ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The differences in the clinical pharmacy services (CPS) provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists have not been sufficiently explained. AIM: This study aimed to demonstrate the differences in direct CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for patients and physicians, and to assess the potential impact of these services on medical costs. METHODS: We retrospectively examined CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for outpatients who underwent chemotherapy between January and December 2016. RESULTS: In total, 1177 and 1050 CPS provided by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists, respectively, were investigated. The rates of interventions performed by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists for physicians-determined treatment were 18.5% and 11.3%, respectively (p < .001). The rates of oncology and non-oncology pharmacist interventions accepted by physicians were 84.6 and 78.8%, respectively (p = .12). Level 4 and Level 5 interventions accounted for 64.6% of all oncology pharmacist interventions and 53.0% of all non-oncology pharmacist interventions (p = .03). The rates of improvement in symptoms from adverse drug reactions among patients resulting from interventions by oncology and non-oncology pharmacists were 89.4 and 72.1%, respectively (p = .02). Conservative assessments of medical cost impact showed that a single intervention by an oncology and by a non-oncology pharmacist saved ¥6355 and ¥3604, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggested that CPS by oncology pharmacists enable safer and more effective therapy for patients with cancer and indirectly contribute to reducing health care fees.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/administration & dosage , Medical Oncology/statistics & numerical data , Medication Therapy Management/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pharmacists/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care/statistics & numerical data , Antineoplastic Agents/adverse effects , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/etiology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Medication Therapy Management/organization & administration , Middle Aged , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/organization & administration , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pharmacists/organization & administration , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Professional Role , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
Local anesthetics (LAs) inhibit endoplasmic reticulum-associated protein degradation, however the mechanisms remain elusive. Here, we show that the clinically used LAs pilsicainide and lidocaine bind directly to the 20S proteasome and inhibit its activity. Molecular dynamic calculation indicated that these LAs were bound to the ß5 subunit of the 20S proteasome, and not to the other active subunits, ß1 and ß2. Consistently, pilsicainide inhibited only chymotrypsin-like activity, whereas it did not inhibit the caspase-like and trypsin-like activities. In addition, we confirmed that the aromatic ring of these LAs was critical for inhibiting the proteasome. These LAs stabilized p53 and suppressed proliferation of p53-positive but not of p53-negative cancer cells.