User login
The value of a hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) has been validated in several studies documenting their positive impact on patient outcomes, supportive care management, laboratory monitoring, medication error identification, and drug expenditure.1-6 With> 200 oncology-related US Food and Drug Administration approval notifications published from 2020 to 2023, it is no surprise that national trends in oncology drug clinic expenditures increased from $39.9 billion in 2020 to $44.1 billion in 2021.7,8 With the rapidly changing treatment landscape, new drug approvals, and risk of polypharmacy, oral anticancer agents carry a high risk for medication errors.4 Additional challenges include complex dosing regimens and instructions, adherence issues, drug interactions, adjustments for organ dysfunction, and extensive adverse effect (AE) profiles.
Because of the niche and complexity of oral anticancer agents, trained CPPs havehematology/oncology education and expertise that pharmacists without specialized training lack. A survey of 243 nonspecialized community pharmacists that assessed their knowledge of oral anticancer therapies revealed that only about half of the knowledge questions were answered correctly, illustrating an education gap among these pharmacists.9 The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association's suggests that best practices for managing oral oncology therapy should include comprehensive medication review by an oncology-trained pharmacist for each prescription.10
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) community care network, which was established by the MISSION Act, allows covered access for eligible veterans in the local community outside of the VA network. Unfortunately, this dual-system use of health care could increase the risk of poorly coordinated care and has been associated with the risk of inappropriate prescribing.11,12 It is unclear how many private practices enrolled in the community care program have access to oncology-trained pharmacists. Specialized pharmaceutical reviews of oral anticancer medication prescriptions from these practices are vital for veteran care. This study evaluates the clinical and financial interventions of hematology/oncology CPPs review of specialty hematology/oncology prescriptions from community care health care practitioners (HCPs) at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas.
METHODS
This study is a retrospective review of Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) records of patients at VANTHCS from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2023. Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, enrolled in the VA community care program, received a specialty hematology/oncology medication that was dispensed through VA pharmacies or VA-contracted pharmacies, and had an hematology/oncology CPP medication review documented in CPRS. The primary aim of this study was to assess the number and types of clinical interventions performed. A clinical intervention was defined as a documented communication attempt with a community care HCP or direct communication with a patient to address a specific medication-related issue noted during CPP review.
Review of specialty hematology/oncology medications by a hematology/oncology CPP included evaluation of therapy indication, such as whether the prescription meets clinical guidelines, VA criteria for use, or other clinical literature as judged appropriate by the CPP. In some cases, the CPP requested that the community care HCP prescribe a more cost-effective or formulary-preferred agent. Each prescription was reviewed for dosage and formulation appropriateness, drug interactions with available medication lists, baseline laboratory test completion, and recommended supportive care medicines. At times, patient counseling is completed as part of the clinical review. When necessary, CPPs could discuss patient cases with a VA-employed oncologist for further oversight regarding appropriateness and safety. Secondary outcomes included the number of interventions accepted or denied by the prescriber provider and cost savings.
Data collected included the type of malignancy, hematology/oncology specialty medication requested, number and type of interventions sent to the community care prescriber, number of interventions accepted or denied by the community care prescriber, and whether the CPP conducted patient counseling or dispensed or denied the product. Cost savings were calculated for medications that were denied or changed to a formulary preferred or cost-effective agent using pricing data from the National Acquisition Center Contract Catalog or Federal Supply Schedule Service as of April 2024.
RESULTS
A total of 221 hematology/oncology prescriptions met inclusion criteria. Among patients receiving these prescriptions, the median age was 70 years and 91% were male. The most common malignancies included 31 instances of multiple myeloma (14%), 26 for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (12%), 24 for prostate cancer (11%), 23 for glioblastoma/brain cancer (10%), 18 for renal cell carcinoma (8%), 17 for colorectal cancer (8%), and 15 for acute myeloid leukemia (7%). Clinical interventions by the hematology/oncology CPP were completed for 82 (37%) of the 221 prescriptions. One clinical intervention was communicated directly to the patient, and attempts were made to communicate with the community care HCP for the remaining 81 prescriptions. The CPP documented 97 clinical interventions for the 82 prescriptions (Table 1). The most commonly documented clinical interventions included: 25 for managing/preventing a drug interaction (26%), 24 for dose adjustment request (25%), 13 for prescription denial (13%), and 11 for requesting the use of a preferred or more cost-effective product (11%). Of note, 16 patients (7%) received counseling from the hematology/oncology CPP. Ten patients (5%) received counseling alone with no other intervention and did not meet the definition of a clinical intervention.
