Review of drug-drug interactions in patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to provide an overview of common drug-drug interactions (DDIs) associated with prostate cancer treatments and outline recommendations for managing polypharmacy. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL was carried out to identify pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes caused by DDIs that are relevant for prostate cancer patients, DDIs between prostate cancer therapies and co-administered medications (both prescription and over-the-counter), and measures to prevent DDIs. Medication package inserts were used to identify the impact of DDI on the prostate cancer therapy and suggested interventions. DATA SUMMARY: No DDIs are expected for the LHRH agonists leuprolide acetate, histrelin, goserelin, or leuprolide mesylate. However, DDIs have been reported for GnRH antagonists, anti-androgens, PARP inhibitors, and taxanes. Although there are no confirmed DDIs for sipuleucel-T to date, it is not generally recommended to use sipuleucel-T concurrently with immunosuppressive medications. Interventions to prevent DDIs include the use of software that can detect clinically significant DDIs, up-to-date medication reconciliation, the inclusion of dedicated clinical pharmacists in cancer treatment teams, and patient/caregiver education. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer patients have a high risk of potential DDIs due to numerous new anti-cancer therapies, the increased use of treatment combinations, and the likelihood of comorbid conditions also requiring drug therapy. Drug-drug interaction screening software, up-to-date medication reconciliation, inclusion of oncology pharmacists on healthcare teams, and patient/caregiver education will aid the development of treatment plans that focus on achieving an optimal risk-benefit profile whilst reducing the risk of DDIs.

Impact of institutional interventions on the rate of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is associated with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Intravenous premedication regimens have been devised to decrease the incidence and severity of HSRs. At our institution oral histamine 1 receptor antagonists (H1RA) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) were adopted as standard. Standardizations were implemented for consistent premedication use in all disease states. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence and severity of HSRs before and after standardization. METHODS: Patients who received paclitaxel from 20 April 2018 to 8 December 2020 having an HSR were included in analysis. An infusion was flagged for review if a rescue medication was administered after the start of the paclitaxel infusion. The incidences of all HSR prior to and post-standardization were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving paclitaxel for the first and second time was performed. RESULTS: There were 3499infusions in the pre-standardization group and 1159infusions in the post-standardization group. After review, 100 HSRs pre-standardization and 38 HSRs post-standardization were confirmed reactions. The rate of overall HSRs was 2.9% in the pre-standardization group and 3.3% in the post-standardization group (p = 0.48). HSRs, during the first and second doses of paclitaxel, occurred in 10.2% of the pre-standardization and 8.5% of the post-standardization group (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective interventional study demonstrated that same-day intravenous dexamethasone, oral H1RA, and oral H2RA are safe premedication regimens for paclitaxel. No change in the severity of reactions was seen. Overall, better adherence to premedication administration was seen post-standardization.

Immunotherapy in the frontline management of advanced and metastatic NSCLC.

The frontline treatment paradigm for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has changed dramatically in the past decade amid efforts to tackle this leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) receptor and its ligand PD-L1 are an important therapeutic option for patients whose tumors lack genetic alterations that dictate response to molecularly targeted therapies. With a growing number of FDA-approved ICI monotherapy and combination therapy options for first-line therapy, the use of biomarkers such as PD-L1 expression has become increasingly important in guiding therapeutic decision making. Presently, PD-L1 expression remains a key biomarker in this setting, in spite of its limitations. This article will evaluate the current and evolving clinical trends in the use of ICIs in the frontline management of metastatic NSCLC, as well as the challenges associated with PD-L1 expression analysis and biomarker implementation.

Clinical strategies for optimizing infusion center care through a pandemic.

The national pandemic resulting from the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has made the delivery of care for patients with cancer a challenge. There are competing risks of mortality from cancer versus serious complications and higher risk of death from COVID-19 in immunocompromised hosts. Furthermore, compounding these concerns is the inadequate supply of personal protective equipment, decreased hospital capacity, and paucity of effective treatments or vaccines to date for COVID-19. Guidance measures and recommendations have been published by national organizations aiming to facilitate the delivery of care in a safe and effective manner, many of which, are permanently adoptable interventions. Given the critical importance to continue chemotherapy, there remains additional interventions to further enhance patient safety while conserving healthcare resources such as adjustments in medication administration, reduction in laboratory or drug monitoring, and home delivery of specialty infusions. In this manuscript, we outline how to implement these actionable interventions of chemotherapy and supportive care delivery to further enhance the current precautionary measures while maintaining safe and effective patient care. Coupled with current published standards, these strategies can help alleviate the numerous challenges associated with this pandemic.

The Expanding Role of the Oncology Pharmacist.

