Risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care of oncology patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms. / [Artículo traducido] Modelo de estratificación de riesgo de atención farmacéutica para pacientes oncológicos con neoplasias sólidas o hematológicas.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop of a risk stratification model for the pharmaceutical care (PC) of patients with solid or hematologic neoplasms who required antineoplastic agents or supportive treatments. METHOD: The risk stratification model was collaboratively developed by oncology pharmacists from the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH). It underwent refinement through three workshops and a pilot study. Variables were defined, grouped into four dimensions, and assigned relative weights. The pilot study collected and analyzed data from participating centers to determine priority levels and evaluate variable contributions. The study followed the Kaiser Permanente pyramid model, categorizing patients into three priority levels: Priority 1 (intensive PC, 90th percentile), Priority 2 (60th-90th percentiles), and Priority 3 (60th percentile). Cut-off points were determined based on this stratification. Participating centers recorded variables in an Excel sheet, calculating mean weight scores for each priority level and the total risk score. RESULTS: The participants agreed to complete a questionnaire that comprised 22 variables grouped into 4 dimensions: demographic (maximum score =11); social and health variables and cognitive and functional status (maximum = 19); clinical and health services utilization (maximum = 25); and treatment-related (maximum = 41). From the results of applying the model to the 199 patients enrolled, the cutoff points for categorization were 28 or more points for priority 1, 16 to 27 points for priority 2 and less than 16 for priority 3; more than 80% of the total score was based on the dimensions of 'clinical and health services utilization' and 'treatment-related'. Interventions based on the pharmaceutical care model were recommended for patients with solid or hematological neoplasms, according to their prioritization level. CONCLUSION: This stratification model enables the identification of cancer patients requiring a higher level of pharmaceutical care and facilitates the adjustment of care capacity. Validation of the model in a representative population is necessary to establish its effectiveness.

Real-world data of atezolizumab in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of atezolizumab for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (mUBC) report controversial efficacy data. Furthermore, real-world evidence about this use is limited. AIM: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of atezolizumab in a real-world population with mUBC, to explore effectiveness with regard to selected poor prognostic criteria such as performance status by Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group (ECOG), hemoglobin levels and liver metastases, and to determine the safety profile of atezolizumab. METHOD: Multicenter, retrospective real-world study including previously treated mUBC patients who received atezolizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Additionally, progression-free survival (PFS), best response reached and safety data were analyzed. A descriptive analysis was performed, while OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients (84.9% men, median age 69 years) were included. Median PFS was 4.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.6-6.0], and median OS was 20.0 months (95% CI 11.8-28.5), with an objective response rate of 28.1%. OS was higher for patients with ECOG 0-1 versus 2-3 [24.5 months (95% CI 14.5-34.6) vs. 5.2 (95% CI 4.4-6.0), p = 0.004]; and for patients without liver metastases [25.4 months (95% CI 16.2-34.6) vs. 6.4 months (95% CI 4.0-8.1), p = 0.006]. Regarding hemoglobin levels, no survival differences were detected. Adverse events were registered in 55.1% of patients. CONCLUSION: In a real-world population with previously treated mUBC, atezolizumab seems to provide clinically relevant benefit, which is even higher for patients with ECOG 0-1 and without liver metastases, with an acceptable safety profile.

Estudio observacional de la toxicidad con diferentes formulaciones de docetaxel en pacientes con cáncer de mama / Observational study of clinical toxicity with different formulations of docetaxel in breast cancer patients

OBJETIVO: Estudiar los excipientes e impurezas de los diferentes medicamentos comercializados de docetaxel y conocer la incidencia de los diversos eventos adversos derivados del uso de docetaxel y su repercusión clínica en pacientes con cáncer de mama en el contexto de adyuvancia o neoadyuvancia. MÉTODO: Estudio observacional, longitudinal, prospectivo y multicéntrico en 26 hospitales de Madrid, Cataluña, Andalucía y Comunidad Valenciana. Se caracterizaron las distintas formulaciones de docetaxel en cuanto a pH, cantidad de docetaxel e impurezas. Se evaluó la incidencia acumulada de eventos adversos de cualquier grado estratificados por tipo de medicamento, analizando las diferencias mediante el test de χ2.RESULTADOS: Se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las distintas formulaciones de docetaxel en cuanto a la incidencia acumulada por ciclo de: modificación de dosis, anemia, reacciones de hipersensibilidad y anafilaxia, neuropatía, toxicidad palmo-plantar y dermatológica, toxicidad ungueal y edema facial. La formulación con un menor contenido en impurezas presentó mejores resultados en modificación de dosis, visitas a urgencias, e incidencia de anemia y edema facial, pero peores en hospitalización, neutropenia febril, neuropatía motora y toxicidad palmo-plantar. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados muestran diferencias en la incidencia de los eventos adversos de los distintos medicamentos con docetaxel comercializados en nuestro país, con diferencias significativas entre ellos en algunas de las variables estudiadas. No se ha podido identificar un medicamento con un mejor perfil de toxicidad. Tampoco se ha podido establecer su relación con respecto a la composición de excipientes e impurezas

