The increasing incidence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents a global crisis to healthcare, with longstanding antimicrobial agents becoming less effective at treating and preventing infection. In the surgical setting, antibiotic prophylaxis has long been established as routine standard of care to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), which remains one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. The growing incidence of AMR increases the risk of SSI complicated with resistant bacteria, resulting in poorer surgical outcomes (prolonged hospitalisation, extended durations of antibiotic therapy, higher rates of surgical revision and mortality). Despite these increasing challenges, more data are required on approaches at the institutional and patient level to optimise surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the era of antibiotic resistance (AR). This review provides an overview of the common resistant bacteria encountered in the surgical setting and covers wider considerations for practice to optimise surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in the perioperative setting.

There are few fields of medicine in which the individualisation of medicines is more important than in the area of oncology. Under‐dosing can have significant ramifications due to the potential for therapeutic failure and cancer progression; by contrast, over‐dosing may lead to severe treatment‐limiting side effects, such as agranulocytosis and neutropenia. Both circumstances lead to poor patient prognosis and contribute to the high mortality rates still seen in oncology. The concept of dose individualisation tailors dosing for each individual patient to ensure optimal drug exposure and best clinical outcomes. While the value of this strategy is well recognised, it has seen little translation to clinical application. However, it is important to recognise that the clinical setting of oncology is unlike that for which therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is currently the cornerstone of therapy (e.g. antimicrobials). Whilst there is much to learn from these established TDM settings, the challenges presented in the treatment of cancer must be considered to ensure the implementation of TDM in clinical practice. Recent advancements in a range of scientific disciplines have the capacity to address the current system limitations and significantly enhance the use of anticancer medicines to improve patient health. This review examines opportunities presented by these innovative scientific methodologies, specifically sampling strategies, bioanalytics and dosing decision support, to enable optimal practice and facilitate the clinical implementation of TDM in oncology.

Targeted cancer medicines target specific molecules involved in the growth, progression, and metastatic dissemination of cancers. Monoclonal antibodies and small molecule kinase inhibitors are two major classes of targeted cancer medicines. Many targeted cancer medicines have well-established tumor biomarkers (gene mutations or expression profiles) that guide medication selection, yet disease progression, survival, and toxicity vary substantially between individuals.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are an emerging treatment in cancer therapy for prolonging life, minimizing symptoms, and selectively targeting cancer. Program death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, such as nivolumab, fall within this class, enabling the patient’s immune system to detect and destroy cancer. The introduction of ICIs is changing cancer therapy, with new drugs and new toxicities—an evolving area encountered by pharmacists. Objective: This study aims to compare the pattern of nivolumab-induced adverse events observed in practice, when compared with clinical trial and literature data. The secondary aim of the study is to identify the presentation and treatment modalities initiated in practice. Methods: We performed a retrospective case note review across 2 South Australian hospitals to identify the common toxicities and symptomatic treatments experienced by patients receiving nivolumab. Results were compared with clinical trial data from product innovator Bristol-Myer Squib and other published literature. Results: Seventy patients were included in the study; of these, 60 (86%) experienced any grade adverse event(s). A total of 59 (84%) of 70 experienced mild to moderate grade 1 to grade 2 adverse events and 10 (14%) of 70 patients experienced severe grade 3 to grade 4 adverse events, displaying some consistencies with clinical trial and published literature data. Together, the prevalence of adverse events with details on presentation and treatments illustrates possible pharmacy practice strategies and areas for intervention. Conclusions: The listed prevalence of adverse events and practice strategies identified throughout this study highlights how pharmacists may assist in the identification of predictable ICI toxicities associated with gastrointestinal, endocrine, dermatological toxicities, and fatigue.