Managing chemotherapy-related toxicities in the community setting: A survey of pharmacists in Ontario

Background

Toxicity management is a challenge with cancer treatment, including oral anticancer drugs. A review of claims data showed that a majority of publically funded oral anticancer drugs were filled in the community where pharmacists may not necessarily possess the specialized knowledge, skills, and experience required to provide effective patient care. A survey of community pharmacists in Ontario was conducted to identify the behaviours and preferences of community pharmacists specific to the management of treatment-related toxicities in order to standardize cancer care in this area.

Methods

An electronic questionnaire was distributed to approximately 5000 community pharmacists. The 21-question survey gathered information on the demographic profile of the pharmacists, basic geographic and socioeconomic variables associated with their practice setting, current toxicity management practices, education and training needs, and preferences for communicating with other providers.

Results

Of 349 pharmacists, almost all (94.9%) were interested in managing chemotherapy-related toxicities as part of their work, but the majority (77.1%) did not feel that their current level of pharmacy training has provided them with an oncology education sufficient for the demands of their practice. Approximately 52% of respondents indicated that they have reached out to the health care provider at a cancer centre, and of those, 72.7% reported that their questions were resolved within 48 h. More than half of all survey respondents (53.9%) indicated that they would prefer to receive a response within 12 h from cancer centres.

Conclusions

The results of this study support the need to provide community pharmacists with oncology-specific training and timely correspondences from providers at prescribing institutions in order to manage toxicities.

Evolving Best Practice for Take-Home Cancer Drugs

PURPOSE

Take-home cancer drugs (THCDs) have become a standard treatment of many cancers. Robust guidelines have been developed for intravenous chemotherapy drugs, but few exist for THCDs with a focus on decentralized models. Hence, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) established the Oncology Pharmacy Task Force (OPTF) to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCDs to ensure that patients receive safe, consistent, high-quality care in the community once they leave the cancer center/practice with a prescription.

METHODS

The OPTF included 34 members with comprehensive representation. Guidance from leading authorities was extracted through literature review, thematically analyzed, and synthesized to develop 29 recommendations. The consensus process (> 70% agreement) included a three-step modified Delphi method followed by an extensive review process.

RESULTS

Sixteen recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2), drug access (1), prescribing (4), patient and family/caregiver education (3), communication (1), dispensing (3), monitoring for patient adherence and adverse effects (1), and incident reporting (1).

CONCLUSION

Through a rigorous methodology, the OPTF derived a robust set of recommendations similar to the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society and ASCO/National Community Oncology Dispensing Association guidelines, further validating and strengthening the applicability across multiple jurisdictions, including those with decentralized models. Unique aspects in a decentralized model include the need for two pharmacy professionals, with one doing cognitive verification of the script and the other dispensing the medication; moreover, they optimize interprofessional communication between community providers and the cancer center/practice health care team.

Current state assessment of the organization and delivery of systemic treatment in Ontario

20

Background: In 2019, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) published 54 standards to ensure high quality and safe delivery of systemic treatment (ST) in Ontario, along with 16 recommendations for take-home cancer drugs (THCD). The standards/recommendations focused on 7 domains for the delivery of ST delivery and 8 domains for THCD. These domains varied between the two documents but also overlapped on issues including prescribing, patient care, patient education and training and education for providers. The standards for ST delivery were also prioritized according to Very High, High or Medium priority with regards to implementation expectations. The objective of this project was to obtain a baseline assessment of alignment with the standards/recommendations for all ST sites within Ontario. Methods: A validated electronic survey that linked to all standards/recommendations was distributed to 75 ST sites in August 2019. Sites had 8 weeks to complete the survey with their multi-disciplinary teams. Data was analyzed centrally using quantitative analysis methods by region as well as by site level. Results: The response rate was 100%. Overall, alignment in all domains was higher for intravenous cancer drug (IVCD) delivery as compared to THCD delivery. Important areas of gaps include CPOE/PPO use (75% for both IVCD and THCD); appropriate drug labels (90% for IVCD versus 52% for THCD); prescribing/dispensing independent double checks (IDC) (95% for IVCD versus 38% for THCD); pump independent double check (83% of sites); continuous ST with central line (86% of sites); standardized tool for THCD education (40%); and oncology training/education (96% of RNs versus 20% of pharmacists). Conclusions: The main gaps that were identified through the current state assessment were related to THCD, as opposed to IVCD. To ensure alignment with the standards/recommendations, these gaps should continue to be an area of focus for quality improvement. The survey was instrumental in informing provincial, regional, and local strategies to address these gaps and to ensure high quality, safe practices are embedded in ST delivery as outlined in the published best practice documents.

