Risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care of oncology patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop of a risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care (PC) of patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms who required antineoplastic agents or supportive treatments.

METHOD

The risk stratification model was collaboratively developed by oncology pharmacists from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH). It underwent refinement through three workshops and a pilot study. Variables were defined, grouped into four dimensions, and assigned relative weights. The pilot study collected and analyzed data from participating centers to determine priority levels and evaluate variable contributions. The study followed the Kaiser Permanente pyramid model, categorizing patients into three priority levels: Priority 1 (intensive PC, 90th percentile), Priority 2 (60th-90th percentiles), and Priority 3 (60th percentile). Cut-off points were determined based on this stratification. Participating centers recorded variables in an Excel sheet, calculating mean weight scores for each priority level and the total risk score.

RESULTS

The participants agreed to complete a questionnaire that comprised 22 variables grouped into 4 dimensions: demographic (maximum score =11); social and health variables and cognitive and functional status (maximum = 19); clinical and health services utilization (maximum = 25); and treatment-related (maximum = 41). From the results of applying the model to the 199 patients enrolled, the cutoff points for categorization were 28 or more points for priority 1, 16 to 27 points for priority 2 and less than 16 for priority 3; more than 80% of the total score was based on the dimensions of 'clinical and health services utilization' and 'treatment-related'. Interventions based on the pharmaceutical care model were recommended for patients with solid or hematological neoplasms, according to their prioritization level.

CONCLUSION

This stratification model enables the identification of cancer patients requiring a higher level of pharmaceutical care and facilitates the adjustment of care capacity. Validation of the model in a representative population is necessary to establish its effectiveness.

[Off-label use of oncology drugs: national survey results]

PURPOSE

identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments.

METHODS

a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year.

RESULTS

in 42.1% of the hospitals it's needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department's report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT.

CONCLUSIONS

there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval.