Search

Objective: To review the pharmacokinetic (PK)–pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles, disease setting, dosing, and safety of oral and parenteral hypomethylating agents (HMAs) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and to provide a multidisciplinary perspective on treatment selection and educational needs relating to HMA use. Data Sources: Clinical and real-world data for parenteral decitabine and azacitidine and two oral HMAs: decitabine–cedazuridine (DEC-C) for MDS and azacitidine (CC-486) for AML maintenance therapy. Data Summary: Differences in the PK–PD profiles of oral and parenteral HMA formulations have implications for their potential toxicities and planned use. Oral DEC-C (decitabine 35 mg and cedazuridine 100 mg) has demonstrated equivalent systemic area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) exposure to a 5-day regimen of intravenous (IV) decitabine 20 mg/m2 and showed no significant difference in PD. The AUC equivalence of oral DEC-C and IV decitabine means that these regimens can be treated interchangeably (but must not be substituted within a cycle). Oral azacitidine has a distinct PK–PD profile versus IV or subcutaneous azacitidine, and the formulations are not bioequivalent or interchangeable owing to differences in plasma time-course kinetics and exposures. Clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate oral HMA combinations and novel oral HMAs, such as NTX-301 and ASTX030. Conclusions: Treatment with oral HMAs has the potential to improve quality of life, treatment adherence, and disease outcomes versus parenteral HMAs. Better education of multidisciplinary teams on the factors affecting HMA treatment selection may help to improve treatment outcomes in patients with MDS or AML. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The primary objective of the study described here was to compare rates of patient adherence to anticancer medications filled at an internal health system specialty pharmacy (HSSP) vs external specialty pharmacies. The primary outcome was the medication possession ratio (MPR), and the secondary outcomes included proportion of days covered (PDC), and time to treatment (TTT). Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted to compare the MPR, PDC, and TTT for patients who received oral anticancer therapy using prescriptions claim data. A t test or Wilcoxon test was used to explore the effect of demographic and other factors on adherence and TTT. A multiple regression model with backward elimination was used to analyze significant factors to identify covariates significantly associated with the outcomes. Results Of the 300 patients screened for study inclusion, 204 patients whose records had complete MPR and PDC data and 164 whose records had TTT data were included in the analysis. There were significant between-group differences in mean MPR and mean PDC with patient use of the HSSP vs external pharmacies (1.00 vs 0.75 [ P < 0.001] and 0.95 vs 0.7 [ P < 0.001], respectively). Pharmacy type (P = 0.024) and tumor type (P = 0.048) were significantly associated with TTT. Conclusion The multiple regression analysis indicated that oncology patients who filled their anticancer medication precriptions at an internal HSSP at an academic medical center had significantly higher adherence, as measured by MPR and PDC, and quicker TTT than those who filled their prescriptions at an external specialty pharmacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]