Search

Aims: We aim to evaluate change in the use of prognostic guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) for heart failure (HF) before and after a cancer diagnosis as well as the matched non-cancer controls, including renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors (RASIs), beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs)., Methods and Results: We conducted a longitudinal study in patients with HF in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2005 and 2021. We selected patients with probable HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on diagnostic and prescription records. We described the longitudinal trends in the use and dosing of GDMTs before and after receiving an incident cancer diagnosis. HF patients with cancer were matched with a 1:1 ratio to HF patients without cancer to investigate the association between cancer diagnosis and treatment adherence, persistence, initiation, and dose titration as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using multivariable logistic regression models. Of 8504 eligible HFrEF patients with incident cancer, 4890 were matched to controls without cancer. The mean age was 75.7 (±8.4) years and 73.9% were male. In the 12 months following a cancer diagnosis, patients experienced reductions in the use and dosing of GDMT. Compared with the non-cancer controls, patients with cancer had higher risks for poor adherence for all three medication classes (RASIs: OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.35-1.68; beta-blockers: OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.08-1.37; MRAs: OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.08-1.59) and poor persistence (RASIs: OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.75-2.37; beta-blockers: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.12-1.63; MRAs: OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.16-1.93), and higher risks for dose down-titration for RASIs (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.40-2.04) and beta-blockers (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.05-1.62). Cancer diagnosis was not associated with treatment initiation or dose up-titration. Event rates for HF hospitalization and mortality were higher in patients with poor adherence or persistence to GDMTs., Conclusions: Following a cancer diagnosis, patients with HFrEF were more likely to have reduced use of GDMTs for HF., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Purpose: A recent observational study suggested statins could reduce cancer diagnosis in patients with heart failure (HF). The findings need to be validated using robust epidemiological methods. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of statin treatment on the risk of cancer in patients with HF., Methods: We conducted two target trial emulations using primary care data from IQVIA Medical Research Database-UK (2000 to 2019) with a clone-censor-weight design. The first emulated trial addressed the treatment initiation effect: initiating within 1 year versus not initiating a statin after the HF diagnosis. The second emulated trial addressed the cumulative exposure effect: continuing a statin for ≤3 years, 3-6 years, and >6 years after initiation. The study outcomes were any incident cancer and site-specific cancer diagnoses. Weighted pooled logistic regression models were used to estimate 10-year risk ratios (RR). 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping., Results: The first emulated trial showed that, compared to no statin, statins did not reduce the cancer risk in patients with HF (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94-1.15). The second emulated trial showed that, compared to treatment ≤3 years, statins with longer durations did not reduce the cancer risk (3-6 years: RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.33. >6 years: RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.79-1.26). No significant risk difference was observed on any site-specific cancer diagnoses., Conclusions: The results from the target trial emulations suggest that statin treatment is not associated with cancer risk in patients with HF., (© 2024 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has necessitated vast and rapid changes in the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered around the world., Methods/aims: An international survey of oncology pharmacists and technicians was conducted via the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and collaborating global pharmacy organisations to determine the impact that the coronavirus of 2019 has had on pharmacy service delivery, pharmacy practitioners and oncology practice., Results: The survey received 862 responses from 40 different countries from September to October 2020. The majority of respondents were pharmacists ( n  = 841, 97.6%), with 24% involved in the direct care of patients with the coronavirus of 2019. Of the survey participants, 55% increased their time working remotely, with remote activities including dispensing, patient assessment/follow-up and attending multi-disciplinary rounds. Respondents reported a 72% increase in the use of technology to perform remote patient interaction activities and that participation in educational meetings and quality improvement projects was reduced by 68% and 44%, respectively. Workforce impacts included altered working hours (50%), cancelled leave (48%) and forced leave/furloughing (30%). During the pandemic, respondents reported reduced access to intensive care (19%) and anti-cancer (15%) medications. In addition, 39% of respondents reported reduced access to personal protective equipment, including N95 masks for chemotherapy compounding. Almost half of respondents (49%) reported that cancer treatments were delayed or intervals were altered for patients being treated with curative intent. A third of practitioners (30%) believed that patient outcomes would be adversely impacted by changes to pharmacy services. Sixty-five percent of respondents reported impacts on their mental health, with 12% utilising support services., Conclusion: The coronavirus of 2019 pandemic has altered the way oncology pharmacy services are delivered. These results demonstrate the adaptability of the oncology pharmacy profession and highlight the importance of formal evaluation of the varied practice models to determine the evidence-based practices that enhance pharmacy services and, thus, should be reinstated as soon as practical and reasonable.

