Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29187027›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners2019

Actual versus recommended storage temperatures of oral anticancer medicines at patients' homes.

N D Vlieland, Bjf van den Bemt, D A van Riet-Nales, M L Bouvy, Acg Egberts, H Gardarsdottir

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Household Pharmaceutical Waste Management Practices in the Johannesburg Area, South Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

N D Vlieland1 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Division of Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Bjf van den Bemt2 Department of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
D A van Riet-Nales5 Quality Department, Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
M L Bouvy6 Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Acg Egberts1 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Division of Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
H Gardarsdottir1 Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Division of Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstantial quantities of unused medicines are returned by patients to the pharmacy each year. Redispensing these medicines would reduce medicinal waste and health care costs. However, it is not known if medicines are stored by patients as recommended in the product label. Inadequate storage may negatively affect the medicine and reduce clinical efficacy whilst increasing the risk for side effects.

objectiveTo investigate the proportion of patients storing oral anticancer medicines according to the temperature instructions in the product label.

methodsConsenting adult patients from six Dutch outpatient hospital pharmacies were included in this study if they used an oral anticancer medicine during February 2014 - January 2015. Home storage temperatures were assessed by inclusion of a temperature logger in the original cancer medicines packaging. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients storing oral anticancer medicines as specified in the Summary of Product Characteristics, either by recalculating the observed temperature fluctuations to a single mean kinetic temperature or by following the temperature instructions taking into account a consecutive 24-h tolerance period.

resultsNinety (81.1%) of the 111 included patients (47.8% female, mean age 65.2 (SD: 11.1)) returned their temperature loggers to the pharmacy. None of the patients stored oral anticancer medicines at a mean kinetic temperature above 25℃, one patient stored a medicine requiring storage below 25℃ longer than 24 h above 25℃. None of the patients using medicines requiring storage below 30℃ kept their medicine above 30℃ for a consecutive period of 24 h or longer.

conclusionThe majority of patients using oral anticancer medicines store their medicines according to the temperature requirements on the product label claim. Based on our results, most oral anticancer medicines will not be negatively affected by temperature conditions at patients' homes for a maximum of three months and are likely to be suitable for redispensing.

Indexed as

AgedAntineoplastic AgentsDrug PackagingDrug StorageFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTemperatureAntineoplastic Agentshome storage conditionsOral anticancer drugsredispensingtemperature

Identifiers

PMID29187027
PMCPMC6348455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.