Drug-induced hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia: An update on pathophysiology and treatment.

The initial step for the differential diagnosis of hypoglycemia is to determine whether it is hyperinsulinemic or non hyperinsulinemic. Existing literature discusses drug-related hypoglycemia, but it misses a focus on drug-induced hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (DHH). Here we reviewed the association existing between drugs and hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia. We primarily selected on the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) the reviews on drug-induced hypoglycemia. Among the drugs listed in the reviews, we selected the ones linked to an increase in insulin secretion. For the drugs missing a clear association with insulin secretion, we investigated the putative mechanism underlying hypoglycemia referring to the original papers. Our review provides a list of the most common agents associated with hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (HH), in order to facilitate both the recognition and the prevention of DHH. We also collected data about the responsiveness of DHH to diazoxide or octreotide.

Italian guidelines on management of persons with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are emerging health priorities and the care of persons with these conditions is complex and challenging. The aim of the present guidelines is to develop recommendations for the clinical management of persons with multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy and to provide evidence-based guidance to improve their quality of care. The recommendations have been produced in keeping with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Overall, 14 recommendations were issued, focusing on 4 thematic areas: (1.) General Principles; (2.) target population for an individualized approach to care; (3.) individualized care of patients with multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy; (4.) models of care. These recommendations support the provision of individualized care to persons with multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy as well as the prioritization of care through the identification of persons at increased risk of negative health outcomes. Given the limited available evidence, recommendations could not be issued for all the questions defined and, therefore, some aspects related to the complex care of patients with multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy could not be covered in these guidelines. This points to the need for more research in this field and evidence to improve the care of this population.

Use of the ONCO-TreC electronic diary compared with a standard paper diary to improve adherence to oral cancer therapy in patients with solid and haematological tumours: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: ONCO-TreC platform consists of a mobile application delivered to patients as electronic diary and a web-based dashboard managed by healthcare professionals. We aim to compare the effectiveness of ONCO-TreC electronic diary with a standard paper diary, in improving adherence to oral cancer therapy in patients with solid and haematological tumours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open label, superiority, randomised controlled trial conducted in two Italian oncology units. Patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio to electronic or paper diary. For both groups a counsellor will be responsible for drug and diary delivery. The evaluation period will end after six cycles of therapy. The primary aim is to compare the proportion of non-adherent patients in the two arms. Adherence will be measured through pill count; anyone who takes less than 90% of the total prescribed drug dose will be considered non-adherent. Assuming a percentage of non-adherent patients to oral therapy of 40% in arm B, and a 60% reduction in this percentage in arm A, a sample of 124 patients will provide 80% power to identify an absolute difference greater than 24 percentage points using a bilateral Fisher's exact test with a significance level of 0.05. Considering a dropout rate of 10%, approximately 136 patients will have to be enrolled. The primary analysis will be performed on the intention-to-treat population. Secondary aims are to describe the reasons for non-adherence, the level of satisfaction of patients and healthcare professionals with the paper and electronic diary, and the impact of non-adherence in terms of healthcare costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from Romagna Ethics Committee (CEROM), study ID 2108, prot. n. IRST 100.28 of 10/04/2020. Informed consent will be obtained from all study participants. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and event presentations. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 2, 6 April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04826458.

Safety of switching between rituximab biosimilars in onco-hematology.

