The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is disrupting our health environment. As expected, studies highlighted the great susceptibility of cancer patients to COVID-19 and more severe complications, leading oncologists to deeply rethink patient cancer care. This review is dedicated to the optimization of care pathways and therapeutics in cancer patients during the pandemic and aims to discuss successive issues. First we focused on the international guidelines proposing adjustments and alternative options to cancer care in order to limit hospital admission and cytopenic treatment in cancer patients, most of whom are immunocompromised. In addition cancer patients are prone to polypharmacy, enhancing the risk of drug-related problems as adverse events and drug-drug interactions. Due to increased risk in case of COVID-19, we reported a comprehensive review of all the drug-related problems between COVID-19 and antineoplastics. Moreover, in the absence of approved drug against COVID-19, infected patients may be included in clinical trials evaluating new drugs with a lack of knowledge, particularly in cancer patients. Focusing on the several experimental drugs currently being evaluated, we set up an original data board helping oncologists and pharmacists to identify promptly drug-related problems between antineoplastics and experimental drugs. Finally additional and concrete recommendations are provided, supporting oncologists and pharmacists in their efforts to manage cancer patients and to optimize their treatments in this new era related to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The multiplicity in terms and definitions of medication-related harm has been a long-standing challenge for health researchers, clinicians, and regulatory bodies. The purpose of this narrative review was to report the diversity of terms; compare definitions, classifications, and models describing medication harm; and suggest which may be useful in both clinical practice and the research setting.
METHODS: A narrative review of key studies defining and/or classifying medication harm terminology was undertaken.
RESULTS: This review found that numerous terms are used to describe medication harm, and that there is a lack of consistency in current definitions, classifications, and applications. This lack of consistency applied across clinical jurisdictions and regulatory terminologies. A number of limitations in current definitions and classifications were identified. These included the exclusion of key types of medication harm events, ambiguous wording, and a lack of clarity and consensus on subclassifications. In general, there was some overlap in key models from the literature and these were presented to describe similarities and differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Without uniformity quantifying, comparing, combining, or extrapolating medication harm data, such as a rate of harm in a specific population, is a challenge for those involved in medication safety and pharmacovigilance. There is a pressing need for further discussion and international consensus on this topic. Adoption of standard descriptors by practitioner groups, regulatory and policy organisations would foster quality improvement and patient safety.