{"title":"在专科姑息治疗环境中,药剂师主导的癌症患者处方干预。","authors":"Ciarán McAdam, Eimear O'Dwyer, Kieran Dalton","doi":"10.1007/s00520-025-09341-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among adult cancer patients in palliative care, the rate at which physicians implemented pharmacists' deprescribing recommendations, and some cost implications of deprescribing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medication reconciliation was performed for each eligible patient, with both the OncPal deprescribing guideline and clinical judgement applied to identify PIMs. PIM prevalence was evaluated for each medication class. The physician recommendation implementation rate and medication cost savings were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 48 included patients, 25.2% of medications were PIMs (mean 2.4/patient) - with 86.7% OncPal-defined PIMs, most commonly vitamins, medications for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), and lipid-modifying agents. Pharmacist deprescribing recommendations were implemented 71.7% of the time, equivalent to 1.7 fewer medications per patient. The 28-day cost was €948.27 for deprescribed PIMs. Implementation rates varied based on patient admission type, with a significantly higher (p<0.05) rate in those admitted for end-of-life care (83.3%) versus symptom control (65.1%) and respite (30%) admissions. Recommendations to deprescribe GORD medications had a significantly lower rate of implementation (26.7%) compared to all other medications (p<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study underscores the benefits of pharmacist-led deprescribing in inpatient palliative care, resulting in cost savings and reduced medication burden. There is a notable need for proactive deprescribing before reaching inpatient care. Different deprescribing rates across medication types highlight the significance of reviewing medications which may have a role in symptom management. The omission of some medications from OncPal emphasises the importance in refining future deprescribing guidelines in palliative care.</p>","PeriodicalId":22046,"journal":{"name":"Supportive Care in Cancer","volume":"33 4","pages":"321"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11946936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions for cancer patients in a specialist palliative care setting.\",\"authors\":\"Ciarán McAdam, Eimear O'Dwyer, Kieran Dalton\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00520-025-09341-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among adult cancer patients in palliative care, the rate at which physicians implemented pharmacists' deprescribing recommendations, and some cost implications of deprescribing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Medication reconciliation was performed for each eligible patient, with both the OncPal deprescribing guideline and clinical judgement applied to identify PIMs. PIM prevalence was evaluated for each medication class. The physician recommendation implementation rate and medication cost savings were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 48 included patients, 25.2% of medications were PIMs (mean 2.4/patient) - with 86.7% OncPal-defined PIMs, most commonly vitamins, medications for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), and lipid-modifying agents. Pharmacist deprescribing recommendations were implemented 71.7% of the time, equivalent to 1.7 fewer medications per patient. The 28-day cost was €948.27 for deprescribed PIMs. Implementation rates varied based on patient admission type, with a significantly higher (p<0.05) rate in those admitted for end-of-life care (83.3%) versus symptom control (65.1%) and respite (30%) admissions. Recommendations to deprescribe GORD medications had a significantly lower rate of implementation (26.7%) compared to all other medications (p<0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study underscores the benefits of pharmacist-led deprescribing in inpatient palliative care, resulting in cost savings and reduced medication burden. There is a notable need for proactive deprescribing before reaching inpatient care. Different deprescribing rates across medication types highlight the significance of reviewing medications which may have a role in symptom management. The omission of some medications from OncPal emphasises the importance in refining future deprescribing guidelines in palliative care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Supportive Care in Cancer\",\"volume\":\"33 4\",\"pages\":\"321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11946936/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Supportive Care in Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09341-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Supportive Care in Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-025-09341-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions for cancer patients in a specialist palliative care setting.
Purpose: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among adult cancer patients in palliative care, the rate at which physicians implemented pharmacists' deprescribing recommendations, and some cost implications of deprescribing.
Methods: Medication reconciliation was performed for each eligible patient, with both the OncPal deprescribing guideline and clinical judgement applied to identify PIMs. PIM prevalence was evaluated for each medication class. The physician recommendation implementation rate and medication cost savings were calculated.
Results: In the 48 included patients, 25.2% of medications were PIMs (mean 2.4/patient) - with 86.7% OncPal-defined PIMs, most commonly vitamins, medications for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), and lipid-modifying agents. Pharmacist deprescribing recommendations were implemented 71.7% of the time, equivalent to 1.7 fewer medications per patient. The 28-day cost was €948.27 for deprescribed PIMs. Implementation rates varied based on patient admission type, with a significantly higher (p<0.05) rate in those admitted for end-of-life care (83.3%) versus symptom control (65.1%) and respite (30%) admissions. Recommendations to deprescribe GORD medications had a significantly lower rate of implementation (26.7%) compared to all other medications (p<0.0001).
Conclusion: This study underscores the benefits of pharmacist-led deprescribing in inpatient palliative care, resulting in cost savings and reduced medication burden. There is a notable need for proactive deprescribing before reaching inpatient care. Different deprescribing rates across medication types highlight the significance of reviewing medications which may have a role in symptom management. The omission of some medications from OncPal emphasises the importance in refining future deprescribing guidelines in palliative care.
期刊介绍:
Supportive Care in Cancer provides members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and all other interested individuals, groups and institutions with the most recent scientific and social information on all aspects of supportive care in cancer patients. It covers primarily medical, technical and surgical topics concerning supportive therapy and care which may supplement or substitute basic cancer treatment at all stages of the disease.
Nursing, rehabilitative, psychosocial and spiritual issues of support are also included.