The most frequent prescriptions requiring intervention included 8 for enzalutamide, 7 for venetoclax, 6 for ibrutinib, and 5 each for lenalidomide, cabozantinib, and temozolomide. Among the 97 interventions, 68 were approved (70%), 15 received no response (16%), and 14 were denied by the community care HCP (14%). Despite obtaining no response or intervention denial from the community care HCP, hematology/oncology CPPs could approve these prescriptions if clinically appropriate, and their reasoning was documented. Table 2 further describes the types of interventions that were denied or obtained no response by the community care practitioner. Among the prescriptions denied by the hematology/oncology CPP, 11 were rejected for off-label indications and/or did not have support through primary literature, national guidelines, or VA criteria for use. Only 2 prescriptions were denied for safety concerns.
These documented clinical interventions had financial implications. For drugs with available cost data, requesting the use of a preferred/cost-effective product led to estimated savings of at least $263,536 over the study period with some ongoing cost savings. Prescription denials led to further estimated savings of $186,275 per month, although this is limited by the lack of known costs of alternative therapies the community care physicians chose.
DISCUSSION
More than one-third of prescriptions required clinical interventions, and 70% of these interventions were accepted by the community care prescriber, demonstrating the CPP’s essential role. Results indicate that most CPP clinical interventions involved clarifying and correcting doses, managing pertinent drug interactions, and ensuring appropriate use of medications according to clinical and national VA guidelines. Other studies have examined the impact of CPPs on patient care and cancer treatment.5,6 The randomized, multicenter AMBORA trial found that clinical pharmacist support reduced severe AEs and medication errors related to oral anticancer agents.5 The per-patient mean number of medication errors found by pharmacist review was 1.7 (range, 0 to 9), with most medication errors noted at the prescribing stage.5 Suzuki and colleagues analyzed data from 35,062 chemotherapy regimens and found that 53.1% of the chemotherapy prescriptions were modified because of pharmacist interventions.6 The most common reason for prescription modifications was prescription error.
Most of the clinical interventions in this study were accepted by community HCPs, indicating that these prescribers are receptive to hematology/oncology CPP input. Among those with no response, most were in relation to recommendations regarding drug interactions. In most of these cases, the drug interaction was not clinically concerning enough to require a response before the CPP approved the prescription. Therefore, it is unknown whether the outside HCP implemented the clinical recommendations. The most common types of clinical interventions the community care HCP declined were dose adjustment requests or requests to switch to a more cost-effective/formulary-preferred agent. In these cases, the prescriber’s preference was documented and, if clinically appropriate, approved by the CPP.
Although the financial implications of CPP clinical interventions were only marginally evaluated in this review, results suggest that cost savings by requests to switch to a cost-effective/formulary preferred agent or prescription denials are substantial. Because of changes in prescription costs over time, it is possible that savings from CPP intervention were greater than calculations using current Federal Supply Schedule Service pricing. The total impact of CPP prescription interventions on reducing or preventing hospitalizations or AEs is not known from this review, but other data suggest that cost savings may benefit the system.13,14
Limitations
This study's retrospective design is a limitation because practice patterns at the VANTHCS involving multiple hematology/oncology CPPs review of community care prescriptions might have evolved over time. The total financial implications of CPP interventions cannot fully be elucidated. The cost of alternative therapies used for patients who received a prescription denial is not factored into this review.
Conclusions
VANTHCS CPPs played an essential role in reviewing anticancer medication prescriptions from community care prescribers. In this study, CPP clinical interventions were completed for more than one-third of the prescriptions and the community-based HCP approved most of these interventions. These changes also resulted in financial benefits.
These findings add to the body of literature emphasizing the need for hematology/oncology-trained CPPs to review anticancer prescriptions and treatment plans. Our review could be used to justify CPP involvement in community care specialty medication review at VA facilities that do not currently have CPP involvement.
