A randomised phase II study of second-line XELIRI regimen versus irinotecan monotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer patients progressed on gemcitabine and cisplatin.

BACKGROUND: The majority of advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC) patients will progress after gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) doublet therapy, while the standard second-line regimen has not been established. We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line irinotecan and capecitabine (XELIRI) regimen vs. irinotecan monotherapy in ABTC patients progressed on GP. METHODS: Sixty-four GP refractory ABTC patients were randomised to either irinotecan 180 mg/m2 on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-10 of a 14-day cycle (XELIRI-arm) or single-agent irinotecan 180 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 14-day cycle (IRI-arm). Treatments were repeated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included in the analysis. For XELIRI and IRI-arms, respectively, the median PFS was 3.7 vs. 2.4 months, 9-month survival rate 60.9% vs. 32.0%, median OS 10.1 vs. 7.3 months, and disease control rate 63.3% vs. 50.0%. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were leucopaenia and neutropaenia. CONCLUSIONS: This randomised, phase II study of irinotecan-containing regimens in good PS second-line ABTC patients showed a clear benefit of XELIRI regimen over irinotecan monotherapy in prolonging PFS, with acceptable toxicity.

Facilitating adherence to endocrine therapy in breast cancer: stability and predictive power of treatment expectations in a 2-year prospective study.

PURPOSE: To identify modifiable factors predictive of long-term adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). METHODS: As part of a 2-year cohort study in primary care (n = 116), we investigated whether initial treatment expectations predict adherence at 24 months after controlling for demographic, medical, and psychosocial variables. Treatment expectations were measured as necessity-concern beliefs, expected side-effect severity, and expected coping with side effects. Their stability over time and differences of trajectories between the adherent and nonadherent group were examined. RESULTS: Nonadherence at 24 months was 14.7% (n = 17). Side-effect severity at 3 months [OR 0.25, 95% CI (0.08, 0.81), p = 0.02] and necessity-concern beliefs [OR 2.03, 95% CI (1.11, 3.72), p = 0.02] were the sole predictors of adherence. Necessity-concern beliefs remained stable over 2 years, whereas expected side-effect severity (p = 0.01, η p2  = 0.07) and expected coping with side effects became less optimistic over time (p < 0.001, η p2  = 0.19), the latter particularly among nonadherers (p < 0.01, η p2  = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' initial necessity-concern beliefs about the AET and early severity of side effects affect long-term adherence. Expecting poor management of side effects may also facilitate nonadherence. We suggest that discussing benefits, addressing concerns of AET, and providing side-effect coping strategies could constitute a feasible and promising option to improve adherence in clinical practice.

Complications of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men With Prostate Cancer.

The standard treatment for men with metastatic prostate cancer is androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This therapy is associated with a multitude of side effects that can impact quality of life. These include vasomotor complications (in particular, hot flushes), sexual dysfunction and gynecomastia, osteoporosis, metabolic syndrome, and depression. Additionally, ADT has been associated with neurocognitive deficits, thromboembolic disease, and cardiovascular disease, although the data regarding the latter associations are mixed. This article summarizes the key side effects associated with ADT and discusses strategies to optimize management.

Antiemetic Corticosteroid Rotation from Dexamethasone to Methylprednisolone to Prevent Dexamethasone-Induced Hiccup in Cancer Patients Treated with Chemotherapy: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Crossover Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: To assess whether the rotation of dexamethasone to methylprednisolone decreases the intensity of dexamethasone-induced hiccup (DIH) in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients who experienced DIH within 3 days after the administration of dexamethasone as an antiemetic were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive dexamethasone (n = 33) or methylprednisolone (n = 32) as an antiemetic (randomization phase). In the next cycle of chemotherapy, the dexamethasone group received methylprednisolone and vice versa in the methylprednisolone group (crossover phase). The primary endpoint was the difference in hiccup intensity as measured using the numeric rating scale (NRS) between two groups. RESULTS: No female patients were enrolled, although the study did not exclude them. At the randomization phase, hiccup frequency was 28/33 (84.8%) in the dexamethasone group versus 20/32 (62.5%) in the methylprednisolone group (p = .04). Intensity of hiccup was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the methylprednisolone group (mean NRS, 3.5 vs. 1.4, p < .001). At the crossover phase, hiccup intensity was further decreased after the rotation of dexamethasone to methylprednisolone in the dexamethasone group (mean NRS, 3.5 to 0.9, p < .001), while it was increased by rotating methylprednisolone to dexamethasone in the methylprednisolone group (mean NRS, 1.4 to 3.3, p = .025). There were no differences in emesis intensity between the two groups at either the randomization or crossover phases. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01974024. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone-induced hiccup is a male-predominant phenomenon that can be ameliorated by rotating dexamethasone to methylprednisolone without compromising the antiemetic efficacy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In this randomized, multicenter, phase III trial, hiccup intensity was significantly lower when the antiemetic corticosteroid was rotated from dexamethasone to methylprednisolone without a change in emesis intensity than that when dexamethasone was maintained. At the crossover phase, hiccup intensity was increased again if dexamethasone was readministered instead of methylprednisolone. The present study demonstrated that dexamethasone-induced hiccup can be improved by rotating from dexamethasone to methylprednisolone without compromising its antiemetic efficacy.

