ABSTRACT
Background: Persistent opioid use frequently leads to substantial negative impacts on quality of life, and as the outlook for numerous cancer types continues to improve, these complications become increasingly crucial. It is essential to acknowledge that extended or excessive opioid use may result in adverse effects in patients who completed radiation therapy (RT). Methods: In this time-series analysis, we compared the outcomes of patients who participated in the pharmacist-led opioid de-escalation (PLODE) program after completing concurrent radiotherapy (CRT) between June 2018 and February 2019 against patients who completed CRT between June 2017 and March 2018 and did not participate in the program. Results: Among 61 patients, 16 (26%) used opioids after completing CRT and participated in the PLODE program. Before starting the program, 93 patients completed CRT between June 2017 and March 2018 and 32 (34%) used opioids at CRT completion. These patients were deemed the control group. In the PLODE group, outpatient pharmacist intervention was performed, with 29 total interventions related to opioid use, of which 16 (55%) recommended tapering or discontinuing opioids according to the definition of this program. Patients who participated in the PLODE program discontinued opioids significantly earlier than those in the control group (median time to opioid discontinuation 11 days vs. 24.5 days, p < 0.001). None of the patients in the PLODE group resumed opioid use following discontinuation or escalated opioid dosing due to worsening pain. Conclusion: This study showed the utility of pharmacist-initiated interventions for opioid use in patients with head and neck cancer who had completed CRT.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Medical oncologists and pharmacists at our institution established an integrated support program aimed at preventing unnecessary treatment interruption or dose reduction during oral targeted therapy with lenvatinib. Here, we evaluated the benefits of this program in managing patients with thyroid cancer receiving lenvatinib. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated thyroid cancer patients who received lenvatinib between May 2015 and March 2017. This descriptive study collected records in which pharmacists contributed to changing doctors' prescriptions and categorized the interventions. RESULTS: During the study period, 24 thyroid cancer patients were treated with lenvatinib. Among patients, the incidence of temporary interruption and dose reduction of lenvatinib due to adverse drug reactions was 100% (n = 24) and 83.3% (n = 20), respectively. There were 193 temporary interruptions of lenvatinib due to adverse drug reactions. A total of 501 outpatient pharmacy services were conducted by pharmacists in collaboration with oncologists, of which 125 were interventions (24.9%). In addition, pharmacists conducted 156 telephone follow-up services; 18 (11.5%) of these were to consult an oncologist about a patient's confirmed problems and resulted in the decision to continue observation with no medical intervention while 41 (26.2%) resulted in the oncologist deciding to temporarily interrupt lenvatinib treatment after the report of an adverse drug reaction from the pharmacist. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist interventions in collaboration with medical oncologists improved lenvatinib therapy. Interventions for outpatients were conducted not only in outpatient clinics but also by telephone follow-up, clarifying the importance of continuous management for patients at risk of adverse reactions and misuse of oral medicine.
