A Safety Analysis of Programmed Death 1 Pathway Inhibitors in Patients With Solid Tumor Malignancies and Preexisting Autoimmune Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize the safety of programmed death 1 inhibitors in patients with preexisting autoimmune disease. METHODS: A medical records review study was conducted on adults with solid tumor malignancies who received ≥1 dose of pembrolizumab or nivolumab at Emory Healthcare from September 4, 2014 until December 31, 2019. All autoimmune patients were included (n = 77), whereas the nonautoimmune patients were randomized and the first 156 patients were included in a 2:1 ratio to autoimmune patients. The primary objective was the comparison of incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) between patients with preexisting autoimmune disease and those without. Secondary objectives included irAE characterization, irAE treatment, and survival analyses. RESULTS: Preexisting autoimmune disease was controlled in all of the autoimmune patients before immunotherapy initiation. The rate of irAE was 32.7% in the nonautoimmune group and 42.9% in the autoimmune group (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.14; p = 0.130). In the patient population diagnosed with a rheumatologic autoimmune disease, 23.81% of irAEs were considered to be a flare of their preexisting autoimmune disease. Less patients in the autoimmune group experienced a grade ≥3 irAE (21.21% vs 37.25%, p = 0.379) and received systemic corticosteroids (54.55% vs 67.35%, p = 0.241) for the treatment of the irAE. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that pembrolizumab and nivolumab can be safely administered in patients with controlled preexisting autoimmune diseases without a significant increase in irAE compared with patients without autoimmune diseases. Inclusion of patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases in prospective clinical trials is warranted.

Comparison of rates of adherence to oral chemotherapy medications filled through an internal health-system specialty pharmacy vs external specialty pharmacies.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of the study described here was to compare rates of patient adherence to anticancer medications filled at an internal health system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) vs external specialty pharmacies. The primary outcome was the medication possession ratio (MPR), and the secondary outcomes included proportion of days covered (PDC), and time to treatment (TTT). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted to compare the MPR, PDC, and TTT for patients who received oral anticancer therapy using prescriptions claim data. A t test or Wilcoxon test was used to explore the effect of demographic and other factors on adherence and TTT. A multiple regression model with backward elimination was used to analyze significant factors to identify covariates significantly associated with the outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients screened for study inclusion, 204 patients whose records had complete MPR and PDC data and 164 whose records had TTT data were included in the analysis. There were significant between-group differences in mean MPR and mean PDC with patient use of the HSSP vs external pharmacies (1.00 vs 0.75 [P < 0.001] and 0.95 vs 0.7 [P < 0.001], respectively). Pharmacy type (P = 0.024) and tumor type (P = 0.048) were significantly associated with TTT. CONCLUSION: The multiple regression analysis indicated that oncology patients who filled their anticancer medication precriptions at an internal HSSP at an academic medical center had significantly higher adherence, as measured by MPR and PDC, and quicker TTT than those who filled their prescriptions at an external specialty pharmacy.

Risk Factors and Outcomes Associated With Acquisition of Daptomycin and Linezolid-Nonsusceptible Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) causes substantial health care-associated infection with increasing reports of resistance to daptomycin or linezolid. We conducted a case-control study reporting 81 cases of daptomycin and linezolid-nonsusceptible VRE (DLVRE), a resistance pattern not previously reported. METHODS: We reviewed VRE isolates from June 2010 through June 2015 for nonsusceptibility to both daptomycin (minimum inhibitory concentration [MIC] > 4) and linezolid (MIC ≥ 4). We matched cases by year to control patients with VRE susceptible to both daptomycin and linezolid and performed retrospective chart review to gather risk factor and outcome data. RESULTS: We identified 81 DLVRE cases. Resistance to both daptomycin and linezolid was more common than resistance to either agent individually. Compared with susceptible VRE, DLVRE was more likely to present as bacteremia without focus (P < 0.01), with DLVRE patients more likely to be immune suppressed (P = .04), to be neutropenic (P = .03), or to have had an invasive procedure in the prior 30 days (P = .04). Any antibiotic exposure over the prior 30 days conferred a 4-fold increased risk for DLVRE (odds ratio [OR], 4.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-12.63; P = .01); multivariate analysis implicated daptomycin days of therapy (DOT) over the past year as a specific risk factor (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19; P = .03). DLVRE cases had longer hospitalizations (P = .04) but no increased risk for in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: DLVRE is an emerging multidrug-resistant pathogen associated with immune suppression, neutropenia, and recent invasive procedure. Prior antibiotic exposure, specifically daptomycin exposure, confers risk for acquisition of DLVRE.