1. Shah NN, Casella E, Capozzi D, et al. Improving the safety of oral chemotherapy at an academic medical center. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(1):e71-e76. doi:10.1200/JOP.2015.007260
2. Gatwood J, Gatwood K, Gabre E, Alexander M. Impact of clinical pharmacists in outpatient oncology practices: a review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(19):1549-1557. doi:10.2146/ajhp160475
3. Lankford C, Dura J, Tran A, et al. Effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on cost in an integrated health system specialty pharmacy. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021;27(3):379-384. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.3.379
4. Schlichtig K, Dürr P, Dörje F, Fromm MF. Medication errors during treatment with new oral anticancer agents: consequences for clinical practice based on the AMBORA Study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110(4):1075-1086. doi:10.1002/cpt.2338
5. Dürr P, Schlichtig K, Kelz C, et al. The randomized AMBORA Trial: impact of pharmacological/pharmaceutical care on medication safety and patient-reported outcomes during treatment with new oral anticancer agents. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(18):1983-1994. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.03088
6. Suzuki S, Chan A, Nomura H, Johnson PE, Endo K, Saito S. Chemotherapy regimen checks performed by pharmacists contribute to safe administration of chemotherapy. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2017;23(1):18-25. doi:10.1177/1078155215614998
7. Tichy EM, Hoffman JM, Suda KJ, et al. National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2022;79(14):1158-1172. doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxac102
8. US Food and Drug Administration. Oncology (cancer)/hematologic malignancies approval notifications. 2023.
9. O’Bryant CL, Crandell BC. Community pharmacists’ knowledge of and attitudes toward oral chemotherapy. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2008;48(5):632-639. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2008.07082
10. Mackler E, Segal EM, Muluneh B, Jeffers K, Carmichael J. 2018 hematology/oncology pharmacist association best practices for the management of oral oncolytic therapy: pharmacy practice standard. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(4):e346-e355. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00581
11. Thorpe JM, Thorpe CT, Schleiden L, et al. Association between dual use of Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare part D drug benefits and potentially unsafe prescribing. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(11):1584-1586. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2788
12. Thorpe JM, Thorpe CT, Gellad WF, et al. Dual health care system use and high-risk prescribing in patients with dementia: a national cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(3):157-163. doi:10.7326/M16-0551
13. Chen P-Z, Wu C-C, Huang C-F. Clinical and economic impact of clinical pharmacist intervention in a hematology unit. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020;26(4):866-872. doi:10.1177/1078155219875806
14. Dalton K, Byrne S. Role of the pharmacist in reducing healthcare costs: current insights. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2017;6:37-46. doi:10.2147/IPRP.S108047
The value of a hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) has been validated in several studies documenting their positive impact on patient outcomes, supportive care management, laboratory monitoring, medication error identification, and drug expenditure.1-6 With> 200 oncology-related US Food and Drug Administration approval notifications published from 2020 to 2023, it is no surprise that national trends in oncology drug clinic expenditures increased from $39.9 billion in 2020 to $44.1 billion in 2021.7,8 With the rapidly changing treatment landscape, new drug approvals, and risk of polypharmacy, oral anticancer agents carry a high risk for medication errors.4 Additional challenges include complex dosing regimens and instructions, adherence issues, drug interactions, adjustments for organ dysfunction, and extensive adverse effect (AE) profiles.
Because of the niche and complexity of oral anticancer agents, trained CPPs havehematology/oncology education and expertise that pharmacists without specialized training lack. A survey of 243 nonspecialized community pharmacists that assessed their knowledge of oral anticancer therapies revealed that only about half of the knowledge questions were answered correctly, illustrating an education gap among these pharmacists.9 The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association's suggests that best practices for managing oral oncology therapy should include comprehensive medication review by an oncology-trained pharmacist for each prescription.10
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) community care network, which was established by the MISSION Act, allows covered access for eligible veterans in the local community outside of the VA network. Unfortunately, this dual-system use of health care could increase the risk of poorly coordinated care and has been associated with the risk of inappropriate prescribing.11,12 It is unclear how many private practices enrolled in the community care program have access to oncology-trained pharmacists. Specialized pharmaceutical reviews of oral anticancer medication prescriptions from these practices are vital for veteran care. This study evaluates the clinical and financial interventions of hematology/oncology CPPs review of specialty hematology/oncology prescriptions from community care health care practitioners (HCPs) at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas.
