Optimization of dosing regimens of vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid and daptomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in neutropenic patients with cancer by Monte Carlo simulations.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of various dosing regimens of vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid and daptomycin against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in neutropenic patients with cancer. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted using pharmacokinetic parameters and pharmacodynamic data to determine cumulative fraction of response (CFRs) in terms of area under the concentration-time curve/minimum inhibition concentration target. Currently clinical standard dosing regimens of vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid and daptomycin were insufficient to provide expected CFRs against MRSA for neutropenic patients with cancer. The high dosing regimens of vancomycin (3500 mg/d), teicoplanin (800 mg/d) and daptomycin (8 mg/kg/d) could provide CFRs of ≥ 80%, showing a higher treatment success. However, the majority of CFRs with linezolid simulated dosing regimens reached < 80% against MRSA. Therefore, a strategy of high dosages of vancomycin, teicoplanin and daptomycin may be needed to attain optimal therapeutic efficacy against MRSA in neutropenic patients with cancer.

Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1-4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572 .

G-CSF guideline adherence in Germany, an update with a retrospective and representative sample survey.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines (GL) recommend neutropenia prophylaxis with G-CSF after chemotherapy (CTX) for patients with high (≥ 20%), or, if additional risk factors are present, intermediate (≥ 10-20%) risk of febrile neutropenia. The first sample survey in 2012 (NP1) showed lack of GL adherence. The aim of this second sample survey was to evaluate if GL adherence and implementation have improved. METHODS: The sample size represented 1.0% of the incidences of lung and 1.1% of breast cancer in Germany in 2010. Data of patients with a febrile neutropenia (FN) risk ≥ 10% who had received at least 2 cycles of chemotherapy between October 2014 and September 2015 was surveyed retrospectively. RESULTS: Data from 573 lung cancer (LC) and 801 breast cancer (BC) patients was collected from 109 hospitals and 83 oncology practices with 222 physicians participating. Compared with the NP1 survey, GL adherence increased in LC and FN high-risk (HR) chemotherapy from 15.4 to 47.8% (p < 0.001), and in FN intermediate-risk (IR) chemotherapy from 38.8 to 44.3% (p = 0.003). In BC and FN-HR chemotherapy, GL adherence was unchanged: 85.6% vs. 85.1% (p = 0.73) but increased in FN-IR from 49.3 to 57.8% (p < 0.001). In all IR CTX cycles, there are also no significant differences in GL adherence between the first (51.3%) and subsequent cycles (51.1%; p = 0.948). In LC patients treated in certified or comprehensive cancer centers, the GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy was 53.0% vs. 44.9% in other centers (p = 0.295); in FN-IR chemotherapy, it was 45.1% vs. 43.8% (p = 0.750). In BC with FN-HR chemotherapy, GL adherence in certified or comprehensive centers was 85.4% vs. 84.7% in other institutions (p = 0.869); in FN-IR chemotherapy, it was 60.2% vs. 55.0% (p = 0.139). GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy and in FN-IR chemotherapy differed between pulmonologists and hematologist-oncologists (FN-HR: 25.0% vs. 43.6%, p < 0.001; 38.1% vs. 48.6%, p < 0.001). Comparing gynecologists with hematologist-oncologists, GL adherence in FN-HR chemotherapy was 86.2% vs. 82.5%. In FN-IR chemotherapy, GL adherence by gynecologists and hematologist-oncologists was 58.6% and 55.6%, respectively (p = 0.288; p = 0.424). Classification and regression tree analysis split pulmonologists and other specialists, with the latter adhering more to GL (p < 0.001). Hematologist-oncologists and gynecologists with more than 2 years of professional training in medical cancer therapy adhered more closely to GL than others (68.7% vs. 46.2%, p < 0.001). Pulmonologists attending ≥ 2 national congresses annually adhered more to guidelines than other pulmonologists (44.8% vs. 24.3%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to G-CSF GL in Germany has increased but is still insufficient. Certified and comprehensive cancer centers show a higher rate of GL implementation. In GL adherence, there is still a disparity between cancer types and between oncology treatment specialists.