Although oncology pharmacists have been involved in the care of cancer patients for over 50 years, the role of the oncology pharmacist continues to expand. Initially, pharmacists were primarily based within either an inpatient or outpatient pharmacy setting and their work focused on providing the necessary safety checks to dispense cancer-related medications. With technology freeing up pharmacists from dispensing functions and advanced training in direct patient care (e.g., oncology residency, oncology fellowship), the oncology pharmacist was able to provide direct patient care at the bedside or within the clinic where treatment decisions are made by the healthcare team. In fact, they have become integral members of the healthcare team. This Issue describes several expanding roles of oncology pharmacists in stem cell transplant, hematology, gastrointestinal oncology, and precision genomics, as well as oncology pharmacists preventing a reduction in cancer patient visits as the oncology physician shortage occurs. Oncology pharmacists are an integral part of the cancer care team; their value has been documented in several studies, and is highlighted in this Issue. We encourage the profession to continue to document their value so that one day each patient can have an oncology pharmacist as part of their cancer care team.

Establishing clinical pharmacist telehealth services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: After community transmission of the novel virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was detected in the State of Washington in February 2020, innovative measures, such as telehealth appointments, were needed to safely continue to provide optimal pharmaceutical care for patients with chronic conditions and cancer. SUMMARY: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, federal regulations limited the scope of telehealth pharmacist services. However, enactment of the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, followed by guidance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Health and Human Services, allowed currently credentialed providers (including pharmacists) to continue to provide patient care services via telehealth with fewer restrictions. Our health system has numerous credentialed pharmacists across multiple ambulatory care clinics. In this article, we highlight our process of expediting the implementation of telehealth services. This process included obtaining authorization for the credentialed pharmacists to provide telehealth services, completion of training modules, implementation of new technology platforms, development of new workflows, and utilization of resources for providers and patients to facilitate successful completion of telehealth visits. We also highlight the consent and documentation components crucially important to the telehealth visit and share some of our successes, as well as identified limitations, in providing pharmacist services via telehealth. CONCLUSION: In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, our institution was able to swiftly implement clinical pharmacist telehealth services for many patients, offering a safe and effective way to continue providing a high level of care. This article discusses our experience with and potential limitations of telehealth to assist other pharmacists seeking to implement and/or expand their telehealth services.

Practical considerations for the use of direct oral anticoagulants in oncology patients.

Oncology patients are at a high risk of experiencing venous thromboembolism. Historically, venous thromboembolisms in cancer patients have been managed with low-molecular-weight heparin on the basis of the CLOT trial published in 2003. However, recent prospective data provide evidence for safe and effective direct oral anticoagulant use in this population. The purpose of this review article is to evaluate the current body of literature surrounding direct oral anticoagulant use in the oncology population and to highlight key practical considerations when prescribing these agents for patients with cancer.

Demonstrating the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team.

INTRODUCTION: Although many oncology pharmacists are embedded members within the healthcare team, data documenting their contributions to optimal patient outcomes are growing. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the value of the oncology pharmacist within the healthcare team and describe the knowledge, skills, and functions of the oncology pharmacist. METHODS: A systematic literature review of articles that were published on PubMed between January 1951 and October 2018 was completed. Identified abstracts were reviewed and included if they focused on measuring the value or impact of the oncology pharmacist on provider/patient satisfaction, improvement of medication safety, improvement of quality/clinical care outcomes, economics, and intervention acceptance. Review articles, meta-analysis, and studies not evaluating oncology pharmacist activities were excluded. Studies were thematically coded into four themes (clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings) by 10 oncology pharmacists. RESULTS: Four-hundred twenty-two articles were identified, in which 66 articles met inclusion criteria for this review. The selected literature included 27 interventional and 38 descriptive studies. The value of the oncology pharmacist was demonstrated by published articles in four key themes: clinical care, patient education, informatics, and cost savings. CONCLUSION: With an expected shortage of oncology physicians and the ongoing development of complex oncology therapies, the board-certified oncology pharmacist is well suited to serve as a physician extender alongside nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants as the medication expert on the oncology care team. The demonstrated value of the oncology pharmacist supports their role as frontline providers of patient care.

Expanding pharmacy practice through the use of pharmacy technicians as process navigators to facilitate patient access of oral anticancer agents.