METHODS
This study is a retrospective review of Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) records of patients at VANTHCS from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2023. Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, enrolled in the VA community care program, received a specialty hematology/oncology medication that was dispensed through VA pharmacies or VA-contracted pharmacies, and had an hematology/oncology CPP medication review documented in CPRS. The primary aim of this study was to assess the number and types of clinical interventions performed. A clinical intervention was defined as a documented communication attempt with a community care HCP or direct communication with a patient to address a specific medication-related issue noted during CPP review.
Review of specialty hematology/oncology medications by a hematology/oncology CPP included evaluation of therapy indication, such as whether the prescription meets clinical guidelines, VA criteria for use, or other clinical literature as judged appropriate by the CPP. In some cases, the CPP requested that the community care HCP prescribe a more cost-effective or formulary-preferred agent. Each prescription was reviewed for dosage and formulation appropriateness, drug interactions with available medication lists, baseline laboratory test completion, and recommended supportive care medicines. At times, patient counseling is completed as part of the clinical review. When necessary, CPPs could discuss patient cases with a VA-employed oncologist for further oversight regarding appropriateness and safety. Secondary outcomes included the number of interventions accepted or denied by the prescriber provider and cost savings.
Data collected included the type of malignancy, hematology/oncology specialty medication requested, number and type of interventions sent to the community care prescriber, number of interventions accepted or denied by the community care prescriber, and whether the CPP conducted patient counseling or dispensed or denied the product. Cost savings were calculated for medications that were denied or changed to a formulary preferred or cost-effective agent using pricing data from the National Acquisition Center Contract Catalog or Federal Supply Schedule Service as of April 2024.
RESULTS
A total of 221 hematology/oncology prescriptions met inclusion criteria. Among patients receiving these prescriptions, the median age was 70 years and 91% were male. The most common malignancies included 31 instances of multiple myeloma (14%), 26 for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (12%), 24 for prostate cancer (11%), 23 for glioblastoma/brain cancer (10%), 18 for renal cell carcinoma (8%), 17 for colorectal cancer (8%), and 15 for acute myeloid leukemia (7%). Clinical interventions by the hematology/oncology CPP were completed for 82 (37%) of the 221 prescriptions. One clinical intervention was communicated directly to the patient, and attempts were made to communicate with the community care HCP for the remaining 81 prescriptions. The CPP documented 97 clinical interventions for the 82 prescriptions (Table 1). The most commonly documented clinical interventions included: 25 for managing/preventing a drug interaction (26%), 24 for dose adjustment request (25%), 13 for prescription denial (13%), and 11 for requesting the use of a preferred or more cost-effective product (11%). Of note, 16 patients (7%) received counseling from the hematology/oncology CPP. Ten patients (5%) received counseling alone with no other intervention and did not meet the definition of a clinical intervention.
The most frequent prescriptions requiring intervention included 8 for enzalutamide, 7 for venetoclax, 6 for ibrutinib, and 5 each for lenalidomide, cabozantinib, and temozolomide. Among the 97 interventions, 68 were approved (70%), 15 received no response (16%), and 14 were denied by the community care HCP (14%). Despite obtaining no response or intervention denial from the community care HCP, hematology/oncology CPPs could approve these prescriptions if clinically appropriate, and their reasoning was documented. Table 2 further describes the types of interventions that were denied or obtained no response by the community care practitioner. Among the prescriptions denied by the hematology/oncology CPP, 11 were rejected for off-label indications and/or did not have support through primary literature, national guidelines, or VA criteria for use. Only 2 prescriptions were denied for safety concerns.
These documented clinical interventions had financial implications. For drugs with available cost data, requesting the use of a preferred/cost-effective product led to estimated savings of at least $263,536 over the study period with some ongoing cost savings. Prescription denials led to further estimated savings of $186,275 per month, although this is limited by the lack of known costs of alternative therapies the community care physicians chose.
