Accuracy of reporting current medications by cancer patients presenting to an emergency center.

BACKGROUND: Due to high coexistence of comorbidity, cancer patients take many medications and are susceptible to negative consequences of polypharmacy. To avoid adverse events during care transitions, patients need to correctly communicate their medications. The emergency center (EC) presents opportunities to assess patients' knowledge of medications and reconcile medication profiles. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to evaluate the medication knowledge of cancer patients presenting to the EC and to identify factors associated with higher knowledge. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: For the cross-sectional self-administered survey, 254 patients were enrolled and gave name, dose, frequency, route, and indication for medications. Responses were checked for accuracy against outpatient pharmacy dispensing records within or outside M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Demographic data was obtained from medical records. For each patient, we calculated a patient medication knowledge (PMK-overall) score indicating percentage of correct responses. RESULTS: Median PMK-overall score was 80%. Patients who used a medication aid to fill out the survey were 6.5 times more likely to have a high level of medication knowledge, or PMK-overall score > or = 80%. Predictors of using a medication aid included lower education level, solid tumor, more than five medications, married, and using a medication list at home. CONCLUSIONS: Though our findings may not be generalizable to settings outside the EC, we found cancer patients to have high levels of medication knowledge. Future studies should validate the use of PMK scores to predict medication adherence and other outcomes. Patients should be encouraged to use a medication aid when presenting information to the health care system.

Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the benefit of adding whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for the control of brain-tumours outweighs the potential neurocognitive risks. We proposed that the learning and memory functions of patients who undergo SRS plus WBRT are worse than those of patients who undergo SRS alone. We did a randomised controlled trial to test our prediction. METHODS: Patients with one to three newly diagnosed brain metastases were randomly assigned using a standard permutated block algorithm with random block sizes to SRS plus WBRT or SRS alone from Jan 2, 2001, to Sept 14, 2007. Patients were stratified by recursive partitioning analysis class, number of brain metastases, and radioresistant histology. The randomisation sequence was masked until assignation, at which point both clinicians and patients were made aware of the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was neurocognitive function: objectively measured as a significant deterioration (5-point drop compared with baseline) in Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) total recall at 4 months. An independent data monitoring committee monitored the trial using Bayesian statistical methods. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00548756. FINDINGS: After 58 patients were recruited (n=30 in the SRS alone group, n=28 in the SRS plus WBRT group), the trial was stopped by the data monitoring committee according to early stopping rules on the basis that there was a high probability (96%) that patients randomly assigned to receive SRS plus WBRT were significantly more likely to show a decline in learning and memory function (mean posterior probability of decline 52%) at 4 months than patients assigned to receive SRS alone (mean posterior probability of decline 24%). At 4 months there were four deaths (13%) in the group that received SRS alone, and eight deaths (29%) in the group that received SRS plus WBRT. 73% of patients in the SRS plus WBRT group were free from CNS recurrence at 1 year, compared with 27% of patients who received SRS alone (p=0.0003). In the SRS plus WBRT group, one case of grade 3 toxicity (seizures, motor neuropathy, depressed level of consciousness) was attributed to radiation treatment. In the group that received SRS, one case of grade 3 toxicity (aphasia) was attributed to radiation treatment. Two cases of grade 4 toxicity in the group that received SRS alone were diagnosed as radiation necrosis. INTERPRETATION: Patients treated with SRS plus WBRT were at a greater risk of a significant decline in learning and memory function by 4 months compared with the group that received SRS alone. Initial treatment with a combination of SRS and close clinical monitoring is recommended as the preferred treatment strategy to better preserve learning and memory in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases.

Continued challenges with the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with cancer: perspectives and issues on policy-guided health care.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are approved as an alternative to blood transfusions for treating anemia secondary to chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Recently, ESAs have been a source of controversy and confusion in the oncology community. This began when two European trials-the Breast Cancer Erythropoietin Survival Trial (BEST) and the Advanced Head-and-Neck Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy (ENHANCE) Study-raised safety concerns about decreased overall survival and increased venous thromboembolic events. In 2004, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) to review the data and reassess the risks and benefits of ESAs in patients with cancer. On May 10, 2007, ODAC reconvened when five trials (BEST, ENHANCE, AMG-20010103, AMG-20000161, and EPO-CAN-20) showed decreased overall survival. The briefing document noted that studies demonstrating detrimental effects on survival and/or tumor outcomes used an unapproved treatment regimen designed to maintain hemoglobin levels above 12 g/dl. On May 14, 2007, just days after the ODAC reconvened, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a proposed decision memo for a national coverage determination (NCD) imposing restrictions on ESAs. For health care providers, aspects of the proposed NCD were markedly inconsistent with FDA-approved ESA use and generally were considered ambiguous and unclear. Over objections of several professional associations and members of Congress, on July 30, 2007, CMS posted the final NCD and declared it effective immediately. When compared with FDA-approved labeling and professional society guidelines, the NCD revealed differences in ESA initiation, dosage escalation, dosage reduction, and definition of response. These discrepancies have generated confusion among health care providers, who are struggling over whether they can feasibly provide a dual system of care-one for Medicare patients and another for non-Medicare patients-that is evidence based. With this supplement, we hope to educate health care providers on the issues and challenges associated with policy-guided health care when discrepancies exist between the policy and evidence-based practice; offer guidance on implementing the NCD; and highlight the important role of pharmacists in the process.

Clinical-use-associated decrease in susceptibility of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium to linezolid: a comparison with quinupristin-dalfopristin.

The susceptibility of 135 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremic isolates to linezolid and quinupristin-dalfopristin was determined. All were susceptible to linezolid, while 88% were susceptible to quinupristin-dalfopristin prior to the clinical use of the drugs at our hospital. More than 6 months after their clinical use, a decrease in susceptibility was noted for only linezolid at 83%. This was related in part to a single G2576U gene mutation in domain V of the 23S rRNA gene.

Pharmacoeconomics in oncology.

Healthcare costs in the USA continue to rise faster than the consumer price index. Nothing demonstrates this more vividly than the double-digit increases posted for the cost of the drug treatment of the oncology patient. A factor that will compound this cost is the expansion in the oncology patient population that will occur as the population ages. Pharmacoeconomics is a discipline that evaluates the relationship between clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes to determine the products and services that maximize the value for each dollar spent. Research in this area is evolving to meet the needs of the individual patient and decision-makers within a payer group, healthcare system, or society. Healthcare interests in countries in Europe, Canada and Australia have already adopted analytical tools and incorporated them into guidelines for drug use. The USA is also moving in this direction now that the Food and Drug Administration is considering requiring studies in pharmacoeconomics in addition to the standard studies of the safety and efficacy of drugs. The importance of this approach to oncology will be seen as policy-makers apply research findings to practice decisions.