Search

▪ Abstract Off-label medication use is common practice, particularly in difficult to treat patients who have already tried commonly accepted medication unsuccessfully. Health authorities try to regulate this practice to protect the patient's safety and to prevent over consumption of new and more expensive drugs. Justified off-label drug use requires a thorough assessment. Physicians, in cooperation with formulary committees, need tools to structure this assessment. The evaluation algorithm for off-label prescription we present here, to be used after identification of a planned off-label application, consists of four steps. Step 1 indicates the extent of the problem and the need for further investigation. Step 2 is the decisional process evaluating the necessity of off-label use in identified prescriptions and confirmation as to what extent it needs further investigation. In step 3, the scientific knowledge to support the proposed off-label use is gathered in a short or extensive evaluation trajectory. The short trajectory consists of assembling the information approved in other countries or in accepted guidelines and textbooks, whereas the extensive trajectory is necessary when the indication, route, or formulation is not approved nationally or internationally. Assessment needs to be based on a literature research on the clinical and pharmacological information of the product. Step 4 is the acceptance or rejection of the off-label use of the drug for the indication at hand. Those four steps need to be carefully documented. Treatment outcome will then be closely monitored, documented, and made available to professionals, thus allowing for regular update of recommendations. This algorithm can help formulary committees to develop a strategy for evaluating off-label prescriptions in well-defined conditions, and help healthcare providers to develop protocols and guidelines. ▪ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: CAR T-cell therapy became standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. However, their administration can be accompanied by toxicities, such as cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. It is important to identify patients at risk for these toxicities in order to start an early intervention in high-risk patients and guide outpatient CAR T-cell treatment. As a consequence, several easy-to-use risk scores including the EASIX and its derivatives were developed. However, in the available studies, disparities existed among the used endpoints and cutoff values, hampering the utility of these tools in practice. This study aims to validate these EASIX scores in a population-based cohort. This can be used to select the best predictive model and to further guide optimization of the proposed risk scores. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) can hamper the clinical benefit of CAR T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL). To assess the risk of CRS and ICANS, the endothelial activation and stress index (EASIX), the modified EASIX (m-EASIX), simplified EASIX (s-EASIX), and EASIX with CRP/ferritin (EASIX-F(C)) were proposed. This study validates these scores in a consecutive population-based cohort. Patients with r/r LBCL treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel were included (n = 154). EASIX scores were calculated at baseline, before lymphodepletion (pre-LD) and at CAR T-cell infusion. The EASIX and the s-EASIX at pre-LD were significantly associated with ICANS grade ≥ 2 (both p = 0.04), and the EASIX approached statistical significance at infusion (p = 0.05). However, the predictive performance was moderate, with area under the curves of 0.61–0.62. Validation of the EASIX-FC revealed that patients in the intermediate risk group had an increased risk of ICANS grade ≥ 2 compared to low-risk patients. No significant associations between EASIX scores and CRS/ICANS grade ≥ 3 were found. The (m-/s-) EASIX can be used to assess the risk of ICANS grade ≥ 2 in patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. However, due to the moderate performance of the scores, further optimization needs to be performed before broad implementation as a clinical tool, directing early intervention and guiding outpatient CAR T-cell treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: CAR T-cell therapy has emerged as the new standard of care for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), but real-world outcomes differ across countries. Additionally, real-world data on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) are scarce but important, as they reflect the direct experience of patients. In the Netherlands, patients can be referred to the CAR-T tumorboard, a national CAR-T expert panel, who decide whether CAR-T is a feasible treatment option. This multicenter study reports on the favorable outcomes, including the HR-QoL, of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for patients with R/R LBCL after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy in the Netherlands. On the other hand, we show that a substantial proportion of patients are still in need of alternative treatments, including improved CAR-T strategies, as they are unfit for or do not respond to axi-cel. Comparing real-world outcomes between cohorts could help to select best practices and further optimize CAR-T treatment. The real-world results of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) substantially differ across countries. In the Netherlands, the CAR-T tumorboard facilitates a unique nationwide infrastructure for referral, eligibility assessment and data collection. The aim of this study was to evaluate real-world outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in the Dutch population, including the thus-far underreported effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). All patients with R/R LBCL after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy referred for axi-cel treatment between May 2020–May 2022 were included (N = 250). Of the 160 apheresed patients, 145 patients received an axi-cel infusion. The main reason for ineligibility was rapidly progressive disease. The outcomes are better or at least comparable to other studies (best overall response rate: 84% (complete response: 66%); 12-month progression-free-survival rate and overall survival rate: 48% and 62%, respectively). The 12-month NRM was 5%, mainly caused by infections. Clinically meaningful improvement in several HR-QoL domains was observed from Month 9 onwards. Expert-directed patient selection can support effective and sustainable application of CAR-T treatment. Matched comparisons between cohorts will help to understand the differences in outcomes across countries and select best practices. Despite the favorable results, for a considerable proportion of patients with R/R LBCL there still is an unmet medical need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To analyze the organization of multidisciplinary care pathways such as colorectal cancer care, an instrument was developed based on a recently published framework that was earlier used in analyzing (monodisciplinary) specialist cataract care from a lean perspective. Methods: The instrument was constructed using semi-structured interviews and direct observation of the colorectal care process based on a Rapid Plant Assessment. Six lean aspects that were earlier established that highly impact process design, were investigated: operational focus, autonomous work cell, physical lay-out of resources, multi-skilled team, pull planning and non-value adding activities. To test reliability, clarity and face validity of the instrument, a pilot study was performed in eight Dutch hospitals. Results: In the pilot it proved feasible to apply the instrument and generate the intended information. The instrument consisted of 83 quantitative and 24 qualitative items. Examples of results show differences in operational focus, number of patient visits needed for diagnosis, numbers of staff involved with treatment, the implementation of protocols and utilization of one-stop-shops. Identification of waste and non-value adding activities may need further attention. Based on feedback from involved clinicians the face validity was acceptable and the results provided useful feedback- and benchmark data. The instrument proved to be reliable and valid for broader implementation in Dutch health care. The limited number of cases made statistical analysis not possible and further validation studies may shed better light on variation. Conclusions: This paper demonstrates the use of an instrument to analyze organizational characteristics in colorectal cancer care from a lean perspective. Wider use might help to identify best organizational practices for colorectal surgery. In larger series the instrument might be used for in-depth research into the relation between organization and patient outcomes. Although we found no reason to adapt the underlying framework, recommendations were made for further development to enable use in different tumor- and treatment modalities and in larger (international) samples that allow for more advanced statistical analysis. Waste from defective care or from wasted human potential will need further elaboration of the instrument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]