Patricia Quintana-Bárcena

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) patients receiving radiotherapy may be predisposed to secondary malignancies. This study aimed to determine the association between PCa treatments, including radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); and secondary bladder and colorectal cancer.Methods: A cohort study was constructed using Quebec administrative databases (Med‐Echo and RAMQ). Included men were diagnosed and treated for PCa between 2000 and 2016. Patients with bladder or colorectal cancer prior to PCa were excluded. Follow‐up ended at the earliest of the following: incidence of bladder or colorectal cancer, death, or December 31, 2016. EBRT, BT, EBRT+ADT, RP + ADT or ADT only were compared individually to RP. The incidence of secondary bladder and colorectal cancer were computed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on a propensity score was used to control for potential confounding. IPTW‐Cox proportional hazards models were used.Results: A significant association was found between secondary bladder cancer and EBRT (HR: 1.84, 95%CI: 1.60;2.13), and also EBRT+ADT (HR: 2.08, 95%CI: 1.67;2.56), but not with BT (HR: 1.36, 95%CI: 0.68;2.74). Secondary colorectal cancer was significantly associated to either EBRT (HR: 1.36, 95%CI: 1.21;1.53); or BT (HR: 2.46, 95%CI: 1.71;3.54). The association between ADT alone and both secondary cancers was also significant (HR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.69;2.31 and HR: 1.69, 95%CI: 1.49;1.92, respectively).Conclusions: Compared to PCa patients undergoing RP, the secondary bladder cancer was associated with EBRT, ADT, alone or in combination. The secondary colorectal cancer was also associated with receiving either EBRT, BT or ADT.

Objectives: Polymedication and medication hoarding in patients’ homes may increase the risk of drug-related problems (DRPs). Community pharmacists can prevent DRPs through medication reconciliation and review. This study aims to (1) develop a tool for community pharmacists to perform domiciliary medication review (ReMeDo) and (2) assess the interrater and test–retest reliability and acceptability of the tool. Methods: The ReMeDo tool was first developed 6 years before this study to perform medication review during pharmacist home visits. A literature review was performed to update the content of the existing tool. Ten pharmacy students participated in the assessment of the interrater and test–retest reliability using three vignettes based on former ReMeDo patients. Test–retest reliability coefficients were calculated for the entire tool and each segment. Global and individual interrater reliability coefficients were also computed. Acceptability was assessed through a satisfaction survey. Key findings: The ReMeDo tool was structured to guide the collection of information before, during and after the pharmacist home visit. The global kappa coefficients for interrater and test–retest reliability were 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67 to 0.73) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.74), respectively. The test–retest reliability coefficients for each segment and the interrater reliability coefficients for participants were higher than 0.60 (except for one participant), demonstrating a moderate to substantial level of agreement. The tool was deemed acceptable by participants. Conclusions: The ReMeDo tool proved to be reliable and acceptable for use by community pharmacists to perform medication review in patients’ homes.

Documentation of community pharmacists’ clinical activities, such as the identification and management of drug-related problems (DRPs), is recommended. However, documentation is not systematic in Swiss community pharmacies, and relevant information about DRPs, such as consequences or involved partners, is frequently missing. This study aims to evaluate the interrater and test-retest reliability, appropriateness and acceptability of the Clinical Pharmacy Activities Documented (ClinPhADoc) tool. Ten community pharmacists participated in the study. Interrater reliability coefficients were computed using 24 standardized cases. One month later, test-retest reliability was assessed using 10 standardized cases. To assess the appropriateness, pharmacists were asked to document clinical activities in their own practice using ClinPhADoc. Acceptability was assessed by an online satisfaction survey. Kappa coefficients showing a moderate level of agreement (>0.40) were observed for interrater and test-retest reliability. Pharmacists were able to document 131 clinical activities. The good level of acceptability and brief documentation time (fewer than seven minutes) indicate that ClinPhADoc is well-suited to the community pharmacy setting. To optimize the tool, pharmacists proposed developing an electronic version. These results support the reliability and acceptance of the ClinPhADoc tool.

BACKGROUND: Drug-related problems (DRPs) are prevalent among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. However, little is known about their severity and management by community pharmacists. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe the prevalence of DRPs by severity level in CKD patients and (b) assess the effect of a training-and-communication network program in nephrology (ProFiL) on these DRPs. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of the ProFiL-program. In 6 CKD clinics, patients at CKD stage 3 or 4 and their community pharmacists were recruited and assigned to the ProFiL group or a usual care (UC) group. Using validated criteria, 2 pharmacists identified DRPs and assessed their severity at baseline and after 12 months. The mean annual change in the number of DRPs per patient by severity level was assessed using a 2-level multivariable linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 494 pharmacists and 442 patients participated. At baseline, the prevalence (mean number of DRPs per patient [SD]) of mild DRPs (e.g., requiring dosage adjustment) and moderate DRPs (e.g., drug adherence requiring a monitoring plan) were 0.55 (0.98) and 1.04 (1.51), respectively. After 12 months, an unadjusted incremental annual reduction of 0.34 moderate DRPs (95% CI = -0.66 to -0.01) was observed in the ProFiL group compared with the UC group. After adjustment, no between-group differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients followed in CKD clinics, most DRPs have a moderate severity requiring specific monitoring by pharmacists. The benefit of continuing education programs, such as ProFiL, to reduce moderate DRPs remains to be determined. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number: MOP-230207). Part of the study was also funded by Pfizer Canada, Leo Pharma, and Amgen. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. Study concept and design were contributed by Quintana-Bárcena, Lord, and Lalonde. Quintana-Bárcena, Lord, and Lizotte were responsible for the data analysis, and Quintana-Bárcena and Berbiche performed the statistical analysis. The manuscript was written by Quintana-Bárcena and Lalonde and revised by Quintana-Bárcena and Lalonde, along with the other authors.

Purpose. The development and validation of criteria for classifying severity of drug-related problems (DRPs) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the com