Doxorubicin, doxorubicinol, cardiotoxicity, breast cancer, volumetric absorptive microsampling, LC-MS/MS.

<b>Background and Objective:</b> Doxorubicin is an anticancer therapy belonging to the anthracycline class, which has clinical activity in breast cancer. Doxorubicin can cause cardiotoxic effects due to the formation of doxorubicinol as its main metabolite. The purpose of this study was to obtain the optimum sample preparation conditions for the analysis of doxorubicin in VAMS and as a form of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in patients with cancer breasts. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Analyze doxorubicin and doxorubicinol levels with Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling (VAMS) in patients' cancer breasts receiving doxorubicin in their therapeutic regimen. The sample was analyzed using Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The method uses deep linear range concentrations of 8-200 ng/mL for doxorubicin and 3-100 ng/mL for doxorubicinol. <b>Results:</b> Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) value set at m/z 544.22>396.9 for doxorubicin; m/z 546.22>398.9 for doxorubicinol and m/z 528.5>362.95 for daunorubicin. The LLOQ value obtained was 8 ng/mL for doxorubicin and 3 ng/mL for doxorubicinol with linearity of 0.9904 for doxorubicin and 0.9902 for doxorubicinol. Analysis results show doxorubicin levels were in the range of 9.47 ng/mL to 87.84 ng/mL and doxorubicinol range between 4.24 and 54.02 ng/mL. <b>Conclusion:</b> Dosage cumulative doxorubicin ranges between 47.93 and 346.09 mg/m²; with this, the risk of cardiomyopathy in the patients surveyed is under 4%, according to the literature.

Adherence to metformin in adults with type 2 diabetes: a combined method approach.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence, one of the most important aspects in the process of optimal medicines use, is unfortunately still a major challenge in modern healthcare, and further research is required into how adherence can be assessed and optimised. The aim of this study was to use a combined method approach of self-report and dried blood spot (DBS) sampling coupled with population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) modelling, to assess adherence to metformin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes. Further aims were to assess metformin exposure levels in patients, determine factors associated with non-adherence with prescribed metformin, and to explore the relationship between adherence and therapeutic outcomes. METHODS: A combined method approach was used to evaluate metformin adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes who had been prescribed metformin for a minimum period of 6 months. Patients were recruited from consultant-led diabetic outpatient clinics at three hospitals in Northern Ireland, UK. Data collection involved self-reported questionnaires [Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS), Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale], direct measurement of metformin concentration in DBS samples, and researcher-led patient interviews. The DBS sampling approach was coupled with population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) modelling, which took account of patient characteristics, metformin dosage and type of formulation prescribed (immediate or sustained release). RESULTS: The proportion of patients considered to be adherent to their prescribed metformin, derived from self-reported MARS scores and metformin concentration in DBS samples, was 61.2% (74 out of 121 patients). The majority (n = 103, 85.1%) of recruited patients had metformin exposure levels that fell within the therapeutic range. However, 17 patients (14.1%) had low exposure to metformin and one patient (0.8%) had undetectable metformin level in their blood sample (non-exposure). Metformin self-administration and use of a purchased adherence pill box significantly increased the probability of a patient being classified as adherent based on logistic regression analysis. Both HbA1c and random glucose levels (representing poor glycaemic control) in the present research were, however, not statistically linked to non-adherence to metformin (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of participating patients were not fully adherent with their therapy. DBS sampling together with the use of a published PopPK model was a useful, novel, direct, objective approach to estimate levels of adherence in adult patients with type 2 diabetes (61.2%).

Potential of UK and US newspapers for shaping patients' knowledge and perceptions about antidiabetic medicines: a content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Information about how newspapers portray antidiabetic medicines to readers is lacking. This study investigated the reporting on antidiabetic medicines in the most widely circulated newspapers published in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) over a 10-year period. METHODS: The Nexis UK database was used to identify and select relevant articles. Systematic content analysis of the articles which met the inclusion criteria (articles of any format that contained reference to antidiabetic medicines) within the highest circulated newspapers in the UK and US between 2009 and 2018 was conducted. Inter-rater reliability of coding was established using a 10% sample of the identified articles. RESULTS: A total of 560 (369 UK and 191 US) relevant newspaper articles were retrieved. In the UK, the number of relevant articles showed a slightly increasing trend over the study period, while in the US, article numbers declined over the study period. Safety/risk of antidiabetic medicines was the most frequent theme covered by the articles (34.6%). Over one-third of the newspaper articles were written from a clinical perspective (37.7%). Insulin was the most commonly discussed class of antidiabetic medicine (23.1%). Control of blood sugar levels (53.1%) and side effects/toxicity (92.7%) were the most frequently reported benefit and risk of antidiabetic medicines, respectively. The most frequently reported organ systems harmed by antidiabetic medicines were the cardiovascular, endocrine and gastrointestinal systems. The UK newspapers were more likely to report the benefits of antidiabetic medicines (p = 0.005), while the US articles were more likely to report on harms/risks (p = 0.001). The majority of relevant articles (91.8%) were judged as having a balanced judgement, while 8.2% of the articles were rated as exaggerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study has revealed that antidiabetic medicines are indeed reported on by UK and US newspapers. As media portrayal has the potential to negatively or positively influence patients' views of their medication for diabetes, healthcare professionals should check on patients' beliefs and knowledge about their medication and proactively provide objective and balanced information (including promotion of medication adherence).

Clinical profile, treatment, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 in a tertiary referral hospital in South Sumatera, Indonesia: A retrospective single-center study.

Background: Although there are fewer COVID-19 cases in Indonesia, the pandemic is still ongoing. COVID-19 has a significant death rate in Indonesia, but lack of information on the effect of different clinical and demographic factors on COVID-19-related grimness and mortality in Indonesia. Objective: This study examined the clinical profile, treatment, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at Lahat Regency Hospital in South Sumatera, Indonesia, to find relevant markers that might be utilized to predict the prognosis of these patients. Methods: This was a retrospective single-center study of all medical record files of confirmed patients with COVID-19 admitted to Lahat Hospital from September 2020 to August 2021 (n = 285). Descriptive statistics, Chi-square, Mann-Whitney, Multiple Logistic Regression, and Cox's proportional hazards model were used for data analyses. Results: This study included 65 non-hospitalized and 220 hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients were divided into dead and alive groups. The median age was lower in the non-hospitalized group without gender discrimination, and most hospitalized patients had comorbidities. Vital signs and clinical features were significantly different in hospitalized patients compared to non-hospitalized. The survival patients in the hospitalized group showed lower white blood cell (WBC), neutrophil percentages, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) but higher lymphocyte and eosinophil. Non-survival patients had elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, blood glucose, and potassium. The use of Favipiravir and Remdesivir was significant between the alive and dead groups. The mean hospital stay for all patients was 9.49 ± 4.77 days, while the median duration of hospital time was 10.73 ± 4.33 days in the survival group and 5.39 ± 3.78 days in the non-survival group. Multiple logistic regression analysis determined respiration rate, WBC, and BUN as predictors of survival. Conclusions: Age and comorbidities are significant elements impacting the seriousness of COVID-19. Abnormal signs in laboratory markers can be used as early warning and prognostic signs to prevent severity and death. Potential biomarkers at various degrees in patients with COVID-19 may also aid healthcare professionals in providing precision medicine and nursing.

General practitioner practice-based pharmacist input to medicines optimisation in the UK: pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Changing demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs. RESULTS: Median number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017). CONCLUSION: The pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.