Research and Scholarship
A Pharmacist-Led Oral Chemotherapy Program’s Impact on Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Patient Satisfaction, Adherence, and Outcomes
Taylor Dennison,(1,2) PharmD, Allison M. Deal,(3) MS, Matthew Foster,(1,3) MD, John Valgus,(1,2) PharmD, MHA, BCOP, and Benyam Muluneh,(2) PharmD, BCOP, CPP
From (1)University of North Carolina Medical Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; (2)University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; (3)University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Authors’ disclosures of conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
Correspondence to: Benyam Muluneh, PharmD, BCOP, CPP, 301 Pharmacy Lane, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. E-mail: email@example.com
J Adv Pract Oncol 2021;12(2):148–157 |
© 2021 Harborside™
Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) can be treated with oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy programs (POCPs) can improve TKI adherence rates, but evaluation of patient satisfaction with such programs is rare. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the satisfaction of patients with CML taking TKIs enrolled in a POCP program with that of those not enrolled. Secondary objectives were to assess adherence rates, patient-reported value, early molecular response (EMR) rates, and major molecular response (MMR) rates. This study utilized an anonymous telephone survey of patients who had taken TKIs for at least 3 months. Molecular response was determined by chart review. Of 40 patients surveyed, 50% were enrolled in the POCP, and the POCP group had more African Americans than the non-POCP group. More patients in the POCP were satisfied with their care than in the non-POCP group (100% vs. 75%, p = .047). There were no differences in high patient-reported adherence (55% vs. 60%, p = 1.000), patient-reported value for integrated services (95% vs. 90%, p = 1.000), achievement of EMR (75% vs. 75%, p = 1.000), or MMR (85% vs. 85%, p = 1.000). Patients in the POCP received more structured clinical pharmacy services; however, both groups felt the clinical pharmacist played a major role in their care (85% vs. 90%, p = 1.000). Patients in the non-POCP group reported lower satisfaction than those enrolled resulting from fragmented care that was likely due to external specialty pharmacies. Irrespective of POCP enrollment, patients reported clinical pharmacists play a major role in their therapy and value integration of their specialty pharmacy and medical team.
For access to the full length article, please sign in