Individuals with cancer are at increased risk of developing new-onset diabetes mellitus and hyperglycaemia, and an estimated 20% of people with cancer already have an underlying diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. People with both cancer and diabetes may have an increased risk of toxicities, hospital admissions and morbidity, with hyperglycaemia potentially attenuating the efficacy of chemotherapy often secondary to dose reductions and early cessation. Numerous studies have demonstrated that hyperglycaemia is prognostic of worse overall survival and risk of cancer recurrence. These guidelines aim to provide the oncology/haemato-oncology and diabetes multidisciplinary teams with the tools to manage people with diabetes commencing anti-cancer/glucocorticoid therapy, as well as identifying individuals without a known diagnosis of diabetes who are at risk of developing hyperglycaemia and new-onset diabetes., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Purpose: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, changes to chemotherapy services were implemented as a means of managing imposed workload strains within health services and protecting patients from contracting COVID-19. Given the rapidly evolving nature of the pandemic many changes were rapidly adopted and were not substantiated by robust evidence. This study aimed to describe the changes adopted internationally to chemotherapy services, which may be used to guide future changes to treatment delivery., Methods: A survey was developed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT). It comprised 22 questions and examined the strategies implemented during the pandemic to prioritise and protect patients receiving SACT and the participants' professional opinion of the strategies employed. The survey was available in English, Spanish and French and was distributed via professional bodies., Results: 129 responses were obtained from healthcare professionals working across 17 different countries. 45% of institutions had to implement treatment prioritisation strategies and all hospitals implemented changes in the delivery of treatment, including: reduction in treatments (69%), using less immunosuppressive agents (50%), allowing treatment breaks (14%) and switching to oral therapies (45%). Virtual clinic visits were perceived by participants as the most effective strategy to protect patients., Conclusions: The pandemic has forced chemotherapy healthcare professionals to adopt new ways of working by reducing health interactions. Many areas of research are needed following this period, including understanding patients' perceptions of risks to treatment, utilisation of oral treatments and the impact of treatment breaks on cancer outcomes.

Background: The development and rapid uptake of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) has changed the outlook for patients with cancer. However, CPIs have different adverse event (AE) profiles to other systemic therapies, and prompt AE management is essential to assure optimal outcomes. In order to understand what and when adverse events are experienced, reported and managed during CPI treatment, a mixed methods study was conducted, including a case note review of patients who were receiving immunotherapy and semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their experience, management and reporting of AEs after receiving immune CPI treatment., Methods: This mixed methods study was conducted at a large cancer hospital in the United Kingdom. A case note review identified how and where patients reported AEs. Data relating to patients with lung, bladder, prostate and head & neck cancers who received CPI treatment between 01/04/2015 and 31/07/2018 were extracted from e-prescribing databases and clinical data were included for analysis at a single time point (31 July 2018). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients receiving CPI treatment, exploring experience of AEs and reasons for delays in AE reporting and management., Results: Sixty-two patients were included in the case note review, with 78 AEs being experienced by 36 patients (58%), including one patient experiencing 10 AEs. Serious AEs were experienced by 12 patients (19%) and ten AEs (17%) required oral steroids as treatment. The majority of AEs were reported to clinicians prior to further dosing, although milder AEs were often not addressed until subsequent clinic appointments. Interviews with 13 patients yielded major themes: variability, causality, decision making and impact., Conclusion: Most CPI-associated AEs are manageable if reported and treated promptly. Both the case note review and interviews found that reporting of non-serious AEs is often left until routine clinic visits, despite impacting patient experience, leaving the opportunity for AEs to be left unreported and implying a potential benefit for real time monitoring. Our study highlights a need to provide patients with reminders around AEs and their timely reporting even when apparently innocuous; patients must understand that AEs can occur at any cycle and even following treatment completion.

Background: Neutropenia is associated with an increased risk of mortality and hospitalisation. Strategies, including the prescribing of colony-stimulating growth factors (CSFs), are adopted when a high risk (> 20%) of neutropenic complications are seen in the clinical trial setting. With a diverse treatment population that may differ from the patient groups recruited to studies, appropriate prescribing decisions by clinicians are essential. At present, results are conflicting from studies evaluating the risks of certain patient attributes on neutropenic events; we aimed to aggregate these associations to guide future management., Design: A systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Studies were identified through a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases from inception to December 1, 2017. Studies were included into a meta-analysis if they adjusted for confounders; analyses were conducted in STATA v 15.1 SE., Results: A total of 4415 articles were retrieved by the search with 37 meeting the inclusion criteria and 12 eligible for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted for increasing age and yielded a pooled odds ratio of 1.39 (1.11, 1.76, I 2  = 24.1%), in our subgroup analysis of 4814 patients. Odds ratios for studies were pooled that reported associations for one co-morbidity compared to none and resulted in an overall odds of 1.54 (CI 1.09-2.09, I 2  = 13.1%), including 9189 patients in total., Conclusions: Results can enhance current guidance in prescribing primary prophylaxis for treatments that either fall marginally under the internationally recognised 20% neutropenia risk.

Purpose: Traveling for cancer care is difficult as patients might be suffering from the side effects of treatment, need to cover additional costs, and face disruption of daily life. The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on travel needs and experiences during cancer treatment from the point of view of patients and their families., Methods: This is a systematic review of the literature. The PRISMA statement was used to guide the reporting of the methods and findings. We searched for peer-reviewed articles in MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, and Web of Science and selected articles based on the following criteria: focused on patients and their families; presented findings from empirical studies; and examined travel and transport experiences for cancer screening, treatment, and related care. The MMAT was used to assess the quality of the studies., Results: A total of 16 articles were included in the review. Most of the studies used a qualitative design, were carried out in high-income countries and were conducted more than 10 years ago. Several problems were reported regarding travel and relocation: social and physical demands of transport, travel, and relocation; life disruption and loss of daily routines; financial impact; and anxieties and support needs when returning home., Conclusions: Patients and carers consistently reported lack of support when traveling, relocating, and returning home. Future research needs to explore patient experiences under current treatment protocols and healthcare delivery models, in a wider range of geographical contexts, and different stages of the patient pathway.