Liquid formulation of ifosfamide increased risk of encephalopathy: A case-control study in a pediatric population.

BACKGROUND: Several clusters of encephalopathy occurred after the market change from Holoxan® (ifosfamide lyophilized powder) to Ifosfamide EG® (liquid formulation) and justified a formal survey in 2015. In June 2016, the regulatory authority decided to apply a precautionary measure in reducing the shelf life of Ifosfamide EG® at 7 months. One-year study from spontaneous reports lead to suspect a potential residual risk. Due to the many limitations associated with spontaneous notifications, we performed a multicentric observational study, aiming to better explore this pharmacovigilance signal. METHODS: We performed a case-control study in pediatric oncology Departments of 25 university hospitals between July 1st, 2016 and July 1st, 2018. All children (<18 y.o.) receiving liquid formulation or lyophilized powder formulation during the study period were included. Patients with at least one occurrence of encephalopathy were considered as cases. Logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds ratio of encephalopathy between exposure groups. RESULTS: During the study period, 52 cases and 495 controls were included. A residual over-risk of encephalopathy was associated with ifosfamide 7-month shelf-life liquid formulation compared to lyophilized powder (adjusted OR 1.91, 95% CI: 1.03-3.53). CONCLUSIONS: Observed difference does not seem to be related to the pathology treated, the doses used, the co-medications, a meningeal localization and/or an irradiation of the central nervous system. This study confirms data from spontaneous reports that led to the precautionary measure for the liquid formulation. Even if the risk of encephalopathy seems reduced, our study suggests the persistence of a residual risk of encephalopathy associated with liquid formulation compared to the lyophilized powder.

Direct oral anticoagulants: Current indications and unmet needs in the treatment of venous thromboembolism.

The treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) is being completely modified with the development of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban directly inhibit factor Xa, whereas dabigatran inhibits factor IIa. All these drugs are proposed orally, and share pharmacological similarities: fixed doses without any therapeutic drug monitoring, key role of the transporter proteins P-glycoprotein for all of them and metabolism mediated by CYP3A4 for the anti-Xa, short half-life with variable rate of renal elimination. More than 25 000 patients with acute VTE were included in phase-III studies. Rivaroxaban and apixaban challenged all the conventional therapy (parenteral heparins followed by anti-vitamin K antagonists) whereas edoxaban and dabigatran challenged only anti-vitamin K antagonists. All the DOACs met the non-inferiority efficacy endpoint (recurrent VTE during treatment), whereas the large non-inferiority margin was debated for dabigatran. However, they were associated with better safety and a decreased risk of major bleeding. According to indirect comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences between DOACs in terms of efficacy but some differences are not excluded in term of safety. Although DOACs allow for simplification of treatment in the majority of patients with acute VTE, their risk/benefit ratio is questioned in elderly patients, patients with mild-to-severe renal impairment, and in some clinical subgroups such as cancer or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Validated reversal strategies (potentially based on laboratory monitoring) are expected for patients with major bleeding, overdose or with a need for surgery.