RESUMO
Crizanlizumab, a monoclonal antibody against P-selectin, has been shown to reduce vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) compared to placebo in patients ≥ 16 years with sickle cell disease (SCD). However, there have been rare reports of patients experiencing severe pain and subsequent complications within 24 hours of crizanlizumab infusions. These events are defined as infusion-related reactions (IRRs). Informed by current literature and clinical experience, a group of content experts developed clinical guidelines for the management of IRRs in patients with SCD. We used the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) modified Delphi panel method, a valid, reproducible technique for achieving consensus. We present our recommendations for managing IRRs, which depend on patient characteristics including: prior history of IRRs to other monoclonal antibodies or medications, changes to crizanlizumab infusion rate and patient monitoring, pain severity relative to patient's typical SCD crises, and severe allergic symptoms. These recommendations outline how to evaluate and manage IRRs in patients receiving crizanlizumab. Future research should validate this guidance using clinical data and identify patients at risk for these IRRs.
Assuntos
Anemia Falciforme , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Técnica Delphi , Humanos , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Anemia Falciforme/tratamento farmacológico , Infusões Intravenosas , ConsensoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: No validated algorithm exists to identify patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) in healthcare claims data. We developed and tested the performance of a healthcare claims-based algorithm to identify patients with NMOSD. METHODS: Using medical record data of 101 adults with NMOSD, multiple sclerosis (MS), or myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibody-associated disease (MOGAD), we tested the sensitivity and specificity of claims-based algorithms developed through interviews with neurologists. We tested the best-performing algorithm's face validity using 2016-2019 data from IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases. Demographics and clinical characteristics were reported. RESULTS: Algorithm inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years and (≥1 NMO diagnosis [or ≥ 1 transverse myelitis (TM) and ≥ 1 optic neuritis (ON) diagnosis] and ≥ 1 NMOSD drug) or (≥2 NMO diagnoses ≥90 days apart). Exclusion criteria were MS diagnosis or use of MS-specific drug after last NMO diagnosis or NMOSD drug; sarcoidosis diagnosis after last NMO diagnosis; or use of ≥1 immune checkpoint inhibitor. In medical record billing data of 50 patients with NMOSD, 30 with MS, and 21 with MOGAD, the algorithm had 82.0% sensitivity and 70.6% specificity. When applied to healthcare claims data, demographic and clinical features of the identified cohort were similar to known demographics of NMOSD. CONCLUSIONS: This clinically derived algorithm performed well in medical records. When tested in healthcare claims, demographics and clinical characteristics were consistent with previous clinical findings. This algorithm will enable a more accurate estimation of NMOSD disease burden using insurance claims datasets.
Assuntos
Algoritmos , Neuromielite Óptica , Humanos , Neuromielite Óptica/diagnóstico , Neuromielite Óptica/epidemiologia , Feminino , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto , Idoso , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Bases de Dados Factuais , Adulto Jovem , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Esclerose Múltipla/diagnóstico , Esclerose Múltipla/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Hyperglycemia and rash are expected but challenging adverse events of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase inhibition (such as with alpelisib). Two modified Delphi panels were conducted to provide consensus recommendations for managing hyperglycemia and rash in patients taking alpelisib. Experts rated the appropriateness of interventions on a 1-to-9 scale; median scores and dispersion were used to classify the levels of agreement. Per the hyperglycemia panel, it is appropriate to start alpelisib in patients with HbA1c 6.5% (diabetes) to <8%, or at highest risk for developing hyperglycemia, if they have a pre-treatment endocrinology consult. Recommend prophylactic metformin in patients with baseline HbA1c 5.7% to 6.4%. Metformin is the preferred first-line anti-hyperglycemic agent. Per the rash panel, initiate prophylactic nonsedating H1 antihistamines in patients starting alpelisib. Nonsedating H1 antihistamines and topical steroids are the preferred initial management for rash. In addition to clinical trial evidence, these recommendations will help address gaps encountered in clinical practice.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical trials have shown improvement in progression-free survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) treated with combination poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) and novel hormonal therapy (NHT). Regulatory bodies in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan have recently approved this combination therapy for mPC. Common adverse events (AEs) include fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and anemia. Nuanced AE management guidance for these combinations is lacking. The panel objective was to develop expert consensus on AE management in patients with mPC treated with the combination PARPi + NHT. METHODS: The RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi Panel method was used. AEs were defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Twelve experts (seven medical oncologists, one advanced practice registered nurse, three urologists, and one patient advocate) reviewed the relevant literature; independently rated initial AE management options for the agent suspected of causing the AE for 419 patient scenarios on a 1-9 scale; discussed areas of agreement (AoAs) and disagreement (AoDs) at a March 2023 meeting; and repeated these ratings following the meeting. Second-round ratings formed the basis of guidelines. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: AoDs decreased from 41% to 21% between the first and second round ratings, with agreement on at least one management strategy for every AE. AoAs included the following: (1) continue therapy with symptomatic treatment for patients with mild AEs; (2) for moderate fatigue, recommend nonpharmacologic treatment, hold treatment temporarily, and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; (3) for severe nausea or any degree of vomiting where symptomatic treatment fails, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; and (4) for hemoglobin 7.1-8.0 g/dl and symptoms of anemia, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose after red blood cell transfusion. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This expert guidance can support management of AEs in patients with mPC receiving combination PARPi + NHT therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: A panel of experts developed guidelines for adverse event (AE) management in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated with a combination of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors and novel hormonal therapy. For mild AEs, continuation of cancer therapy along with symptomatic treatment is recommended. For moderate or severe AEs, cancer therapy should be stopped temporarily and restarted at the same or a reduced dose when AE resolves.
RESUMO
ABSTRACT: Severe aplastic anemia (SAA) is a rare hematologic condition for which there is no clear management algorithm. A panel of 11 experts on adult and pediatric aplastic anemia was assembled and, using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles modified Delphi panel method, evaluated >600 varying patient care scenarios to develop clinical recommendations for the initial and subsequent management of patients of all ages with SAA. Here, we present the panel's recommendations to rule out inherited bone marrow failure syndromes, on supportive care before and during first-line therapy, and on first-line (initial management) and second-line (subsequent management) therapy of acquired SAA, focusing on when transplant vs medical therapy is most appropriate. These recommendations represent the consensus of 11 experts informed by published literature and experience. They are intended only as general guidance for experienced clinicians who treat patients with SAA and are in no way intended to supersede individual physician and patient decision making. Current and future research should validate this consensus using clinical data. Once validated, we hope these expert panel recommendations will improve outcomes for patients with SAA.