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the excipients and impurities contained in the various docetaxel products available on the market and find out whether they may be responsible for any of the different adverse events associated with the use of docetaxel in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. METHOD: This is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational, study carried in 26 hospitals in Madrid, Catalonia, Andalusia, and the Valencia Region. The different docetaxel formulations were characterized in terms of their pH, amount of the active ingredient and impurities. The cumulative incidence of adverse events of any grade was evaluated. Adverse events were stratified by drug type and differences were analyzed by means of a chi-square test. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the different docetaxel formulations in the cumulative per-cycle incidence of: dosage change, anemia, hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis, neuropathy, palmoplantar and dermal toxicity, ungual toxicity and facia edema. The formulation with the lowest content of impurities showed better results in terms of change of dosage, visits to the emergency room and incidence of anemia and facial edema. However, it was associated with poorer results regarding hospitalization, febrile neutropenia, motor neuropathy and palmoplantar toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study showed differences in the incidence of adverse events of the different docetaxel products available in Spain. Such differences were statistically significant for some of the variables analyzed. The study was not able to determine which of the products offered the best toxicity profile. Nor was it possible to establish a correlation with respect to the composition of excipients or the content of impurities

Observational study of clinical toxicity with different formulations of docetaxel in breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the excipients and impurities contained in the various docetaxel products available on the market and find out  whether they may be responsible for any of the different adverse events  associated with the use of docetaxel in patients with breast cancer  receiving adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. METHOD: This is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal observational, study carried in 26 hospitals in Madrid, Catalonia, Andalusia, and the Valencia Region. The different docetaxel formulations were  characterized in terms of their pH, amount of the active ingredient and  impurities. The cumulative incidence of adverse events of any grade was  evaluated. Adverse events were stratified by drug type and differences  were analyzed by means of a chi-square test. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found between the different docetaxel formulations in the cumulative per-cycle incidence of: dosage change, anemia, hypersensitivity reactions and  anaphylaxis, neuropathy, palmoplantar and dermal toxicity, ungual toxicity  and facial edema. The formulation with the lowest content of impurities  showed better results in terms of change of dosage, visits to the  emergency room and incidence of anemia and facial edema. However, it  was associated with poorer results regarding hospitalization, febrile  neutropenia, motor neuropathy and palmoplantar toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study showed differences in the incidence of adverse events of the different docetaxel products available in  Spain. Such differences were statistically significant for some of the  variables analyzed. The study was not able to determine which of the  products offered the best toxicity profile. Nor was it possible to establish a  correlation with respect to the composition of excipients or the content of  impurities.

Objetivo: Estudiar los excipientes e impurezas de los diferentes  medicamentos comercializados de docetaxel y conocer la incidencia de  los diversos eventos adversos derivados del uso de docetaxel y su  repercusión clínica en pacientes con cáncer de mama en el contexto de  adyuvancia o neoadyuvancia.Método: Estudio observacional, longitudinal, prospectivo y multicéntrico en 26 hospitales de Madrid, Cataluña, Andalucía y  Comunidad Valenciana. Se caracterizaron las distintas formulaciones de  docetaxel en cuanto a pH, cantidad de docetaxel e impurezas. Se evaluó  la incidencia acumulada de eventos adversos de cualquier grado  estratificados por tipo de medicamento, analizando las diferencias  mediante el test de χ2.Resultados: Se detectaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre las distintas formulaciones de docetaxel en cuanto a  la incidencia acumulada por ciclo de: modificación de dosis, anemia,  reacciones de hipersensibilidad y anafilaxia, neuropatía, toxicidad palmo- plantar y dermatológica, toxicidad ungueal y edema facial. La  formulación con un menor contenido en impurezas presentó mejores  resultados en modificación de dosis, visitas a urgencias, e incidencia de  anemia y edema facial, pero peores en hospitalización, neutropenia  febril, neuropatía motora y toxicidad palmo-plantar.Conclusiones: Los resultados muestran diferencias en la incidencia de  los eventos adversos de los distintos medicamentos con docetaxel comercializados en nuestro país, con diferencias significativas  entre ellos en algunas de las variables estudiadas. No se ha podido  identificar un medicamento con un mejor perfil de toxicidad. Tampoco se  ha podido establecer su relación con respecto a la composición de  excipientes e impurezas.

