Search

There is growing interest in utilizing pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing to guide antidepressant use, but there is lack of clarity on how to implement testing into clinical practice. We administered two surveys at 17 sites that had implemented or were in the process of implementing PGx testing for antidepressants. Survey 1 collected data on the process and logistics of testing. Survey 2 asked sites to rank the importance of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs using best‐worst scaling choice experiments. Of the 17 sites, 13 had implemented testing and four were in the planning stage. Thirteen offered testing in the outpatient setting, and nine in both outpatient/inpatient settings. PGx tests were mainly ordered by psychiatry (92%) and primary care (69%) providers. CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 were the most commonly tested genes. The justification for antidepressants selected for PGx guidance was based on Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines (94%) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 75.6%) guidance. Both institutional (53%) and commercial laboratories (53%) were used for testing. Sites varied on the methods for returning results to providers and patients. Sites were consistent in ranking CFIR constructs and identified patient needs/resources, leadership engagement, intervention knowledge/beliefs, evidence strength and quality, and the identification of champions as most important for implementation. Sites deployed similar implementation strategies and measured similar outcomes. The process of implementing PGx testing to guide antidepressant therapy varied across sites, but key drivers for successful implementation were similar and may help guide other institutions interested in providing PGx‐guided pharmacotherapy for antidepressant management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To implement and optimize a pilot transitions of care model for scheduled chemotherapy admissions in patients with hematologic malignancies at our institution. Methodology: We utilized the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) quality improvement technique to prospectively measure success of interventions related to improving transitions of care processes that occurred in multiple stages including development of standardized operating procedures, electronic medical record documentation, and education to the malignant hematology multidisciplinary group. Chart review was performed retrospectively for at least nine patients per PDSA cycle. Areas of intervention addressed and measured regarding communication between the ambulatory care and acute care settings included: admission purpose, processes related to insurance benefits investigations for specialty medications required in the post-discharge setting, and plan for growth factors, prophylactic antimicrobials, and follow-up. Results and conclusions: We included 28 patients and performed a total of three PDSA cycles demonstrating specific improvements in: communication regarding status of benefits investigations performed for specialty medications prior to admission, resolution of these benefits investigations at various time points, improvement in efficient use of the electronic medical record for chemotherapy orders, and patient instructions for appropriate use of prophylactic antimicrobials. Although improvement was noted initially with prescribing of discharge antiemetics and antimicrobials, regression to baseline was noted with the third PDSA cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) convened a forum to discuss the use of value-based care models in oncology, emphasize the importance of pharmacist involvement in implementing value-based care at their institutions, and create a white paper on this topic. OBJECTIVE: To highlight areas of opportunities for oncology pharmacists to participate in the implementation and delivery of value-based care in oncology. DISCUSSION: This white paper summarizes the HOPA/AMCP forum and serves as a call to action to health system pharmacists to engage in the continuum of cancer care as essential providers of value through the implementation of quality processes that inform safe and effective treatment choices, enhance patient satisfaction with care, and reduce unnecessary healthcare costs. Panel discussions provided examples of successful collaborations between health systems and payers, enabling data exchange and risk stratification of patients and subsequent reorganization of pharmacy resources from volume to value-based activities. CONCLUSION: The forum's recommendations urge pharmacists to engage in the practice of value-based oncology care and will be shared with patient groups, providers, and policymakers to move this conversation forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists are advanced practice providers who are highly trained and qualified healthcare professionals that can help support traditional demands on oncologists' increased time in direct patient care. The purpose of this study was to detail and assess the creation of a privileging process for this group of medical professionals within an academic medical center. Obtaining the designation of limited oncology practice provider (LOPP) gives the right to modify chemotherapy orders and to order supportive care medications. Methods: An interdisciplinary team developed a comprehensive training process inclusive of required educational domains, knowledge goals, and educational activities to become an LOPP. In 2018, five years after the implementation of the privileging process, a survey was distributed to assess perceptions of the training process and integration of LOPPs within oncology practice. Results: Most oncologists noted that working with LOPPs is beneficial to oncology practice (94%) and that they make modifying chemotherapy orders more efficient (87%). Greater than 82% of LOPPs also reported that their privileges streamline the chemotherapy process and make them feel valuable. Conclusion: The creation of the LOPP designation is an effective way to integrate nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists within oncology practice. The inclusion of a focused privileging process ensures the safety of cancer care provided and has created a streamlined process for chemotherapy modifications and supportive care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has emerged as a preferred induction therapy in multiple myeloma (MM) in the United States. Due to lenalidomide's teratogenic risk, patients and prescribers must comply with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program. The REMS program limits dispensing to certain third-party specialty pharmacies, whose average prescription fill times are longer than in-house specialty pharmacies. In practice, a delay in procurement of lenalidomide may mean that patients start therapy with only bortezomib and dexamethasone, delaying the start of more effective triplet therapy. The primary objective of this study is to determine if a delay from start of bortezomib and dexamethasone to start of triplet therapy with lenalidomide impacts rate of achievement of very good partial response (VGPR) after four cycles of RVd. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective review of adults with newly diagnosed MM who received RVd induction therapy at University of North Carolina Medical Center between April 2014 and June 2017. Patients who started lenalidomide ≥10 days after bortezomib comprised the "Delay" group, while those who started lenalidomide concurrently with bortezomib or within 1–9 days after bortezomib comprised the "No Delay" group. The primary outcome was VGPR or better response rate after four cycles of RVd. Results: Thirty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. Nine patients (23.7%) experienced any delay in initiation of lenalidomide, with a mean delay of 7.8 days (range 1–18). Four patients (10.5%) experienced a delay ≥10 days. No patients in the Delay group were of reproductive potential, compared to 8.8% in the No Delay group (p = 0.54). VGPR or better response rate did not differ between the Delay and No Delay groups (66.7% vs. 58.8%, p = 0.79). The mean number of lenalidomide prescriptions generated per RVd cycle was 1.35 (range 1–5, SD 0.74). Conclusions: This study did not demonstrate an effect on clinical response after delays ≥10 days between bortezomib and lenalidomide initiation. No patients in the delay group were females of reproductive potential, which is the primary target for increased safety behind the REMS program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy order review by pharmacists requires careful attention to many details, and serious consequences can occur if errors are made. Other high-risk industries have long used checklists to improve accuracy and reduce the risk of errors. Despite the recent expansion of checklist use in other areas of medicine, there is currently no published evidence that checklists are being widely used by pharmacists in the evaluation of chemotherapy orders. This article explains a flexible checklist called PRONTO (Patient, Regimen, Organ Function, Numbers, Toxicity, Order Verification) that has been successfully used by pharmacists in variety of practice settings in two academic centers in North Carolina. Proposed benefits of using a checklist in order review include standardization of review for better communication between collaborating pharmacists, a training tool for new or cross-training pharmacists, and an educational tool for students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bleomycin-induced pulmonary toxicity can have a significant impact on patient outcomes. However, no guidelines for ideal screening and monitoring are available. This paper reviews the literature to identify the best way to monitor and reduce patient risk for bleomycin pulmonary toxicity. We have created evidence-based guidelines to help healthcare professionals identify patient risk factors and provide appropriate assessment and monitoring for patients receiving bleomycin therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]