DISCUSSION
More than one-third of prescriptions required clinical interventions, and 70% of these interventions were accepted by the community care prescriber, demonstrating the CPP’s essential role. Results indicate that most CPP clinical interventions involved clarifying and correcting doses, managing pertinent drug interactions, and ensuring appropriate use of medications according to clinical and national VA guidelines. Other studies have examined the impact of CPPs on patient care and cancer treatment.5,6 The randomized, multicenter AMBORA trial found that clinical pharmacist support reduced severe AEs and medication errors related to oral anticancer agents.5 The per-patient mean number of medication errors found by pharmacist review was 1.7 (range, 0 to 9), with most medication errors noted at the prescribing stage.5 Suzuki and colleagues analyzed data from 35,062 chemotherapy regimens and found that 53.1% of the chemotherapy prescriptions were modified because of pharmacist interventions.6 The most common reason for prescription modifications was prescription error.
Most of the clinical interventions in this study were accepted by community HCPs, indicating that these prescribers are receptive to hematology/oncology CPP input. Among those with no response, most were in relation to recommendations regarding drug interactions. In most of these cases, the drug interaction was not clinically concerning enough to require a response before the CPP approved the prescription. Therefore, it is unknown whether the outside HCP implemented the clinical recommendations. The most common types of clinical interventions the community care HCP declined were dose adjustment requests or requests to switch to a more cost-effective/formulary-preferred agent. In these cases, the prescriber’s preference was documented and, if clinically appropriate, approved by the CPP.
Although the financial implications of CPP clinical interventions were only marginally evaluated in this review, results suggest that cost savings by requests to switch to a cost-effective/formulary preferred agent or prescription denials are substantial. Because of changes in prescription costs over time, it is possible that savings from CPP intervention were greater than calculations using current Federal Supply Schedule Service pricing. The total impact of CPP prescription interventions on reducing or preventing hospitalizations or AEs is not known from this review, but other data suggest that cost savings may benefit the system.13,14
Limitations
This study's retrospective design is a limitation because practice patterns at the VANTHCS involving multiple hematology/oncology CPPs review of community care prescriptions might have evolved over time. The total financial implications of CPP interventions cannot fully be elucidated. The cost of alternative therapies used for patients who received a prescription denial is not factored into this review.
Conclusions
VANTHCS CPPs played an essential role in reviewing anticancer medication prescriptions from community care prescribers. In this study, CPP clinical interventions were completed for more than one-third of the prescriptions and the community-based HCP approved most of these interventions. These changes also resulted in financial benefits.
These findings add to the body of literature emphasizing the need for hematology/oncology-trained CPPs to review anticancer prescriptions and treatment plans. Our review could be used to justify CPP involvement in community care specialty medication review at VA facilities that do not currently have CPP involvement.
The value of a hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) has been validated in several studies documenting their positive impact on patient outcomes, supportive care management, laboratory monitoring, medication error identification, and drug expenditure.1-6 With> 200 oncology-related US Food and Drug Administration approval notifications published from 2020 to 2023, it is no surprise that national trends in oncology drug clinic expenditures increased from $39.9 billion in 2020 to $44.1 billion in 2021.7,8 With the rapidly changing treatment landscape, new drug approvals, and risk of polypharmacy, oral anticancer agents carry a high risk for medication errors.4 Additional challenges include complex dosing regimens and instructions, adherence issues, drug interactions, adjustments for organ dysfunction, and extensive adverse effect (AE) profiles.
Because of the niche and complexity of oral anticancer agents, trained CPPs havehematology/oncology education and expertise that pharmacists without specialized training lack. A survey of 243 nonspecialized community pharmacists that assessed their knowledge of oral anticancer therapies revealed that only about half of the knowledge questions were answered correctly, illustrating an education gap among these pharmacists.9 The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association's suggests that best practices for managing oral oncology therapy should include comprehensive medication review by an oncology-trained pharmacist for each prescription.10
The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) community care network, which was established by the MISSION Act, allows covered access for eligible veterans in the local community outside of the VA network. Unfortunately, this dual-system use of health care could increase the risk of poorly coordinated care and has been associated with the risk of inappropriate prescribing.11,12 It is unclear how many private practices enrolled in the community care program have access to oncology-trained pharmacists. Specialized pharmaceutical reviews of oral anticancer medication prescriptions from these practices are vital for veteran care. This study evaluates the clinical and financial interventions of hematology/oncology CPPs review of specialty hematology/oncology prescriptions from community care health care practitioners (HCPs) at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas.