Utilidad de sarilumab en la terapia de la artritis reumatoide / Usefulness of sarilumab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

En junio de 2017, la European Medicines Agency aprobó sarilumab para el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide, un nuevo anticuerpo monoclonal (subtipo IgG1) totalmente humano, que impide la unión de la interleucina (IL) 6 a las formas soluble y unida a la membrana del receptor de la IL-6, e inhibe la señal a través de IL-6. Administrado cada 2 semanas en dosis de 200 mg (con una dosis de 150 mg cada 2 semanas para el tratamiento de anormalidades de laboratorio), tiene una afinidad por el receptor muy elevada y ha demostrado ser un fármaco eficaz y seguro en el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide. Esta eficacia se ha demostrado en diferentes ensayos clínicos evaluados en distintos escenarios: falta de respuesta a metotrexato, intolerancia y/o fallo a antifactor de necrosis tumoral alfa y en pacientes con intolerancia a metotrexato. Su doble dosis, su doble dispositivo de administración, su mecanismo dual y su beneficio reconocido lo sitúan como una nueva alternativa potencial en el tratamiento de la artritis reumatoide

In June 2017, the EMA approved sarilumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, a new monoclonal (subtype IgG1) fully human antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-6 receptor complex that inhibits the signal through IL-6. The drug is administered every other week at a dose of 200 mg (or a dose of 150 mg every two weeks if there are laboratory abnormalities), shows very high affinity for the receptor and has proven to be an effective and safe drug in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Its efficacy has been demonstrated in several clinical trials in a variety of scenarios (lack of response to MTX, intolerance and / or failure to anti-TNF). Due to its double dose, the availability of two different devices for its administration, and its dual signaling mode of action and recognised benefit, sarilumab is a new potential alternative in the treatment of RA

Rates of major complications during neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: An off study population.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence and risk factors for thromboembolic events (TE) and febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: 325 patients received FEC75, FEC100-T or ECaP for EBC in 2013. RESULTS: TE occurred in 7.4% and FN in 19.1% of patients. Risk factors for TE were: central venous catheter (p = 0.011). Risk factors for FN were: FEC100-T treatment versus FEC75 and ECaP (p ≤ 0.001); lower pre-treatment neutrophil count (p = 0.009) and poorer performance status (p = 0.012). Two patients died from treatment-related toxicities. CONCLUSION: In real-world experience, the majority of patients completed adequate treatment, despite significant complications.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia in early stage breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant FEC-D treatment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among women receiving FEC-D (flurouracil 500 mg/m(2), epirubicin 100 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for three cycles followed by docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for three cycles) chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer (ESBC) and the impact of primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in a non-clinical trial setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of women referred for ESBC to The Moncton Hospital between 2005 and 2010 evaluated patient and disease characteristics, adjuvant chemotherapy receipt, G-CSF usage, FN incidence, hospital admission rates, and length of stay. Association of variables with FN was examined, and exploratory multivariable logistic regression modeling examined the impact of baseline variables on risk of FN. RESULTS: Of 520 patients enrolled in the database, 251 (48.3 %) received adjuvant chemotherapy for ESBC. Most (66.9 %) received FEC-D. Overall, 55 (21.9 %) patients developed FN. Forty-four (26.2 %) patients on FEC-D developed FN. Forty of 129 (31.0 %) FEC-D patients who did not receive primary G-CSF prophylaxis developed FN, versus 4 of 39 (10.3 %) receiving G-CSF. Receipt of FEC-D or TC (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four or six cycles) was associated with odds ratios of 6.5 or 6.77, respectively, for the development of FN. Receipt of trastuzumab with chemotherapy was associated with an odds ratio of 3.48 for developing FN versus no trastuzumab. Primary G-CSF prophylaxis led to a 63 % reduction in the odds ratio of developing FN. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of FN with FEC-D treatment is considerably higher in clinical practice than reported in phase III trials. Consistent with ASCO guidelines, prophylactic G-CSF should be considered for all ESBC patients receiving adjuvant FEC-D.