Search

Objective: Palbociclib, a highly selective reversible CDK4-6 kinase inhibitor, is indicated in combination with an aromatase inhibitor or in combination with fulvestrant in women who had received prior endocrine treatment. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant in increasing progression-free survival in patients who relapsed or progressed on previous endocrine therapy, or in combination with aromatase inhibitor in patients who had not received previous treatments. We analysed the prescribing patterns of palbociclib in real practice correlating it with the evidence of treatment-related toxicity management and to time-to-treatment discontinuation and treatment adherence., Methods: For the observational, retrospective study, data were collected from five Italian hospital centres that prescribed palbociclib between April 2017 and April 2020. Each centre provided data derived from an administrative database of adult patients treated with palbociclib for the two therapeutic indications.Treatment adherence was calculated using the proportion of days covered method while time-to-treatment discontinuation was defined as the difference between the first and last date treatment was administered plus the days ideally covered by the last date treatment was given., Results: There were 375 patients enrolled during the study period, of whom 159 were treated with palbociclib and aromatase inhibitor and 216 were treated with palbociclib and fulvestrant. The time-to-treatment discontinuation was 8.9 months in the case of P + f (95% CI: 7.1-12.7) and 13.7 months in the case of P + ia (95% CI: 8.9-17.5). In both cohorts, treatments that received at least one dose reduction had a statistically higher time-to-treatment discontinuation than those without dose reduction (17.7 months vs. 9.2 and 16.6 vs. 7.4).The mean adherence in our study was 0.9 and remained high in treatments with one dose reduction (0.83) and this with two dose reductions (0.87)., Conclusion: Based on these findings, it appears that the management of toxicities through reducing doses, as required by the Summary of Product Characteristics, results in a better outcome in terms of therapy duration, and therefore time to failure due to progression or toxicity., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsPatrizia Vici: Speaker fee/advisory board (Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai); the other authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Background: The treatment options available to children with cancer are limited. This is why for more than 10 years, the European Medicine Agency (EMA) has stated that all drugs to be marketed must be tested on the paediatric population in accordance with the Paediatric Investigation Plan (PIP). The objective of this study is to make a cross sectional analysis of the information related to the use of cancer drugs authorised on the European market in the paediatric population., Method: The European Public Assessment Reports and PIPs have been considered. The following data were extracted for onco-haematological drugs approved since 2016: paediatric indications, information about the paediatric population in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and presence and characteristics of PIPs. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the drugs was made from the point of view of the paediatric population., Results: Forty-eight drugs with onco-haematological indications have been authorised for marketing since 2016, 7 (15%) of these have paediatric indications. Two (4%) drugs have no paediatric indication but have information related to the paediatric population within SmPC. Forty-one (85%) drugs have no reference to the paediatric population in SmPC. Seventeen (35%) drugs out of 48 do not have PIPs and 11 have been granted a waiver to present the results of paediatric studies. The other 19 active ingredients have a total of 28 PIPs., Conclusion and Relevance: Most of the onco-haematological drugs approved by EMA since 2016 have neither paediatric indications nor mentions about paediatric use in SmPC. PIPs represent an opportunity, but demand for the paediatric population is still huge.

Purpose: Our objective was to determine what vial sharing techniques and other strategies were being used globally to reduce wastage from partially used single-use drug vials, what barriers are preventing these strategies being employed, and what savings are being achieved., Methods: A survey, comprising 19 questions, was distributed to the membership of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and British Oncology Pharmacy Association. Questions asked included how parenteral cancer drugs are obtained and prepared, what vial sharing strategies are used, what means are employed to extend stability, how prepared products are reused and what cost savings are achieved., Results: In all, 74 responses were received from 20 countries, most from the United Kingdom. Some manufacturing is done by 60.8% of institution, with 41.9% making all products. Vial sharing strategies, for frequently used drugs, were employed in 53% of cases. Barriers preventing vial sharing being used included government legislation, USP 797 guidelines, and health insurance companies. Extension of stability was possible for 70.2% of centres. Most respondents reported reduction in cytotoxic and biological waste, and alleviation of drug shortages from vial sharing utilisation. Cost savings were achieved in 74% of cases and was significant in one third., Conclusions: The survey has determined that drug vial wastage and expenditure can be reduced, and vial sharing facilitates this. International collaboration plus the assistance of governments and the pharmaceutical industry is vital in achieving this aim. These findings can hopefully guide oncology pharmacy in establishing appropriate strategies to reduce wastage internationally.

Introduction: Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics., Materials and Methods: Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests., Results: We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS. Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.