Feasibility of a screening and prevention procedure for risks associated with dysphagia in older patients in geriatric units: the DYSPHAGING pilot study protocol

BACKGROUND

Dysphagia, particularly sarcopenic dysphagia, is frequent in frail older patients. Sarcopenic dysphagia is a swallowing disorder caused by sarcopenia, corresponding to a loss of muscle mass and strength. It frequently leads to inhalation and to the decrease of food intake, leading the patient to enter a vicious circle of chronic malnutrition and frailty. The awareness of the major health impacts of sarcopenic dysphagia is recent, explaining a low rate of screening in the population at risk. In this context, methods of prevention, evaluation and intervention of sarcopenic dysphagia adapted to the most at-risk population are necessary.

METHODS

The DYSPHAGING (dysphagia & aging) pilot study is a prospective, multicentre, non-comparative study aiming to estimate the feasibility of an intervention on allied health professionals using the DYSPHAGING educational sheet designed to implement a two-step procedure 'screen-prevent' to mitigate swallowing disorders related to sarcopenic dysphagia. After obtaining oral consent, patients are screened using Eating Assessment Tool-10 Score. In case of a score≥2, procedures including positional manoeuvres during mealtimes, food and texture adaptation should be implemented. The primary endpoint of the study is the feasibility of this two-step procedure (screening-prevention measures) in the first 3 days after patient's consent.The study will include 102 patients, with an expected 10% rate of non-analysable patients. Participants will be recruited from acute geriatric wards, rehabilitation centres and long-term care units, with the hypothesis to reach a feasibility rate of 50% and reject a rate lower than 35%.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved according to French legislation (CPP Ile-de-France VII) on 15 February 2023. The results of the primary and secondary objectives will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05734586.

Cost-effectiveness of the ONCORAL multidisciplinary programme for the management of outpatients taking oral anticancer agents at risk of drug-related event: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled study

INTRODUCTION

The development of oral anticancer agents (OAA) has profoundly changed cancer care, leading patients to manage their chemotherapy treatment on an outpatient basis. The prevention of iatrogenic effects of OAA remains a major concern, especially since their side effects are not less serious than those of intravenous chemotherapy. The ONCORAL programme was set up to secure the management of OAA in cancer patients followed at the Lyon University Hospital. This multidisciplinary programme involves hospital pharmacists, nurses, oncologists, and haematologists, as well as community health professionals. Given the economic stakes that this programme entails for the health system, a medico-economic study was designed.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective controlled study, with individual open-label randomisation. A total of 216 outpatients treated with OAA and at risk of developing a drug-related iatrogenic event, will be randomised (2:1) to undergo follow-up in the ONCORAL programme or usual care. The primary outcome will be the estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (difference in total costs per quality adjusted life years gained) at 12 months between the two groups. The secondary outcomes will be evaluation of OAA management consequences (relative-dose intensity, adherence, adverse drug events, drug-drug interactions, and proven medication errors), evaluation of overall survival and cancer-related quality of life, and patient-reported outcomes in relation to the treatment. A budget impact analysis will be implemented. Patient and health professional satisfaction regarding the ONCORAL programme will be measured.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval to conduct this study was obtained from an Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile-de-France VI) in October 2019, and from the French data protection agency (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés), according to the French Law. Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03660670.

Clinical impact and cost-saving analysis of a comprehensive pharmaceutical care intervention in older patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Hospital admission and discharge are at high risk of drug-related problems (DRPs) in older patients with cancer. This study aimed to assess the clinical and economic impact of a comprehensive pharmaceutical care intervention (RECAP) to optimize drug therapy in patients with cancer ≥75 years admitted to oncology or geriatric wards.

METHOD

RECAP intervention was defined as follows: at admission and discharge, hospital pharmacists conducted comprehensive medication reconciliation and review, identified relevant DRPs and provided optimization recommendations to prescribers; at discharge, pharmacists also provided patient education and shared information with primary care providers. The impact of the intervention was assessed by the rate of implementation of recommendations by the prescribers and the evolution of polypharmacy rate; a peer review of the clinical significance of DRPs was performed by an expert panel of geriatric oncologists and pharmacists. A cost saving analysis compared cost avoided through resolution of DRPs to cost of pharmacist's time.

RESULTS

From January 2019 and August 2020, 201 patients were included (median age 80 [75-97] years), 68.7% with solid tumors. DRPs requiring optimization were identified in 70.9% of patients at admission (mean 1.7 DRP/patient) and 47.7% at discharge (0.9 DRP/patient). Most pharmacist recommendations (70.8%) were followed by prescribers, allowing the correction of 1.2 DRP/patient at admission and 0.7 DRP/patient at discharge. Half of resolved DRPs were rated as clinically significant. However, polypharmacy rate was not reduced at discharge. Cost comparison showed $7.2 avoided for $1 invested, with an estimated total net benefit of $354,822 (mean $1766 per patient).

CONCLUSIONS

The RECAP model significantly reduces DRPs in hospitalized older patients with cancer. The model was cost saving, confirming the value of implementing it in routine practice.

Cancer outpatients during the COVID-19 pandemic: what Oncoral has to teach us about medical drug use and the perception of telemedicine

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted healthcare access and telemedicine has been widely deployed. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of this health crisis on treatment consumption and telemedicine development in outpatients treated by oral anti-cancer agents and followed by the Oncoral hospital/community multidisciplinary program where continuity care is maintained by a pharmacist/nurse pair.

METHODS

A prospective monocentric study was conducted among cancer patients who received Oncoral telephone follow-up during the 1st lockdown in France using a 56-item questionnaire which covered sociodemographic data, patient medication management, and telehealth.

RESULTS

178 patients received Oncoral follow-up during the 1st lockdown and 67.4% responded to the questionnaire. During lockdown, 9.2% of patients took medication or CAM for fatigue, 6.7% for mood alteration, 10.8% for sleep disorder, 11.7% for stress and anxiety, and 12.5% to get more energy. Homeopathy consumption was triggered by the pandemic. Habits about getting drugs from the pharmacy changed significantly (p < 0.001), while other treatment habits did not. 83% of patients were satisfied by the telephone follow-up established, 69% would be in favor of repeating this in case of a new epidemic wave. Those most in favor of using telemedicine seemed to be the youngest (p < 0.001), with several dependent children (p < 0.007), high school degree or higher education (p = 0.023), and in work (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Health system reorganization enables to limit the impact of the crisis on patients' drug use in oncology care. Telemedicine is a promising public health tool.

Enhancing collaboration between geriatricians, oncologists, and pharmacists to optimize medication therapy in older adults with cancer: A position paper from SOFOG-SFPO

Optimizing anticancer treatment and medication therapy in older patients with cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach, with a strong collaboration between geriatricians, oncologists and pharmacists. While all patients can benefit, some clinical situations seem to be high-priority. Careful attention should be given to patients with cardiovascular comorbidities and/or diabetes, which are prone to decompensate during anticancer treatment and often involve multiple medications. Another great concern is the risk of falls, closely related to polypharmacy, hence the need for a comprehensive medication review. Managing the pharmacological treatment of depression is also challenging and require shared expertise. Finally, pharmacists can prove valuable in situations of adherence difficulties or use of complementary medicines. Collaborative practice should begin at initiation of anticancer treatment and continue throughout the care pathway, as continuous reassessment is essential. Although the integration of pharmacists in multidisciplinary teams is often challenged by funding, collaborative should still be strongly encouraged.

Clinical and economic impact of clinical oncology pharmacy in cancer patients receiving injectable anticancer treatments: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Clinical pharmacy can reduce drug-related iatrogenesis by improving the management of adverse effects of drugs, limiting drug-drug interactions, and improving patient adherence. Given the vulnerability of cancer patients and the toxicity of injectable anticancer drugs, clinical pharmacy service (CPS) could provide a significant clinical benefit in cancer care. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on clinical pharmacy's impact on patients treated with intravenous anticancer drugs.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline database from January 2000 to December 2021, associating the keywords: clinical pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, pharmacist, oncology, and chemotherapy. To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to report clinical pharmaceutical services for patients treated with intravenous chemotherapy with a clinical and/or economic impact.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the selection criteria. Various CPS were reported: medication reconciliation, medication review, and pharmaceutical interview with patient. There was a lack of randomized study (n = 3; 7.3%). In one randomized controlled trial, pharmaceutical intervention significantly improved quality of life of patients receiving pharmaceutical care during injectable anticancer drugs courses. Economical results appear to show positive impact of clinical pharmacy with cost savings reported from 3112.87$ to 249 844€. Although most studies were non-comparative, they highlighted that clinical pharmacy tend to limit chemotherapy side effects and drug-related problems, improve quality of life and satisfaction of patients and healthcare professional, and a positive economic impact.