Scorecards: a new method to prevent adverse drug events? Preliminary results from a clinical field study.

In the field of the detection and prevention of preventable ADEs, several methods have been explored to decrease the rate of ADEs due to monitoring errors. This paper describes an innovative method that aims at improving patient safety by increasing ADEs' awareness of healthcare professionals. To this end, ADE-scorecards that provide healthcare professionals with retrospective data about ADEs' causes and rates have been developed. In order to evaluate the impact of this method on the ADE rate, in-field clinical tests have been set up. Data were collected by both qualitative (semi-structured interviews) and quantitative methods (log analysis and ADE rate calculation). Preliminary results reveal that ADE-scorecards are well-accepted by most of the healthcare professionals who intend to use them as discussion supports and/or learning tools. Thus, ADE-scorecards seem to be a relevant method to improve patient safety by increasing ADE-awareness of healthcare professionals.

Frequently Reported Adverse Events With Smoking Cessation Medications: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence, severity, and clinical course of frequently reported adverse events (AEs) after treatment with smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. METHODS: This was a multinational, multicenter, post hoc analysis of frequently reported treatment-emergent AEs from a large, phase 4, double-blind, randomized, triple-dummy, placebo-controlled trial (EAGLES), conducted between November 30, 2011, and January 13, 2015, that included smokers with and without psychiatric disorders (N=8144). Treatments were varenicline 1 mg twice daily, bupropion sustained-release 150 mg twice daily, and nicotine patch 21 mg once daily with tapering (12-week treatment, 12-week nontreatment follow-up), with incidence, time to onset, and duration of frequently reported AEs (≥5% of participants in any treatment group) measured. Risk differences for AEs for varenicline and bupropion vs nicotine patch were compared. RESULTS: Across frequently reported AEs, nausea, insomnia, abnormal dreams, anxiety, irritability, dry mouth, fatigue, and application site pruritus differed significantly in active treatment vs placebo groups. Risk differences were as follows: for nausea with varenicline vs nicotine patch, 15.50% (95% CI, 13.20% to 17.80%); for insomnia with bupropion vs nicotine patch, 2.58% (CI, 0.65% to 4.51%); and for abnormal dreams with varenicline and bupropion vs nicotine patch, -2.49% (CI, -4.35% to -0.64%) and -5.60% (CI, -7.27% to -3.93%), respectively. Frequently reported AEs of severe intensity and treatment discontinuation were experienced by less than 1.5% and less than 3% of participants across all groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Active treatments were well tolerated with comparable AE profiles. Most AEs are not clinically important, and prescribers can reassure patients that those experienced will be manageable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01456936.

Evaluating categorisation and clinical relevance of drug-related problems in medication reviews.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the categorisation and clinical relevance of DRPs identified by community pharmacists, and further, to assess the quality of interventions with the patients and the physicians as documented by the pharmacists. SETTING: 23 Norwegian community pharmacies. METHOD: Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited by 24 community pharmacists who performed structured medication reviews based on the patients' drug profiles and patient interviews. The DRPs identified were subsequently categorised. An evaluation group (EG) retrospectively evaluated the reviews. Clinical/practical relevance of each DRP and quality of community pharmacists' intervention with patients and physician were scored. Average agreement between the EG and the community pharmacists was calculated. Internal agreement in the EG was calculated using a modified version of Fleiss' Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were included (mean age 62 years, 52% female, on average prescribed 8.7 drugs). The pharmacists identified 88 DRPs in 43 of the patients. The most common DRPs were adverse drug reactions (22%) and wrong drug or dose used by patient (14%). Anti-diabetic drugs and lipid modifying drugs were associated with the most DRPs. The EG agreed with detection and categorisation of DRPs in more than 80% of the cases. The clinical/practical relevance of the detected DRPs was scored by the EG to be high or medium in 87% of the cases. The quality of the follow-up with patients and physicians was scored to be good or satisfactory in 93 and 98% of the cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-defined categories of DRPs supported by structured forms were reliable and valid tools for identifying DRPs. The evaluation demonstrated that community pharmacists were able to identify DRPs of high to medium clinical/practical relevance, and to perform follow-ups of the DRPs with the patients and the physicians with a good or satisfactory quality.