Improving the quality of oral cancer drug delivery across a health system

184

Background: Oral systemic therapy (ST) presents unique care delivery challenges. Gaps in patient education and monitoring for patients on oral ST delivery are well documented and can result in decreased adherence or increased toxicity. Within Ontario, cancer care is provincially coordinated through Ontario Health- Cancer Care Ontario (OH-CCO), but locally implemented by 14 Regional Cancer Programs (RCPs). Using a centrally coordinated, but regionally implemented quality improvement (QI) approach, we aimed to improve the quality of oral ST delivery across Ontario by enabling the use of patient specific monitoring plans to optimize treatment adherence and toxicity management. Methods: Between 2018 and 2020 a 2 year focused QI project was undertaken. A suite of 19 quality measures were developed to measure different quality domains for oral ST delivery including treatment plan documentation, patient education, toxicity/adherence monitoring and toxicity outcomes. In year 1, all regions used the suite of quality measures to establish baseline performance and develop a QI plan using rapid cycle improvement methodology to improve performance in at least 1 domain based on regional gaps and priorities. Projects were implemented and evaluated during year 2. OH-CCO provided QI coaching through dissemination of standardized QI tools, a monthly discussion forum and project specific feedback. At the end of year 2, a post-implementation evaluation was performed for each region. Results: 15 centers participated, representing all RCPs across Ontario. The participating centers implemented QI projects focused on treatment plan documentation (N = 3), patient education (N = 10) and toxicity/adherence management (N = 5), with some focusing on multiple domains. All centers reported an improvement in at least 1 domain (see Table). Key enablers identified include engagement with a multi-disciplinary team and the use of technology, while barriers include lack of onsite dispensing pharmacy. Future work will continue to focus on quality of oral ST delivery and better pharmacy integration. Conclusions: Through a centrally coordinated, locally implemented QI project, improvement in quality of oral ST care was achieved across Ontario. This model of QI focus has the potential to be adaptable across health systems. [Table: see text]

Toward a Common Goal: Improving Safety of Oral Chemotherapy Prescribing Practices at a Jurisdictional Level

PURPOSE

Extending the safety agenda from parenteral to oral chemotherapy was identified as a provincial improvement priority in the 2014-2019 Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Systemic Treatment Provincial Plan. Elimination of handwritten prescriptions for oral chemotherapy was one of the specific goals and led to a provincial quality improvement (QI) initiative involving systemic treatment facilities across 14 regional cancer programs.

METHODS

The initiative was centrally organized by CCO but locally implemented by the regional partners. CCO provided templates and tools, such as preprinted orders (PPOs), project charters, and an evaluation plan, and facilitated cross-jurisdictional knowledge sharing and exchange. Regions had flexibility in determining their local implementation strategies and were responsible for conducting chart audits to evaluate implementation success. Each participating hospital completed 3 audits-at baseline, immediately after implementation (audit 1), and 1 year later (audit 2)-using either a clinic-based or an outpatient pharmacy-based assessment.

RESULTS

Thirty-five facilities providing systemic treatment participated. At baseline, the provincial average for the use of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) or PPOs for prescribing oral chemotherapy was 71%. After implementation of the QI initiative, the provincial average for the use of CPOE or PPO increased to 91% at audit 1 and 95% at audit 2.

CONCLUSION

Although not all facilities met the goal of 100% CPOE or PPO compliance, the QI initiative led to improvement in safe prescribing practices for oral chemotherapy. A coordinated QI approach between a central decision maker and local partners can be an effective strategy to encourage high-quality cancer care and promote a culture of safety across a jurisdiction.

