Background In recent years, there has been a changing paradigm in the management of oncologic disease states from the use of intravenous therapies, requiring a visit to the infusion center or hospitalization, to new therapies that can be administered orally. Several publications have evaluated the role pharmacists may play in the initial prescribing of oral chemotherapy, however the impact of a formalized pharmacist follow-up program has not been well defined. This study evaluates the impact of a pilot pharmacist-run oral antineoplastic monitoring program. Methods This retrospective cohort analysis evaluated patients prescribed an oral antineoplastic in the genitourinary oncology clinic at an academic medical center between 1 July 2014 and 15 March 2017. Patients enrolled in the program were compared to a historical control group. The primary objective was adherence to pre-defined standards for monitoring. Secondary objectives include persistence on therapy, need to seek medical care, analysis of pharmacist interventions, patient satisfaction, and financial impact for the on-site retail pharmacy. Results In total, 33 patients were evaluated (11 cases, 22 controls). Average adherence to monitoring recommendations was significantly higher in the case group compared to controls (89% vs. 61%; p = 0.008). In total, 67 interventions were made by the clinical pharmacist with an average of 6 per patient. Conclusions This study shows that formalized pharmacist follow-up programs can improve patients' adherence with antineoplastic monitoring standards. Additionally, pharmacists made clinically significant interventions and had high patient satisfaction, providing justification for expansion into other disease states.

Purpose: As health care progresses toward pay for performance reimbursement models and focus is placed on the patient as a consumer, health care systems must adapt by initiating new programs and services. This institution responded by implementing a “Meds 2 Beds” program integrating clinical services with dispensing and medication delivery during transitions of care. This study evaluates outcomes relevant to patients, health care providers, pharmacists, and administrators. Methods: This observational chart review evaluated the effectiveness of a “Meds 2 Beds” program from May 1, 2014, through December 1, 2015. Patients who participated in this program were matched 1:1 with controls who did not. The primary outcome was 30-day hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes included 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, patient satisfaction, and financial impact. Results: In this sample, 185 “Meds 2 Beds” patients were matched to 185 controls. Thirty day readmission occurred in 16 (8.7%) “Meds 2 Beds” cases and 19 (10.3%) controls ( P = .71). Rates of 30-day ED visits were nonsignificantly reduced in cases (22 [11.9%] vs 33 [18.1%]; odds ratio = 0.62, P = .11) and occurred significantly later (11 vs 7 days, P = .03). Conclusions: This study showcases a creative medication delivery and discharge counseling program. The program provides financial benefit to the institution creating a direct revenue stream from prescription dispensing while highlighting a potential for reduced readmissions and ED visits (although a statistically significant difference was not demonstrated in this analysis). A similar model can be adopted by other health care institutions to improve the quality of patient care.

No abstract

No abstract

364 Background: Paclitaxel is a commonly used chemotherapy agent effective in various malignancies. It is known to cause serious and potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions (HRs). Pre-medication protocols have been employed, however approximately 10% of patients will still experience these reactions (1). On an internal review at the University of Louisville, Brown Cancer Center (UofL, BCC) there has been a considerable increase in the incidence of paclitaxel HRs from 4.2% in March 2020 - March 2021 to 14.8% in March 2021 - April 2022. Identifying risk factors that may predispose patients to these reactions is an area of interest in an effort to reduce these events. In this study we investigated clinical characteristics between patients that tolerated paclitaxel versus those who had a HR within the last year with a particular focus on the COVID-19 vaccine given the recent pandemic. Methods: This is a single center retrospective case-control study done at the UofL, BCC. Data was collected on patients who received cycle one day one paclitaxel from March 2021 to April 2022 (n = 135), and patients who developed a reaction were identified. Patient characteristics including demographics, COVID vaccination status, and prior allergies were also collected (table). A T-test analysis was performed between the two groups – those who had a HR and those who did not. Results: Of the 135 patients, 20 were found to have a HR. Absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) was found to be significantly higher with an average of 1125 in the HR group versus 853 in the no reaction group (p = 0.0357). Patients in the HR group also had fewer lines of chemotherapy with an average of 1.15 versus the no reaction group of 1.4 (p = 0.039). There was no significant difference between patients who received the COVID-19 vaccine and those who did not (table). Conclusions: Patients who experienced paclitaxel HRs were found to have higher levels of ALC and tend to be earlier in their treatment course with having undergone fewer lines of chemotherapy. Of note COVID-19 vaccination status appears to have no association with those experiencing paclitaxel HRs. The clinical implications of this requires further exploration in future studies[Table: see text]