Drug-related problems identified in medication reviews by Australian pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: In Australia, accredited pharmacists perform medication reviews for patients to identify and resolve drug-related problems. We analysed the drug-related problems identified in reviews for both home-dwelling and residential care-facility patients. The objective of this study was to examine the number and nature of the drug-related problems identified and investigate differences between each type of review. SETTING: Australian patients living at home or in residential care-facilities. METHOD: We collected a nation-wide sample of medication reviews conducted between 1998 and 2005. These reviews had been self-selected by pharmacists and submitted as part of the reaccreditation process to the primary body responsible for accrediting Australian pharmacists to perform medication reviews. The drug-related problems identified in each review were classified by type and drugs involved. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number and nature of drug-related problems identified in pharmacist-conducted medication reviews. RESULTS: There were 1,038 drug-related problems identified in 234 medication reviews (mean 4.6 (+/-2.2) problems per review). The number of problems was higher (4.9 +/- 2.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 2.2; P < 0.001) in reviews for home-dwelling patients compared with care-facility residents. The number of clinically-significant problems was higher (2.1 +/- 1.1 vs. 1.5 +/- 0.7; P < 0.001) for home-dwelling patients. Oral hypoglycaemics and analgesics/antipyretics were significantly more likely to be associated with problems in home-dwelling patients than in residential care-facility patients. CONCLUSION: These data illustrate the prevalence of drug-related problems and the ability of pharmacists to identify these problems in the Australian models of medication review. The nature and frequency of problems varied between reviews for home-dwelling and care-facility patients. Such information may be used to better focus the training of practitioners based on the most frequently encountered health problems and the nature of common drug-related problems in the two settings.

Safety and Antitumour Activity of ODM-201 (BAY-1841788) in Chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17 Inhibitor-naïve Patients: Follow-up from the ARADES and ARAFOR Trials.

BACKGROUND: ODM-201, a new androgen receptor antagonist for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), demonstrated antitumour activity and acceptable tolerability in phase 1/2 trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the antitumour activity and safety profile of extended treatment with ODM-201 in men with mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: ARADES and ARAFOR trials with ODM-201 enrolled chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17 inhibitor (CYP17i)-naïve mCRPC patients. Both trials had extended follow-up. Here we report results for chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17i-naïve patients from both trials (data cutoff October 2014 for ARADES and April 2015 for ARAFOR) after extended follow-up. INTERVENTION: A total of 41 chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17i-naïve patients received oral ODM-201 twice daily (total daily dose of 1200, 1400 or 1800mg). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Antitumour activity was assessed in terms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) declines and PSA/radiographic progression. Safety was assessed until disease progression and/or drug discontinuation due to any intolerable adverse event (AE). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: ODM-201 safety data after a median treatment time of 13.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.7-15.6, interquartile range [IQR] 7.5-22.0) were similar to those reported in the main ARADES and ARAFOR trials. The overall AE incidence was 80.5% (n=33/41), with 58.5% (n=24/41) of patients experiencing only grade 1-2 AEs. The most common AEs were fatigue, back pain, diarrhoea, nausea, and pain in extremity. The median times to PSA and radiological progression were 12.4 mo (95% CI 6.3-18.2, IQR 5.5-22.0) and 15.3 mo (95% CI 9.5-not reached [NR], IQR 6.3-NR), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Extended treatment with ODM-201 (1200-1800mg/d) was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns, and provided evidence of sustained antitumour activity in chemotherapy-naïve and CYP17i-naïve patients with mCRPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Prolonged treatment with high doses of ODM-201 was well tolerated and provided long-lasting disease control in patients with mCRPC. ODM-201 represents a therapeutic treatment option for mCRPC. The ARAFOR trial (including the follow-up stage) and the follow-up component of the ARADES trial are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as trial numbers NCT01784757 and NCT01429064.

