[Older patients and injectable anticancer drug: Feasibility study of the implementation of pharmaceutical interviews in oncogeriatrics in a hospital center]. / Patients âgés et anticancéreux injectables : étude de faisabilité de la mise en place d'entretiens pharmaceutiques d'oncogériatrie dans un centre hospitalier.

INTRODUCTION: In our establishment, pharmaceutical interviews in oncogeriatrics have been developed to reduce drug iatrogenesis. The target patients were older patients (≥65years) with polypharmacy and/or identified at risk of frailty (G8≤14), starting an injectable cancer protocol. METHODS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of implementing pharmaceutical interviews in oncogeriatrics over a period of six months. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients benefited from a pharmaceutical interview in oncogeriatrics (median age 76 years; 21 patients with G8≤14). Two-thirds of the patients met other interveners during patient care, 4 of whom after referral by the pharmacist. As for medication reviews: 93% of patients required pharmaceutical intervention (average of 3.5 per patient). The majority proposed therapeutic follow-ups and discontinuations of treatment. According to their evaluation by a pharmacist/oncologist pair, 97% of pharmaceutical interventions would have a positive clinical impact, of which 13 % a major clinical impact. The main drug classes concerned by the pharmaceutical interventions were analgesics, drugs used in diabetes and psycholeptics. Among the four pharmaceutical interventions with major clinical impact, nine proposed the optimization of analgesic treatment. DISCUSSION: The implementation of these interviews allowed us to initiate the creation of a care pathway dedicated to older patients identified as fragile. The pharmaceutical care offered appear to provide added value in the care of these patients. Organizational changes are necessary to promote multidisciplinarity and improve our practices in oncogeriatrics.

[Oral anticancer drug: Feedback from six years of tripartite consultations in a hospital center]. / Anticancéreux oraux : retour d'expérience après six années de consultations tripartites dans un centre hospitalier.

INTRODUCTION: Tripartite consultations with a coordination between hospital and community care givers were implemented within hospital center for patients who start an oral anticancer regimen. METHODS: Six years after the implementation, we wanted to assess this patient's pathway and describe how adjustments were necessary over the time. RESULTS: A total of 961 patients received tripartite consultations. The medication review process revealed that nearly half of patients had polypharmacy (≥5 drugs/day). A pharmaceutical intervention was formulated in 45 % of cases and they were all accepted. For 33 % of patients, a drug interaction was identified and required for 21 % of them, discontinuation of one drug of their personal treatment. Coordination with general practitioner and community pharmacists were achieved for all patients. 390 patients benefitted from nursing telephone follow-up which represents approximately 20 calls per day to assess tolerance and compliance with treatments. Over time, organisational adjustments were necessary to adapt to the increase in activity. The scheduling of consultations has been improved thanks to the creation of a shared agenda and consultation reports have been expanded. Finally, an hospital functional unit was created to facilitate the financial valuation of this activity. DISCUSSION: The feedback collected from the teams showed a real desire to perpetuate this activity even if it would seem that an improvement in human resources is still relevant as well as a better optimisation of the coordination between all the participants.

Efficacy and Safety of AXS-05 (Dextromethorphan-Bupropion) in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial (GEMINI).

Objective: Altered glutamatergic neurotransmission has been implicated in the pathogenesis of depression. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of AXS-05 (dextromethorphan-bupropion), an oral N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist and σ1 receptor agonist, in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: This double-blind, phase 3 trial, was conducted between June 2019 and December 2019. Patients with a DSM-5 diagnosis of MDD were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive dextromethorphan-bupropion (45 mg-105 mg tablet) or placebo, orally (once daily for days 1-3, twice daily thereafter) for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. Other efficacy endpoints and variables included MADRS changes from baseline at week 1 and 2, clinical remission (MADRS score ≤ 10), clinical response (≥ 50% reduction in MADRS score from baseline), clinician- and patient-rated global assessments, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated, Sheehan Disability Scale, and quality of life measures.Results: A total of 327 patients were randomized: 163 patients to dextromethorphan-bupropion and 164 patients to placebo. Mean baseline MADRS total scores were 33.6 and 33.2 in the dextromethorphan-bupropion and placebo groups, respectively. The least-squares mean change from baseline to week 6 in MADRS total score was -15.9 points in the dextromethorphan-bupropion group and -12.0 points in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -3.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.39 to -6.36; P = .002). Dextromethorphan-bupropion was superior to placebo for MADRS improvement at all time points including week 1 (P = .007) and week 2 (P < .001). Remission was achieved by 39.5% of patients with dextromethorphan-bupropion versus 17.3% with placebo (treatment difference, 22.2; 95% CI, 11.7 to 32.7; P < .001), and clinical response by 54.0% versus 34.0%, respectively (treatment difference, 20.0%; 95% CI, 8.4%, 31.6%; P < .001), at week 6. Results for most secondary endpoints were significantly better with dextromethorphan-bupropion than with placebo at almost all time points (eg, CGI-S least-squares mean difference at week 6, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.79; P = .002). The most common adverse events in the dextromethorphan-bupropion group were dizziness, nausea, headache, somnolence, and dry mouth. Dextromethorphan-bupropion was not associated with psychotomimetic effects, weight gain, or increased sexual dysfunction.Conclusions: In this phase 3 trial in patients with MDD, treatment with dextromethorphan-bupropion (AXS-05) resulted in significant improvements in depressive symptoms compared to placebo starting 1 week after treatment initiation and was generally well tolerated.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04019704.

