Immune checkpoint inhibitors (icis) such as inhibitors of ctla-4, PD-1, and PD-L1, given as monotherapy or combination therapy have emerged as effective treatment options for immune-sensitive solid tumours and hematologic malignancies. The benefits of icis can be offset by immune-related adverse events (iraes) that leave all organ systems vulnerable and subsequently increase the risk for morbidity and mortality.Because of fluctuating onset and prolonged duration, the toxicities associated with iraes represent a shift from the understanding of conventional anticancer toxicities. The ctla-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors modulate T-cell response differently, resulting in distinct toxicity patterns, toxicity kinetics, and dose–toxicity relationships. Using individualized patient education, screening, and assessment for the early identification of iraes is key to proactive management and is therefore key to improving outcomes and prolonging therapy.Management of iraes is guided by appropriate grading, which sets the stage for the treatment setting (outpatient vs. inpatient), ici treatment course (delay vs. discontinuation), supportive care, corticosteroid use, organ specialist consultation, and additional immunosuppression. Health care professionals in oncology must work collaboratively with emergency and community colleagues to facilitate an understanding of iraes in an effort to optimize seamless care.

Introduction Studies have shown that patients rate pharmacists more favourably when the pharmacist expresses interest in the patient and attends to patients’ perspectives. There is limited available evidence evaluating both patient perception and satisfaction regarding clinical pharmacy services provided in an ambulatory oncology clinic. Methods This was a prospective mixed methods study involving surveys and patient interviews. Consenting participants completed a survey at their first visit evaluating their perceptions of the importance of the clinical pharmacy services offered in the ambulatory oncology clinic. They completed a second survey 6-8 weeks later to re-evaluate their perceptions and to measure satisfaction ratings. The final component of this study involved semi-structured one-on-one telephone interviews to gather qualitative data regarding the study objectives. Results A total of 35 participants completed the survey, of which eleven completed one-on-one patient telephone interviews. Patients perceived the clinical pharmacy services assessed as important to their care before receiving treatment. The ratings of the importance of the pharmacist in managing patients’ nausea/vomiting significantly decreased when remeasured, whereas the importance of meeting the pharmacist in the clinic significantly increased. The importance of the role of the pharmacist was highlighted in patient interviews as well: patients particularly valued the pharmacist’s initiative to meet them in the clinic, the education provided by pharmacist, and the pharmacist’s accessibility throughout treatment. Conclusions Overall, patients in the ambulatory oncology clinic perceived the services offered as important to their care and they were highly satisfied.

Introduction Immune-related adverse events are complications of immune checkpoint inhibitors which require robust patient education and proactive follow-up to ensure timely identification and management. Oncology pharmacist practice models with other anticancer modalities have been well documented, but there is limited evidence assessing the spectrum of pharmacist interventions in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor(s) and the impact of these interventions on patient outcomes. Methods Patients initiated on immune checkpoint inhibitor(s) from 1 January 2016 to 31 August 2019 were included for data collection and analysis. Part 1 featured an intensive pharmacist follow-up cohort (study cohort) and summarized pharmacist interventions. Part 2 compared patient outcomes between the study cohort and a standard of care cohort (control cohort) from a different oncology centre. Patient outcomes included emergency department visits not resulting in admission, hospitalizations due to immune-related adverse event(s), immune checkpoint inhibitor cycles received, treatment discontinuation due to immune-related adverse event(s), completion of finite programmed death-1/death-1 ligand treatment course and completion of ipilimumab. Clinical outcomes were compared using a retrospective, matched cohort design based on age, cancer diagnosis and immune checkpoint inhibitor(s). Results A total of 143 patients were included in Part 1 encompassing 1664 pharmacist recommendations across 11 categories. The matched cohort yielded 92 matches (n = 184) with a higher odds of immune checkpoint inhibitor discontinuation due to immune-related adverse event(s) in the control cohort (odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 5.5 (1.2−24.8); p = 0.022). Conclusion Intensive immune-related adverse event education, proactive follow-up and immune-related adverse event management by pharmacists result in clinically meaningful interventions which correlate to improved patient outcomes, namely lower odds of treatment discontinuation due to immune-related adverse event(s).