed previously published trial data, particularly for pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal issues. Open-text questions enabled exploration with newer treatment regimens.