Ideal vial size for bortezomib: real-world data on waste and cost reduction in treatment of multiple myeloma in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Single-size vials of drugs may be a source of waste and increase in treatment costs. Bortezomib, indicated for multiple myeloma (MM) treatment, is available in 3.5-mg vials, a quantity higher than the average dose commonly prescribed. This analysis aimed to demonstrate, through real-world data, which would be the optimal vial presentation for bortezomib in Brazil and quantify the reduction in medication waste related to this option. METHODS: From November 2007 to October 2009 all patients with MM treated with bortezomib were identified via the Evidências database. Analysis of prescribed, dispensed, and wasted doses, their costs and projections of the ideal vial size were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (mean body surface area of 1.73 m(2)) received 509 infusions in 131 cycles of treatment (average of 3.77 cycles per patient). The average dose prescribed was 2.1 mg per infusion (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-2.26) with average waste of 39.5% of the vial content (95% CI 35.35-43.76). The mean waste per patient per day was 1.38 mg (95% CI 1.24-1.52). If a 3-mg vial were available, the average drug waste per patient per day would be 0.88 mg (95% CI 0.74-1.03) or 36.2% less. With a 2.5-mg vial the waste would be 1.05 mg (95% CI 0.81-1.29) or 23.9% less. If two presentations were available (2.5 mg and 0.5 mg), the waste would be 0.52 mg (95% CI 0.4-0.63) or 62.5% less. Considering the price of the different vials to be proportional to the original 3.5-mg vial, the cost would be also reduced by the same rates described above. CONCLUSIONS: A simple adjustment in vial size may reduce the waste of bortezomib by 36% to 62% and can also reduce the cost of treatment.

Efficacy of bevacizumab (Bev) plus chemotherapy (CT) compared to CT alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of chemotherapy (CT) plus Bevacizumab (Bev) versus CT alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and side effects. We performed a meta-analysis (MA) of the published data, using a fixed effects model and an additional random effects model, when applicable. The results of the MA are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI95%). We analyzed the use of Bev in the doses of 7.5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg. RESULTS: The final analysis included 4 trials, comprising 2200 patients. The response rate was higher in patients who received the combination of CT plus Bev 7.5 mg/kg (RR=0.58; CI95%=0.46-0.74; p<0.00001) and Bev 15 mg/kg (RR=0.53; CI95%=0.45-0.63; p<0.00001) with moderate heterogeneity at dose of 15 mg/kg (Chi(2)=4.30, df=3 (P=0.23); I(2)=30%). The PFS length was longer in patients who received CT plus Bev 7.5 mg/kg (HR=0.78, CI95%=0.68-0.90; p=0.0005) and Bev 15 mg/kg (HR=0.72, CI95%=0.65-0.80; p<0.00001) with moderate heterogeneity (Bev 7.5 mg/kg: Chi(2)=1.43, df=1 (P=0.23); I(2)=30% and Bev 15 mg/kg: Chi(2)=7.43, df=3 (P=0.06); I(2)=60%). Differences in these end points remained in favor of CT plus Bev when made the analysis by random-effects model. Overall survival was longer in patients who received CT plus Bev 15 mg/kg (HR=0.89, CI95%=0.80-1.00; p=0.04), with moderate heterogeneity (Chi(2)=5.09, df=3 (P=0.17); I(2)=41%). The random-effects model analysis for this endpoint did not confirmed the difference seen in the fixed effects model analysis (HR=0.90, CI95%=0.76-1.07; p=0.23). Severe haematologic toxicities (grade>3), neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were more common among the patients that received Bev. CONCLUSION: The combination of CT plus Bev increased the response rate and progression-free survival of patients with NSCLC. With respect to overall survival the benefits of Bev remains uncertain.

Efficacy of palonosetron (PAL) compared to other serotonin inhibitors (5-HT3R) in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic (MoHE) treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing a single intravenous dose of palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg with other 5-HT(3)R in patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic (MoHE) chemotherapy. METHODS: Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were the incidence of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. The side effects of each treatment were analyzed. A subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the use of corticosteroids. The results are expressed as risk ratio (RR) and the correspondent 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Five studies were included, with 2057 patients. PAL was compared with ondansetron, granisetron, and dolasetron. Patients in PAL group had less nausea, both acute (RR = 0.86; CI 95% = 0.76 to 0.96; p = 0.007) and delayed (RR = 0.82; CI95% = 0.75 to 0.89; p < 0.00001). They also had less acute vomiting (RR = 0.76; CI 95% = 0.66 to 0.88; p = 0.0002) and delayed vomiting (RR = 0.76; CI95% = 0.68 to 0.85; p < 0.00001). There were no statistical differences in side effects like headache (RR = 0.84; CI 95% = 0.61 to 1.17; p = 0.30), dizziness (RR = 0.40; CI 95% = 0.13 to 1.27; p = 0.12), constipation (RR = 1.29; CI 95% = 0.77 to 2.17; p = 0.33) or diarrhea (RR = 0.67; CI 95% = 0.24 to 1.85; p = 0.44). Patients receiving PAL presented less nausea and vomiting regardless of the use of corticoids. We found no statistical heterogeneity in the global analysis. CONCLUSION: PAL was more effective than the other 5-HT(3)R in preventing acute and delayed CINV in patients receiving MoHE treatments, regardless of the use of concomitant corticosteroids.