Phase I Trial of Arginine Deprivation Therapy with ADI-PEG 20 Plus Docetaxel in Patients with Advanced Malignant Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I study examined the toxicity and tolerability of pegylated arginine deiminase (ADI-PEG 20) in combination with docetaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients had histologically proven advanced solid malignancies, with any number of prior therapies, Zubrod performance status 0-2, and adequate organ function. Patients received ADI-PEG 20 weekly intramuscular injection ranging from 4.5 to 36 mg/m(2) and up to 10 doses of docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks. Primary endpoints were safety, toxicity, and a recommended phase II dose. Circulating arginine levels were measured before each cycle. Tumor response was measured as a secondary endpoint every 6 weeks on study. RESULTS: Eighteen patients received a total of 116 cycles of therapy through four dose levels of ADI-PEG 20. A single dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 urticarial rash) was observed at the 1st dose level, with no additional dose-limiting toxicities observed. Hematologic toxicities were common with 14 patients experiencing at least one grade 3 to 4 leukopenia. Fatigue was the most prevalent toxicity reported by 16 patients. Arginine was variably suppressed with 10 patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in baseline values. In 14 patients with evaluable disease, four partial responses (including 2 patients with PSA response) were documented, and 7 patients had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: ADI-PEG 20 demonstrated reasonable toxicity in combination with docetaxel. Promising clinical activity was noted, and expansion cohorts are now accruing for both castrate-resistant prostate cancer and non-small cell lung cancer at a recommended phase II dose of 36 mg/m(2).

The epidemiology of serious adverse drug reactions among the elderly.

Although the incidence and prevalence of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the elderly cannot be accurately stated, published estimates appear to be unchanged since the earliest reports in the 1960s. Whereas heightened awareness of the problem may weigh in favour of a reduction in ADR frequency, the dramatic increase in the number and availability of therapeutic agents has undoubtedly contributed to the observed high proportion of drug-induced morbidity among acute geriatric hospital admissions. No single drug or drug class is of particular concern since none appears to cause serious morbidity out of proportion with its use. Although numerous studies have sought to identify risk factors for ADRs, the only truly independent predictor is the absolute number of concurrently used medications. However, other studies indicate that there is poor doctor-patient agreement regarding a patient's drug regimen, and interventions that aim to reduce the incidence of ADRs have failed to demonstrate a positive effect. Thus at present the most rational approach would appear to be to establish an accurate knowledge of the patients drug regimens: once this is known one can attempt to rationally minimise the number of medications without compromising therapeutic goals.

Adverse drug reactions: oral and dental manifestations and complications.

Adverse, that is unintended untoward effects of medications, are increasing in incidence and their severity, given the aging of the Australian and New Zealand population and associated drug use. Not only are the number of agents that our patients are using increasing, including the increased use of "alternate" or "complimentary" medications, but also their complexity, with the advent of potent, targeted, biological agents. The result is an increasing number of our patients will be at greater risk of adverse effects from their medications. These adverse effects include the impeding of the safe delivery of dental treatment and the adverse oral and dental manifestations and complications related to the use of medications.

Preventability of drug-related harms - part I: a systematic review.

'Preventability' is a crucial concept in the literature on adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We have carried out a systematic review in order to identify and analyse the approaches used to define 'preventability' in relation to ADRs. We have restricted this investigation to definitions of preventability and have not dealt with other aspects. We searched MEDLINE (1963-April 2009) and EMBASE (1980-April 2009), without language restriction, for papers in which preventability of ADRs was likely to be defined. We found 234 papers, of which we retrieved 231. Of these, 172 either contained original definitions of preventability or referred to other papers in which preventability was defined. Forty contained no definition, and 19 were not relevant. In the 172 papers selected, we identified eight different general approaches to defining the preventability of ADRs: (1) analysis without explicit criteria; (2) assessment by consensus; (3) preventability linked to error; (4) preventability linked to standards of care; (5) preventability linked to medication-related factors; (6) preventability linked to information technology; (7) categorization of harmful treatments in explicit lists; and (8) a combination of more than one approach. These approaches rely on two general methods: the judgement of one or more investigators or the use of pre-defined explicit criteria; neither is satisfactory. Specific problems include the weakness of consensus as a method (since experts can agree and yet be wrong), inadequacy of definition of standards of care, and circularity in several definitions of preventability. Furthermore, attempts to list all preventable effects are bound to be incomplete and will not always apply to an individual case. We conclude that an approach based on analysis of the mechanisms of adverse reactions and their clinical features could be preferable; such an approach is described in a companion paper (Part II) in this issue of Drug Safety.

