Flat-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor evaluation after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant in multiple myeloma patients: Does one dose fit all?

INTRODUCTION: The current recommended granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) dose after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (autoHSCT) in multiple myeloma patients is 5 mcg/kg/day administered subcutaneously until engraftment. Recently, our institution changed practice from weight-based to flat-dose G-CSF. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of flat-dose G-CSF on time to engraftment among multiple myeloma patients of different weight groups. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was completed for adult patients with multiple myeloma who underwent autoHSCT from March 2018 through August 2019. Data collected included time to neutrophil engraftment, total length of hospitalization, length of stay post-transplant, time to platelet engraftment, use of intravenous fluconazole or acyclovir, parenteral nutrition use, incidence of febrile neutropenia, antibiotic use, and death. Differences in outcomes were compared between patients ≤80 kg versus those >80 kg. A secondary analysis was completed for patients ≤100 kg versus those >100 kg. RESULTS: There was no difference in time to neutrophil engraftment between weight groups (≤80 kg versus >80 kg: median = 12 days, p = 0.22; ≤100 kg versus >100 kg: median = 12 days, p = 0.52). There was a significant difference in intravenous fluconazole and acyclovir use between groups, with more use in the lower weight groups (≤80 kg versus >80 kg: 12 patients versus 10 patients p = 0.02; ≤100 kg versus >100 kg: 19 patients versus 3 patients p = 0.04). No significant differences were found for any other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Utilizing a flat-dose of G-CSF for patients after autoHSCT does not appear to negatively affect patient outcomes. Institutions may benefit from using the 300 mcg dose of G-CSF for multiple myeloma patients after autoHSCT.

PARP-inhibitor potpourri: A comparative review of class safety, efficacy, and cost.

Purpose: To summarize similarities and differences in efficacy, safety, and cost of available PARP-inhibitors and offers pearls to distinguish subtle nuances between each agent to help guide therapy. Summary: Currently, four PARP-inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib) are FDA-approved, with olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib approved for treatment and/or maintenance or ovarian cancer and olaparib and talazoparib approved for the treatment of recurrent metastatic BRCA-mutant, HER2-negative breast cancer. While the PARP-inhibitor class is generally are well-tolerated, each agent does possess a unique side-effect profile. Niraparib and talazoparib have more prominent hematologic adverse event profiles, while niraparib has an increased risk of cardiac events. In patients using other medications with known drug interactions, niraparib may be the preferred option for patients with ovarian cancer, and talazoparib may be the preferred option for patients with breast cancer because neither of these agents undergo hepatic metabolism. These agents also can incur large financial toxicities for patients, and olaparib currently has the broadest range of options for financial assistance. Conclusion: Although these agents have similar approved indications, efficacy, and toxicity profiles, there are notable differences that may help direct choice of therapy and optimize treatment for patients. It is important to incorporate patient-specific factors to optimize PARP-inhibitor therapy for patients.

Implementation of a chemotherapy stewardship process.

PURPOSE: To design and implement a chemotherapy stewardship process to optimize the location of chemotherapy administration in an effort to decrease the number of inappropriate inpatient anticancer regimen administrations and decrease institutional costs associated with inpatient administration. SUMMARY: As the costs of anticancer agents continue to rise, it is crucial that multidisciplinary efforts are aimed at managing anticancer medication utilization; this is especially important for high-cost medications, medications whose use requires increased monitoring due to safety concerns, and medications that do not exert effects quickly and, as such, can be more appropriately administered in the outpatient setting. It is imperative that pharmacists play a role in managing chemotherapy medication utilization, as pharmacists provide expertise in formulary management, a vast knowledge of financial impact and reimbursement processes, and clinical knowledge that can help predict the expected effectiveness and adverse effects of each anticancer regimen. Our institution sought to develop and implement a multidisciplinary chemotherapy stewardship program targeting the optimization of site of anticancer agent administration with a goal of decreasing both cost and inappropriate utilization of high-cost, high-risk anticancer agents. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a chemotherapy stewardship service may decrease the number of inappropriate inpatient anticancer regimen administrations and decrease inpatient resource use, thereby decreasing costs to institutions. The concept of a chemotherapy stewardship process was well received by multidisciplinary healthcare colleagues, and a collaborative approach should be used to design and implement such processes.