Propensity score-matching analysis comparing safety outcomes of appetite-stimulating medications in oncology patients.

PURPOSE: Anorexia and weight loss are common complications in the elderly, advanced cancer population. Appetite stimulants are commonly used therapies for oncology patients with weight loss, yet their safety comparison remains unknown. METHODS: This was a two-center, retrospective, study conducted in New York City at Mount Sinai Beth Israel and New York University Langone from January 2016 to July 2019 in adult patients with histologic evidence of malignancy who were taking either megestrol acetate or mirtazapine as an appetite-stimulating medication. Endpoints included safety concerns of mortality, QTc prolongation, venous thromboembolism, fall, somnolence, xerostomia, and hallucinations. Effectiveness of weight gain or maintenance of weight was not assessed. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed using a logistic regression analysis to assess the two comparable groups. RESULTS: The study included 350 patients (69.56 ± 13.31 years) with the most common malignancies being gastrointestinal, breast, and hematologic with metastasis present in over half the patients. Adverse events were commonly seen in the oncology population. After a propensity score-matched analysis, all safety outcomes associated with mirtazapine compared to megestrol acetate were similar; all-cause mortality (7%, n = 7 vs. 12%, n = 12, p = 0.23), QTc prolongation (31%, n = 31 vs. 31%, n = 31, p = 1.00), thromboembolism (11%, n = 11 vs. 11%, n = 11, p = 1.00), somnolence (29%, n = 30 vs. 22%, n = 23, p = 0.34), xerostomia (27%, n = 28 vs. 18%, n = 19, p = 0.24), and hallucinations (17%, n = 18 vs. 8%, n = 8, p = 0.06), respectfully. CONCLUSION: There were no safety differences seen when evaluating both agents.

Outpatient management of chronic warfarin therapy at a pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As a result of infection control regulations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, anticoagulation clinics have been required to adjust their practices in order to continue providing safe and effective services for their patients. In accordance with a guidance document issued by the Anticoagulation Forum, The Brooklyn Hospital Center (TBHC) anticoagulation clinic in Brooklyn, New York implemented measures including telemedicine follow-ups instead of in-person clinic visits, extending the interval of INR testing, and reviewing eligible candidates for transition from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants. This study describes the outcomes of one hospital-based clinic location in the 3 months before and after COVID-19 became a significant concern in the New York City area. The primary outcome of time-in-therapeutic range (TTR) for patients receiving warfarin was 60.6 % and 65.8 % in the pre-COVID and post-COVID groups, respectively (p = 0.21). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in percent of therapeutic INRs (51.5 % pre-COVID v. 44.8 % post-COVID, p = 0.75) or percent of INRs ≥ 4.5 (2.3 % pre-COVID v. 4 % post-COVID, p = 0.27). Based on the data reported in this study, the short-term changes implemented at TBHC's anticoagulation clinic did not appear to cause reductions in safety and efficacy of chronic warfarin therapy management.