Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33009604›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020

Pharmacist review of high-risk haematology outpatients to improve appropriateness of antifungal prophylaxis.

Zainab Reslan, Julian Lindsay, Ian Kerridge, Rochelle Gellatly

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 52% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zainab ReslanPharmacy Department, Royal North Shore Hospital, Level 1 ASB, Reserve Road, Sydney, NSW, Australia. zainab.reslan@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9259-7195
Julian LindsayHematology and Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ian KerridgeHematology and Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rochelle GellatlyFaculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Royal North Shore Hospital · AUMonash University · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Patients with haematological malignancies are at high risk of invasive fungal infections. However, there is a lack of information about the utilisation of the recommended Australian antifungal prophylaxis guidelines in haematology outpatients. Objective To assess the impact of a weekly pharmacist review of high-risk adult haematology outpatients on the utilisation of appropriate antifungal prophylaxis. Setting Outpatient cancer centre, tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. Method A 3-month pre-and post-interventional study was conducted. A retrospective audit was conducted to obtain baseline utilisation of antifungal guidelines in adult haematology outpatients with acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome receiving chemotherapy. This was followed by a weekly pharmacist review over a 3-month period of all eligible outpatients assessing the appropriateness of antifungal agent, dose, use of therapeutic drug monitoring and presence of drug-interactions/contraindications. Recommendations to physicians were conveyed weekly and outcomes recorded. Main outcome measure Appropriate utilisation of antifungal prophylaxis guidelines in outpatient haematology patients before and after implementation of a 3-month weekly pharmacist review service. Results Forty patients were included in the retrospective group, equating to 348 reviews, while 42 patients equating to 269 reviews were included in the prospective group. Appropriate utilisation of antifungal prophylaxis guidelines increased from 31 to 54% post implementation of a pharmacist review (Odds Ratio = 2.44, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.07-5.58, p = 0.0344). The most common reason for nonadherence to guidelines in both groups was lack of therapeutic drug monitoring and failure to prescribe antifungal prophylaxis where indicated. The percentage of appropriate use of antifungal prophylaxis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia increased from 13 to 46% (p value < 0.01) after pharmacist intervention. The pharmacist made 153 recommendations from 269 reviews, with a percentage uptake of 40%. Moderate to severe drug interactions were identified in 19 reviews from 10 patients. One major azole antifungal-chemotherapy interaction was avoided. Conclusions Appropriate utilisation of antifungal prophylaxis guidelines can be improved through a regular pharmacist review. Future studies should identify whether improving adherence to antifungal guidelines leads to improved patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareDrug Utilization ReviewHematologyPharmacistsAntifungal AgentsCancer Care FacilitiesDrug Administration ScheduleDrug InteractionsDrug MonitoringGuideline AdherenceHematologic NeoplasmsHumansImmunocompromised HostInappropriate PrescribingInvasive Fungal InfectionsOpportunistic InfectionsAntifungal AgentsAntifungal agentsHematologyInvasive fungal infectionsPractice guidelinesProphylaxis

Identifiers

PMID33009604
OpenAlexW3091670816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.