Encuesta de situación de la atención farmacéutica oncohematológica en España / Survey of oncohematological pharmaceutical care situation in Spain

Objetivo: Conocer la situación basal de las unidades de farmacia oncohematológica de los hospitales españoles para detectar ámbitos de mejora. Método: Se diseñó una encuesta acorde con los objetivos establecidos en el Plan Estratégico de Atención Farmacéutica al paciente oncohematológico del Grupo de Farmacia Oncológica de la Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (GEDEFO 2020). La encuesta se alojó en la página web de GEDEFO durante marzo y abril de 2017. Se recogieron datos de actividad del año 2016. Resultados: Respondieron la encuesta 95 hospitales. Un 76% disponían de un sistema de información integral de gestión del proceso farmacoterapéutico, encontrándose variabilidad en los procesos tecnológicos y organizativos. El farmacéutico oncohematológico lideraba la aplicación de los principios de medicina basada en la evidencia y de los resultados obtenidos en la práctica clínica habitual, y se comprobó que un 88% de los hospitales contaba con protocolos estandarizados. En cuanto a prácticas de seguridad, en un 83% de los hospitales el farmacéutico oncohematológico participaba activamente en el desarrollo y mantenimiento del programa de gestión de riesgos aplicado a la prevención de errores. La preparación estaba centralizada en un 89% de los hospitales. Se observó variabilidad en la atención farmacéutica en función de dónde se atendía al paciente. En el 92% de los hospitales existía farmacéutico de referencia para oncohematología, aunque con distintos niveles de capacitación. Las mayores deficiencias se observaron en los programas de formación y docencia. Un 53% de los farmacéuticos oncohematológicos había sido investigador en los últimos tres años. Conclusiones: Estos resultados marcan el punto de partida de las unidades de farmacia oncohematológicas españolas para el desarrollo de estrategias de mejora de la calidad de la atención farmacéutica ofrecida a los pacientes oncohematológicos liderado por GEDEFO, jefes de servicio y los propios farmacéuticos oncohematológicos

Objective: To learn about the baseline of Oncohematological Pharmacy Units in Spanish hospitals in order to identify areas for improvement. Method: A survey in line with the objectives set in GEDEFO 2020 Strategic Plan of Pharmaceutical Care for oncohematological patients was designed. The survey was hosted on GEDEFO's website during March and April 2017. Activity data for 2016 was collected. Results: A total of 95 hospitals responded to the survey. Out of which, 76% had an integrated information system of pharmacotherapeutic process management, where a variability in technological and organizational processes were found. The oncohematological pharmacist led the implementation of the principles of medicine, based on evidence and results obtained in routine clinical practice. It was shown that 88% of hospitals had standardized protocols. As for safety practices, in 83% of hospitals, oncohematological pharmacists actively participated in the development and maintenance of risk management program, implemented to prevent errors. Preparation was centralized in 89% of hospitals. Variability was observed in pharmaceutical care depending on where the patient was attended. In 92% of hospitals, pharmacists served as reference for Oncohematology, although with different levels of training. Major deficiencies were observed in training programs and teaching. Of all oncohematological pharmacists, 53% had been a researcher over the past three years. Conclusions: These results mark the starting point for Spanish Oncohematological Pharmacy Units to develop strategies for improving the quality of pharmaceutical care offered to oncohematological patients and led by GEDEFO, heads of service, and oncohematological patients themselves

Survey of oncohematological pharmaceutical care situation in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To learn about the baseline of Oncohematological Pharmacy Units in Spanish hospitals in order to identify areas for  improvement. METHOD: A survey in line with the objectives set in GEDEFO 2020  Strategic Plan of Pharmaceutical Care for oncohematological patients  was designed. The survey was hosted on GEDEFO's website during  March and April 2017. Activity data for 2016 was collected. Results: A total of 95 hospitals responded to the survey. Out of which, 76% had an integrated information system of  pharmacotherapeutic process management, where a variability in  technological and organizational processes were found. The  oncohematological pharmacist led the implementation of the principles  of medicine, based on evidence and results obtained in routine clinical  practice. It was shown that 88% of hospitals had standardized  protocols. As for safety practices, in 83% of hospitals,  oncohematological pharmacists actively participated in the development  and maintenance of risk management program, implemented to prevent  errors. Preparation was centralized in 89% of hospitals. Variability was observed in pharmaceutical care depending on  where the patient was attended. In 92% of hospitals, pharmacists  served as reference for Oncohematology, although with different levels  of training. Major deficiencies were observed in training programs and  teaching. Of all oncohematological pharmacists, 53% had been a  researcher over the past three years. CONCLUSIONS: These results mark the starting point for Spanish  Oncohematological Pharmacy Units to develop strategies for improving  the quality of pharmaceutical care offered to oncohematological patients  and led by GEDEFO, heads of service, and oncohematological  patients themselves.

