Can We Mitigate Coronary Heart Disease Risk in Patients with Cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review focuses on the shared risk factors observed between coronary heart disease and cancer, cancer therapeutics causing coronary heart disease, and potential strategies to mitigate atherosclerosis in patients with cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: The pathophysiology behind how traditional cardiovascular risk factors also contribute to cancer development and mortality is increasingly recognized. In addition, newer cancer therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, cause increased inflammation leading to increased cardiovascular events. Traditional coronary heart disease risk factors such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia also contribute to cancer development and worse cancer outcomes. Cancer therapeutics can also lead to atherosclerotic events in addition to the shared risk factors present at the time of cancer diagnosis. Understanding the pathophysiology, using multidisciplinary care teams, and developing machine learning algorithms for individualized patient care will help to mitigate the risk of coronary heart disease in patients with cancer.

Influencing Appropriate Statin Use in a Charity Care Primary Clinic.

According to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) new cholesterol management guidelines in 2019, statin regimen was prescribed to only about 46.4% and 30% of diabetes (DM) patients and patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), respectively. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease accounts for most deaths and disabilities in North America. This study argues that a systematic approach to identifying targeted interventions to adhere to the statin regimen for ASCVD is sparse in previous studies. This study seeks to address the research gap. Besides, the study argues that the statin regimen could improve cholesterol management with the enablers of pharmacy, providers, electronic medical records (E.M.R.), and patients. It paves the way for future research on cardiovascular and statin regimens from different perspectives. Current study has adopted the Qualitative observation method. Accordingly, the study approached the charity care primary clinic serving a large population in the northeastern part of the United States, which constitutes the project's setting. The facility has 51 internal medicine residents. The facility has E.H.R., which is used by the clinical staff. Besides, providers use electronic medication prescribing (E-Scribe). Four PDSA cycles were run in six months. Here, the interventions were intensified during each subsequent cycle. The interventions were then incorporated into routine clinical practice. Based on the observation, the study found a 25% relative improvement by six months based on the baseline data of the appropriate intensity statin prescription for patients with ASCVD or DM by medical resident trainees in our single-center primary care clinic. A total of 77% of cardiovascular disease patients were found to be on an appropriate statin dose at baseline. On the other hand, the proportion of patients with DM who were on proper dose statin was 80.4%. According to the study's findings, PDSA could result in a faster uptake and support of the ACC/AHA guidelines. Evidence indicates that overmedication of persons at low risk and time constraints are some of the most significant impediments to the greater use of prescription medications. Proactive panel management can help improve statins' use by ensuring they are used appropriately.

Posttrial Access to Medical Interventions: Intricacies, Challenges, and Solutions.

With the recent increase in clinical trials, lower- and middle-income countries are preferred trial sites due to lower budgets and easy availability of potential participants. On trial completion, benefits to participants cease and it may affect their health adversely. Therefore, entitlement to posttrial access (PTA) of interventions is imperative. The Declaration of Helsinki and several other guidelines mandate that trial participants have access to experimentally proven efficacious drugs and that the research protocol should mention PTA provision mechanisms. A controversial question about PTA is whether, experimentally proven therapy should be made accessible to the control group as well as the community from which the participants were enrolled, especially if no satisfactory standard treatment exists. PTA has significant implications for various stakeholders - trial participants, investigators, sponsors, regulatory authorities, and governments and has been discussed and well addressed in recent guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical research. This article focuses on the PTA, guidelines related to PTA, disputes, different stakeholder perspectives, and practical difficulties in its implementation. It also looks at PTA from the Indian perspective and considers possible solutions to deal with the controversies.

Adverse drug reaction profile of microtubule-damaging antineoplastic drugs: A focused pharmacovigilance study in India.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to analyze the adverse drug reaction (ADR) profile of microtubule-damaging antineoplastic drugs (taxanes and vinca alkaloids) and to look for unexpected ADRs among the local population. Focused study on these drugs, rampantly used in oncology department for a wide variety of tumors including early and advanced malignancies, would enable better treatment care by physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on ADRs were collected from the cancer patients belonging to both gender and of all ages, on taxanes- or vinca-based cancer chemotherapy and reported in the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission form. Causality was assessed using the WHO criteria and Naranjo's Algorithm. Preventability and severity of ADRs were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 97 ADRs were reported among 488 patients on microtubule-damaging anticancer drugs admitted over a period of 1 year. The incidence rate was 19.87%. Gastrointestinal system (40.2%) was the most affected followed by bone marrow (33%) and skin (8.2%). The highest incidence of ADRs was reported among paclitaxel (54.6%), and vincristine (39.2%). Most of the reported ADRs were of milder nature and preventable. The WHO causality assessment scale indicated 71.1% possible reactions. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that most ADRs are preventable with effective ADR monitoring. There is a great need to create awareness among healthcare professionals regarding the importance of the pharmacovigilance system. Judicious use of the preventive measures will lead to a reduction in the incidence of ADRs due to the drug armamentarium, thereby enabling additional economic benefit to the patient and society.

Pattern of adverse drug reactions due to cancer chemotherapy in a tertiary care hospital in South India.

PURPOSE: Studies regarding pattern of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in cancer chemotherapy patients are scarce in India. This study was conducted to evaluate the pattern of occurrence of ADRs due to cancer chemotherapy in hospitalized patients and to assess the causality, severity, predictability, and preventability of these reactions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, descriptive study and the occurrence and nature of ADR, suspected drug, duration of hospital stay and outcome were noted from case records. These ADRs were assessed for causality using both World Health Organization (WHO) causality assessment scale and Naranjo's algorithm. The severity and preventability of the reported reactions were assessed using modified Hartwig and Siegel scale and modified Schumock and Thornton scale respectively. RESULTS: Five hundred ADRs were recorded from 195 patients. Most common ADRs were infections (22.4%), nausea/vomiting (21.6%) and febrile neutropenia (13%). Platinum compounds, nitrogen mustards, taxanes, antibiotics and 5-fluorouracil were the most common drugs causing ADRs. WHO causality assessment scale showed 65% of the reactions to be "probable" and 35% to be "possible", while Naranjo's algorithm indicated that 65.6% of ADRs were "probable" and 34.4% were "possible". Modified Hartwig and Siegel scale showed most reactions (41.4%) to be of "moderate level 4(a)" severity, while 30.6% of reactions were of "mild level 1" severity. About 30.8% of the ADRs were "definitely preventable" according to the modified Schumock and Thornton scale. CONCLUSION: ADRs are most important causes of morbidity and mortality and increase the economic burden on patient and society. By careful ADR monitoring, their incidence can be decreased.