ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2020
Pharmacist review of high-risk haematology outpatients to improve appropriateness of antifungal prophylaxis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacist-led interventions in hematological malignancies: a systematic review of clinical, process and economic outcomes.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Optimizing antifungal therapy: a systematic review of pharmacist interventions, stewardship approaches, and outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical pharmacist-led antifungal drug utilization reviews in cancer care hospital: a prospective audit and feedback.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.