Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in middle-aged and older populations. Ensuring the correct balance between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs is a significant challenge. Clinicians are tasked with ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications based on the best available evidence, and that medication use is optimised according to patients’ clinical needs (appropriate polypharmacy). Historically, polypharmacy has been viewed negatively because of the associated medication safety risks, such as drug interactions and adverse drug events. More recently, polypharmacy has been identified as a risk factor for under-prescribing, such that patients do not receive necessary medications and this can also pose risks to patients’ safety and well-being. The negative connotations that have long been associated with the term polypharmacy could potentially be acting as a driving factor for under-prescribing, whereby clinicians are reluctant to prescribe necessary medicines for patients who are already receiving ‘many’ medicines. It is now recognised that the prescribing of ‘many’ medicines can be entirely appropriate in patients with several chronic conditions and that the risks of adverse drug events that have been associated with polypharmacy may be greatly reduced when patients’ clinical context is taken into consideration. In this article, we outline the current perspectives on polypharmacy and make the case for adopting the term ‘appropriate polypharmacy’ in differentiating between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs. We also outline the inherent challenges in doing so and provide recommendations for future clinical practice and research.

Efficacy and safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for Phe508del CFTR by pulmonary function subgroup

Background Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy demonstrated clinical benefits inpatients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation.Pretreatment lung function is a confounding factor that potentially impacts the efficacyand safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy. Methods Two multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallelgroupPhase 3 studies randomised patients to receive placebo or lumacaftor (600 mgonce daily [qd] or 400 mg every 12 hours [q12h]) in combination with ivacaftor (250 mgq12h) for 24 weeks. Prespecified analyses of pooled efficacy and safety data by lungfunction, as measured by percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second(ppFEV1), were performed for patients with baseline ppFEV1 <40 (n=81) and ≥40(n=1016) and screening ppFEV1 <70 (n=730) and ≥70 (n=342). These studies wereregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01807923 and NCT01807949). Findings The studies were conducted from April 2013 through April 2014.Improvements in the primary endpoint, absolute change from baseline at week 24 inppFEV1, were observed with both lumacaftor/ivacaftor doses in the subgroup withbaseline ppFEV1 <40 (least-squares mean difference versus placebo was 3∙7 and 3.3percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h and lumacaftor 400mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙05] and in the subgroup with baselineppFEV1 ≥40 (3∙3 and 2∙8 percentage points, respectively [p<0∙001]). Similar absoluteimprovements versus placebo in ppFEV1 were observed in subgroups with screening 4ppFEV1 <70 (3∙3 and 3∙3 percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mgq12h and lumacaftor 400 mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙001]) and≥70 (3∙3 and 1∙9 percentage points, respectively [p=0.002] and [p=0∙079]). Increases inBMI and reduction in number of pulmonary exacerbation events were observed in bothLUM/IVA dose groups vs placebo across all lung function subgroups. Treatment wasgenerally well tolerated, although the incidence of some respiratory adverse events washigher with active treatment than with placebo. Interpretation Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy benefits patients homozygousfor Phe508del CFTR who have varying degrees of lung function impairment. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Efficacy and Safety of Radium-223 Dichloride in Symptomatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients With or Without Baseline Opioid Use From the Phase 3 ALSYMPCA Trial

Background: The phase 3 ALSYMPCA trial enrolled metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with or without baseline opioid use.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) versus placebo in ALSYMPCA patients by baseline opioid use.

Design, setting, and participants: Nine hundred and twenty one patients enrolled at 136 centers globally.

Intervention: Radium-223 (50 kBq/kg, intravenous injection) every 4 wk for six cycles or matching placebo, each plus best standard of care.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]), main secondary efficacy endpoints, and safety were evaluated by baseline opioid use. Additional analyses included time to first opioid use, time to first external beam radiation therapy for bone pain, and safety of concomitant external beam radiation therapy.

Results and limitations: At baseline, 408 (44%) patients had no pain and no analgesic use or mild pain with nonopioid therapy (World Health Organization ladder pain score 0–1 [nonopioid subgroup]), and 513 (56%) had moderate pain with occasional opioids or severe pain with regular daily opioids (World Health Organization ladder pain score 2–3 [opioid subgroup]). Radium-223 significantly prolonged OS versus placebo in nonopioid (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.93; p = 0.013) and opioid (HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54–0.86; p = 0.001) subgroups, and significantly reduced risk of symptomatic skeletal events versus placebo, regardless of baseline opioid use (nonopioid subgroup: HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39–0.82, p = 0.002; opioid subgroup: HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53–0.98, p = 0.038). Time to first opioid use for bone pain was significantly delayed with radium-223 versus placebo (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.46–0.85,p = 0.002). Adverse event incidences were similar between opioid subgroups.

Conclusions: Radium-223 versus placebo significantly prolonged OS and reduced symptomatic skeletal event risk with a favorable safety profile in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with symptomatic bone metastases, regardless of baseline opioid use.

Patient summary: In this ALSYMPCA opioid subgroup analysis, baseline symptom levels did not appear to impact radium-223 dichloride efficacy or safety.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.6-13.0) compared with 8.8 months (7.7-9.8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.76; p=0.013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥ 3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision in patients with high-risk rectal cancer (EXPERT-C).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

Radium-223 and concomitant therapies in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an international, early access, open-label, single-arm phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND: In the previously reported ALSYMPCA trial in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, overall survival was significantly longer in patients treated with radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) than in patients treated with placebo. In this study, we investigated safety and overall survival in radium-223 treated patients in an early access programme done after the ALSYMPCA study and before regulatory approval of radium-223.