Evolving best practice for take-home cancer drugs in Ontario

246

Background: Take-home cancer drugs (THCD) have become a standard treatment for many cancers and present opportunities and challenges for patients, providers and administrators. Ontario’s system has been described as two-tiered, with intravenous cancer drugs (IVCD) viewed as more comprehensive, organized, safer, and more patient-centred. Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) is the Ontario government’s principal cancer advisor. In April 2017, CCO established an Oncology Pharmacy Task Force to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCD to ensure that all patients are receiving consistent high-quality care regardless of the method of delivery of treatment. Methods: The Task Force included 34 members with representation from patient advocacy groups, pharmacy and pharmacist associations, regulatory and standard setting organizations, and subject matter experts. Standards, guidelines and recommendations from leading authorities were extracted by CCO’s Evidence Search and Review Service and synthesized by a core working group to develop 29 statements. The consensus process included a three-step modified Delphi method with two electronic surveys and a face-to-face meeting. Seventy percent agreement was required to include a recommendation. Thereafter, an extensive review process was conducted with relevant CCO programs and committees as well as subject matter experts, stakeholders and standard setting bodies at the local-regional and national levels. Results: Sixteen consensus-based recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2); drug access (1); prescribing (4); patient, family/caregiver education (3); communication (1); dispensing (3); monitoring for adherence, identification and management of symptoms/adverse effect (1); and incident reporting (1) . This guidance will have most relevance for patients receiving THCD that require routine monitoring and for clinicians involved in delivering systemic treatment, and associated medications. Conclusions: Through the rigorous use of the Delphi technique, the Task Force developed a robust set of recommendations for THCD delivery in Ontario. Further work will be required to understand implementation enablers and barriers

Comparative effectiveness and safety of the implementation of universal public funding of FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine (G) + nab-paclitaxel (GnP) in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC): A population-based study

375

Background: FFX has been universally publicly funded in Ontario, Canada, for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) and unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC) since 11/2011 and 04/2015, respectively. GnP has been publicly funded for uLAPC and mPC (APC) since 04/2015. We examined the real world comparative effectiveness and safety of implementing funding of FFX and GnP for patients with APC. Methods: Patients with APC who received first-line FFX, GnP, or G from 01/2008-03/2016 were identified in CCO’s New Drug Funding Program database and divided into 3 periods: 01/2008-10/2011 (P1), 11/2011-03/2015 (P2), and 04/2015-03/2016 (P3). Data were linked with the Ontario Cancer Registry and others to ascertain demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes. Matching weights of propensity score to simultaneously compare three periods were generated using multinomial logistic regression. Crude and adjusted survival analyses were conducted to assess overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier and weighted Cox regression methods.Weighted negative binomial models were used to estimate rate ratios (RR) for all-cause hospitalization (H) and ED visits. Results: We identified 3696 patients (1250 in P1, 1891 in P2, 555 in P3) (overall mean age 65, female 46%). In P2, 49% received FFX. In P3, 53% received FFX and 35% received GnP. Median OS was 5.7, 7.0, and 7.5 months for P1, P2, and P3, respectively. Median OS for FFX and GnP in mPC were 8.8 and 5.5 months, respectively. OS was improved in P2 vs. P1 (HR = 0.84, 0.78-0.90) and in P3 vs. P2 (HR = 0.82, 0.73-0.92). ED visits were similar compared P2 vs. P1 (RR=1.02, p = 0.75) and P3 vs. P2 (RR=1.04, p = 0.48), and H was reduced in P2 vs. P1 (RR = 0.86, p = 0.01), but similar in P3 vs. P2 (RR = 0.98, p = 0.78). H for febrile neutropenia (FN) was increased in P2 vs. P1 (RR = 2.18, p = 0.04) but not in P3 vs. P2 (RR = 1.32, p = 0.45). Conclusions: Implementation of universal public funding of FFX for mPC improved OS and reduced the rates H overall, but increased FN-related H. Funding of FFX for uLAPC and GnP for APC improved OS without increased in ER and H.

