Clinical impacts of the concomitant use of L-asparaginase and total parenteral nutrition containing L-aspartic acid in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Introduction: L-asparaginase (ASNase) depletes L-asparagine and causes the death of leukemic cells, making it a mainstay for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). However, ASNase's activity can be inhibited by L-aspartic acid (Asp), which competes for the same substrate and reduces the drug's efficacy. While many commercially used total parenteral nutrition (TPN) products contain Asp, it is unclear how the concomitant use of TPNs containing Asp (Asp-TPN) affects ALL patients treated with ASNase. This propensity-matched retrospective cohort study evaluated the clinical effects of the interaction between ASNase and Asp-TPN. Methods: The study population included newly diagnosed adult Korean ALL patients who received VPDL induction therapy consisting of vincristine, prednisolone, daunorubicin, and Escherichia coli L-asparaginase between 2004 and 2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on their exposure to Asp-TPN: (1) Asp-TPN group and (2) control group. Data, including baseline characteristics, disease information, medication information, and laboratory data, were collected retrospectively. The primary outcomes for the effectiveness were overall and complete response rates. Relapse-free survival at six months and one year of treatment were also evaluated. The safety of both TPN and ASNase was evaluated by comparing liver function test levels between groups. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was conducted to minimize potential selection bias. Results: The analysis included a total of 112 ALL patients, and 34 of whom received Asp-TPN and ASNase concomitantly. After propensity score matching, 30 patients remained in each group. The concomitant use of Asp-TPN and ASNase did not affect the overall response rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-1.62) or the complete response rate (OR 0.86; 95% CI = 0.29-2.59) of the ASNase-including induction therapy. The concomitant use of Asp-TPN and ASNase also did not impact relapse-free survival (RFS) at six months and one year of treatment (OR 1.00; 95% CI = 0.36-2.78 and OR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.50-3.12, respectively). The peak levels of each liver function test (LFT) and the frequency of LFT elevations were evaluated during induction therapy and showed no difference between the two groups. Conclusion: There is no clear rationale for avoiding Asp-TPN in ASNase-treated patients.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Pharmacists' Intervention on Care of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Children with cancer may be one of the most vulnerable groups to drug-related adverse events because they possess characteristics of patients with cancer as well as pediatric patients. To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of pharmacists' intervention on the care of pediatric hematology and oncology patients in the inpatient and outpatient settings of a children's hospital. METHODS: The pharmacist-intervention records from 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Intervention rate, type of drug-related problems, acceptance rate, and frequently involved drugs in pharmacist interventions were analyzed. One physician and one pharmacist evaluated the clinical significance of each intervention. A cost-benefit analysis was conducted from hospital and patient perspective. The benefit from cost savings by reducing the number of prescribed drugs that are disposed was estimated as the benefit from hospital perspective. The benefit from cost avoidance based on the potential to avoid an adverse drug event (ADE) was estimated as the benefit from patient perspective. The cost of reviewing prescriptions was estimated based on the pharmacists' salary and the time involved. RESULTS: In 2017, 2361 interventions were performed in 381 pediatric patients with cancer. The acceptance rate was 97.2%. More than half of the interventions were regarded as clinically "significant" (58.8%) and "very significant" (14.6%). The cost-benefit of US$28,705 was determined from hospital perspective, with a cost-benefit ratio of 1.45:1. The cost-benefit of US$35,611 was calculated from patient perspective, with a cost-benefit ratio of 1.55:1. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists' intervention in the care of hematology and oncology pediatric patients was effective in preventing clinically significant ADEs and had a positive economic impact on the health-care budget from both hospital and patient perspective.

Machine Learning Approaches to Predict Hepatotoxicity Risk in Patients Receiving Nilotinib.

Background: Although nilotinib hepatotoxicity can cause severe clinical conditions and may alter treatment plans, risk factors affecting nilotinib-induced hepatotoxicity have not been investigated. This study aimed to elucidate the factors affecting nilotinib-induced hepatotoxicity. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed on patients using nilotinib from July of 2015 to June of 2020. We estimated the odds ratio and adjusted odds ratio from univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively. Several machine learning models were developed to predict risk factors of hepatotoxicity occurrence. The area under the curve (AUC) was analyzed to assess clinical performance. Results: Among 353 patients, the rate of patients with grade I or higher hepatotoxicity after nilotinib administration was 40.8%. Male patients and patients who received nilotinib at a dose of ≥300 mg had a 2.3-fold and a 3.5-fold increased risk for hepatotoxicity compared to female patients and compared with those who received <300 mg, respectively. H2 blocker use decreased hepatotoxicity by 11.6-fold. The area under the curve (AUC) values of machine learning methods ranged between 0.61-0.65 in this study. Conclusion: This study suggests that the use of H2 blockers was a reduced risk of nilotinib-induced hepatotoxicity, whereas male gender and a high dose were associated with increased hepatotoxicity.