CONCLUSION

Clinical pharmacy can reduce adverse drug events in cancer patients. More robust and economic evaluations are still required to support its development in everyday practice.

Impact of pharmaceutical care interventions on multidisciplinary care of older patients with cancer: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Optimizing medication use is a major issue in older patients with cancer and pharmacists are increasingly involved in their multidisciplinary care. The implementation of pharmaceutical care interventions must be supported by impact evaluations to enable their development and funding. This systematic review aims to synthesize evidence on the impact of pharmaceutical care interventions in older patients with cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases, for articles reporting evaluations of pharmaceutical care interventions for patients with cancer aged 65 years or older.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the selection criteria. Most pharmacists were part of multidisciplinary geriatric oncology teams. Whether in outpatient or inpatient settings, interventions had common components, including patient interview, medication reconciliation, and comprehensive medication review to assess drug-related problems (DRPs). DRPs were identified in 95% of patients with 1.7 to 3 DRPs on average. Pharmacist recommendations resulted in a 20-40% reduction in the total number of DRPs and a 20-25% decrease in the prevalence of DRP. Prevalence of potentially inappropriate or omitted medications and their subsequent deprescribing or addition varied greatly between studies, notably depending on detection tools used. Clinical impact was insufficiently evaluated. Only one study reported a reduction of anticancer treatment toxicities following a joint pharmaceutical and geriatric assessment. A single economic evaluation calculated a potential net benefit of $3,864.23 per patient resulting from the intervention.

DISCUSSION

These encouraging results must be confirmed by more robust evaluations to support the involvement of pharmacists in multidisciplinary care of older patients with cancer.

Assessment of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Outpatients Taking Oral Anticancer Drugs Included in the Real-Life Oncoral Program

Simple Summary

Patients receiving oral anticancer agents (OAAs) have a substantial symptom burden. Given the trend toward patient-centered care, the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) seems appropriate to secure medication management, and to improve clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by OAAs using PROs. In total, 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients, in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms most commonly experienced were fatigue, various psychological disorders and general pain. This initiative is the first step in the implementation of symptom assessment by PROs in patients treated by OAAs. The results highlight the need for close coordination between community and hospital health professionals, and the integration of patient self-reporting systems in oncologic clinical practice.

Abstract

Background In previous studies, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve survival in cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by oral anticancer agents (OAAs) using PROs. Methods Between September 2018 and May 2019, outpatients starting OAAs were included in a 12-week follow-up to assess 15 symptoms listed in the National Cancer Institute PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, using a 5-point scale of severity or frequency. Patients were requested to alert a referral nurse or pharmacist when they self-assessed high-level (level 3 or 4) symptoms. Results 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms that were most commonly experienced were fatigue (>9 in 10 patients; 13.2% of symptoms declared), various psychological disorders (>9 in 10 patients; 28.6% of symptoms declared) and general pain (>8 in 10 patients; 9.4% of symptoms declared). Conclusion PROs are appropriate to detect potential adverse events in cancer outpatients treated by OAAs. This study is the first step for integrating the patient’s perspective in a digital e-health device in routine oncology care.

Preparations of exploration of immediate hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents: An oncology pharmacy perspective

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients are being exposed to antineoplastic drugs more frequently and for longer periods, resulting in a higher risk of hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmaceutical time and direct cost of drug allergy explorations following immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents.

METHODS

A micro-costing method was used to collect data on consumption of human and material resources for allergy exploration preparations. The monetisation was carried out on the basis of prices and hourly wage costs applied in 2018. The number and type of allergy explorations prepared by the pharmacy as well as nature of antineoplastic drugs tested, and the number of culprit drugs reintroductions were collected.

RESULTS

Almost 1.5 h is required to realise allergy tests for one patient including pharmacist time for prescription analysis and pharmacy technician's time for tests preparation. The mean manufacturing cost of these tests is estimated at €62.87 (€57.82-65.49) per culprit drug for one patient. Programming patients according to culprit drugs tested allows rationalising healthcare provider time and increasing efficiency. From January 2010 to December 2018, 277 patients were tested and 490 allergy explorations were performed, corresponding to more than 5000 preparations. Mostly, the culprit drug could be reintroduced (n = 383, 78.2%) allowing patients to receive the best possible treatment.

CONCLUSION

Management of hypersensitivity reactions is constantly progressing, as it contributes to improving patient care in oncology. This activity is time-consuming for the pharmacy team but allows patients with previous hypersensitivity reaction to continue effective treatment.