METHODS
This study is a retrospective review of Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) records of patients at VANTHCS from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2023. Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, enrolled in the VA community care program, received a specialty hematology/oncology medication that was dispensed through VA pharmacies or VA-contracted pharmacies, and had an hematology/oncology CPP medication review documented in CPRS. The primary aim of this study was to assess the number and types of clinical interventions performed. A clinical intervention was defined as a documented communication attempt with a community care HCP or direct communication with a patient to address a specific medication-related issue noted during CPP review.
Review of specialty hematology/oncology medications by a hematology/oncology CPP included evaluation of therapy indication, such as whether the prescription meets clinical guidelines, VA criteria for use, or other clinical literature as judged appropriate by the CPP. In some cases, the CPP requested that the community care HCP prescribe a more cost-effective or formulary-preferred agent. Each prescription was reviewed for dosage and formulation appropriateness, drug interactions with available medication lists, baseline laboratory test completion, and recommended supportive care medicines. At times, patient counseling is completed as part of the clinical review. When necessary, CPPs could discuss patient cases with a VA-employed oncologist for further oversight regarding appropriateness and safety. Secondary outcomes included the number of interventions accepted or denied by the prescriber provider and cost savings.
Data collected included the type of malignancy, hematology/oncology specialty medication requested, number and type of interventions sent to the community care prescriber, number of interventions accepted or denied by the community care prescriber, and whether the CPP conducted patient counseling or dispensed or denied the product. Cost savings were calculated for medications that were denied or changed to a formulary preferred or cost-effective agent using pricing data from the National Acquisition Center Contract Catalog or Federal Supply Schedule Service as of April 2024.
RESULTS
A total of 221 hematology/oncology prescriptions met inclusion criteria. Among patients receiving these prescriptions, the median age was 70 years and 91% were male. The most common malignancies included 31 instances of multiple myeloma (14%), 26 for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (12%), 24 for prostate cancer (11%), 23 for glioblastoma/brain cancer (10%), 18 for renal cell carcinoma (8%), 17 for colorectal cancer (8%), and 15 for acute myeloid leukemia (7%). Clinical interventions by the hematology/oncology CPP were completed for 82 (37%) of the 221 prescriptions. One clinical intervention was communicated directly to the patient, and attempts were made to communicate with the community care HCP for the remaining 81 prescriptions. The CPP documented 97 clinical interventions for the 82 prescriptions (Table 1). The most commonly documented clinical interventions included: 25 for managing/preventing a drug interaction (26%), 24 for dose adjustment request (25%), 13 for prescription denial (13%), and 11 for requesting the use of a preferred or more cost-effective product (11%). Of note, 16 patients (7%) received counseling from the hematology/oncology CPP. Ten patients (5%) received counseling alone with no other intervention and did not meet the definition of a clinical intervention.
The most frequent prescriptions requiring intervention included 8 for enzalutamide, 7 for venetoclax, 6 for ibrutinib, and 5 each for lenalidomide, cabozantinib, and temozolomide. Among the 97 interventions, 68 were approved (70%), 15 received no response (16%), and 14 were denied by the community care HCP (14%). Despite obtaining no response or intervention denial from the community care HCP, hematology/oncology CPPs could approve these prescriptions if clinically appropriate, and their reasoning was documented. Table 2 further describes the types of interventions that were denied or obtained no response by the community care practitioner. Among the prescriptions denied by the hematology/oncology CPP, 11 were rejected for off-label indications and/or did not have support through primary literature, national guidelines, or VA criteria for use. Only 2 prescriptions were denied for safety concerns.
These documented clinical interventions had financial implications. For drugs with available cost data, requesting the use of a preferred/cost-effective product led to estimated savings of at least $263,536 over the study period with some ongoing cost savings. Prescription denials led to further estimated savings of $186,275 per month, although this is limited by the lack of known costs of alternative therapies the community care physicians chose.
