4CPS-193 Measuring the impact of hospital pharmacist prescription reviewing in an oncology setting on the pharmacovigilance reporting in a comprehensive cancer centre. (24th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Omodeo Salè, E; Pezzella, D; Piccoli, M; Milani, M; Jemos, C; Malengo, D; Carrara, F; Cimino, D
• Is Part Of: European journal of hospital pharmacy. Volume 27(2020)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A139
• Page End: A139
• Publication Date: 2020-03-24
• Subjects: Pharmacy -- Periodicals; Hospital pharmacies -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2020-eahpconf.294
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-9956

Abstract

Abstract : Background and importance: The reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the National Pharmacovigilance Network (NPN) in our country can be done by different professionals (doctor, lawyer, pharmacist, nurse, health worker, etc) or by the patient themselves. However, historically, the physician is the person that most often intercepts and reports ADRs. The total number of ADRs reported in the NPN in Italy from 1 January 2015 to 31 January 2019 was 198 284, of which only 20 068 (10.10%) were reported by pharmacists. Aim and objectives: The aim of the study was to verify the impact of the hospital pharmacist on the number of ADR reports when involved in the review of prescriptions in a comprehensive cancer centre. Material and methods: Data on ADRs reported in our institute between 1 January 2015 and 31 January 2019 were extracted from the NPN and linked to an internal database in Access. The reports were analysed by age, gender, suspect drug, professionals reporting, apparatus involved and type of reaction. Results: The total number of reports was 600, of which 569 were reported by a hospital pharmacist, 30 by the physician, 1 by a pharmaceutical company and none by patients or nurses. The age range most represented was 46–56 years and 78.5% of were related to female patients. The ADRs reported most often by pharmacists were those affecting the haematopoietic and lymphatic systems (375 reports), followed by gastrointestinal disorders (104 reports) and nervous system disorders (70 reports). The active ingredients with at least one report were 66; the first four actives were paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide, carboplatin and epirubicin. The first reaction among the haematopoietic system reports was neutropenia, while the most reported non-haematologic events were transaminitis and asthenia followed by nausea, skin toxicity, diarrhoea, mucositis and paraesthesia. Conclusion and relevance: The hospital pharmacist, when involved in the prescription review, reported ADRs 19 times more frequently than the physician. Because the hospital pharmacist in our country does not visit the patient but only has access to the doctor visit letter and to the laboratory parameters, the pharmacist's reports are more often related to events detectable by blood examination. References and/or acknowledgements: No conflict of interest.