Objetivo: Conocer la situación basal de las unidades de farmacia  oncohematológica de los hospitales españoles para detectar ámbitos de  mejora.Método: Se diseñó una encuesta acorde con los objetivos establecidos en el Plan Estratégico de Atención Farmacéutica al paciente  oncohematológico del Grupo de Farmacia Oncológica de la  Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria (GEDEFO 2020). La  encuesta se alojó en la página web de GEDEFO durante marzo y abril de  2017. Se recogieron datos de actividad del año 2016.Resultados: Respondieron la encuesta 95 hospitales. Un 76%  disponían de un sistema de información integral de gestión del proceso farmacoterapéutico, encontrándose variabilidad en los procesos  tecnológicos y organizativos. El farmacéutico oncohematológico lideraba  la aplicación de los principios de medicina basada en la evidencia y de  los resultados obtenidos en la práctica clínica habitual, y se comprobó  que un 88% de los hospitales contaba con protocolos estandarizados. En  cuanto a prácticas de seguridad, en un 83% de los hospitales el  farmacéutico oncohematológico participaba activamente en el desarrollo  y mantenimiento del programa de gestión de riesgos  aplicado a la prevención de errores. La preparación estaba centralizada  en un 89% de los hospitales. Se observó variabilidad en la atención  farmacéutica en función de dónde se atendía al paciente. En el 92% de  los hospitales existía farmacéutico  de referencia para oncohematología,  aunque con distintos niveles de capacitación. Las mayores deficiencias  se observaron en los programas de formación y docencia. Un 53% de  los farmacéuticos oncohematológicos había sido investigador en los  últimos tres años.Conclusiones: Estos resultados marcan el punto de partida de las  unidades de farmacia oncohematológicas españolas para el desarrollo de estrategias de mejora de la calidad de la atención farmacéutica ofrecida a los pacientes oncohematológicos liderado por GEDEFO, jefes de  servicio y los propios farmacéuticos oncohematológicos.

A multicentre observational study of the effectiveness, safety and economic impact of nivolumab on non-small-cell lung cancer in real clinical practice.

Background Immunotherapy has become a standard treatment for lung cancer; however, the high cost makes it necessary to assess health outcomes. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and economic cost of nivolumab in real-world clinical practice. Setting Fifteen regional and academic hospitals from Spain participated in this study. Methods This study was a retrospective, multicentre and observational study involving patients who experienced progression after first-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer and were treated with nivolumab between January 2016 and July 2017. Effectiveness and safety were evaluated by the oncologist, and the data from the electronic clinical records of the patients were collected by the research team. Economic cost was calculated using the cost of acquiring nivolumab for the public health system. Main outcome measures Effectiveness variables were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The safety variable was the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and the cost per life-year gained (LYG) was the economic variable. Results A total of 221 patients were enrolled (83.7% men). The mean age was 64.5 years, and 84.6% of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score of 0-1. Squamous tumours accounted for 59.7% of the total, and 78.7% of the patients presented a time since platinum therapy (TPT) > 6 months. The mean nivolumab dose was 216 mg (SD 211), and the treatment duration was 7.0 months (95% CI 5.8-8.1). The median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI 3.2-7.3), and OS was 9.7 months (95% CI 7.6-11.8). The median PFS and OS values were statistically significantly superior for patients with an ECOG score of 0-1 and for patients with a TPT > 6 months. The median OS was also statistically significantly superior for patients with non-squamous histology. Regarding safety, 71% of the patients presented AEs of any grade, and in 18.6%, the nivolumab treatment had to be delayed or discontinued. The cost of nivolumab per patient was €19,910.00 (SD 19,369), and the cost per LYG was €110,026.00 (€77,557.00-€231,171.00). Conclusions This study confirms that the efficacy and safety of nivolumab treatment in a real population are comparable to the results obtained in clinical trials. A greater clinical benefit of nivolumab therapy was observed in patients with an ECOG score of 0-1, a TPT > 6 months or non-squamous histology. Despite the benefit observed, the cost per LYG is above the threshold of efficiency established by public health institutes.

