A prospective survey of knowledge and perceptions of ondansetron: what do health care workers know about this drug?

Ondansetron is a relatively new drug whose optimal use is dependent on an understanding of its characteristics and role relative to traditional antiemetics. To assess perceptions and knowledge regarding ondansetron, we conducted a prospective written survey involving 56 physicians, pharmacists, and nurses at this hospital. Pharmacists claimed to be exposed to ondansetron promotion by industry more than the other groups. Apart from industry, pharmacists were considered to be the most common source of drug information. Nurses were less aware of dosage form equivalence than the other groups (p = 0.042). Physicians were more aware of twice daily dosing efficacy than other respondents (p = 0.0006). Nurses were able to better identify the relative duration of antiemetic benefit over metoclopramide (p = 0.008); however, most participants tended to be misinformed on this issue. Pharmacists were more familiar with the side effect profile while physicians were more cognizant of oral (p = 0.001) and parenteral (p = 0.018) drug costs than other groups. Overall, survey scores for physicians and pharmacists were higher than those for nurses (p = 0.007). There is an apparent difference across health care profession disciplines in the perceptions and knowledge about ondansetron. Specific misconceptions could lead to suboptimal drug use and warrant efforts to ensure a good understanding of the attributes and relative role of this agent.

Amphotericin B infusion-related toxicity: comparison of two- and four-hour infusions.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of infusion duration on infusion-related adverse effects (IRAEs) associated with prophylactic or treatment regimens of amphotericin B in patients with leukemia/bone marrow transplant (BMT). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, 2-arm, complete crossover, prospective clinical trial. SETTING: A university-affiliated tertiary care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study population consisted of 25 consecutive patients with leukemia/BMT who received 162 prophylactic regimen infusions and 169 treatment regimen infusions of amphotericin B via a central line. Prior to each infusion all patients received a parenteral IRAE prophylaxis regimen of diphenhydramine 25 mg and hydrocortisone 25 mg. No test doses or incremental amphotericin B doses were administered. Patients were monitored closely for IRAEs, which were documented by using a standardized data collection form. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence and nature of IRAEs during a 6-hour monitoring period following the initiation of each infusion was measured. Patients served as their own controls. IRAEs were compared according to infusion duration and therapeutic indication. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-one 2- and 4-hour amphotericin B infusions were administered. We found no difference between 2- and 4-hour infusions in the incidence and severity of IRAEs, including overall events (29% of 166 2-hour infusions vs. 25% of 165 4-hour infusions), chill scores (8% of 166 2-hour infusions vs. 7% of 165 4-hour infusions; highest score 7 vs. 6), nausea and vomiting (7% vs. 12%; highest score 4 in both groups), fever (3% vs. 2%), highest temperature increase (2.4 vs. 1.6 degrees C), systolic hypotension (6% vs. 2%), greatest decrease from baseline (40 vs. 62 mm Hg), diastolic hypotension (5% vs. 3%), and greatest decrease (30 vs. 28 mm Hg) (p > 0.05). Overall, IRAEs were less common in prophylactic treatment regimens (35 events [22%] in 162 infusions) than in treatment regimens (55 events [32%] in 169 infusions) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that patients with leukemia/BMT without myocardial or renal dysfunction who receive hydrocortisone and diphenhydramine as premedications can tolerate 2-hour central line infusions of prophylactic or treatment regimens of amphotericin B as well as 4-hour infusions.

Evaluation of a patient education program for solid organ transplant patients.

Medication counselling of transplant patients plays a major role in the outcome of the transplant. The medication counselling program at Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre for Solid Organ Transplant (SOT) patients consists of verbal counselling by a pharmacist, provision of medication teaching sheets, and patient participation in the self-medication program. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of the medication counselling program for SOT patients and to develop a series of tests to serve as a teaching tool. Solid organ transplant patients who were English speaking and tolerated oral medications were enrolled in the study. A prospective evaluation of the medication counselling program was done through a series of identical tests. Percent scores were calculated for each test, and pre-test scores (scores prior to counselling) were compared to post-test scores (scores after counselling). Twenty-eight SOT patients participated in the study. Patients scored an average of 25% on the pre-test prior to the counselling session and 66% on the post-test at the time of discharge. When scores on specific questions were compared, patients did well on drug identification, dosage and indications, but poorly on questions regarding side effects. Patient counselling improves medication knowledge in SOT patients as indicated by an increase in test scores. The combination of repeated counselling sessions and the participation in the self-medication program reinforces medication knowledge and maximizes retention of knowledge.