Systematic Review of the Burden and Treatment Patterns of Adult and Adolescent Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in India: Comprehending the Challenges in an Emerging Economy.

BACKGROUND: In the present systematic literature review, we sought to describe the burden and treatment practices of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in India, which reflect the realities and outcomes in a middle-income country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a search for reported studies using terms such as "adult ALL," "epidemiology," and "treatment" in the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and other database sources. We obtained 249 articles and 18 conference abstracts reported until December 2019. A total of 40 studies were selected to qualitatively summarize the data. RESULTS: The proportion of ALL among adult patients diagnosed with acute leukemia at reporting institutions from 16 Indian studies ranged from 7.3% to 57.8%. Most studies were performed in Northern India (n = 12), had a male preponderance (range, 57%-80%), and had a predominance of B-ALL (range, 65.2%-75.9%). The treatment protocols used for ALL included MCP-841, BFM (Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster)-90, chemotherapy plus a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, GMALL (German Multicenter Study Group for Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia), and hyper-CVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone). The complete remission rates and median overall survival for these protocols ranged from 46.7% to 91.4% and 7 to 46 months, respectively. The overall relapse rates were 24.3% to 57.1% within median time of 9 to 24 months, with bone marrow the most frequent relapse site. After relapse, most patients had chosen palliative therapy (range, 78.7%-96.0%). The major treatment-related toxicities included neutropenia, myelosuppression, and infection. CONCLUSIONS: The results from Indian studies on adult ALL are heterogeneous, reporting a diverse incidence and poor overall outcomes using varied non-contemporaneous treatment protocols adapted from the developed world. A comprehensive countrywide approach to diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up and the potential incorporation of novel therapies could improve the prognosis and outcomes of adult ALL in India.

Identifying Barriers to the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) viral infection has a major impact on our health care system. The emergence of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA) has made treatment simple (oral), efficacious, and safe. However, treatment is expensive and access is variable. Despite great treatment outcomes, only a minority of patients with CHC receive antiviral therapy. This study identifies the barriers to treatment in CHC infection. METHODS: Study recruited all hepatitis C antibody-positive patients between 2012 and 2016 from a large academic teaching hospital in New York City. Demographic information, clinical data, and insurance information were reviewed. Statistical analysis performed with OR and p < 0.05 reported. RESULT: A total of 1,548 patients with hepatitis C antibody-positive titer were included in the initial analysis. One thousand and twenty-four patients were forwarded to the final analysis after exclusion of 524 patients (for distant resolved hepatitis C viral [HCV] infection [n = 42], patients cured with interferon-based regimens [n = 94], patients with comorbid conditions [n = 176], and patients with an incomplete medical chart [n = 212]). In the intention to treat cohort of 1,024 patients, 204 patients achieved a sustained virological response after receiving DAAs (n = 204/1,024 - 20%). The majority of patients had not received DAAs (n = 816/1,024 patients - 80%). Multiple factors resulted in hepatitis C viral infection (HCV) patients not receiving DAAs including the following primary factors: (a) lost to follow-up clinic visits and poor adherence to clinic appointments (n = 548 [67%]; p value <0.0001), (b) active substance abuse (alcoholism and IV drug abuse; n = 165 [20%]; p value 0.22), (c) patients with significant psychiatric illness (n = 103 [12.7%]; p value 0.015), and subgroup analysis revealed that 188 (188/1,024 - 12%) patients had human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) and HCV coinfection. Majority of HCV/HIV coinfected patients had not received DAAs (n = 176 [97%]; p value <0.0001, OR 4.46). The etiology of nontreatment in coinfected HIV/HCV patients was 73.3% poor adherence, 11.5% active substance abuse including alcohol and IV drug use, and 9% significant psychiatric illness and 6.2% multiple reasons for not receiving HCV treatment. CONCLUSION: Multifactorial barriers are preventing hepatitis C patients from receiving effective DAA therapy. Primary factors include poor compliance, substance abuse, and significant psychiatric illness, with significant overlap between these groups. Subgroup analysis showed a substantial number of high-risk patients with HIV/HCV coinfection did not receive DAA therapy. A multidisciplinary clinic approach with a hepatologist, ID physicians, social worker, and behavioral health psychologist and case manager should provide a solution to improve diagnosis and treatment with DAA.

From ideation to practice: How pharmacists and students can leverage hackathons and innovation labs to accelerate innovation in pharmacy.

OBJECTIVES: To describe novel methods regarding innovation for pharmacists and student pharmacists to leverage local and national events, such as hackathons and innovation labs, that provide guidance and resources for developing novel products and solutions in health care. DATA SOURCES: Not applicable. SUMMARY: The profession of pharmacy exists in a diverse and complex system where collaboration is essential for innovation and can leverage existing resources to accelerate this. Hackathons occur over one or more days and offer a venue and resources to support innovation as interprofessional teams develop and pitch new product ideas for potential investment. Innovation labs serve as more permanent locations that offer resources and expertise to help realize ideas and guide development into potentially viable solutions and products for health care. CONCLUSION: Although currently hosted hackathons and design spaces may prove to be beneficial to pharmacists looking to innovate, they are frequently located in urban areas or large academic institutions that are not readily accessible to the larger pharmacy community. Fostering opportunities, whether as local hackathons or innovation labs, can potentially help to accelerate the innovation cycle for the pharmacy profession. These resources can be developed in local communities or through national pharmacy societies and organizations to increase access.