Search

Objective Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common and potentially debilitating adverse effect of chemotherapy. Refractory CINV can be particularly difficult to control. This report provides details on the implementation and evaluation of a pharmacist-led program for the management of refractory CINV in hematology and oncology clinics. Methods A pharmacist-led program open to adult outpatients with refractory CINV was implemented at University of Wisconsin. Pharmacists conducted baseline and follow-up assessments, provided patient education, and started, discontinued, and/or adjusted antiemetics as clinically necessary for all enrolled patients. Retrospective chart review was used to describe the proportion of patients whose CINV improved through pharmacist intervention, effect of the program on antiemetic adherence, categorization of pharmacist interventions, and duration of patient enrollment. Results Forty-six patients were enrolled between February 2019 and January 2020. Forty-one patients (89.1%) had an overall reduction in their nausea and vomiting from baseline. Eleven patients (23.9%) met criteria for nonadherence to prescribed antiemetics at baseline; all patients were adherent at unenrollment. A total of 111 pharmacist interventions were made. The most common intervention was addition of new breakthrough antiemetic. The least common intervention was dose escalation of a previously prescribed antiemetic. The average number of interventions made per patient was 2.5. On average, patients were enrolled in the program for 16.6 days and met with a pharmacist three times. Conclusion Implementation of this program standardized and streamlined pharmacist involvement with refractory CINV. Enrollment resulted in a measurable reduction in nausea and/or vomiting for patients with refractory CINV.

Background and purpose Presentation of patient cases to a preceptor is a complex skill taught throughout the pharmacy curriculum. However, published literature to guide instruction on this skill is lacking. The objective of this project was to inform revisions to a patient presentations curriculum through measurement and evaluation of student confidence to perform skills necessary to effectively present a patient case to a preceptor. Educational activity and setting A patient presentations to pharmacy preceptor curriculum was implemented into a pharmacotherapy skills laboratory course. Students were invited to complete three surveys over the course of the semester to evaluate areas for improvement in the teaching of this skill. Surveys measured student confidence in ability to identify and present relevant components within an electronic health record, identify and resolve drug-related problems, and communicate effectively during a patient presentation (34 items, 7-point Likert type scale). Survey results were analyzed, and instructional interventions were identified and designed. Findings Student confidence to present a patient to a pharmacy preceptor improved over the semester. Four interventions were designed and implemented to address five low self-reported student confidence items. Interventions included creation of large-group discussions, standardization of student feedback, and revision of a lab to limit student preparation time. Survey data revealed students understood the importance of evaluating patient cases and agreed these skills are applicable to multiple practice settings. Summary Based on student confidence data, areas for improvement in a patient presentations curriculum were identified, allowing for implementation of instructional interventions that targeted specific performance items.

PURPOSE: Cases of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) under-reporting have been sporadically described in the literature, but no studies have focused on actively examining this behavior. Our primary aim was to identify women who purposefully under-reported CIPN, along with reasons for doing so. A secondary aim was to explore factors enabling or hindering communication of CIPN to clinicians. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with women with breast cancer who had received paclitaxel in a prospective observational study. The interview guide was developed based on factors hypothesized to influence side effect disclosure to clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically content analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-four women were interviewed. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: 1) enablers of CIPN reporting (e.g., positive relationships with the oncology team, sufficient appointment time, existence of alternative communication channels to office visits, expectation of CIPN as a side effect); 2) deterrents to CIPN reporting (e.g., perception of need to complete the full course of therapy, fear of treatment discontinuation, lack of knowledge of long-term consequences of CIPN); and 3) balancing survival versus functional impairment due to CIPN. Women prioritized efficacy over CIPN until physical functioning was meaningfully affected. No patients reported purposeful CIPN under-reporting, but three women admitted having considered doing so. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of evidence of CIPN withholding, women considered both the effectiveness and the toxicity of paclitaxel treatment, as well as beliefs about treatment and long-term consequences of CIPN and relationship with the oncology team, when deciding whether to report CIPN symptoms.

