European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) guidance on the pharmacy handling of in vivo gene therapy medicinal products.

Gene therapy is becoming increasingly prevalent, with new gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs) being approved for use every year. Hospital pharmacists are expected to prepare and dispense these products, but there is substantial heterogeneity in the availability of up-to-date, practical guidance at a national level in Europe. Many institutions have no or very limited experience in handling GTMPs. As such, there is a need for updated, practical guidance to aid hospital pharmacy teams in developing institutional standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the safe handling of GTMPs across the entire workflow. Here, we present the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists' updated guidance on the handling of GTMPs, developed by a team of recognised experts from around Europe. Each aspect of the GTMP handling process is addressed, including receipt and storage, dispensing and reconstitution, transportation, administration, waste disposal, decontamination of spills and accidental exposure. A series of figures are provided to aid the development of practical workflows. This guidance document is intended as a framework to help develop institutional SOPs and should always be used in conjunction with local regulations.

Educational needs of patients, families, and healthcare professionals to support the patient journey in haemophilia gene therapy in the UK.

With the first gene therapies for haemophilia approved by the European Commission, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, it is important to consider the remaining unmet needs and challenges that may arise throughout patients' treatment journeys. We discuss existing unmet needs and important considerations prior to, during, and following haemophilia gene therapy treatment in the UK, and propose potential next steps. Key areas for attention are education, psychological support, and guidance on implementation. Strategies are urgently required to fulfil these needs. An immediate priority for information providers should be comprehensive education for people with haemophilia (PWH) and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Greater access to resources and training in psychological services will be required throughout the treatment pathway. More specific guidance is required to define the implementation model, criteria for accreditation, and responsibilities of care centres. Furthermore, PWH may revisit discussions with HCPs multiple times pre-infusion, thus the patient journey is unlikely to be linear. Consideration of these challenges, and of potential strategies to address them, will be integral to optimising the future success of this promising therapy.

The oral education clinic: A pharmacist- and nurse-led clinic to support patients starting oral systemic anti-cancer treatments.

With the increased number of oral systemic anti-cancer treatments available, patients need to be managed safely and effectively in line with national guidance. In response to guidance in 2011, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust implemented an 'Oral Education Clinic'. This nurse- and pharmacist-led clinic facilitates the delivery of patient education, highlighting key safety aspects of drug administration and management, and ensures follow-up is arranged as per protocol. Patients have found this service to be effective and it has had a positive impact on the running of outpatient units, the volume of triage calls, emergency admissions and workload associated with consenting patients to an oral systemic anti-cancer treatments.

A systematic review of non-standard dosing of oral anticancer therapies.

BACKGROUND: The use of oral systemic anticancer therapies (SACT) has increased and led to improved cancer survival outcomes, particularly with the introduction of small molecule targeted agents and immunomodulators. Oral targeted SACT are, however, associated with toxicities, which might result in reduced quality of life and non-adherence. To reduce treatment-related toxicity, the practice of non-standard dosing is increasing; however guidance to govern this practice is limited. A systematic review was conducted to identify evidence of, and outcomes from, non-standard dosing of oral SACT in oncology and malignant haematology. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 78 oral SACT was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Library©, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL©). Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and were critically appraised. Extracted data were tabulated to summarise key findings. Due to diversity of study designs and heterogeneity of reported outcomes, studies were categorised and evidence was synthesised in three main themes: dose interruption; dose reduction; and other dosing strategies. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were eligible for inclusion: four clinical trials, fifteen cohort studies and fifteen case reports. Evidence for non-standard dosing was reported for eleven oral SACT. Dose interruptions were the most commonly reported strategy (14 studies); nine studies reported dose reductions; and eleven reported other dosing strategies. Eight retrospective cohort studies reported dose interruption of sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma and showed either similar or improved responses and survival outcomes, and fewer or equivalent high grade toxicities, compared to the standard schedule. Four cohort studies retrospectively evaluated dose reductions of imatinib, gefitinib or erlotinib, for chronic myeloid leukaemia and non-small cell lung cancer, respectively. Other dosing strategies included alternate-day dosing. The quality of the evidence was limited by the small sample size in many studies, retrospective study designs, and lack of reported toxicity and/or QoL outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified limited evidence to support current non-standard dosing strategies, but some of findings, e.g. dose interruption of sunitinib, warrant further investigation in large-scale prospective clinical trials.