Risk factors for linezolid-induced thrombocytopenia in patients without haemato-oncologic diseases.

This study aimed to describe the occurrence and to evaluate the predictive factors of thrombocytopenia caused by parenteral linezolid in hospitalised patients without haemato-oncologic diseases. Using electronic medical records, a retrospective safety evaluation was performed among all hospitalised adult patients who received parenteral linezolid therapy between January 2005 and June 2016. Of all identified 264 patients with an average age of 63.4 (SD 15.8) years, thrombocytopenia occurred at a rate of 29.2% after an average of 11.2 (SD 7.4) days of the initiation of linezolid therapy. Significant predictive factors for thrombocytopenia included the duration of linezolid therapy longer than or equal to 7 days (adjusted odds ratios [ORs] 7.25, 19.51 and 28.80; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 1.92-27.38, 4.76-79.95 and 6.48-127.92 for 7-13 days, 14-20 days and ≥21 days, respectively; P < 0.01 for all values), baseline platelet count <150 × 103 /mm3 (adjusted OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 2.06-12.55; P < 0.001), creatinine clearance <30 mL/min (adjusted OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 1.59-11.06; P = 0.004) and concurrent low-dose aspirin therapy (adjusted OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.26-7.08; P = 0.013). Baseline platelet count less than 150 × 103 /mm3 was an independent predictor of early-onset (≤6 days) thrombocytopenia (adjusted OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.46-17.58; P = 0.011). Closer monitoring of platelet count is required in patients who receive parenteral linezolid therapy for 7 days or more, and have low baseline platelet counts or impaired renal function.

Effectiveness of febuxostat in patients with allopurinol-refractory hyperuricemic chronic kidney disease
.

OBJECTIVE: As uncontrolled hyperuricemia has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD), management of serum uric acid levels is important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of febuxostat in regulating uncontrolled hyperuricemia in patients with renal dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included patients with CKD and persistent uncontrolled hyperuricemia despite treatment with allopurinol. The primary outcome of the study, which was the overall response rate of febuxostat, was defined as the proportion of patients that achieved a serum uric acid level < 7.0 mg/dL. The secondary outcomes included the change in renal function and factors that might influence treatment outcomes. The safety outcome was evaluated based on the incidence of adverse reactions. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients who switched medication to febuxostat were included. Febuxostat treatment significantly lowered serum uric acid level and the response rates were above 70% at all the time points for 1 year. Febuxostat-treated patients demonstrated no significant change in renal function during the study period. A history of gout attack decreased the response rate of febuxostat (odds ratio (OR): 3.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08 - 9.06), whereas low-dose aspirin use significantly increased response rate (OR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09 - 0.92) in the first month. No patients experienced any severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Febuxostat effectively lowered serum uric acid levels and was well tolerated in patients with CKD and allopurinol-refractory hyperuricemia.
.

Network analysis of drug-related problems in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies.

PURPOSE: Network analysis was conducted to systematically analyze the relationship between causative drugs and types of drug-related problems (DRPs) in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancies. METHODS: A total of 1187 DRPs identified in hematology wards between 2013 and 2015 were analyzed. DRPs were classified into 11 sub-domains for problems and 35 sub-domains for causes according to Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe classification. Causative drugs were classified by Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code. Network analytic tool was used to represent the relationship between drugs, causes, and problems. In-degree centrality (CD-in) was calculated to identify major causes of DRPs. RESULTS: The following drugs accounted for more than 5% of DRP, including antibacterials (J01, 26.5%), drugs for acid-related disorders (A02, 11.5%), antiemetics (A04, 9.7%), antifungals (J02, 8.8%), and antineoplastic agents (L01, 7.0%). Inappropriate combinations (C1.3, CD-in of 161) of drugs for acid-related disorders, antifungals, and antineoplastic agents were major causes of DRPs and induced non-optimal effects of drug treatment (P1.2). Inappropriate dose adjustments (C3.6, CD-in of 151) of antibacterials lowered effects (P1.2) and increased side effects (P2.1). Missing necessary synergistic or preventive drugs, especially antiemetics, (C1.8, CD-in of 54) resulted in untreated indication (P1.4). CONCLUSIONS: DRPs were mainly related to medications for supportive care. More attention should be paid to interactions of drugs used for acid-related disorders, dose adjustment of antibacterials, and omission of antiemetics in hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancy.