The EAHP Board, elected for three-year terms, oversees the association’s activities. Comprising directors responsible for core functions, it meets regularly to implement strategic goals. Supported by EAHP staff, the Board controls finances, coordinates congress organization, and ensures compliance with statutes and codes of conduct.
Clinical impact assessment of pharmaceutical intervention during pharmaceutical consultation of oral therapy-treated cancer patients
European Statement
Clinical Pharmacy Services
Author(s)
Justine Touchard, Elisabeth Angelier, Isabelle Ferry, Marion Lafay, Jean-Stéphane Giraud, Caroline Giard, Mallory Friou, Laurence Escalup, Thomas Genevée
Why was it done?
For more than 15 years, within the Institut Curie, a pharmaceutical consultation (PC) has been offered to patients undergoing anticancer oral therapy, in addition to a medical announcement consultation and a nurse consultation. The pharmacist secures and optimises drug management through a pharmaceutical analysis of the prescription, an explanation to the patient of drug intake and management of the main side effects.
What was done?
The aim is to assess the Clinical Impact (CI) of Pharmaceutical Interventions (PI).
How was it done?
From 1 January 2020 to 17 March 2020, two types of PI could be collected during each PC. One concerned the prescriber and problems of prescription, while the other concerned patients. Patients could misunderstand some of the information explained by their oncologist. The evaluation of the CI of these PI has been documented by an oncologist based on the Cléo scale v3, validated by a French learned society, Société Française de Pharmacie Clinique. CI of each PI was classified as harmful , null, minor, moderate, major, vital, and not determined.
What has been achieved?
140 PC were carried out. 95% of patients were female and mean age was 62 (±13.73) years. 66 PI were recorded. 39 PI with the prescriber were identified. We noted, among others, 8 risks of possible drug interaction, 9 lacks of prescriptions of support treatment, 3 lacks of drug intake advice and 3 lacks of prescription for blood monitoring.
27 PI with the patient were identified and 21 were relevant. We noted that 7 patients misunderstood drug intake, 5 patients did not know that the previous treatment should have been interrupted, 5 patients misunderstood the monitoring and 4 others were not aware of possible side effects related to their treatment.
The CI was assessed for 83% (n=55) of PI. CI was considered to be minor for 20%, moderate for 53%, major for 14% and vital for 13%. Two prescription errors were associated with vital CI. The first referred to a risk of drug interaction between a proton pump inhibitor and capecitabine. The other error was the risk of loperamide overdosage.
What next?
PC help secure medical care of patients. These results will be presented to our oncologists to improve medical practices.