Lisa M Holle

Successful PBSC mobilization with high-dose G-CSF for patients failing a first round of mobilization.

PBSC are the preferred source of stem cells for autologous transplantation. However, regardless of the mobilization procedure used, 10%-20% of patients fail to collect an adequate number to ensure prompt engraftment. There is as yet no standard mobilization procedure for patients who fail a first mobilization attempt. Here, we describe a highly efficient strategy to obtain an adequate number of stem cells for patients who failed a first mobilization attempt. Seventy-four patients with various hematologic malignancies underwent initial mobilization with various regimens including hematopoietic growth factors with or without chemotherapy. In 72% of patients, > or =2 x 10(6) CD34+ stem cells/kg were collected in the initial mobilization attempt, and patients engrafted in a median of 10 days for neutrophils and 12 days for platelets. Eighteen patients failed to mobilize adequate numbers of stem cells, defined as the inability to collect 0.2 x 10(6) CD34+ stem cells/kg/day in the first 2-3 days. These patients had their apheresis halted. Patients were immediately given G-CSF (32 microg/kg/day) for 4 days as a second attempt at mobilization. Eighty-eight percent of these patients achieved the target of > or =2 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg, with a median duration of apheresis of 5 days (including the first and second mobilizations). The mean CD34+ cells/kg/day increased after administration of high-dose G-CSF from 0.16 after the first mobilization attempt to 0.61 (p = 0.0002) after the second mobilization. All patients engrafted in a median of 11 and 13 days for neutrophils and platelets, respectively. We conclude that patients whose apheresis yield is <0.4 x 10(6) CD34+ cells/kg after the first two apheresis collections can be successfully mobilized if high-dose G-CSF is administered immediately and continued until achieving > or =2 x 10(6) CD34+ stem cells/kg.

Pegaspargase: An Alternative?

OBJECTIVE: TO review the chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical activity, adverse effects, dosage, and administration guidelines for pegaspargase. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search (1980–1996), a CANCERLIT search (1983–1996), and a CURRENT CONTENTS search (1980–1996) using the terms pegaspargase, PEG-asparaginase, PEG-L-asparaginase, polyethylene glycol L-asparaginase, polyethylene glycol conjugated L-asparaginase, and Oncaspar were conducted. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles were considered for possible inclusion in this review. Abstracts were included only when they were judged to add critical information not otherwise available in the medical literature. DATA SYNTHESIS: L-Asparaginase has been a main component of treatment regimens for acute lymphocytic leukemia. A key limiting factor of L-asparaginase use has been the development of hypersensitivity to the drug. Recently, a polyethylene glycol (PEG) conjugated form of L-asparaginase, pegaspargase, has been made available. PEG modification of L-asparaginase has been shown to alter the tendency of the enzyme to induce an immune response and to extend the half-life of the drug. The majority of patients with hypersensitivity to the native enzyme preparations tolerate pegaspargase without further clinical hypersensitivity. The adverse effect profile of pegaspargase is similar to that of the native forms of L-asparaginase. The recommended dosage of pegaspargase is 2500 IU/m2 administered by intramuscular or intravenous injection every 2 weeks in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents. CONCLUSIONS: Pegaspargase is a safe, effective alternative to L-asparaginase in patients who have had clinical hypersensitivity reactions to both Escherichia coli- and Erwinia carotovora-demed L-asparaginase. However, pegaspargase should not be routinely substituted for L-asparaginase.

