Search

Purpose Daratumumab is the first anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody of the class approved for recurrent and refractory multiple myeloma. Grade 3 and 4 Infusion-Related Reactions (IRRs) are frequent during the first and second infusions. Due to the risks associated with severe IRRs, daratumumab is systematically administered over a period of 3.5 hours. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of a 90-minute daratumumab infusion from the third infusion. Patients and methods All patients who had received two or more doses of daratumumab in monotherapy or in combination with standard infusion rates were included. We excluded patients enrolled in clinical trials. For the rapid infusion protocol, 20% of the dose was administered over 30 minutes and the remaining 80% over 60 minutes. Results From April 1 to May 31, 2019, 25 patients received 53 90-minute infusions of daratumumab. Premedication included corticosteroids, antipyretics, antihistamines, and if necessary a leukotriene receptor antagonist. No grade 3 or grade 4 IRRs were observed. Conclusion From the third infusion, we found that a rapid administration of daratumumab (90 vs 210 minutes) was well tolerated and safe. It would be interesting to test this regimen from the second infusion.

International audience; Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer death. For unresectable intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, the standard treatment is transarterial chemoembolization. To date, the overall survival at three years remains low, and there is currently no consensus about the best anticancer agent and optimal treatment regimen. We report the case of a hepatocellular carcinoma patient with a vascular contraindication to embolization who achieved a complete response after four intra-arterial infusions of idarubicin emulsified with lipiodol. The patient maintained his response over a three-year period without any hepatocellular carcinoma treatment, demonstrating the major role of the anticancer agent in the efficacy of transarterial therapies for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background From 2017 a clinical pharmacy programme provides pharmaceutical interviews to patients of the outpatient oncology unit of the university hospital. At the end of each interview, patients receive a personalised pharmaceutical plan, including a summarised table of their medicines to help them manage drug intake and adverse events. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess patient satisfaction regarding pharmaceutical interviews, and aimed at improving the quality of our patient interviews. Material and methods The 80 consecutives patients who received a first pharmaceutical interview in the outpatient oncology unit between June and September 2018 were included. After the pharmaceutical interview and oral consent, patients completed an 8-item satisfaction questionnaire in the absence of the pharmacist. The questionnaire also included a free-text response section as well as a general assessment of the interview. The topics covered were: confidentiality, interview duration, professionalism, empathy and scientific knowledge of the pharmacist. The patients could choose between three answers: completely satisfied, somewhat satisfied and unsatisfied. The recorded responses for the general assessment varied from 1 (not satisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied). Results Regarding the environment of the interview, 97% of patients were satisfied with the duration, 90% were satisfied with confidentiality and 89% were satisfied with the location. Regarding the content of the interview, 99% of patients were satisfied with the pharmacist’s responses and 98% were satisfied with the personalised pharmaceutical plan. Ninety-four per cent were satisfied with the treatment explanations. In the free-text, the main points relayed by patients were: Key strengths: clear explanations, well–designed documents, quality of listening, answers to questions, availability, attention given to patients. Weak points: improve privacy, develop alternative medicines. Regarding the general assessment of patients’ satisfaction, 1% gave a score of 3/5, 30% gave a score of 4/5% and 69% gave a score of 5/5. Conclusion This study shows that the majority of patients were satisfied with the pharmaceutical interview. Another study is ongoing which assesses both the clinical and economical impacts of the pharmaceutical interventions carried out during these interviews. References and/or acknowledgements http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2014–000591 No conflict of interest.