DISCUSSION
More than one-third of prescriptions required clinical interventions, and 70% of these interventions were accepted by the community care prescriber, demonstrating the CPP’s essential role. Results indicate that most CPP clinical interventions involved clarifying and correcting doses, managing pertinent drug interactions, and ensuring appropriate use of medications according to clinical and national VA guidelines. Other studies have examined the impact of CPPs on patient care and cancer treatment.5,6 The randomized, multicenter AMBORA trial found that clinical pharmacist support reduced severe AEs and medication errors related to oral anticancer agents.5 The per-patient mean number of medication errors found by pharmacist review was 1.7 (range, 0 to 9), with most medication errors noted at the prescribing stage.5 Suzuki and colleagues analyzed data from 35,062 chemotherapy regimens and found that 53.1% of the chemotherapy prescriptions were modified because of pharmacist interventions.6 The most common reason for prescription modifications was prescription error.
Most of the clinical interventions in this study were accepted by community HCPs, indicating that these prescribers are receptive to hematology/oncology CPP input. Among those with no response, most were in relation to recommendations regarding drug interactions. In most of these cases, the drug interaction was not clinically concerning enough to require a response before the CPP approved the prescription. Therefore, it is unknown whether the outside HCP implemented the clinical recommendations. The most common types of clinical interventions the community care HCP declined were dose adjustment requests or requests to switch to a more cost-effective/formulary-preferred agent. In these cases, the prescriber’s preference was documented and, if clinically appropriate, approved by the CPP.
Although the financial implications of CPP clinical interventions were only marginally evaluated in this review, results suggest that cost savings by requests to switch to a cost-effective/formulary preferred agent or prescription denials are substantial. Because of changes in prescription costs over time, it is possible that savings from CPP intervention were greater than calculations using current Federal Supply Schedule Service pricing. The total impact of CPP prescription interventions on reducing or preventing hospitalizations or AEs is not known from this review, but other data suggest that cost savings may benefit the system.13,14
Limitations
This study's retrospective design is a limitation because practice patterns at the VANTHCS involving multiple hematology/oncology CPPs review of community care prescriptions might have evolved over time. The total financial implications of CPP interventions cannot fully be elucidated. The cost of alternative therapies used for patients who received a prescription denial is not factored into this review.
Conclusions
VANTHCS CPPs played an essential role in reviewing anticancer medication prescriptions from community care prescribers. In this study, CPP clinical interventions were completed for more than one-third of the prescriptions and the community-based HCP approved most of these interventions. These changes also resulted in financial benefits.
These findings add to the body of literature emphasizing the need for hematology/oncology-trained CPPs to review anticancer prescriptions and treatment plans. Our review could be used to justify CPP involvement in community care specialty medication review at VA facilities that do not currently have CPP involvement.
1. Shah NN, Casella E, Capozzi D, et al. Improving the safety of oral chemotherapy at an academic medical center. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(1):e71-e76. doi:10.1200/JOP.2015.007260
2. Gatwood J, Gatwood K, Gabre E, Alexander M. Impact of clinical pharmacists in outpatient oncology practices: a review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(19):1549-1557. doi:10.2146/ajhp160475
3. Lankford C, Dura J, Tran A, et al. Effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on cost in an integrated health system specialty pharmacy. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021;27(3):379-384. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.3.379
4. Schlichtig K, Dürr P, Dörje F, Fromm MF. Medication errors during treatment with new oral anticancer agents: consequences for clinical practice based on the AMBORA Study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110(4):1075-1086. doi:10.1002/cpt.2338
5. Dürr P, Schlichtig K, Kelz C, et al. The randomized AMBORA Trial: impact of pharmacological/pharmaceutical care on medication safety and patient-reported outcomes during treatment with new oral anticancer agents. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(18):1983-1994. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.03088
6. Suzuki S, Chan A, Nomura H, Johnson PE, Endo K, Saito S. Chemotherapy regimen checks performed by pharmacists contribute to safe administration of chemotherapy. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2017;23(1):18-25. doi:10.1177/1078155215614998
7. Tichy EM, Hoffman JM, Suda KJ, et al. National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2022;79(14):1158-1172. doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxac102