Off-label antineoplastic drugs. An effectiveness and safety study / Efectividad y seguridad de los medicamentos antineoplásicos en situaciones especiales de uso

Objective: The use of antineoplastic medicines in special situations is common in clinical practice; it is strongly regulated and there is little information on its outcomes. We have analysed such use and health outcomes. Methods: All off-label cases between 2005 and 2015, with any type of cancer and in any stage were included. Health histories of a single health centre were reviewed to gather information on treatment features, response, survival, and toxicity. Results: 85 men and 83 women, aged 56, had largely metastatic tumours treated with a median of 4 cycles (0-118) of chemotherapy, hormone therapy, or biotherapy, for palliative purposes between 1st and 4th lines (80% of cases). The subjective response rate was 32.5%, complete objective 1.9%, partial 8.8%, stabilisation 15.6%, progression 38.8%, and not assessable 35.1%. The median duration of response was 2.5 months (1-17), progression-free survival (PFS) 5 months (4 - 21.3), and overall survival (OS) 11 months (9.2-20.6). In the univariate analysis, performance status, treatment line, number of cycles, and type of response influenced on OS. In the multivariate model, the functional status (HR 0.36; CI 95% 0.17-0.77. P= 0.009) and number of cycles (HR 3.66; CI 95% 2.08-6.44. P= 0.0001) influenced independently on overall survival. The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicity were asthenia (19%), neutropenia (10.7%), and nausea and vomiting (8.9%). Conclusions: Off-label antineoplastic drugs were mostly used in metastatic tumours, with little effectiveness. The functional status must be considered to select the patients to be treated (AU)

Objetivos: El uso de medicamentos antineoplásicos en situaciones especiales es común en la práctica clínica, está fuertemente regulado y hay poca información sobre sus resultados. Hemos analizado su empleo y los resultados en salud. Método: Se analiza una cohorte de todos los casos off label entre 2005 y 2015, en cualquier cáncer y estadio. Se revisaron historias de salud de un centro para extraer información sobre tratamiento, respuesta, supervivencia y toxicidad. Resultados: 85 hombres y 83 mujeres, de 56 años de mediana de edad, tenían mayoritariamente tumores metastásicos tratados con una mediana de 4 ciclos (0-118) de quimioterapia, hormonoterapia o bioterapia, con finalidad paliativa entre 1.ª y 4.ª línea (80% de casos). La tasa de respuesta subjetiva fue 32,5%, objetiva completa 1,9%, parcial 8,8%, estabilización 15,6%, progresión 38,8% y no valorable 35,1%. La mediana de duración de la respuesta fue 2,5 meses (1-17), de supervivencia libre de progresión (SLE) 5 meses (4 - 21,3) y global (SG) 11 meses (9,2-20,6). En el análisis univariante, el estado funcional, la línea de tratamiento, el número de ciclos y el tipo de respuesta influyeron en la SG. En el modelo multivariante, el estado funcional (HR 0,36; IC 95% 0,17-0,77. P= 0,009) y el número de ciclos (HR 3,66; IC 95% 2,08-6,44. P= 0,0001) influían de forma independiente en la SG. La toxicidad grado 3 y 4 más frecuente fue la astenia (19%), la neutropenia (10,7%) y la emesis (8,9%). Conclusiones: Los medicamentes antineoplásicos en situaciones especiales de uso se emplearon mayoritariamente en tumores metastásicos, con poca efectividad. El estado funcional debe ser tenido en cuenta para seleccionar los pacientes a tratar (AU)

Off-label antineoplastic drugs. An effectiveness and safety study.