Are UK hospital pharmacy departments ready for the rise of gene therapy medicinal products?

INTRODUCTION: The first gene therapy medicines are licensed and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approved for use in the NHS. UK Hospital pharmacy departments will need to work with multidisciplinary colleagues to ensure that there are facilities available to handle this new group of medicines. Areas Covered: UK licensed and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence gene therapy medicinal products (GTMP) and requirements for handling. Review of pharmacy facilities and implementation of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) in the UK. Expert Opinion: Most hospital pharmacy departments do not have aseptic facilities for the reconstitution of gene therapy medicines, or have the appropriate freezers in place. Staff do not have the understanding or training of these products unless they are experienced in using them in clinical trials. Chief Pharmacists will need to ensure that governance process are in place as they will ultimately be responsible for the implementation and safe handling of these product. Therefore, work needs to continue to highlight the importance of pharmacy departments and their role in the implementation of this new group of medicines. As more GTMPs are licensed and become standard medicines being handled in pharmacy departments, there will be more hospital pharmacy departments ready to handle them. Initially it will just be the centers of excellence, ATMP centers, and research centers with the expertise and facilities. In the long-term, other hospitals will plan and build the facilities they require.

Non-conventional dosing of oral anticancer agents in oncology and malignant haematology: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in cancer therapeutics have resulted in significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival for patients. Targeted oral systemic anticancer therapies (SACT) offer a range of treatment approaches that differ from traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy: non-cytotoxic oral SACT target malignant disease continuously, have less broad and more favourable safety profiles, which can improve patients' quality of life (QoL). Toxicities associated with daily oral SACT administration can, however, result in non-adherence and a reduced QoL. Non-conventional dosing of oral SACT, where unlicensed doses/schedules of drugs are prescribed, is one approach increasingly adopted by clinicians to reduce toxicities and subsequent non-adherence and to improve QoL. Guidance governing this practice is, however, limited. This systematic review aims to identify evidence about prescribing practices of, and outcomes from, non-conventional dosing of oral SACT in oncology and malignant haematology. METHODS: A search using the following electronic databases will be conducted: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials. Studies will be selected based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Critical appraisal will be conducted to identify potential biases, strengths and limitations of included studies. Extracted data will be tabulated to sort and summarise key findings. An initial literature search indicated that studies reporting non-standard dosing of oral SACT intervention studies are diverse and heterogeneous in study design. Extracted data will, therefore, be tabulated, and together with a narrative synthesis of integrated key findings, will be presented and discussed in reference to the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base. If sufficient stratified data is available (e.g. age group, tumour type, disease stage) or intervention (drug, dosing schedule), sub-group analysis will be conducted to inform prescribing practice. DISCUSSION: This review will identify relevant literature on the topic to inform prescribers working in oncology and malignant haematology. It will also analyse any evidence of the following outcomes: toxicity, treatment adherence and/or QoL outcomes for patients receiving non-standard doses of oral SACT. Limitations in the evidence base may arise from variability in both the type and quality of studies reviewed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017076195 .