OBJECTIVES: Over the past 20 years, there has been an increase in the number of Food and Drug Administration-approved oral anticancer agents. Treatment with the use of these medications can offer patients many benefits, including increased convenience and improved quality of life. However, oral anticancer therapies are associated with significant challenges, including cost and difficulties in obtaining the medication. SETTING: Oncology pharmacists and nurses at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance oversaw the entire process of oral anticancer therapies, from obtaining signatures and insurance authorization to completing patient education and sending the prescription to the preferred pharmacy. This often led to duplicative efforts and challenges with communication amongst all the team members. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: The pharmacy department piloted a trained pharmacy technician who was provided the role of process navigator to facilitate and coordinate the entire insurance authorization and patient assistance process involved in obtaining access to oral anticancer medications. Before implementation of the program, the average time spent in total for each oral anticancer prescription was 45.8 minutes for the clinic nurses, 21.8 minutes for the clinical pharmacists, and 45.8 minutes for the pharmacy billing technicians. There was an 89.7% success rate in obtaining these medications for patients. RESULTS: After implementation of this program, the pharmacy technician serving as the process navigator significantly improved efficiency and required an average of 59.5 minutes to complete the same steps, compared with 114 minutes before implementation. After program implementation, it was also observed that the pharmacist and nurse were spending much less time on the insurance authorization process. After implementation of this new role, the success rate of obtaining oral anticancer medications increased to 93.1%. CONCLUSION: This innovative initiative expanded the scope of practice for pharmacy technicians and enabled the other team members to spend time on more clinical activities.

2018 Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association Best Practices for the Management of Oral Oncolytic Therapy: Pharmacy Practice Standard.

PURPOSE: The aim of the current work was to present a pharmacy practice standard from the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) on the management of oral oncolytic therapy. METHODS: The HOPA Standards Committee organized a work group of oncology pharmacist specialists to create a pharmacy practice standard for the management of oral oncolytic therapy that describes the pharmacist's role on the cancer care team, provides examples of practice tools and resources, summarizes current data related to outcomes, and discusses opportunities to enhance the care of patients with cancer who receive oral oncolytic therapy. We reviewed primary literature, including currently published oral oncolytic guidelines and HOPA's Scope of Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Practice. RESULTS: Management of oral oncolytic therapy was divided into the following primary areas: prescribing, education, dispensing and distribution, and monitoring and follow-up. Pharmacists' roles were summarized in each area with a focus on interprofessional collaboration, communication, patient safety, and quality of patient care. Standards describe the best practices in each area ( Table 1 ). CONCLUSION: Multiple opportunities exist for pharmacists to enhance the care of patients with cancer who receive oral oncolytics through collaboration with oncology care team members. The role of the oncology pharmacist in the care of this patient population is critical given the complexities related to cost, tolerability, and safety of oral oncolytic medications; issues of access; and the monitoring and follow-up of patients receiving this therapy.

Collaborative practice model for management of pain in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: The use of a collaborative drug therapy agreement (CDTA) by oncology pharmacists in a comprehensive pain clinic is described. SUMMARY: Recognizing the complex clinical services required by patients with cancer, the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance began offering cancer pain management through a specialized pain service. Initially, the clinic was staffed by one attending physician; however, as the volume of patient referrals increased, the clinic expanded into an interprofessional team that includes physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and pharmacists. Through an extensive credentialing process and under the guidance of a CDTA, pharmacists in the pain clinic are able to evaluate patients, develop treatment plans, and prescribe pain medication therapies for oncology patients. By having pharmacists provide these services, the pain clinic can improve medication dosing, ensure that medications are managed consistently, improve patients' quality of care, and save providers time by allowing tasks to be completed by appropriately trained ancillary staff. For cancer-related pain, the pharmacist, in conjunction with the attending provider, develops a pain medication plan following the principles of the World Health Organization's analgesic ladder. The pain clinic has implemented the routine use of several validated tools for screening and assessment of opioid risk as well as state guidelines for managing chronic opioid therapy. The pharmacists in the pain clinic also emphasize functional goals and improvement in functional status rather than complete relief of pain. CONCLUSION: As members of an interprofessional pain clinic team, oncology pharmacists use their specialized knowledge of cancer and pharmacotherapy to help manage and treat pain in complex cancer cases.

Oral chemotherapy food and drug interactions: a comprehensive review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Oral chemotherapy is rapidly becoming a popular dosage form for cancer treatment. These medications have a narrow therapeutic index, and their metabolism can be easily affected by food and/or drug interactions. These interactions can significantly reduce the effectiveness of oral chemotherapy, which could possibly result in harm to patients. METHODS: A systematic evaluation of 58 oral chemotherapeutics was conducted. Drug and food interactions were analyzed using US Food and Drug Administration-approved product labeling, primary literature, and tertiary databases. RESULTS: Our evaluation identified information about drug and food interactions. We present the recommended dose adjustments in our article. CONCLUSION: Oral chemotherapy is associated with a significant number of medication and food interactions. It is essential that health care providers evaluate patients' diet and concurrent medications to provide accurate patient education, therapeutic monitoring, and, if necessary, alternative recommendations whenever oral chemotherapy is prescribed.