OBJECTIVE: The use of antineoplastic medicines in special situations is common in clinical practice; it is strongly regulated and there is little information on its outcomes. We have analysed such use and health outcomes. METHODS: All off-label cases between 2005 and 2015, with any type of cancer and in any stage were included. Health histories of a single health centre were reviewed to gather information on treatment features, response, survival, andtoxicity. RESULTS: 85 men and 83 women, aged 56, had largely metastatic tumours treated with a median of 4 cycles (0-118) of chemotherapy, hormone therapy, or biotherapy, for palliative purposes between 1st and 4th lines (80% of cases). The subjective response rate was 32.5%, complete objective 1.9%, partial 8.8%, stabilisation 15.6%, progression 38.8%, and not assessable 35.1%. The median duration of response was 2.5 months (1-17), progression-free survival (PFS) 5 months (4 - 21.3), and overall survival (OS) 11 months (9.2-20.6). In the univariate analysis, performance status, treatment line, number of cycles, and type of response influenced on OS. In the multivariate model, the functional status (HR 0.36; CI 95% 0.17-0.77. P= 0.009) and number of cycles (HR 3.66; CI 95% 2.08-6.44. P= 0.0001) influenced independently on overall survival. The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicity were asthenia (19%), neutropenia (10.7%), and nausea and vomiting (8.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Off-label antineoplastic drugs were mostly used in metastatic tumours, with little effectiveness. The functional status must be considered to select the patients to be treated.

Objetivos: El uso de medicamentos antineoplásicos en situaciones especiales es común en la práctica clínica, está fuertemente regulado y hay poca información sobre sus resultados. Hemos analizado su empleo y los resultados en salud.Método: Se analiza una cohorte de todos los casos off label entre 2005 y 2015, en cualquier cáncer y estadio. Se revisaron historias de salud de un centro para extraer información sobre tratamiento, respuesta, supervivencia y toxicidad.Resultados: 85 hombres y 83 mujeres, de 56 años de mediana de edad, tenían mayoritariamente tumores metastásicos tratados con una mediana de 4 ciclos (0-118) de quimioterapia, hormonoterapia o bioterapia, con finalidad paliativa entre 1.ª y 4.ª línea (80% de casos). La tasa de respuesta subjetiva fue 32,5%, objetiva completa 1,9%, parcial 8,8%, estabilización 15,6%, progresión 38,8% y no valorable 35,1%. La mediana de duración de la respuesta fue 2,5 meses (1-17), de supervivencia libre de progresión (SLE) 5 meses (4 ­ 21,3) y global (SG) 11 meses (9,2-20,6). En el análisis univariante, el estado funcional, la línea de tratamiento, el número de ciclos y el tipo de respuesta influyeron en la SG. En el modelo multivariante, el estado funcional (HR 0,36; IC 95% 0,17- 0,77. P= 0,009) y el número de ciclos (HR 3,66; IC 95% 2,08-6,44. P= 0,0001) influían de forma independiente en la SG. La toxicidad grado 3 y 4 más frecuente fue la astenia (19%), la neutropenia (10,7%) y la emesis (8,9%).Conclusiones: Los medicamentes antineoplásicos en situaciones especiales de uso se emplearon mayoritariamente en tumores metastásicos, con poca efectividad. El estado funcional debe ser tenido en cuenta para seleccionar los pacientes a tratar.

Medication Reconciliation in Oncological Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation is considered to be an important strategy for increasing the safety of medication use. However, few studies have been carried out showing the effect of a medication reconciliation program on the incidence of reconciliation errors (REs) in oncological patients treated in the outpatient setting. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of a medication reconciliation program on the incidence of reconciliation error that reached the patient (RERP) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy as outpatients. METHODS: A randomized, prospective, controlled study was carried out to identify the proportion of patients with at least 1 RERP. Medication reconciliation (intervention group) was compared with standard practice (control group) in patients starting new chemotherapy and who were receiving at least 1 home medication before the start of chemotherapy. A prespecified analysis of factors capable of influencing the occurrence of RE in oncological patients was also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients were included (76 in the intervention group and 71 controls) in this study. There were 3 (4%) patients with RERP (primary endpoint) in the intervention group and 21 (30%) patients in the control group (relative risk [RR] = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04-0.43; P = 0.0009). The prespecified analysis of the effects of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG), Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and degree of poly-medication upon the number of patients with RE showed the Charlson Comorbidity Index to be unrelated to RE occurrence. However, the risk of RE was greater in patients with ECOG ≥ 2 (RR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.4-3.4; P = 0.018) and among patients with major poly-medication (RR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.52-4.09; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medication reconciliation results in a marked decrease in RERP in cancer patients. The factors that may influence RE occurrence in oncological patients have not been fully established, although parameters such as the degree of poly-medication and performance status may play a role. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors declare that they have no affiliations with or financial interests in any company, product, or service described in the manuscript. Study concept and design were contributed by Sierra-Sánchez, Martínez-Bautista, Baena-Cañada, and González-Carrascosa Vega. Martínez-Bautista, García-Martín, Suárez-Carrascosa, and González-Carrascosa Vega collected the data, which was interpreted by Sierra-Sánchez, Martínez-Bautista, Baena-Cañada, and González-Carrascosa Vega. The manuscript was written by Sierra-Sánchez and González-Carrascosa Vega and revised by Sierra-Sánchez, Martínez-Bautista, Baena-Cañada, and González-Carrascosa Vega.