Comparable clinical efficacy and safety of the reference rituximab (MABTHERA) and its biosimilars has been established in randomized trials. However, safety concerns are often raised when switching from reference to biosimilar products and between different biosimilars. In this prospective observational study we aimed at evaluating the safety of switching between reference and biosimilar rituximab (TRUXIMA and RIXATHON) at Trento General Hospital (Italy). All patients (n = 83) with Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL, n = 72) and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL, n = 11) who received rituximab between March 2018 and March 2019 were asked to take part in the study. In 2017 and 2018 two tenders were carried out and two different biosimilars became available in the hospital, these were used sequentially. Thus, patients with or without previous treatments with the originator rituximab either received a biosimilar or were switched between different biosimilars. The incidence of adverse events in these groups of patients is described. The study population received 465 rituximab infusions and all received biosimilars. Fifty patients (60%) experienced at least one switch between different biosimilars or between rituximab originator and biosimilar, whereas 33 (40%) received one of the two biosimilars and one patient received reference rituximab. Adverse events (n = 146) were reported in 71 patients (84.5%). Treatment-related grade 3-4 events were reported in 5 patients (5.9%), whereas grade 1 rituximab related infusion events were observed in 6 patients (7.1%). No safety signal emerged in association with the use of a specific biosimilar nor with the practice of switching. Adverse events were similar, in terms of seriousness and frequency, to those described in the literature, providing further support to the clinical safety of rituximab biosimilars.

Knowledge transfer: what drug information would specialist doctors need to support their clinical practice? Results of a survey and of three focus groups in Italy.

BACKGROUND: The wide offer of information on pharmaceuticals does not often fulfill physicians' needs: problems of relevance, access, quality and applicability are widely recognized, and doctors often rely on their own experience and expert opinions rather than on available evidence. A quali-quantitative research was carried out in Italy to provide an overview on information seeking behavior and information needs of doctors, in particular of infectious disease specialists, and to suggest an action plan for improving relevance, quality and usability of scientific information. METHODS: We did a quantitative survey and three focus groups. Two hundred infectious disease specialists answered a 24-item questionnaire aimed at investigating features of scientific information they receive and their ratings about its completeness, quality and usability. Subsequent focus groups, each involving eight specialists, investigated their opinions on information sources and materials, and their suggestions on how these could better support their information needs. RESULTS: The quantitative survey indicated doctors' appreciation of traditional channels (especially drug representatives) and information materials (brochures), but also their attitude to autonomous search of information and their wish to have more digital channels available. Focus groups provided more depth and, not surprisingly, revealed that physicians consider critical to get complete, comparative and specific information quickly, but also that they would like to discuss their doubts with expert colleagues. Quite strikingly, limited concerns were expressed on information validity, potential biases and conflicts of interests, as scientific validity seems to be related to the perceived authoritativeness of information sources rather than to the availability of a transparent evaluation framework. Although this research investigated views of infectious disease specialists, we believe that their opinions and perceived needs should not substantially differ from those of other clinicians, either in primary or in secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: In participants' view, the ideal information framework should provide quick and tailored answers through available evidence and favor the exchange of information between practitioners and trusted experts. The general consensus existing within the scientific and medical community on the need for integrating available evidence and experience is confirmed, although the issues of information validity and conflicts of interests seem definitely overlooked.

Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of legal blindness in elderly populations of industrialised countries. Bevacizumab (Avastin®) and ranibizumab (Lucentis®) are targeted biological drugs (a monoclonal antibody) that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor, an angiogenic cytokine that promotes vascular leakage and growth, thereby preventing its pathological angiogenesis. Ranibizumab is approved for intravitreal use to treat neovascular AMD, while bevacizumab is approved for intravenous use as a cancer therapy. However, due to the biological similarity of the two drugs, bevacizumab is widely used off-label to treat neovascular AMD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (brand name Avastin®; Genentech/Roche) compared with intravitreal ranibizumab (brand name Lucentis®; Novartis/Genentech) in people with neovascular AMD. Primary outcomes were death and All serious systemic adverse events (All SSAEs), the latter as a composite outcome in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. Secondary outcomes examined specific SSAEs: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, strokes, arteriothrombotic events, serious infections, and events grouped in some Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Classes (MedDRA SOC). We assessed the safety at the longest available follow-up to a maximum of two years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other online databases up to 27 March 2014. We also searched abstracts and clinical study presentations at meetings, trial registries, and contacted authors of included studies when we had questions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) and ranibizumab (0.5 mg) in people with neovascular AMD, regardless of publication status, drug dose, treatment regimen, or follow-up length, and whether the SSAEs of interest were reported in the trial report. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies and assessed the risk of bias for each study. Three authors independently extracted data.We conducted random-effects meta-analyses for the primary and secondary outcomes. We planned a pre-specified analysis to explore deaths and All SSAEs at the one-year follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from nine studies (3665 participants), including six published (2745 participants) and three unpublished (920 participants) RCTs, none supported by industry. Three studies excluded participants at high cardiovascular risk, increasing clinical heterogeneity among studies. The studies were well designed, and we did not downgrade the quality of the evidence for any of the outcomes due to risk of bias. Although the estimated effects of bevacizumab and ranibizumab on our outcomes were similar, we downgraded the quality of the evidence due to imprecision.At the maximum follow-up (one or two years), the estimated risk ratio (RR) of death with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.57, P value = 0.59; eight studies, 3338 participants; moderate quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of death with ranibizumab of 3.4% and with bevacizumab of 3.7% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.3%).For All SSAEs, the estimated RR was 1.08 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.31, P value = 0.41; nine studies, 3665 participants; low quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of SSAEs of 22.2% with ranibizumab and with bevacizumab of 24% (95% CI 20% to 29.1%).For the secondary outcomes, we could not detect any difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders MedDRA SOC where there was a higher risk with bevacizumab (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.19, P value = 0.04; six studies, 3190 participants).Pre-specified analyses of deaths and All SSAEs at one-year follow-up did not substantially alter the findings of our review.Fixed-effect analysis for deaths did not substantially alter the findings of our review, but fixed-effect analysis of All SSAEs showed an increased risk for bevacizumab (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, P value = 0.04; nine studies, 3665 participants): the meta-analysis was dominated by a single study (weight = 46.9%).The available evidence was sensitive to the exclusion of CATT or unpublished results. For All SSAEs, the exclusion of CATT moved the overall estimate towards no difference (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, P value = 0.92), while the exclusion of LUCAS yielded a larger RR, with more SSAEs in the bevacizumab group, largely driven by CATT (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, P value = 0.004). The exclusion of all unpublished studies produced a RR of 1.12 for death (95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, P value = 0.53) and a RR of 1.21 for SSAEs (95% CI 1.06 to 1.37, P value = 0.004), indicating a higher risk of SSAEs in those assigned to bevacizumab than ranibizumab. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of non-industry sponsored RCTs could not determine a difference between intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab for deaths, All SSAEs, or specific subsets of SSAEs in the first two years of treatment, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders. The current evidence is imprecise and might vary across levels of patient risks, but overall suggests that if a difference exists, it is likely to be small. Health policies for the utilisation of ranibizumab instead of bevacizumab as a routine intervention for neovascular AMD for reasons of systemic safety are not sustained by evidence. The main results and quality of evidence should be verified once all trials are fully published.

[Phosphate containing enemas: one undervalued risky practice? The management of an adverse event]. / Gli enteroclismi a base di fosfati: una pratica rischiosa sottovalutata? La gestione di un evento avverso.

INTRODUCTION: The phosphate-containing enemas are widely used, both to manage constipation and as a preparation for endoscopic procedures and surgery in adults and children. Many studies report that the use of these laxatives can be dangerous. OBJECTIVE: To identify possible prevention strategies starting from a severe adverse reaction due to repeated administrations of phosphate enemas. METHODS: A working group was started, the literature was reviewed and recommendations for an appropriate use of enemas were discussed and implemented, to improve patients' safety. RESULTS: Phosphate-containing enemas were replaced with 125 ml water enemas; recommendations were spread to strongly limit the use of phosphate containing enemas and the use of laxative in the first and second semester of 2012, were confronted showing a change in habits and a reduction in the use of phosphate containing enemas. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of several strategies, originated from an adverse event, succeeded in modifying the use of laxatives and phosphate-containing enemas.