Severe rhabdomyolysis induced by possible drug-drug interaction between Ribociclib and Simvastatin.

INTRODUCTION: Drug-drug interactions with cyclin-dependent kinases inhibitors 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) are known and should be taken into account. CASE REPORT: A 68-year-old woman, on prior Simvastatin therapy, developed severe rhabdomyolysis after three weeks of Ribociclib initiation. She showed general weakness with mobility problems and was admitted to our hospital. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Ribociclib and Simvastatin were discontinued and the patient received intensive intravenous hydration. She finally recovered her mobility after two weeks. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that Simvastatin induced rhabdomyolysis by possible interaction with Ribociclib. Ribociclib is a strong inhibitor of CYP 3A4 and a potential inhibitor of OATP1B1 membrane transporter. Simvastatin plasma concentration may reach toxic levels due to Ribociclib inhibition. To assess the relevance of our hypothesis, we used the Drug Interaction Scale. With a total score of 7, the interaction is considered as "probable." Because of the high risk of severe rhabdomyolysis, the concomitant use of Simvastatin with Ribociclib should be avoided or otherwise careful monitoring of creatine kinase is warranted.

Lurasidone in combination with lithium or valproate for the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder.

Lurasidone (DS-RAn) has demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of bipolar depression, both as monotherapy, and as combination therapy with lithium or valproate. To evaluate the recurrence prevention efficacy of lurasidone for the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder, patients received up to 20 weeks of open-label lurasidone (20-80mg/d) combined with lithium or valproate during an initial stabilization phase. A total of 496 patients met stabilization criteria and were randomized to 28 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone (20-80mg/d) or placebo, in combination with lithium or valproate. Based on a Cox proportional hazard model, treatment with lurasidone reduced the probability of recurrence of any mood episode by 29% (primary endpoint), however, the reduction did not achieve statistical significance. Probability of recurrence on lurasidone was significantly lower in patients with an index episode of depression (HR, 0.57; P=0.039), in patients with any index episode who were not rapid-cycling (HR, 0.69; P=0.046), and when recurrence was based on MADRS, YMRS, or CGI-BP-S severity criteria (HR, 0.53; P=0.025; sensitivity analysis). Long-term treatment with lurasidone combined with lithium or valproate was found to be safe and well-tolerated, with minimal effects on weight or metabolic parameters.

Lurasidone for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder With Mixed Features: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: Accumulating evidence indicates that manic symptoms below the threshold for hypomania (mixed features) are common in individuals with major depressive disorder. This form of depression is often severe and is associated with an increased risk for recurrence, suicide attempts, substance abuse, and functional disability. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of lurasidone in major depressive disorder with mixed features. METHODS: Patients meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria for major depressive disorder who presented with two or three protocol-defined manic symptoms were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with either lurasidone at 20-60 mg/day (N=109) or placebo (N=100). Changes from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (MADRS; primary outcome measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity subscale score (CGI-S; key secondary outcome measure) were evaluated using a mixed model for repeated-measures analysis. RESULTS: Lurasidone significantly improved depressive symptoms and overall illness severity, assessed by least squares mean change at week 6 in the MADRS and CGI-S scores: -20.5 compared with -13.0 (effect size, 0.80) and -1.8 compared with -1.2 (effect size, 0.60), respectively. Significant improvement in manic symptoms, assessed by the Young Mania Rating Scale, was also observed, in addition to other secondary efficacy endpoints. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were low. The most common adverse events were nausea (6.4% and 2.0% in the lurasidone and placebo groups, respectively) and somnolence (5.5% and 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone was effective and well tolerated in this study involving patients with major depressive disorder associated with subthreshold hypomanic symptoms (mixed features).

Pre-dose plasma concentration monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in patients with autoimmune diseases.

AIM: To date, neither the benefit of mycophenolic acid (MPA) therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), the prodrug of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), nor the optimal monitoring technique have been established in autoimmune diseases. This study was undertaken to confirm, in a cohort of new patients, the plasma MPA thresholds previously published in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or vasculitis. METHODS: MPA areas under the concentration-time curves between 0 and 12 h, 12 h trough concentrations and pre-dose concentrations (C0 ) were determined for 23 patients with SLE and 21 with systemic vasculitis. The relationship between patients' pharmacokinetic (PK) variables and their clinical outcomes during follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: In both autoimmune diseases, at PK assessment, median MPA C0 for patients with uncontrolled disease was significantly lower than that of patients with stable disease or in remission, 1.6 mg l(-1) (IQR 0.9-2.1 mg l(-1)) vs. 2.95 mg l(-1) (IQR 1.38-3.73 mg l(-1)) for SLE (P = 0.048) and 1.55 mg l(-1) (IQR 0.98-2.18 mg l(-1)) vs. 3 mg l(-1) (IQR 2.2-4.4 mg l(-1)) for vasculitis (P = 0.016). According to our receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, a C0 threshold of 2.5-3 mg l(-1) was best able to discriminate a flare (SLE: 88% sensitivity, 80% specificity; vasculitis: 100% sensitivity, 90% specificity). Patients with C0 ≥ 2.5-3 mg l(-1) at inclusion had better clinical outcomes during the 12 months following PK assessment. CONCLUSION: Provided that the benefit of TDM in patients with autoimmune diseases could be confirmed by randomized, controlled trials, it might be based on the C0 measured approximately 12 h post-dose.