Outpatient consolidation chemotherapy with intermediate dose cytarabine has similar survival and relapses rates in acute myeloid leukemia as compared to high dose cytarabine: A single center analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The last decade has seen advances in delivering outpatient consolidation therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The standard of care involves high-dose cytarabine or intermediate-dose cytarabine, given twice daily for three alternating days. At the London Regional Cancer Program, we have transitioned the administration of outpatient cytarabine to a once-daily regimen over six consecutive days. The outcomes of a longer duration interval of high-dose cytarabine and intermediate-dose cytarabine is currently unknown. This study aims to assess the feasibility of administering a continuous 6-day protocol of high-dose (HDAC-16) and intermediate-dose cytarabine (IDAC-16) consolidation therapy in the outpatient setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review to analyze AML patients treated with outpatient high-dose or intermediate-dose cytarabine consolidation therapy at the London Regional Cancer Program from January 1, 2019, through November 1, 2022. The primary objective was to determine the outcomes of the 6-day outpatient administration of once daily high-dose cytarabine or intermediate-dose cytarabine. RESULTS: Forty-five patients received 89 cycles of cytarabine as outpatients; males were 55.6% of the total population, with a median age of ~57 years. Our overall 2-year survival of HDAC-16 (57.1%) and IDAC-16 (83.3%) is consistent with the reported literature. There was no difference in delays, relapse rates, and nonrelapse mortality between both HDAC and IDAC groups. The 2-year relapse free survival was 57.1% for HDAC-16 and 66.7% for IDAC-16. CONCLUSION: Outpatient administration of intermediate-dose cytarabine once daily over six consecutive days results in similar overall survival and relapse rates as compared to high dose cytarabine consolidation chemotherapy. Moving to a once daily administration schedule can alleviate logistical and/or accessibility hurdles for outpatient oncology clinics. Prospective randomized trials are needed in this setting to validate our results.

Cost-effective analysis of preliminary single-operator cholangioscopy for management of difficult biliary stones.

Background and study aims Single-operator peroral cholangioscopy (SOC) is a therapeutic modality for difficult biliary stone disease. Given its high success rate and increasing availability, analysis of the economic impact of early SOC utilization is critical for clinical decision-making. Our aim is to compare the cost-effectiveness of different first and second-line endoscopic modalities for difficult-to-treat choledocholithiasis. Patients and methods A decision-tree model with a 1-year time horizon and a hypothetical cohort of 200 patients was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of SOC for first, second and third-line intervention in presumed difficult biliary stones. We adopted the perspective of a Canadian tertiary hospital, omitting recurrence rates associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Effectiveness estimates were obtained from updated meta-analyses. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess how changes in key parameters affected model conclusions. Results First- and second-line SOC achieved comparable clinical efficacy from 96.3 % to 97. 6 % stone clearance. The least expensive strategy is third-line SOC (SOC-3: $800,936). Performing SOC during the second ERCP was marginally more expensive (SOC-2: $ 816,584) but 9 % more effective. The strategy of first-line SOC incurred the highest hospital expenditures (SOC-1: $ 851,457) but decreased total procedures performed by 16.9 % when compared with SOC-2. Sensitivity analysis was robust in showing SOC-2 as the most optimal approach. Conclusions Second-line SOC was superior to first and third-line SOC for treatment of difficult biliary stones. When based on meta-analysis of non-heterogeneous trials, SOC-2 is more cost-effective and cost-efficient. Our study warrants a larger pragmatic effectiveness trial.

Lorazepam Versus Diazepam in the Management of Emergency Department Patients With Alcohol Withdrawal.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Alcohol withdrawal is a common emergency department (ED) presentation. Although benzodiazepines reduce symptoms of withdrawal, there is little ED-based evidence to assist clinicians in selecting appropriate pharmacotherapy. We compare lorazepam with diazepam for the management of alcohol withdrawal to assess 1-week ED and hospital-related outcomes. METHODS: From January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2018, at 3 urban EDs in Vancouver, Canada, we studied patients with a discharge diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal. We excluded individuals presenting with a seizure or an acute concurrent illness. We performed a structured chart review to ascertain demographics, ED treatments, and outcomes. Patients were stratified according to initial management with lorazepam versus diazepam. The primary outcome was hospital admission, and secondary outcomes included in-ED seizures and 1-week return visits for discharged patients. RESULTS: Of 1,055 patients who presented with acute alcohol withdrawal, 898 were treated with benzodiazepines. Median age was 47 years (interquartile range 37 to 56 years) and 73% were men. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. Overall, 69 of 394 patients (17.5%) receiving lorazepam were admitted to the hospital compared with 94 of 504 patients receiving diazepam (18.7%), a difference of 1.2% (95% confidence interval -4.2% to 6.3%). Seven patients (0.7%; 95% confidence interval 0.3% to 1.4%) had an in-ED seizure, but all seizures occurred before receipt of benzodiazepines. Among patients discharged home, 1-week return visits occurred for 78 of 325 (24.0%) who received lorazepam and 94 of 410 (23.2%) who received diazepam, a difference of 0.8% (95% confidence interval -5.3% to 7.1%). CONCLUSION: In our sample of ED patients with acute alcohol withdrawal, patients receiving lorazepam had an admission rate similar to that of those receiving diazepam. The few in-ED seizures occurred before medication administration. For discharged patients, the 1-week ED return visit rate of nearly 25% could warrant enhanced follow-up and community support.