Confusões e ambigüidades na classificação de eventos adversos em pesquisa clínica / Confusiones y ambigüedades en la clasificación de eventos adversos en investigación clínica / Confusions and ambiguities in the classification of adverse events in the clinical research

É comum considerar ambíguo como sinônimo de confuso. Em uma informação confusa, várias informações têm um mesmo significado. Na informação ambígua, ao contrário, vários significados são atribuídos a uma mesma palavra. Informações excessivas também geram ambiguidade, daí a necessidade de concisão e clareza na linguagem. O termo evento adverso (EA) é definido como qualquer ocorrência médica inconveniente, sofrida por um sujeito da pesquisa em investigação clínica. A confusão e a ambiguidade no uso de palavras podem gerar conseqüências importantes na valorização de EAs. O objetivo deste estudo, de natureza teórica, é harmonizar o vocabulário utilizado na caracterização dos riscos e na comunicação de EAs na pesquisa clínica. Os EAs podem ser classificados quanto à previsibilidade, frequência, gravidade, causalidade e seriedade. Muitas vezes, em documentos regulatórios, os EAs são definidos em função da seriedade e causalidade. A harmonização do vocabulário na comunicação de EAs é fundamental para evitar a utilização equivocada de palavras com sentido confuso, ou ambíguo.

It is quite common to consider the terms ambiguous and confusing as synonyms. Confusing information brings together various data with similar meanings. In ambiguous information, on the other hand, several meanings are assigned to a single word. Excessive information also generates ambiguity; therefore, a concise, clear language is demanded. The term adverse event (AE) is defined as any inconvenient medical occurrence suffered by a subject during a clinical investigation research. Confusion and ambiguity in the use of words may generate relevant consequences in the appraisal of AEs. The objective of this present theoretical study is to harmonize the vocabulary applied in the characterization of risks and in the communication of AEs in clinical research processes. AEs may be classified according to their predictability, frequency, gravity, causality, and severity. Regulatory documents usually address AEs in their severity and causality aspects. Vocabulary conformity in the communication of AEs is an essential step towards avoiding inaccurate use of words with confused or ambiguous meanings.

Es común considerar ambiguo como siendo sinónimo de confuso. En una información confusa, varias informaciones tienen un mismo significado. En la información ambigua, al contrario, varios significados son atribuidos a una misma palabra. Informaciones excesivas también generan ambigüedad, por esa razón es necesario ser conciso y claro en el lenguaje. El término evento adverso (EA) es definido como cualquier ocurrencia médica inconveniente, sufrida por un sujeto participante del estudio, en investigación clínica. La confusión y la ambigüedad en el uso de las palabras pueden generar consecuencias importantes en la valorización de los EAs. El objetivo de este estudio, de naturaleza teórica, es armonizar el vocabulario utilizado en la caracterización de los riesgos y en la comunicación de los EAs en la investigación clínica. Los EAs pueden ser clasificados en cuanto a su previsibilidad, frecuencia, gravedad, causalidad y seriedad. Muchas veces, en documentos normativos, los EAs son definidos en función de la seriedad y causalidad. La armonización del vocabulario en la comunicación de EAs es fundamental para evitar la utilización equivocada de palabras con sentido confuso, o ambiguo.

Adverse drug reactions: definitions, diagnosis, and management.

We define an adverse drug reaction as "an appreciably harmful or unpleasant reaction, resulting from an intervention related to the use of a medicinal product, which predicts hazard from future administration and warrants prevention or specific treatment, or alteration of the dosage regimen, or withdrawal of the product." Such reactions are currently reported by use of WHO's Adverse Reaction Terminology, which will eventually become a subset of the International Classification of Diseases. Adverse drug reactions are classified into six types (with mnemonics): dose-related (Augmented), non-dose-related (Bizarre), dose-related and time-related (Chronic), time-related (Delayed), withdrawal (End of use), and failure of therapy (Failure). Timing, the pattern of illness, the results of investigations, and rechallenge can help attribute causality to a suspected adverse drug reaction. Management includes withdrawal of the drug if possible and specific treatment of its effects. Suspected adverse drug reactions should be reported. Surveillance methods can detect reactions and prove associations.