[Off-label use of oncology drugs: national survey results]. / Uso de medicamentos fuera de ficha la técnica en oncohematología: resultado de una encuesta nacional.

PURPOSE: identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments. METHODS: a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year. RESULTS: in 42.1% of the hospitals it's needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department's report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT. CONCLUSIONS: there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval.

Objetivo: identificar mediante una encuesta los tratamientos fuera de la ficha tecnica (FFT) que mas frecuentemente se utilizan en el area de oncohematologia. Conocer los procedimientos y criterios que se han establecido para autorizar estos tratamientos. Método: se diseno una encuesta con cuatro secciones: 1) datos demograficos y de actividad del hospital, 2) procedimiento de utilizacion de medicamentos FFT, 3) criterios de aprobacion y 4) tratamientos oncologicos FFT tramitados durante el ano anterior. Resultados: en el 42,1% de los centros la proporcion en la que es necesaria autorizacion previa a la dispensacion es mayor del 80%. El factor mas importante que influye en el circuito de autorizacion-dispensacion de estos farmacos es la evidencia disponible. El procedimiento de autorizacion mas habitual es la autorizacion de la direccion del hospital previo informe del servicio de farmacia. En un 55,3% de los hospitales se han establecido criterios especificos del paciente que ayudan a la toma de decisiones, junto con los aspectos de eficacia y seguridad de los farmacos en la indicacion solicitada. En la mayoria de los centros se acepta un menor nivel de evidencia en el caso de que no existan alternativas terapeuticas, asi como en los tumores de baja prevalencia. La mayor parte de los centros no tienen claramente establecido un criterio de eficacia para considerar un beneficio como clinicamente relevante, y tampoco el umbral coste-eficacia para aprobar un FFT. Conclusiones: existe una gran variabilidad en el procedimiento de utilizacion de los FFT y en los criterios que se utilizan para su aprobacion.

Uso de medicamentos fuera de ficha la técnica en oncohematología: resultado de una encuesta nacional / Off-label use of oncology drugs: national survey results

Objetivo: identificar mediante una encuesta los tratamientos fuera de la ficha técnica (FFT) que más frecuentemente se utilizan en el área de oncohematología. Conocer los procedimientos y criterios que se han establecido para autorizar estos tratamientos. Método: se diseñó una encuesta con cuatro secciones: 1) datos demográficos y de actividad del hospital, 2) procedimiento de utilización de medicamentos FFT, 3) criterios de aprobación y 4) tratamientos oncológicos FFT tramitados durante el año anterior. Resultados: en el 42,1% de los centros la proporción en la que es necesaria autorización previa a la dispensación es mayor del 80%. El factor más importante que influye en el circuito de autorización-dispensación de estos fármacos es la evidencia disponible. El procedimiento de autorización más habitual es la autorización de la dirección del hospital previo informe del servicio de farmacia. En un 55,3% de los hospitales se han establecido criterios específicos del paciente que ayudan a la toma de decisiones, junto con los aspectos de eficacia y seguridad de los fármacos en la indicación solicitada. En la mayoría de los centros se acepta un menor nivel de evidencia en el caso de que no existan alternativas terapéuticas, así como en los tumores de baja prevalencia. La mayor parte de los centros no tienen claramente establecido un criterio de eficacia para considerar un beneficio como clínicamente relevante, y tampoco el umbral coste-eficacia para aprobar un FFT. Conclusiones: existe una gran variabilidad en el procedimiento de utilización de los FFT y en los criterios que se utilizan para su aprobación (AU)

Purpose: identify by means of a survey the off-label treatments more often used in the oncohaematology area, as well as to know the established procedures and criteria used to authorise those treatments. Methods: a four-section survey was designed: 1) demographic data and hospital activity, 2) Off-label treatments protocol, 3) Approval criteria and 4) Off-label oncology treatments conducted during the last year. Results: in 42.1% of the hospitals it’s needed an authorisation before dispensing in more tan 80% of the treatments. The most influential factor in the approval-dispensation system is the available evidence. The consent of the hospital management with previous Pharmacy department’s report was the most common authorisation procedure. 55.3% of the hospitals settled specific patient criteria to help the decision-making altogether with the available safety and efficacy data of the drug for the requested indication. In most centers a lower level of evidence is accepted if there are no therapeutic alternatives as well as in tumors of low prevalence. Most of the centers have not clearly established a criterion of effectiveness to consider a benefit as clinically relevant, nor the cost-effectiveness threshold for approving a FFT. Conclusions: there is a great variability in the off-label treatments use and also in the criteria used for its approval (AU)

