Most antineoplastic drugs are highly toxic and have low therapeutic indexes, which can result in drug-related problems. In this context, pharmacist interventions may play an important role in the success of the treatment. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of pharmacist interventions on adult outpatients with cancer using antineoplastic drugs. A literature search was performed using PubMed, ISI Web of Science and LILACS databases from January 1990 to April 2016, using MeSH terms or text words related to pharmacist interventions, cancer and outpatient care. Studies published in English, Portuguese or Spanish on the effects of pharmacist interventions in outcome measures in adult outpatients with cancer were included. Two independent authors performed study selection and data extraction with a consensus process. The articles were analysed according to previously established criteria, such as country, study design, setting, population, type of cancer, description of the intervention and control groups, outcomes, main conclusions and study limitations. A total of 874 records were identified, of which 11 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted mainly in the United States and included patients aged >50 years. Most studies had a before-after design. Pharmacist interventions primarily included educating and counselling patients on the management of adverse events. Rates of nausea and vomiting control, medication adherence and patient satisfaction were the most common outcome measures; a significant benefit in these parameters as a result of pharmacist interventions was noted in most studies. The findings from this systematic review indicate that pharmacist interventions can improve outcome measures in outpatients with cancer. However, the collective quality of the studies was poor and gaps identified indicate that further research is needed to provide more robust results.

Medication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results. To examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings. A literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews. Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11). There is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.