Immunomodulatory drugs in multiple myeloma: Impact of the SCARMET (Self CARe and MEdication Toxicity) educational intervention on outpatients' knowledge to manage adverse effects

Assessment of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Outpatients Taking Oral Anticancer Drugs Included in the Real-Life Oncoral Program

Simple Summary

Patients receiving oral anticancer agents (OAAs) have a substantial symptom burden. Given the trend toward patient-centered care, the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) seems appropriate to secure medication management, and to improve clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by OAAs using PROs. In total, 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients, in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms most commonly experienced were fatigue, various psychological disorders and general pain. This initiative is the first step in the implementation of symptom assessment by PROs in patients treated by OAAs. The results highlight the need for close coordination between community and hospital health professionals, and the integration of patient self-reporting systems in oncologic clinical practice.

Abstract

Background In previous studies, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve survival in cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to assess symptoms potentially related to adverse events experienced by cancer outpatients treated by oral anticancer agents (OAAs) using PROs. Methods Between September 2018 and May 2019, outpatients starting OAAs were included in a 12-week follow-up to assess 15 symptoms listed in the National Cancer Institute PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, using a 5-point scale of severity or frequency. Patients were requested to alert a referral nurse or pharmacist when they self-assessed high-level (level 3 or 4) symptoms. Results 407 questionnaires were completed by 63 patients in which 2333 symptoms were reported. Almost three-quarters (74.6%) reported at least one high-level symptom. The symptoms that were most commonly experienced were fatigue (>9 in 10 patients; 13.2% of symptoms declared), various psychological disorders (>9 in 10 patients; 28.6% of symptoms declared) and general pain (>8 in 10 patients; 9.4% of symptoms declared). Conclusion PROs are appropriate to detect potential adverse events in cancer outpatients treated by OAAs. This study is the first step for integrating the patient’s perspective in a digital e-health device in routine oncology care.

Real-life drug-drug and herb-drug interactions in outpatients taking oral anticancer drugs: comparison with databases

PURPOSE

Due to polypharmacy and the rising popularity of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM), oncology patients are particularly at risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI) or herb-drug interactions (HDI). The aims of this study were to assess DDI and HDI in outpatients taking oral anticancer drug.

METHOD

All prescribed and non-prescribed medications, including CAM, were prospectively collected by hospital pharmacists during a structured interview with the patient. DDI and HDI were analyzed using four interaction software programs: Thériaque^®, Drugs.com^®, Hédrine, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) database. All detected interactions were characterized by severity, risk and action mechanism. The need for pharmaceutical intervention to modify drug use was determined on a case-by-case basis.

RESULTS

294 patients were included, with a mean age of 67 years [55-79]. The median number of chronic drugs per patient was 8 [1-29] and 55% of patients used at least one CAM. At least 1 interaction was found for 267 patients (90.8%): 263 (89.4%) with DDI, 68 (23.1%) with HDI, and 64 (21.7%) with both DDI and HDI. Only 13% of the DDI were found in Thériaque^® and Drugs.com^® databases, and 125 (2.5%) were reported with similar level of risk on both databases. 104 HDI were identified with only 9.5% of the interactions found in both databases. 103 pharmaceutical interventions were performed, involving 61 patients (20.7%).

CONCLUSION

Potentially clinically relevant drug interaction were frequently identified in this study, showing that several databases and structured screening are required to detect more interactions and optimize medication safety.