Purpose Discrepancies between clinicians’ assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) have been described, though the underlying reasons are unknown. Our objective was to identify potential patient-specific factors associated with under-describing of CIPN to clinicians in women with non-metastatic breast cancer treated with paclitaxel. Methods Patients enrolled in an observational study (n = 60) completed weekly CIPN PRO using the EORTC CIPN20. Clinician-documented CIPN using the NCI CTCAE were abstracted from the electronic medical record and paired with CIPN20 data at weeks 7 and 10. Patients were classified as under-describers if their CIPN20 was above the 80th percentile of the CIPN20 distribution for that CTCAE grade from an independent clinical trial (N08CA). Demographics, Assessment of Survivor Concerns (ASC), Trust in Oncologist Scale (TiOS), and health literacy assessment were collected post-treatment via survey. Repeated measures cumulative logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with under-describing CIPN. Results Forty-two women completed the survey (response rate 70%). Three and 9 patients were categorized as under-describers at weeks 7 and 10, respectively. Women who were not working (OR = 9.00, 95%CI 1.06–76.15), had lower income (OR = 7.04, 95%CI 1.5–32.99), and displayed higher trust in their oncologist’s competence (OR = 1.29, 95%CI 1.03–1.62 for a 0.1-unit increase in score) were more likely to under-describe CIPN symptoms. Conclusions This preliminary study identified non-working status, low income and trust in oncologist’s competence as potential factors influencing under-description of CIPN to the clinical team. Further work is needed to clarify these relationships and test additional factors., Highlights • This pilot study examined factors associated with under-describing of neuropathy. • Patient-reported and clinician-documented neuropathy severity were compared. • Non-working status and low income were associated with neuropathy under-describing. • Trust in oncologist’s competence was associated with neuropathy under-describing. • Recording patient-clinician interactions would confirm under-describing behavior.

Background: Biologic agents inhibiting the tumor necrosis factor α pathway (TNFα-Is) are used to treat systemic inflammatory diseases. The best management of these agents after renal transplantation is unknown. Objective: Evaluate peritransplant use of TNFα-Is and associated outcomes. Methods: Retrospective, single-center study of adult renal-transplant-recipients (RTRs) transplanted between 1/1/1998-12/31/2017, who received TNFα-Is for inflammatory disease prior to transplant. Qualifying patients were divided into 2 cohorts: patients who resumed TNFα-Is after transplant and those who did not. Outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 5256 renal transplants occurred in the study window; 14 patients met inclusion criteria. Primary indication for TNFα-I was Crohn’s-disease (CD; 57.1%). Infliximab was utilized most frequently (50%). Seven RTRs resumed TNFα-I posttransplant; mean time to resumption of 10.6±4.35 months (median=6 months), 85.7% for CD. Immunosuppression was modified in 2 patients (28.6%) in response to restarting TNFα-I therapy. Seven RTRs did not resume TNFα-Is following transplant; the majority of these had rheumatic diseases. There was no significant difference in time to first bacterial or fungal infection, rejection, or patient survival between the 2 groups. Last measured estimated glomerular-filtration-rate was similar between groups (TNFα-I: 41 ± 14.2 vs 48.6 ± 8.6, P = 0.25). No patient had cytomegalovirus infection; however, 42.8% of each cohort had documented BK virus infection. Malignancy occurred more frequently in the cohort that resumed TNFα-Is (42.8% vs 14.3%, P = 0.24); however, this was not statistically significant. Conclusion and Relevance: TNFα-I therapy prior to renal-transplant is relatively uncommon. The decision to continue therapy after transplant must balance risks of infection and malignancy against inflammatory disease recurrence. A multidisciplinary treatment approach is necessary as use of TNFα-I affects immunosuppressive management and appears to affect transplant outcomes. Future studies are needed to further clarify the role of TNFα-I therapy use in RTRs with inflammatory disorders focusing on its correlation with both BK and malignancy.