Real-life drug-drug and herb-drug interactions in outpatients taking oral anticancer drugs: comparison with databases

PURPOSE

Due to polypharmacy and the rising popularity of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), oncology patients are particularly at risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI) or herb-drug interactions (HDI). The aims of this study were to assess DDI and HDI in outpatients taking oral anticancer drug.

METHOD

All prescribed and non-prescribed medications, including CAM, were prospectively collected by hospital pharmacists during a structured interview with the patient. DDI and HDI were analyzed using four interaction software programs: Thériaque^®, Drugs.com^®, Hédrine, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) database. All detected interactions were characterized by severity, risk and action mechanism. The need for pharmaceutical intervention to modify drug use was determined on a case-by-case basis.

RESULTS

294 patients were included, with a mean age of 67 years [55-79]. The median number of chronic drugs per patient was 8 [1-29] and 55% of patients used at least one CAM. At least 1 interaction was found for 267 patients (90.8%): 263 (89.4%) with DDI, 68 (23.1%) with HDI, and 64 (21.7%) with both DDI and HDI. Only 13% of the DDI were found in Thériaque^® and Drugs.com^® databases, and 125 (2.5%) were reported with similar level of risk on both databases. 104 HDI were identified with only 9.5% of the interactions found in both databases. 103 pharmaceutical interventions were performed, involving 61 patients (20.7%).

CONCLUSION

Potentially clinically relevant drug interaction were frequently identified in this study, showing that several databases and structured screening are required to detect more interactions and optimize medication safety.

Immunosuppression medication adherence after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant: Impact of a specialized clinical pharmacy program

This study aims to evaluate the impact of implementing a specialized clinical pharmacy program in patients with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) on their adherence to the immunosuppression treatment after discharge. A prospective open interventional design using a retrospective control group was used. The intervention was based on pharmaceutical consultations: the first was performed the day before discharge of HSCT unit and the next consultations during day-care follow-up (weeks 2 and 4 after discharge). Proactive medication reconciliation was implemented with a complete list of medications before the discharge prescription. The discharge prescription summarized on a personalized drug schedule was explained to the patient. The importance of optimal adherence and the potential problems related to self-medication were explained to the patient. Immunosuppression drug adherence was assessed by a direct method using serum levels of calcineurin inhibitors. The potential impact on acute GvHD, and infection was investigated. Twenty-six patients were included in the specialized clinical pharmacy program and 35 patients were in the control group. Seventy-nine pharmaceutical consultations were conducted in the intervention group, lasting a mean 25 min and 16 min for the first and following consultations, respectively. Serum levels in the therapeutic target range were higher in the intervention group (61.5% versus 53.0%, p = 0.07), with greater intra-individual variation (p = 0.005). There was no significant intergroup difference in acute GvHD (53.8% versus 50.3%, p = 0.85) or infection (26.9 versus 22.8%, p = 0.72). The implementation of a specialized clinical pharmacy program for patients who have received allogeneic HSCT seems to be beneficial for immunosuppression drug adherence; this now needs to be confirmed in a multicenter study involving a larger number of patients.

Immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma: Impact of the SCARMET (Self CARe and MEdication Toxicity) educational intervention on outpatients' knowledge to manage adverse effects

Long-term multiple myeloma therapy by immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) raises the question of management of adverse effects. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of an educational session for patients on the acquisition of knowledge to manage hematologic and thromboembolic adverse effects of IMiDs. In this prospective single-center study, patients attended an educational session with a hospital clinical pharmacist and a nurse. The primary endpoint was the patient's level of knowledge for the management of IMiDs adverse effects, assess with a dedicated questionnaire administered before the session then 1 and 6 months after. Assessment of knowledge was combined with self-assessment of certainty. The secondary endpoints were adherence and IMiD treatment satisfaction. 50 patients were included. Patient knowledge increased at 1 month (p<0.001) despite a loss of knowledge at 6 months (p<0.05). Six months after the educational intervention, the number of patients with skills considered satisfactory by the pharmacist and nurse increased (p<0.01). Most patients showed satisfactory adherence, with medication possession ratio ≥ 80%. The Self CARe and MEdication Toxicity (SCARMET) study highlighted the impact of multidisciplinary follow-up in multiple myeloma patients to improve knowledge of toxicity self-management.