National survey on the effect of oncology drug shortages on cancer care

PURPOSE The results of a survey to characterize oncology drug shortages across the United States and the impact of shortages on clinical practice, patient safety, clinical trials, and health care costs are presented. METHODS A 34-item online survey was distributed to 1672 members of the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association and other organizations to gather information on shortages of oncology drugs (i.e., all drugs essential in the care of cancer patients, including supportive care agents). RESULTS Two hundred forty-three completed responses, almost all from pharmacists (97%), were analyzed. Delays in chemotherapy administration or changes in treatment regimens due to drug shortages were reported by 93% of survey participants; 85% of respondents reported increased costs, and 10% reported reimbursement challenges related to drug shortages. At 34% of represented institutions, at least 1000 hours of additional labor annually was needed to manage shortages. Changes in therapy leading to near-miss errors were reported by 16% of participants, with 6% reporting one or more actual medication errors attributable to a drug shortage. The oncology medications most frequently reported to be in short supply during the preceding 12 months were fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal doxorubicin, and paclitaxel. The conduct of clinical trials was affected by drug shortages at 44% of represented institutions. CONCLUSION A survey of U.S. oncology pharmacists indicated that oncology drug shortages occurred frequently in the first half of 2011. Shortages led to delays in chemotherapy and changes in therapy, complicated the conduct of clinical research, increased the risks of medication errors and adverse outcomes, and increased medication costs.

Oncology Pharmacists in Health Care Delivery: Vital Members of the Cancer Care Team

The goal of this summary is to outline the unique knowledge, skills, and functions provided by oncology pharmacists to facilitate the provision of high-quality, team-based care of patients with cancer.

Valproate in status epilepticus.

In patients with intractable status epilepticus who have not responded to therapy with benzodiazepines, phenytoin, and barbiturates, valproate may be a reasonable option. Extemporaneously prepared valproate rectal suppositories or retention enemas have been given in dosages of 200-1200 mg q6h in addition to phenytoin, phenobarbital, or both in adults. The pediatric dose used was 15-20 mg/kg, in addition to phenytoin and/or phenobarbital.

Granisetron vs ondansetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: results of a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial.

Summary:The serotonin type-3 (5-HT3) antagonists represent a significant advance in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting (N/V) from highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We sought to determine if any differences in efficacy or adverse effects exist between two such agents, ondansetron and granisetron, during conditioning therapy for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously every 8 h or granisetron 10 μg/kg intravenously daily. Additionally, all patients received scheduled dexamethasone and lorazepam. Prophylaxis was continued until 24 h after completion of chemotherapy. Nausea and distress were measured subjectively with visual analog scales and emetic episodes were quantified. Of the 110 randomized patients, 96 were evaluable for efficacy and safety. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the ondansetron- and granisetron-treated patients, evaluated by comparing the degree of nausea and distress, number of emetic episodes and overall control of emesis. The adverse effects were also comparable and no patients were removed from study because of severe toxicities. This trial demonstrates that ondansetron and granisetron are equally effective at preventing acute N/V associated with conditioning therapy frequently used for HSCT. The agent of choice should be based on drug acquisition cost or preference.

Physician–pharmacist collaboration for oral chemotherapy monitoring: Insights from an academic genitourinary oncology practice

Background Oral chemotherapy is being routinely used in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate and renal cell cancer. Although convenient, these drugs require monitoring for adherence, toxicity, and drug interactions to maximize outcomes. Oncology pharmacists have the training and expertise that place them in an optimal position to collaboratively provide medication therapy management. Methods A board-certified oncology pharmacist, working in collaboration with a medical oncologist, initiated an oral chemotherapy–monitoring program. The pharmacist provided education, completed medication therapy management; monitored for adherence and toxicity; and recommended treatment of toxicity and supportive care issues. Patient encounters included one of the following: collaboration with medical oncologist visit, pharmacist visit, or telephone or email follow-up between visits. Results From December 2012 to May 2014, the pharmacist had 123 encounters with 20 patients with either metastatic prostate (n = 17) or renal cell cancer (n = 3). All patients were males (median age 80 years). Most encounters were clinic visits, in collaboration with physician visit or alone (52%); 36% were telephone encounters, and 11.3% were email follow-ups. Medication-related problems were identified in 25% of the 315 assessments made. Problems included: adverse drug reactions, 40%; inappropriate therapy, 20%; and noncompliance, 18%. Recommendations included: modification of laboratory monitoring, 25%; cancer or non-cancer therapy modification, 12%; drug discontinuation, 6.9%. Non-cancer therapy-related drug information and coordination of care accounted for 30% of recommendations. Conclusion Our program led to identification of a number of potentially clinically significant issues for patients on oral chemotherapy and demonstrated the benefit of the pharmacist in the multidisciplinary team to assist in addressing them.

