Search

Purpose: With the rapid spread of COVID-19 in New York City since early March 2020, innovative measures were needed for clinical pharmacy specialists to provide direct clinical care safely to cancer patients. Allocating the workforce was necessary to meet the surging needs of the inpatient services due to the COVID-19 outbreak, which had the potential to compromise outpatient services. We present here our approach of restructuring clinical pharmacy services and providing direct patient care in outpatient clinics during the pandemic., Data Sources: We conducted a retrospective review of electronic clinical documentation involving clinical pharmacy specialist patient encounters in 9 outpatient clinics from March 1, 2020 to May 31, 2020. The analysis of the clinical pharmacy specialist interventions and the impact of the interventions was descriptive., Data Summary: As hospital services were modified to handle the surge due to COVID-19, select clinical pharmacy specialists were redeployed from the outpatient clinics or research blocks to COVID-19 inpatient teams. During these 3 months, clinical pharmacy specialists were involved in 2535 patient visits from 9 outpatient clinics and contributed a total of 4022 interventions, the majority of which utilized telemedicine. The interventions provided critical clinical pharmacy care during the pandemic and omitted 199 in-person visits for medical care., Conclusion: The swift transition to telemedicine allowed the provision of direct clinical pharmacy services to patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) negatively impacts patients' quality of life. The emetogenicity of high-dose methotrexate in children and adolescents with cancer is incompletely characterized. At our institution, a number of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have received aprepitant with courses of high-dose methotrexate after poor CINV control with prior courses., Procedure: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis on patients with ALL who received methotrexate 5 g/m 2 /dose with and without concomitant aprepitant at Texas. Children's Hospital between October 1, 2010 and January 31, 2016., Results: We identified 16 patients who received a total of 69 courses of methotrexate. An enhanced antiemetic regimen containing aprepitant was administered with 42 methotrexate courses and resulted in a 54% reduction in the use of as-needed antiemetics (P = 0.002, 95% CI: 21-89%). There were no statistically significant differences in methotrexate area under the curve values (2,209 μM⋅hr/l ± 151 vs. 2,051 μM⋅hr/l ± 94, P = 0.355) or end-infusion methotrexate concentrations (80.5 μM ± 5.6 vs. 74.7 μM ± 3.2, P = 0.335) in patients receiving a standard versus an enhanced antiemetic regimen., Conclusions: The addition of aprepitant reduces both CINV and the use of rescue antiemetics. Aprepitant does not appear to affect the pharmacokinetics of methotrexate. Granisetron was prescribed more frequently than ondansetron, but selection of secondary and tertiary agents, if any, was highly variable., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)