8. US Food and Drug Administration. Oncology (cancer)/hematologic malignancies approval notifications. 2023.
9. O’Bryant CL, Crandell BC. Community pharmacists’ knowledge of and attitudes toward oral chemotherapy. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2008;48(5):632-639. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2008.07082
10. Mackler E, Segal EM, Muluneh B, Jeffers K, Carmichael J. 2018 hematology/oncology pharmacist association best practices for the management of oral oncolytic therapy: pharmacy practice standard. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(4):e346-e355. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00581
11. Thorpe JM, Thorpe CT, Schleiden L, et al. Association between dual use of Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare part D drug benefits and potentially unsafe prescribing. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(11):1584-1586. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2788
12. Thorpe JM, Thorpe CT, Gellad WF, et al. Dual health care system use and high-risk prescribing in patients with dementia: a national cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(3):157-163. doi:10.7326/M16-0551
13. Chen P-Z, Wu C-C, Huang C-F. Clinical and economic impact of clinical pharmacist intervention in a hematology unit. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020;26(4):866-872. doi:10.1177/1078155219875806
14. Dalton K, Byrne S. Role of the pharmacist in reducing healthcare costs: current insights. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2017;6:37-46. doi:10.2147/IPRP.S108047
1. Shah NN, Casella E, Capozzi D, et al. Improving the safety of oral chemotherapy at an academic medical center. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(1):e71-e76. doi:10.1200/JOP.2015.007260
2. Gatwood J, Gatwood K, Gabre E, Alexander M. Impact of clinical pharmacists in outpatient oncology practices: a review. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(19):1549-1557. doi:10.2146/ajhp160475
3. Lankford C, Dura J, Tran A, et al. Effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on cost in an integrated health system specialty pharmacy. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021;27(3):379-384. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2021.27.3.379
4. Schlichtig K, Dürr P, Dörje F, Fromm MF. Medication errors during treatment with new oral anticancer agents: consequences for clinical practice based on the AMBORA Study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110(4):1075-1086. doi:10.1002/cpt.2338
5. Dürr P, Schlichtig K, Kelz C, et al. The randomized AMBORA Trial: impact of pharmacological/pharmaceutical care on medication safety and patient-reported outcomes during treatment with new oral anticancer agents. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(18):1983-1994. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.03088
6. Suzuki S, Chan A, Nomura H, Johnson PE, Endo K, Saito S. Chemotherapy regimen checks performed by pharmacists contribute to safe administration of chemotherapy. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2017;23(1):18-25. doi:10.1177/1078155215614998
7. Tichy EM, Hoffman JM, Suda KJ, et al. National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2022. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2022;79(14):1158-1172. doi:10.1093/ajhp/zxac102
8. US Food and Drug Administration. Oncology (cancer)/hematologic malignancies approval notifications. 2023.
9. O’Bryant CL, Crandell BC. Community pharmacists’ knowledge of and attitudes toward oral chemotherapy. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2008;48(5):632-639. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2008.07082
10. Mackler E, Segal EM, Muluneh B, Jeffers K, Carmichael J. 2018 hematology/oncology pharmacist association best practices for the management of oral oncolytic therapy: pharmacy practice standard. J Oncol Pract. 2019;15(4):e346-e355. doi:10.1200/JOP.18.00581
11. Thorpe JM, Thorpe CT, Schleiden L, et al. Association between dual use of Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare part D drug benefits and potentially unsafe prescribing. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(11):1584-1586. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2788
12. Thorpe JM, Thorpe CT, Gellad WF, et al. Dual health care system use and high-risk prescribing in patients with dementia: a national cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(3):157-163. doi:10.7326/M16-0551
13. Chen P-Z, Wu C-C, Huang C-F. Clinical and economic impact of clinical pharmacist intervention in a hematology unit. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2020;26(4):866-872. doi:10.1177/1078155219875806
14. Dalton K, Byrne S. Role of the pharmacist in reducing healthcare costs: current insights. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2017;6:37-46. doi:10.2147/IPRP.S108047