A single-center qualitative study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a pharmacist-driven protocol for high-dose methotrexate management.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed methotrexate clearance in several patients admitted to the oncology unit at a regional medical center necessitated the development of a pharmacist-driven protocol for supportive therapy with high-dose methotrexate. This performance improvement project evaluated the impact of the protocol on inpatient length of stay, patient safety, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected over 14 months pre-implementation and prospective data were collected over 19 months post-implementation. Primary outcomes included mean length of stay and incidence of kidney injury. Secondary outcomes included myelosuppression, treatment delays, mucositis, protocol adherence, and pharmacist interventions. Chi-squared and unpaired two sample t-test were used for data analysis. INTERVENTION: A literature review of consensus recommendations for supportive care post high-dose methotrexate administration was conducted to develop the protocol. Education on implementation was provided to involved disciplines. RESULTS: One-hundred ten high-dose methotrexate admissions for 23 patients were analyzed: 24 pre-protocol and 86 post-protocol. Mean length of stay was 5.17 nights pre-protocol and 3.91 nights post-protocol (p = 0.026). Incidence of kidney injury significantly decreased (16.7% pre-protocol versus 3.5% post-protocol; p = 0.0394). Lower incidences of all-grade anemia (83.3% versus 58.1%), neutropenia (62.5% versus 29.1%), and thrombocytopenia (58.3% versus 33.7%) as well as treatment delays (29.2% versus 11.6%; p = 0.036) were reported post protocol. No statistically significant difference in mucositis was detected. Pharmacist adherence to protocol was ≥80% resulting in 348 interventions with 99.4% provider acceptance. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a pharmacist-driven high-dose methotrexate management protocol resulted in a statistically significant decrease in inpatient length of stay and kidney injury. Further studies are needed to assess the impact on additional outcomes.

Prevalence of off-label use of oral oncolytics at a community cancer center.

PURPOSE: Oral oncolytics are becoming increasingly utilized for cancer treatment, but the frequency of off-label oral oncolytic use is not well described. The extent of off-label oral oncolytic use is a concern because the clinical benefits of such use to patients may not outweigh adverse health outcomes or cost concerns. METHODS: Prescription data for January 2011 through November 2013 from the St. Lukes Mountain States Tumor Institute (MSTI) Oral Chemotherapy program (OCP) was retrospectively analyzed. Use was classified as "on-label" if the cancer site, stage, and line of therapy met the FDA-approved indication. All other uses were classified as "off- label." Off-label use was further evaluated by whether it conformed to and was supported by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Twelve hundred and six first-fill oral chemotherapy prescriptions were reviewed, representing 990 unique patients and 44 individual medications. On-label use amounted to 71% and off-label use amounted to 29%. Eighty-eight percent of off-label uses were supported by NCCN guideline recommendations. A total of 3.3% of all prescriptions analyzed were for off-label uses not supported by NCCN guideline recommendations. The top five oral chemotherapies prescribed for off-label uses were capecitabine, temozolomide, lenalidomide, abiraterone, and everolimus. CONCLUSION: Oral chemotherapies are more often used on label than off label in current practice at our community cancer center. The majority of off-label use of oral oncolytics in this study was supported by NCCN guideline recommendations.

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.