Chemotherapy choice in advanced pancreatic cancer: What patient and disease factors influence prescription patterns?

327

Background: FOLFIRINOX (FFX), gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem)) are universally funded as first-line chemotherapy regimens for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) in Ontario, Canada. However, there is scarce real-world data on factors that may influence choice of chemotherapy regimens in APC. Methods: Patients who received first-line chemotherapy for APC between April 2015-March 2016 in Ontario were identified from CCO’s New Drug Funding Program database and linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry and other provincial databases to ascertain baseline factors. Multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine the associations between the prescribed chemotherapy regimen and baseline factors. Results: 546 patients were identified, with a mean age of 65 and 43.6% female. 9.9% and 9.7% had received adjuvant gemcitabine and radiation treatment respectively. 17.6% had previous pancreatic resection. 68.3% had zero Charlson score and 30.6% had ECOG performance status (PS) of 0. 72.7% had metastatic disease. The majority of the patients received FFX (52.4%) compared to GnP (35.7%) and Gem (11.9%). Age and ECOG PS were strongly associated with choice of chemotherapy regimens. (See Table) Conclusions: In Ontario, increased patient age and worse ECOG PS are strongly associated with choice of Gem compared to GnP and FFX. Previous treatments and stage of disease also impact chemotherapy choice. Understanding how providers choose chemotherapy in APC aids in comprehending our practices. Odds ratio (OR) and p value from multinomial logistic regressions. [Table: see text]

Outcomes of FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (GnP) in initially unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (uLAPC): A population-based study

394

Background: Data regarding the benefits of FFX and GnP in patients (pts) with initially uLAPC is limited. FFX and GnP have been universally publicly funded for first-line uLAPC in Ontario, Canada, since April 2015. The aims of this study are to determine (1) the overall survival (OS) of pts receiving FFX and GnP, (2) the surgical conversion rate of FFX and GnP, and (3) whether resection is associated with better OS in pts with uLAPC in an unselected, real world population. Methods: All pts in Ontario who started first-line FFX, GnP or gemcitabine (G) for uLAPC between April 2015 and March 2016 were identified in Cancer Care Ontario’s New Drug Funding Program database. They were linked to the Ontario Cancer Registry and other population-based databases to ascertain baseline characteristics (age, sex, performance status (PS), locating of tumor, income quintile, and rural residence) and outcomes (pancreatic cancer resection and vital status). Crude and adjusted models of OS were generated using Kaplan-Meier the method and Cox regression. Surgical resection was modelled as a time-dependent variable to examine its association with OS. Results: We identified 147 pts with uLAPC (mean age = 65, 44% female, 31% ECOG PS 0, 61% PS 1, 60% pancreatic head). Ninety (61.2%), 40 (27.2%) and 17 (11.6%) patients were treated with FFX, GnP and G, respectively. With a median follow-up of 7.5 months, median OS was not reached. The 6-month OS rate was 87.8%, 75.1% and 76.4% for FFX, GnP and G, respectively (p = 0.33). Resection occurred in 12 (8.2%) patients, with 10 (11.1%) and 2 (5.0%) treated with FFX and GnP, respectively ( p= 0.34). Surgical resection after initial chemotherapy was not associated with better OS in multivariable analysis (HR 0.26, 95%CI 0.03-1.98, p= 0.19). Conclusions: Pts with uLAPC treated with FFX and GnP appeared to have a reasonable OS in the real world, with > 75% of pts alive at 6 months. Surgical conversion rate in this unselected population appeared to be less than other single institutional studies. The current findings do not appear to show an early surgical benefit, but longer follow-up will be required to assess the potential long-term benefit of surgery.

Feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a proactive telephone intervention to improve toxicity management during chemotherapy

105

Background: Chemotherapy (chemo) is associated with a significant risk of toxicity, which often peaks between ambulatory visits. Consequently, effective remote symptom management support is essential to optimize self-management and resource use, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations (ED+H) during chemo. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility, acceptability and effects of a telephone management intervention on symptomatic toxicity and resource use during chemo for early stage breast cancer (EBC). Methods: A prospective study of telephone-based toxicity management among women receiving neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemo for EBC was undertaken at one urban and one rural site in Ontario, Canada. The intervention consisted of two standardized calls by nurses assessing common toxicities after each chemo (call 1 within 3 days and call 2 within 8-10 days). Primary outcome measures were feasibility and acceptability based on patient (pt) and clinician feedback. Efficacy was evaluated by self-reported ED+H. Results: Between 09/2013 and 12/2014, 77 women with EBC were enrolled (mean age 55 years). Most commonly used regimens were AC-paclitaxel (58%) and FEC-docetaxel (16%). 78% of pts received primary GCSF prophylaxis. Adherence with calls was 82%; mean call duration was 9 minutes. The intervention was well received by both pts and clinicians. 97% of pts indicated they liked receiving the calls and 94% would recommend this protocol be offered to all pts receiving chemo. Clinicians and pts felt the calls reduced pt anxiety by providing just-in-time education and counselling. Twenty five (33%) pts reported at least one ED+H during chemo, lower than the historical rate of 44% for this population in Ontario. Challenges included introducing an intervention that involved both routine clinical personnel and research staff and incorporating the calls into existing work responsibilities. Conclusions: Telephone-based toxicity management during ESB chemo is feasible, perceived as valuable by clinicians and pts, and may be associated with lower rates of acute care use. Larger scale evaluations of this approach focusing on effectiveness are warranted.

Influencing antiemetic prescribing practices and funding changes through evidence-based guidelines

31

Background: In 2013 Cancer Care Ontario released updated antiemetic recommendations supporting the use of aprepitant-based combinations as 1st line therapy for highly emetogenic and 2nd line therapy for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and discouraging the prolonged use of 5-HT3 antagonists. In 2014 changes were made in the Ontario drug formulary to align public funding to those recommendations. The impact of the changes in guidance and public funding on prescribing practices are now being analyzed. Methods: Using the Ontario Drug Benefit (ODB) database, data was extracted to analyze the prescribing practices of aprepitant, granisetron and ondansetron for chemotherapy-induced emesis between the pre-funding period (November 2013 to September 2014) and post-funding period (October 2014 to July 2015). Results: Prior to funding changes, an average of 197 prescriptions/month of aprepitant were billed to the ODB program totaling $22,422. After funding, an average of 1,165 prescriptions/month of aprepitant were billed totaling $132,145. This represented a 490% increase in utilization. The combined 5-HT3 receptor antagonists prescriptions/month billed during the respective time periods were 5,592 ($405,604) and 5,536 ($402,628). This represented a 1% decrease in utilization. Conclusions: There was a significant increase in aprepitant utilization and total expenditure to the ODB program indicating strong uptake of the triple-drug recommendation for highly emetogenic regimens. However, there was minimal change in prescribing practices related to the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, indicating a reluctance to decrease utilization. Further work is necessary to discourage the prolonged use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

Superstitions regarding health problems in different ethnic groups in Karachi

OBJECTIVE

To find out the superstitions regarding health problems in different ethnic groups, their implications over the socio-economic development of that group and to what extent can those superstitions be related to their level of literacy.

METHODS

The study was a questionnaire-based survey, 20 subjects from each ethnic group were selected by cluster sampling of residential areas where that particular group has its highest concentration, making a total of 100 subjects.

RESULTS

It was found that most people (73%) do have some superstitious beliefs. Fifty percent of people believe in them as a part of culture and tradition, another 25% got them from their elders. No significant difference was found between different racial groups (p value = 0.9). According to literacy rate, 73.5% of literate community and 94.1% illiterate community were found to have superstitions. The occupation of the breadwinner of family didn't have a significant impact over the belief in superstitions (p value = 0.6).

CONCLUSION

Majority of our population believes in superstitions, which are more common in illiterates. These superstitions not only predict health seeking behaviour of a person but also play a major role in shaping the response of a community to any health intervention program. Without the knowledge of these superstitions, effective community participation cannot be achieved.