Board-Certified Oncology Pharmacists: Their Potential Contribution to Reducing a Shortfall in Oncology Patient Visits.

PURPOSE: With an aging US population, the number of patients who need cancer treatment will increase significantly by 2020. On the basis of a predicted shortage of oncology physicians, nonphysician health care practitioners will need to fill the shortfall in oncology patient visits, and nurse practitioners and physician assistants have already been identified for this purpose. This study proposes that appropriately trained oncology pharmacists can also contribute. The purpose of this study is to estimate the supply of Board of Pharmacy Specialties-certified oncology pharmacists (BCOPs) and their potential contribution to the care of patients with cancer through 2020. METHODS: Data regarding accredited oncology pharmacy residencies, new BCOPs, and total BCOPs were used to estimate oncology residencies, new BCOPs, and total BCOPs through 2020. A Delphi panel process was used to estimate patient visits, identify patient care services that BCOPs could provide, and study limitations. RESULTS: By 2020, there will be an estimated 3,639 BCOPs, and approximately 62% of BCOPs will have completed accredited oncology pharmacy residencies. Delphi panelists came to consensus (at least 80% agreement) on eight patient care services that BCOPs could provide. Although the estimates given by our model indicate that BCOPs could provide 5 to 7 million 30-minute patient visits annually, sensitivity analysis, based on factors that could reduce potential visit availability resulted in 2.5 to 3.5 million visits by 2020 with the addition of BCOPs to the health care team. CONCLUSION: BCOPs can contribute to a projected shortfall in needed patient visits for cancer treatment. BCOPs, along with nurse practitioners and physician assistants could substantially reduce, but likely not eliminate, the shortfall of providers needed for oncology patient visits.

Blood pressure control in patients receiving bevacizumab in an outpatient cancer center.

PURPOSE: Hypertension is a common adverse effect of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling inhibitors, such as bevacizumab, with an incidence upwards of 35%. The management of bevacizumab-induced hypertension is important in order to avoid dose interruption/discontinuation and/or end organ damage. The efficacy of antihypertensive medications for this cause of hypertension has not been demonstrated. This study seeks to determine if antihypertensives are effective in treating anti-VEGF-induced hypertension from bevacizumab and determine which classes of antihypertensive agents are effective. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who received bevacizumab between January 2007 and September 2009 at two medical centers was conducted. Patients were included if they experienced new onset or exacerbation of preexisting hypertension, during bevacizumab treatment. Efficacy of antihypertensives was determined by recording a 28-day change in systolic blood pressure from the initiation or dose increase of individual antihypertensive medications. Secondary endpoints included an efficacy analysis of antihypertensive classes. RESULTS: Five-hundred thirteen patients were identified as receiving bevacizumab during the indicated time period. Fifty-seven patients met the full inclusion/exclusion criteria for analysis. The average systolic blood pressure declined by 23 mm Hg with 4 weeks of treatment (p < 0.0001). Each class had a statistically significant decline in systolic blood pressure of 15.5-57 mm Hg with the exception of diuretics and a group of miscellaneous antihypertensives. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first data that demonstrates individual classes of antihypertensives are effective in bevacizumab-induced hypertension. Most antihypertensives were effective in reducing blood pressure, with the exception of diuretics and miscellaneous antihypertensives, which may be due to a limited sample size.

Role of oncology clinical pharmacists in light of the oncology workforce study.

To date, the information published regarding workforce implications has focused on physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. But oncology clinical pharmacists also can assist with direct patient care and patient education activities.

Continued challenges with the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer: perspectives and issues on policy-guided health care.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are approved as an alternative to blood transfusions for treating anemia secondary to chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Recently, ESAs have been a source of controversy and confusion in the oncology community. This began when two European trials-the Breast Cancer Erythropoietin Survival Trial (BEST) and the Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy (ENHANCE) Study-raised safety concerns about decreased overall survival and increased venous thromboembolic events. In 2004, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to review the data and reassess the risks and benefits of ESAs in patients with cancer. On May 10, 2007, ODAC reconvened when five trials (BEST, ENHANCE, AMG-20010103, AMG-20000161, and EPO-CAN-20) showed decreased overall survival. The briefing document noted that studies demonstrating detrimental effects on survival and/or tumor outcomes used an unapproved treatment regimen designed to maintain hemoglobin levels above 12 g/dl. On May 14, 2007, just days after the ODAC reconvened, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a proposed decision memo for a national coverage determination (NCD) imposing restrictions on ESAs. For health care providers, aspects of the proposed NCD were markedly inconsistent with FDA-approved ESA use and generally were considered ambiguous and unclear. Over objections of several professional associations and members of Congress, on July 30, 2007, CMS posted the final NCD and declared it effective immediately. When compared with FDA-approved labeling and professional society guidelines, the NCD revealed differences in ESA initiation, dosage escalation, dosage reduction, and definition of response. These discrepancies have generated confusion among health care providers, who are struggling over whether they can feasibly provide a dual system of care-one for Medicare patients and another for non-Medicare patients-that is evidence based. With this supplement, we hope to educate health care providers on the issues and challenges associated with policy-guided health care when discrepancies exist between the policy and evidence-based practice; offer guidance on implementing the NCD; and highlight the important role of pharmacists in the process.

Clinical management of EGFRI-associated dermatologic toxicities: pharmacy perspective.

This article describes agents used to treat the dermatologic toxicities commonly seen during therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Therapeutic options include topical emollients, antibiotics, corticosteroids, and other agents for supportive care. While medical approaches to these adverse reactions are still in a "learning phase," continued experience will provide further insight into effective management strategies.