Search

Objectives: The UMACOACH Lymphoma is a multidisciplinary monitoring program for patients initiating a first highly haematotoxic treatment for Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patient follow-up is based on consultation with a pharmacist and planed phone calls by nurses supervised by a clinical haematologist. Our objective was to assess effectiveness and cost of the UMACOACH Lymphoma Program (ULP) and to investigate patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). Methods: This French monocentric case-control study included all patients enrolled in the ULP over a one-year period (cases) matched with retrospective patients receiving usual care (controls). Numbers of adverse events (AEs), re-hospitalisations, average relative dose intensity (ARDI), treatment response and survival were compared between the two groups. Among cases, patient satisfaction and QoL using the EORTC-QLQC30 questionnaire before and after treatment were evaluated. Results: Seventy-eight cases were matched to 78 controls. Twenty-six percent grade 3–4 AEs were observed in cases versus 38% in controls (p = 0.001). There were 76 and 88 re-hospitalisations in the case and control groups, respectively (p = 0.217). ARDI > 85% was observed in 92% and 82% of cases and controls, respectively (p = 0.138). No differences were observed in terms of treatment responses and survival. Estimated cost savings were of EUR 81,782 in favour of the case group. An improvement of 5.1 points was observed in the total QoL score before and after treatment in cases. Conclusions: A nurse–pharmacist–haematologist collaboration seems to be promising to reduce grade 3–4 AEs in HL and NHL patients receiving highly haematotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Cost savings from hospitalisation being avoided were also shown.

Purpose Daratumumab is the first anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody of the class approved for recurrent and refractory multiple myeloma. Grade 3 and 4 Infusion-Related Reactions (IRRs) are frequent during the first and second infusions. Due to the risks associated with severe IRRs, daratumumab is systematically administered over a period of 3.5 hours. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of a 90-minute daratumumab infusion from the third infusion. Patients and methods All patients who had received two or more doses of daratumumab in monotherapy or in combination with standard infusion rates were included. We excluded patients enrolled in clinical trials. For the rapid infusion protocol, 20% of the dose was administered over 30 minutes and the remaining 80% over 60 minutes. Results From April 1 to May 31, 2019, 25 patients received 53 90-minute infusions of daratumumab. Premedication included corticosteroids, antipyretics, antihistamines, and if necessary a leukotriene receptor antagonist. No grade 3 or grade 4 IRRs were observed. Conclusion From the third infusion, we found that a rapid administration of daratumumab (90 vs 210 minutes) was well tolerated and safe. It would be interesting to test this regimen from the second infusion.

International audience; Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer death. For unresectable intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, the standard treatment is transarterial chemoembolization. To date, the overall survival at three years remains low, and there is currently no consensus about the best anticancer agent and optimal treatment regimen. We report the case of a hepatocellular carcinoma patient with a vascular contraindication to embolization who achieved a complete response after four intra-arterial infusions of idarubicin emulsified with lipiodol. The patient maintained his response over a three-year period without any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment, demonstrating the major role of the anticancer agent in the efficacy of transarterial therapies for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Summary Background Antimicrobial misuse leading to drug resistance is a growing concern for clinicians. Improving antimicrobial stewardship programmes through development of new tools could be part of the solution. Aim To evaluate antimicrobial use in hospitalized patients after implementation of an antimicrobial checklist for ward-based clinical pharmacists. Methods A checklist based on quality indicators of optimal antimicrobial use was implemented to standardize hospital pharmacists' assessments of antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrobial use metrics from adults hospitalized during the control and intervention periods were assessed in an interrupted time series analysis of individual patient data. The primary endpoint was days of therapy (DOT) for all antimicrobials per 1000 days present for included patients. Secondary endpoints were the DOT of extended-spectrum antimicrobials (DOT-ES), length of therapy of all antimicrobials (LOT) and the number of pharmacist interventions. Findings One-thousand six-hundred and nineteen patients were included: 800 and 819 in the pre- and post-checklist implementation periods, respectively. As indicated by the point estimates and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), there were no changes in trend for DOT, DOT-ES or LOT. A change in level was not found for the DOT, while a change of -118 DOT-ES [-209,-28] and -51 LOT [-97,-4] was documented. Furthermore, pharmacists' interventions regarding antimicrobials increased by 18.7% (14.0, 23.5) and progress notes by 32.3% (27.8, 36.8). Conclusion An antimicrobial checklist used by ward-based clinical pharmacists did not decrease DOT for all antimicrobials, but decreased DOT-ES and LOT upon its implementation.

Background From 2017 a clinical pharmacy programme provides pharmaceutical interviews to patients of the outpatient oncology unit of the university hospital. At the end of each interview, patients receive a personalised pharmaceutical plan, including a summarised table of their medicines to help them manage drug intake and adverse events. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess patient satisfaction regarding pharmaceutical interviews, and aimed at improving the quality of our patient interviews. Material and methods The 80 consecutives patients who received a first pharmaceutical interview in the outpatient oncology unit between June and September 2018 were included. After the pharmaceutical interview and oral consent, patients completed an 8-item satisfaction questionnaire in the absence of the pharmacist. The questionnaire also included a free-text response section as well as a general assessment of the interview. The topics covered were: confidentiality, interview duration, professionalism, empathy and scientific knowledge of the pharmacist. The patients could choose between three answers: completely satisfied, somewhat satisfied and unsatisfied. The recorded responses for the general assessment varied from 1 (not satisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied). Results Regarding the environment of the interview, 97% of patients were satisfied with the duration, 90% were satisfied with confidentiality and 89% were satisfied with the location. Regarding the content of the interview, 99% of patients were satisfied with the pharmacist’s responses and 98% were satisfied with the personalised pharmaceutical plan. Ninety-four per cent were satisfied with the treatment explanations. In the free-text, the main points relayed by patients were: Key strengths: clear explanations, well–designed documents, quality of listening, answers to questions, availability, attention given to patients. Weak points: improve privacy, develop alternative medicines. Regarding the general assessment of patients’ satisfaction, 1% gave a score of 3/5, 30% gave a score of 4/5% and 69% gave a score of 5/5. Conclusion This study shows that the majority of patients were satisfied with the pharmaceutical interview. Another study is ongoing which assesses both the clinical and economical impacts of the pharmaceutical interventions carried out during these interviews. References and/or acknowledgements http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2014–000591 No conflict of interest.