Ashley Leak Bryant1, Thomas W LeBlanc2, Tara Albrecht3, Ya-Ning Chan4, Jaime Richardson5, Matthew Foster5, Malisa Dang6, William Dudley7, Susie Owenby8, Debra Wujcik8. 1. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carrington Hall, CB #7460, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7460, USA. ashley_bryant@unc.edu. 2. Medicine and Population Health, Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA. 4. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carrington Hall, CB #7460, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7460, USA. 5. Division of Hematology/Oncology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA. 6. Division of Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. 7. Piedmont Research Strategies, Greensboro, NC, USA. 8. Carevive Systems, Inc., North Miami, FL, 33181, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The incidence of AML is increasing, in part due to an aging population. Since 2017, eight novel agents have been introduced, 6 of which are oral: midostaurin, enasidenib, ivosidenib, gilteritinib, glasdegib, and venetoclax. With an increase in oral medications (OMs), patients face associated side effects that accompany OMs, which often decreases adherence. We aimed to identify and summarize adherence to OMs in this population. METHODS: Our mixed method design used focus groups (FG) and patient surveys. After IRB approval, 11 patients and 4 caregivers participated in 4 FGs. Themes from the FGs were used to develop a 37-item OMs adherence needs assessment. Participants were recruited and consented at three cancer centers to complete surveys (online, at the clinic, hospital, or from home). RESULTS: A total of 100 patients completed OMs survey. The number of pills to be taken was the most frequent and troublesome challenge. The most frequently reported interventions that would improve patient adherence were smaller pills, easier packaging, and scheduling assistance. Nearly 33% of patients indicated they skip OMs dose altogether when they forget to take it. Younger patients (< 65 years) were more accepting of taking oral compared with intravenous medications (p = .03). CONCLUSION: This study represents the first assessment of OMs adherence in adults with AML. Findings provide the basis for further exploration of interventions to enhance and increase adherence to OMs regimens.
INTRODUCTION: The incidence of AML is increasing, in part due to an aging population. Since 2017, eight novel agents have been introduced, 6 of which are oral: midostaurin, enasidenib, ivosidenib, gilteritinib, glasdegib, and venetoclax. With an increase in oral medications (OMs), patients face associated side effects that accompany OMs, which often decreases adherence. We aimed to identify and summarize adherence to OMs in this population. METHODS: Our mixed method design used focus groups (FG) and patient surveys. After IRB approval, 11 patients and 4 caregivers participated in 4 FGs. Themes from the FGs were used to develop a 37-item OMs adherence needs assessment. Participants were recruited and consented at three cancer centers to complete surveys (online, at the clinic, hospital, or from home). RESULTS: A total of 100 patients completed OMs survey. The number of pills to be taken was the most frequent and troublesome challenge. The most frequently reported interventions that would improve patient adherence were smaller pills, easier packaging, and scheduling assistance. Nearly 33% of patients indicated they skip OMs dose altogether when they forget to take it. Younger patients (< 65 years) were more accepting of taking oral compared with intravenous medications (p = .03). CONCLUSION: This study represents the first assessment of OMs adherence in adults with AML. Findings provide the basis for further exploration of interventions to enhance and increase adherence to OMs regimens.
Authors: Joseph A Greer; Nicole Amoyal; Lauren Nisotel; Joel N Fishbein; James MacDonald; Jamie Stagl; Inga Lennes; Jennifer S Temel; Steven A Safren; William F Pirl Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-02-26
Authors: Yelena P Wu; Lauri A Linder; Patsaporn Kanokvimankul; Brynn Fowler; Bridget G Parsons; Catherine F Macpherson; Rebecca H Johnson Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Ashley Leak Bryant; Erin M Coffman; Brett Phillips; Tamryn F Gray; George J Knafl; Heidi D Klepin; William A Wood; Hyman Muss; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Ashley Leak Bryant; AnnMarie Lee Walton; Julia Shaw-Kokot; Deborah K Mayer; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Lucien Noens; Marie-Anne van Lierde; Robrecht De Bock; Gregor Verhoef; Pierre Zachée; Zwi Berneman; Philippe Martiat; Philippe Mineur; Koen Van Eygen; Karen MacDonald; Sabina De Geest; Tara Albrecht; Ivo Abraham Journal: Blood Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sabina De Geest; Leah L Zullig; Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob; Remon Helmy; Dyfrig A Hughes; Ira B Wilson; Bernard Vrijens Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 51.598
Authors: Dominique A Garrison; Yan Jin; Muhammad Erfan Uddin; Alex Sparreboom; Sharyn D Baker Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 3.205