Impact of a pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy-monitoring program in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer:

Background With the introduction of oral chemotherapy, the paradigm for cancer treatment is shifting. Use of oral chemotherapy agents offers a non-invasive option for patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. However, these medications are not without challenges including strict adherence for optimal effects, novel toxicity profiles, frequent lab parameter monitoring, high cost, and proper handling and disposal methods. Pharmacists are positioned to play a key role in providing patients with the education required to assure an optimal treatment course is carried out. Methods Two cohorts of patients receiving abiraterone, bicalutamide, or enzalutamide for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer seen in our outpatient cancer center 21 months before and 24 months after the implementation of a pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy-monitoring program in December of 2012 were retrospectively compared. Patients were evaluated for number of interventions, adherence to lab parameter monitoring, and overall time on each therapy. Results Of the 64 patients identified, 31 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. A significant increase in the average number of interventions per patient (6.9 vs. 2.6; P = 0.004) and adherence to lab parameter monitoring (10 vs. 3; P = 0.04) in the post-program implementation cohort was found. However, no significant difference in overall time on therapy (10.3 vs. 8.1; P = 0.341) between the two groups was observed. Conclusion These results suggest a potential opportunity exists to maximize oral chemotherapy treatment outcomes with the addition of a formalized monitoring program directed by an oncology pharmacist.

Delayed hypersensitivity reaction related to the use of pegfilgrastim.

Filgrastim and pegfilgrastim are granulocyte colony-stimulating factor products, which have been part of the supportive treatment of cancer patients for years to increase the white blood cell count and absolute neutrophil count with the objective of preventing neutropenic fever in patients at risk because of chemotherapy. Pegfilgrastim is a glycosylated form of filgrastim with a prolonged duration of effect, a reduced renal clearance, and relatively fewer side effects. We present a patient with early breast cancer who developed a rash more than a week after the use of pegfilgrastim. Clinicians must be aware of the possibility of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction as the application of this drug is increasing and an adverse event can result in delay of chemotherapy treatment.

Ledipasvir–Sofosbuvir: A Once‐Daily Oral Treatment Option for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 Infection

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 historically has been the most difficult to treat HCV genotype, and patients infected with this genotype had been previously treated with interferon‐based therapy. In recent years, however, treatment options for chronic HCV infection have rapidly changed to an all‐oral regimen. Ledipasvir–sofosbuvir is an oral fixed‐dose (ledipasvir 90 mg–sofosbuvir 400 mg) combination of two direct‐acting antiviral drugs. Four phase 3 clinical trials (ION‐1–4) evaluated ledipasvir–sofosbuvir with and without ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 1. High rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) occurred with ledipasvir–sofosbuvir alone in treatment‐naïve and treatment‐experienced patients without cirrhosis as well as in treatment‐naïve patients with cirrhosis when administered for 12 weeks. In treatment‐experienced patients with cirrhosis, 24 weeks of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir was also highly effective. Furthermore, treatment‐naïve patients without cirrhosis (particularly those with HCV RNA serum concentrations < 6 million IU/ml) can achieve a similar SVR with only 8 weeks of therapy. Similarly, in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus and HCV genotype 1 who were treated with ledipasvir–sofosbuvir for 12 weeks, a high SVR was observed in those with and without cirrhosis as well as treatment‐naïve and treatment‐experienced patients. Ledipasvir–sofosbuvir is well tolerated, with fatigue, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and insomnia being the most common adverse effects, which are typically mild to moderate in nature. This combination antiviral can be taken with or without food. Key factors to consider when prescribing ledipasvir–sofosbuvir are drug interactions including those mediated by the P‐glycoprotein transporter and increased pH, cost of the drug or insurance coverage, comorbid conditions, and patient and provider preferences. Postmarketing experience and ongoing clinical trials will further define the safety and role of ledipasvir–sofosbuvir in the treatment of HCV genotype 1.