Cannabinoids for nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis has a long history of medicinal use. Cannabis-based medications (cannabinoids) are based on its active element, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and have been approved for medical purposes. Cannabinoids may be a useful therapeutic option for people with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting that respond poorly to commonly used anti-emetic agents (anti-sickness drugs). However, unpleasant adverse effects may limit their widespread use. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of cannabis-based medications for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to January 2015. We also searched reference lists of reviews and included studies. We did not restrict the search by language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a cannabis-based medication with either placebo or with a conventional anti-emetic in adults receiving chemotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently conducted eligibility and risk of bias assessment, and extracted data. We grouped studies based on control groups for meta-analyses conducted using random effects. We expressed efficacy and tolerability outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs. Most were of cross-over design, on adults undergoing a variety of chemotherapeutic regimens ranging from moderate to high emetic potential for a variety of cancers. The majority of the studies were at risk of bias due to either lack of allocation concealment or attrition. Trials were conducted between 1975 and 1991. No trials involved comparison with newer anti-emetic drugs such as ondansetron. Comparison with placebo People had more chance of reporting complete absence of vomiting (3 trials; 168 participants; RR 5.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 12.6; low quality evidence) and complete absence of nausea and vomiting (3 trials; 288 participants; RR 2.9; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.7; moderate quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo. The percentage of variability in effect estimates that was due to heterogeneity rather than chance was not important (I(2) = 0% in both analyses).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (2 trials; 276 participants; RR 6.9; 95% CI 1.96 to 24; I(2) = 0%; very low quality evidence) and less chance of withdrawing due to lack of efficacy when they received cannabinoids, compared with placebo (1 trial; 228 participants; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.0 to 0.89; low quality evidence). In addition, people had more chance of 'feeling high' when they received cannabinoids compared with placebo (3 trials; 137 participants; RR 31; 95% CI 6.4 to 152; I(2) = 0%).People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than placebo (2 trials; 256 participants; RR 4.8; 95% CI 1.7 to 13; low quality evidence). Comparison with other anti-emetics There was no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine in the proportion of participants reporting no nausea (5 trials; 258 participants; RR 1.5; 95% CI 0.67 to 3.2; I(2) = 63%; low quality evidence), no vomiting (4 trials; 209 participants; RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or complete absence of nausea and vomiting (4 trials; 414 participants; RR 2.0; 95% CI 0.74 to 5.4; I(2) = 60%; low quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis where the two parallel group trials were pooled after removal of the five cross-over trials showed no difference (RR 1.1; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.7) with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%).People had more chance of withdrawing due to an adverse event (5 trials; 664 participants; RR 3.9; 95% CI 1.3 to 12; I(2) = 17%; low quality evidence), due to lack of efficacy (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; very low quality evidence) and for any reason (1 trial; 42 participants; RR 3.5; 95% CI 1.4 to 8.9; low quality evidence) when they received cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People had more chance of reporting dizziness (7 trials; 675 participants; RR 2.4; 95% CI 1.8 to 3.1; I(2) = 12%), dysphoria (3 trials; 192 participants; RR 7.2; 95% CI 1.3 to 39; I(2) = 0%), euphoria (2 trials; 280 participants; RR 18; 95% CI 2.4 to 133; I(2) = 0%), 'feeling high' (4 trials; 389 participants; RR 6.2; 95% CI 3.5 to 11; I(2) = 0%) and sedation (8 trials; 947 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.8; I(2) = 31%), with significantly more participants reporting the incidence of these adverse events with cannabinoids compared with prochlorperazine.People reported a preference for cannabinoids rather than prochlorperazine (7 trials; 695 participants; RR 3.3; 95% CI 2.2 to 4.8; I(2) = 51%; low quality evidence).In comparisons with metoclopramide, domperidone and chlorpromazine, there was weaker evidence, based on fewer trials and participants, for higher incidence of dizziness with cannabinoids.Two trials with 141 participants compared an anti-emetic drug alone with a cannabinoid added to the anti-emetic drug. There was no evidence of differences between groups; however, the majority of the analyses were based on one small trial with few events. Quality of the evidence The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias in terms of how they were designed and do not reflect current chemotherapy and anti-emetic treatment regimens. Furthermore, the quality of evidence arising from meta-analyses was graded as low for the majority of the outcomes analysed, indicating that we are not very confident in our ability to say how well the medications worked. Further research is likely to have an important impact on the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions.