Search

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: An interprofessional approach is necessary to support the multifactorial process of patient adherence to oral anticancer medications (OAMs). This scoping review aims to identify structured OAM programs in published literature, identify components within studies, and propose a framework for institutions developing or maintaining OAM programs. LITERATURE SEARCH: Embase(®), PubMed(®), and CINAHL(®) databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and April 2021. DATA EVALUATION: Two reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Characteristics and specific domains of the OAM programs were captured. Key components of the programs were identified, and a framework was created to guide program development. SYNTHESIS: Components identified among the 21 studies were education; counseling; follow-up; dedicated clinician contact; adverse event and toxicity monitoring; adherence monitoring; drug procurement, delivery, and supply; patient- and system-level cost reduction; information technology; and risk assessment. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Based on the findings, a framework for building and evaluating OAM adherence programs is proposed. Future studies should evaluate the reliability and validity of this framework because further testing may lead to the development of additional components.

This systematic review compared the efficacy of interventions to usual care on adherence to oral anticancer regimens.Embase®, PubMed®, and CINAHL® were searched for eligible comparative studies published between January 2000 and May 2021. Outcomes of interest included adherence, cancer-related morbidity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and other patient-specific outcomes.Reviewers assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.Risk assessment, ongoing or periodic assessment, proactive follow-up, motivational interviewing, or structured programs may improve adherence. Education or coaching interventions may improve or have little to no effect on adherence. Technological interventions may improve adherence, but interactive compared to noninteractive technology may have little to no effect.As more cancer treatments move to oral formulations, work remains to identify the most effective interventions to support people receiving oral anticancer regimens.

320 Background: The increase in patients receiving oral oncolytics requires oncology health care professionals to have processes and interventions that support patient adherence. Because adherence to oral oncolytics is a priority for achieving optimal outcomes, the ASCO QOPI Standards emphasize the need to assess for adherence at meaningful intervals as well as implement interventions to promote adherence. Technology-based interventions have the potential to assess and support adherence. The objective of this review is to evaluate the overall effect of any technology-based intervention, as well as compare the use of interactive technology rather than non-interactive technology to improve oral oncolytic adherence. This review will serve as the evidence base for a clinical practice guideline on oral oncolytic adherence. Methods: A medical librarian searched EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL for comparative studies published in English from January 2000 to May 2021. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and eligible full text articles independently and in duplicate using Covidence. When possible, quantitative findings were pooled in a meta-analysis. Risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials was done using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias 2.0 tool and for observational studies, the ROBINS-I instrument was used. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Results: Out of 663 studies, we identified 14 as eligible for analysis. Of the six RCTs (n = 737) that compared any technological intervention to no intervention, there was some heterogeneity across interventions (e.g., text messaging, mobile app, computer program) and reported outcome measures for adherence, including adherence rates, relative dose intensity (RDI), and number of weeks adherent. Patients using any technology rather than no technology may have higher adherence rates (MD: 8.81; 95% CI: 3.82, 13.81); however, there may be little effect on RDI (MD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.02) and number of weeks adherent (MD: -0.70; 95% CI: -1.96, 0.56), respectively. One RCT (n = 444) reported on adolescents receiving interactive and non-interactive interventions. There may be little effect on adherence rates among patients receiving interactive technology interventions rather than non-interactive education intervention (MD: 1.5; 95% CI, −0.2, 3.2). Conclusions: Better systems of oral oncolytic care are needed to support patients and their caregivers. Technology-based interventions may improve medication adherence in cancer patients on oral oncolytics; however, we are uncertain about the impact on other measure of adherence or the superiority of interactive rather than non-interactive technology interventions. Due to inconsistency in the evidence, additional research in this area is recommended.