Manejo del dolor en el paciente oncológico pediátrico y factores que influyen en su percepción / Pain management in the pediatric oncological patient and factors influencing its perception

El dolor es una característica subjetiva que presentan muchos pacientes durante su estancia hospitalaria. La población pediátrica presenta unas características fisiológicas y psicológicas diferentes a la de los adultos, si a esto se le suma un proceso oncológico en el cuál son sometidos a numerosas experiencias dolorosas durante su diagnóstico y tratamiento, se hace de vital importancia un adecuado manejo del dolor. El objetivo del presente trabajo es revisar los principales factores que influyen en la percepción del dolor oncológico en el paciente pediátrico y las medidas, tanto farmacológicas no, que son necesarias tener en cuenta para un correcto manejo del dolor. Para ello se realizó una revisión de publicaciones científicas en la base de datos MEDLINE durante los últimos 25 años. Se concluye que la percepción del dolor oncológico en pediatría tiene una componente multifactorial, por otro lado, además de un uso adecuado de las medidas farmacológicas, las medidas no farmacológicas son muy importantes para el abordaje integral del dolor(AU)

Pain is a subjective characteristic found in many patients during their hospital stay. Pediatric population presents physiological and psychological characteristics different from those of the adults. Added to this, if a cancer process is present, for which they are subjected to numerous painful experiences during their diagnosis and treatment, adequate pain management is vital. The objective of this paper was to review the main factors that influence the perception of cancer pain in the pediatric patient and both non-pharmacological and pharmacological measures that are necessary to take into account for proper pain management. To this end, a literature review was made in MEDLINE database, which covered the scientific publications of the last 25 years. It can be concluded that oncological pain perception has a multifactoral component. Furthermore, in addition to appropriate use of pharmacologic measures, non-pharmacological actions are very important for a comprehensive approach to pain(AU)

Individualización de dosis en el paciente oncológico con insuficiencia hepática / Customization of doses in oncological patients with impaired hepatic function

Objetivo: determinar qué citostáticos requieren ajuste de dosis en pacientes con insuficiencia hepática. Métodos: se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed de toda la bibliografía publicada hasta julio de 2011 sobre dosificación de citostáticos en pacientes con función hepática alterada. Se procedió a su valoración según la clasificación de la Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Se sintetizó un índice de fuerza de la recomendación farmacoterapéutica, para lo que se asoció el grado de recomendación de la evidencia encontrada y el número de pacientes incluidos en los estudios encontrados. Se clasificó la recomendación para cada fármaco como de fuerza alta, media o baja. Resultados: se encontraron un total de 46 publicaciones con información sobre dosificación en pacientes con insuficiencia hepática para un total de 17 citostáticos. El 67 por ciento (n= 31) de las publicaciones fueron estudios de cohortes con un nivel de evidencia 2+. No pudieron establecerse recomendaciones de fuerza alta, pero sí de fuerza moderada (76 por ciento; 13 fármacos) y baja (24 por ciento; 4 fármacos). Conclusiones: aunque el nivel de la evidencia disponible fue bajo, podrían establecerse recomendaciones sobre la dosificación de citostáticos en pacientes con insuficiencia hepática para mejorar la seguridad en el uso de estos fármacos en el referido grupo de enfermos(AU)

Objective: to determine the cytostatic drugs requiring dose adjustment in patients with impaired hepatic function. Methods: aliterature review of all the papers about dosage of cytostatic drug in patients with impaired hepatic function published till July 2011 in Pubmed search was made. They were assessed as rated by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. An index of pharmacotherapy recommendation strength was developed, for which the grade of recommendation of the evidence found and the number of patients included in the studies were then correlated, ranking the strength of recommendation for each drug as high, medium or low. Results: atotal of 46 publications with information about dosing in liver failure were found for 17 cytostatic drugs. Sixty seven percent (n= 31) of the publications were cohort studies with a level of evidence 2+. High strength recommendations could not been established, but moderate strength (76 percent; 13 drugs) and low strength (24 percent; 4 drugs) recommendations were finally established. Conclusions: although level of evidence was low, dosage recommendations of cytostatic drugs to be used in liver failure patients were established to improve safety in the use of these drugs in the stated group of patients(AU)