METHODS: We did an international, prospective, interventional, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed progressive bone-predominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with two or more skeletal metastases on imaging (with no restriction as to whether they were symptomatic or asymptomatic; without visceral disease but lymph node metastases were allowed). Patients received intravenous injections of radium-223, 50 kBq/kg (current recommendation 55 kBq/kg after implementation of National Institute of Standards and Technology update on April 18, 2016) every 4 weeks for up to six injections. Other concomitant anticancer therapies were allowed. Primary endpoints were safety and overall survival. The safety and efficacy analyses were done on all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study has been completed, and we report the final analysis here. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01618370, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2012-000075-16.

FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013, 839 patients were enrolled from 113 sites in 14 countries. 696 patients received one or more doses of radium-223; 403 (58%) of these patients had all six planned injections. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 523 (75%) of 696 patients; any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events deemed to be related to treatment were reported in 281 (40%) patients. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia in 32 (5%) patients, thrombocytopenia in 15 (2%) patients, neutropenia in ten (1%) patients, and leucopenia in nine (1%) patients. Any grade of serious adverse events were reported in 243 (35%) patients. Median follow-up was 7·5 months (IQR 5-11) and 210 deaths were reported; median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI 13-not available [NA]). In an exploratory analysis of overall survival with predefined factors, median overall survival was longer for: patients with baseline alkaline phosphatase concentration less than the upper limit of normal (ULN; median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than for patients with an alkaline phosphatase concentration equal to or greater than the ULN (median 12 months, 11-15); patients with baseline haemoglobin levels 10 g/dL or greater (median 17 months, 14-NA) than for patients with haemoglobin levels less than 10 g/dL (median 10 months, 8-14); patients with a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 (median NA, 17 months-NA) than for patients with an ECOG PS of 1 (median 13 months, 11-NA) or an ECOG PS of 2 or more (median 7 months, 5-11); and for patients with no reported baseline pain (median NA, 16 months-NA) than for those with mild pain (median 14 months, 13-NA) or moderate-severe pain (median 11 months, 9-13). Median overall survival was also longer in patients who received radium-223 plus abiraterone, enzalutamide, or both (median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than in those who did not receive these agents (median 13 months, 12-16), and in patients who received radium-223 plus denosumab (median NA, 15 months-NA) than in patients who received radium-223 without denosumab (median 13 months, 12-NA).

INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that radium-223 can be safely combined with abiraterone or enzalutamide, which are now both part of the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Furthermore, our findings extend to patients who were asymptomatic at baseline, unlike those enrolled in the pivotal ALSYMPCA study. The findings of prolonged survival in patients treated with concomitant abiraterone, enzalutamide, or denosumab require confirmation in prospective randomised trials.

FUNDING: Pharmaceutical Division of Bayer.

Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use in patients with dementia: an underresearched problem

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are increasingly prevalent across healthcare systems and settings as global demographic trends shift towards increased proportions of older people in populations. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and have reported high prevalence of PIP across settings of care in Europe and North America and, as a consequence, increased risk of adverse drug reactions, healthcare utilisation, morbidity and mortality. These studies have not focused specifically on people with dementia, despite the high risk of adverse drug reactions and PIP in this patient cohort. This narrative review considers the evidence currently available in the area, including studies examining prevalence of PIP in older people with dementia, how appropriateness of prescribing is assessed, the medications most commonly implicated, the clinical consequences, and research priorities to optimise prescribing for this vulnerable patient group. Although there has been considerable research effort to develop criteria to assess medication appropriateness in older people in recent years, the majority of tools do not focus on people with dementia. Of the limited number of tools available, most focus on the advanced stages of dementia in which life-expectancy is limited. The development of tools to assess medication appropriateness in people with mild-to-moderate dementia or across the full spectrum of disease severity represents an important gap in the research literature and is beginning to attract research interest, with recent studies considering the medication regimen as a whole, or misprescribing, overprescribing or underprescribing of certain medications/medication classes including anticholinergics, psychotropics, antibiotics and analgesics. Further work is required in development and validation of criteria to assess prescribing appropriateness in this vulnerable patient population, to determine prevalence of PIP in large cohorts of people with the full spectrum of dementia variants and severities and to examine the impact of PIP on health outcomes.

A phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor, WX-554, in patients with advanced solid tumours

Purpose: We performed a multi-centre phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the orally available small molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor, WX-554, and to determine the optimal biological dose for subsequent trials.
Experimental design: Patients with treatment-refractory, advanced solid tumours, with adequate performance status and organ function were recruited to a dose-escalation study in a standard 3 + 3 design. The starting dose was 25 mg orally once weekly with toxicity, PK and PD guided dose-escalation with potential to explore alternative schedules.
Results: Forty-one patients with advanced solid tumours refractory to standard therapies and with adequate organ function were recruited in eight cohorts up to doses of 150 mg once weekly and 75 mg twice weekly. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during the study, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not established. The highest dose cohorts demonstrated sustained inhibition of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells following ex-vivo phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate stimulation. There was a decrease of 70 ± 26% in mean phosphorylated (p)ERK in C1 day 8 tumour biopsies when compared with pre-treatment tumour levels in the 75 mg twice a week cohort. Prolonged stable disease (>6 months) was seen in two patients, one with cervical cancer and one with ampullary carcinoma.
Conclusions: WX-554 was well tolerated, and an optimal biological dose was established for further investigation in either a once or twice weekly regimens. The recommended phase 2 dose is 75 mg twice weekly.

Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes.

Results

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.02, I2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53–3.10, I2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference −1.88 days, 95 % CI −0.12 to −3.64, I2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care.

Conclusions

In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.