Economic impact of clinical pharmaceutical activities in hospital wards: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The positive impact of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) in improving clinical outcomes such as reduction of drug related problems is well demonstrated. Despite these results, the deployment of these activities is not systematically observed in the hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review first aimed to describe existing evidence regarding economic evaluation of ward-based CPS focusing on the entire treatment of a patient in a hospital setting. Secondly, the quality of economic evaluations of existing evidence was assessed.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Science Direct and the NHS Economic Evaluation databases from January 2000 to March 2019. English or French language articles describing an economic evaluation of ward-based CPS on inpatients in hospital settings were included. Articles not describing a single study, dealing with a CPS not considering the entire medication regimen of the patient or presenting both inpatient and outpatient CPS were excluded. Selected articles were analyzed according to Drummond's check-list for assessing economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies were included. About one third were American publications. CPS implemented in ICU represented about half of the selected articles. Pharmacist-to-bed ratios varied according to countries and care unit type with the most favorable ratios in ICU and in American studies. Cost-avoidance was mostly used to express economic impact and ranged from €1579 to €3,089 328. Studies yielding the greater economic impact were conducted in the USA with implementation of full-time equivalents pharmacists or establishing of collaborative practice agreements. Only 6 articles dealt correctly with at least 7 of the 10 Drummond's checklist assessment criteria.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that the existing evidence is not sufficient to conclude to a positive economic impact of CPS conducted according to clinical pharmacy guidelines. Funding resources, remuneration of clinical pharmacy activities and provision of standardized national clinical and economic databases appear to be essential evolutions to improve CPS development.

Drug cost savings in phase III hematological oncology clinical trials in a university hospital

The rapid emergence of expensive anticancer therapies is leading to exponential growth in healthcare expenses. In clinical trials, most investigational drugs are provided free of charge by industrial and academic sponsors. This results in drug cost savings for healthcare payers, who are no longer charged with the cost of the standard-of-care treatment, which would have been administered outside the trial. This study aims to estimate drug cost savings resulting from patient enrolment in hematological oncology clinical trials, from a public payer perspective. Retrospective screening identified all patients with hematological malignancies included from 2011 to 2016 in a phase III trial and having received at least one sponsor-provided cycle. Drug cost savings were defined as the standard treatment costs not charged to the payer due to sponsor provision of treatment. For each patient, cost savings were determined by the number of cycles received in the trial and the cost of standard (control arm) treatment. Of the 345 patients included in eligible trials during study period, 272 received sponsor-provided drugs. Drug cost savings could be estimated for 177 patients (65.1%) included in 27 trials. Total cost savings were €5218 million (US$ 6804 million) for 1720 sponsor-provided cycles. Mean cost saving per patient was €19 182.7 ± 29 865.7 ($25 015.24 ± 39 478.25). Most cost-saving trials were industry-sponsored (77.8%), although academic trials generated 40.15% of total cost savings. Enrolling patients in clinical trials, whether industry-sponsored or academic, leads to substantial drug cost savings for payers. Implications are significant for public payers facing increasing financial constraints, as savings can be reallocated to patient care.

Clinical and economic impact of medication reconciliation in cancer patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Medication reconciliation can reduce drug-related iatrogenesis by facilitating exhaustive information transmission at care transition points. Given the vulnerability of cancer patients to adverse drug events, medication reconciliation could provide a significant clinical benefit in cancer care. This review aims to synthesize existing evidence on medication reconciliation in cancer patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, associating the keywords "medication reconciliation" and "cancer" or "oncology."

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the selection criteria. Various medication reconciliation practices were reported: performed at admission or discharge, for hospitalized or ambulatory patients treated with oral or parenteral anticancer drugs. In one randomized controlled trial, medication reconciliation decreased clinically significant medication errors by 26%. Although most studies were non-comparative, they highlighted that medication reconciliation led to identification of discrepancies and other drug-related problems in up to 88% and 94.7% of patients, respectively. The impact on post-discharge healthcare utilization remains under-evaluated and mostly inconclusive, despite a trend toward reduction. No comparative economic evaluations were available but one study estimated the benefit:cost ratio of medication reconciliation to be 2.31:1, suggesting its benefits largely outweigh its costs. Several studies also underlined the extended pharmacist time required for the intervention, highlighting the need for further cost analysis.

CONCLUSION

Medication reconciliation can reduce adverse drug events in cancer patients. More robust and economic evaluations are still required to support its development in everyday practice.