RESUMEN
A 13-year-old male undergoing maintenance chemotherapy with methotrexate and 6-mercaptopurine (6MP), for very high-risk B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), presented with vomiting due to severe hypoglycemia with metabolic acidosis. While his laboratory values were concerning for a critically ill child, the patient was relatively well appearing. Hypoglycemia is a rare but serious side effect of 6MP with an unexpectedly variable presentation; therefore, a high index of suspicion is needed for its prompt detection and treatment. This patient also had severe metabolic acidosis, likely secondary to hypoglycemia, creating a serious clinical picture despite a well-appearing child. This example of incongruity between laboratory tests and clinical appearance adds nuance to the existing literature. Moreover, although 6MP-associated hypoglycemia is rare, it may be more prevalent than the literature suggests, as symptoms of hypoglycemia-nausea, vomiting, and somnolence-mirror common chemotherapy side effects. 6MP-induced hypoglycemia can be ameliorated with the addition of allopurinol to shunt metabolism in favor of the production of therapeutic metabolites over hepatotoxic metabolites. Additionally, a morning administration of 6MP and frequent snacks may also help to prevent hypoglycemia. Overall, this case adds to the literature of unusual reactions to 6MP including hypoglycemia in an older child without traditional risk factors.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Consent processes are critical for clinical care and research and may benefit from incorporating digital strategies. We compared an electronic informed consent (eIC) option to paper consent across four outcomes: (1) technology burden, (2) protocol comprehension, (3) participant agency (ability to self-advocate), and (4) completion of required document fields. METHODS: We assessed participant experience with eIC processes compared with traditional paper-based consenting using surveys and compared completeness of required fields, over 3 years (2019-2021). Participants who consented to a clinical trial at a large academic cancer center via paper or eIC were invited to either pre-COVID-19 pandemic survey 1 (technology burden) or intrapandemic survey 2 (comprehension and agency). Consent document completeness was assessed via electronic health records. RESULTS: On survey 1, 83% of participants (n = 777) indicated eIC was easy or very easy to use; discomfort with technology overall was not correlated with discomfort using eIC. For survey 2, eIC (n = 262) and paper consenters (n = 193) had similar comprehension scores. All participants responded favorably to at least five of six agency statements; however, eIC generated a higher proportion of positive free-text comments (P < .05), with themes such as thoroughness of the discussion and consenter professionalism. eIC use yielded no completeness errors across 235 consents versus 6.4% for paper (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that eIC when compared with paper (1) did not increase technology burden, (2) supported comparable comprehension, (3) upheld key elements of participant agency, and (4) increased completion of mandatory consent fields. The results support a broader call for organizations to offer eIC for clinical research discussions to enhance the overall participant experience and increase the completeness of the consent process.
