A guideline to assist in the de-escalation of inappropriate medications in palliative cancer patients was developed from current literature. The OncPal Deprescribing Guideline was successfully validated, demonstrating statistically significant concordance with an expert panel. We found that the incidence of PIMs was high in our patient group, demonstrating the potential benefits for the OncPal Deprescribing Guideline in clinical practice.

Objectives Cancer patients who have transitioned from curative intent chemotherapy or radiotherapy to palliative therapy have limited life expectancies. Due to this, medications for primary and secondary prevention or those with no short-term benefit are potentially inappropriate medicines in this patient group. These medications often have potentially harmful profiles, increasing the patient's adverse drug events, pill burden, and medication costs. This review evaluates the most current evidence to assess the outcomes and potential methods used for identifying and ceasing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in palliative cancer patients. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the databases Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, IPA, and CINAHL. Results Of the 51 articles examined in detail, three studies relating to cancer have been evaluated. In these retrospective and cross-sectional studies, the incidence of PIMs was shown in approximately 20 % of patients, although the studies were inconsistent. In addition, six studies were identified that demonstrated the evidence in other population groups; these studies have been selected to establish the evidence in large-scale retrospective studies, prospective cross-sectional studies, both demonstrating the prevalence of PIMs, as well as the outcomes of ceasing PIMs. Conclusion There is evidence that PIMs are commonly prescribed in palliative care patients. There are no studies that have identified the impact of ceasing PIMS in this setting. Published tools and implemented strategies have focused on the elderly populations. Further research is warranted in establishing clear guidelines for the identification of PIMs in palliative cancer patients as well as interventional studies assessing the outcomes of ceasing PIMs in these patients.

Antifungal prophylaxis can reduce morbidity and mortality from invasive fungal disease (IFD). However, its use needs to be optimised and appropriately targeted to patients at highest risk to derive the most benefit. In addition to established risks for IFD, considerable recent progress in the treatment of malignancies has resulted in the development of new 'at-risk' groups. The changing epidemiology of IFD and emergence of drug resistance continue to impact choice of prophylaxis, highlighting the importance of active surveillance and knowledge of local epidemiology. These guidelines aim to highlight emerging risk groups and review the evidence and limitations around new formulations of established agents and new antifungal drugs. It provides recommendations around use and choice of antifungal prophylaxis, discusses the potential impact of the changing epidemiology of IFD and emergence of drug resistance, and future directions for risk stratification to assist optimal management of highly vulnerable patients.

Purpose of review With the introduction of new targeted therapies for hematological malignancies comes the challenges of both assessing the risk of developing an IFD while being treated with these agents, as well as managing the drug--drug interactions between azole antifungals and the agents. Recent findings New targeted therapies for hematological malignancy include chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR T cells), Bi-specific T-cell Engager (BiTE) blinatumomab, and the antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) of calicheamicin inotuzumab ozogamicin for acute lymphoblasic leukemia (ALL) and lymphoma; the Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3Kδ) inhibitor idelalisib for lymphoma and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD); FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitors, such as midostaurin, sorafenib and gilteritinib for acute myeloid leukemia (AML); and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax for a range of hematological malignancies including lymphoma and leukemia. This review summarizes recommendations for IFD prophylaxis using these therapies and evidence for managing concomitant azole administration. Summary Whilst some evidence exists to guide IFD prophylaxis using new targeted therapies for hematological malignancies, there is an overall lack of descriptive, robust studies specifically describing IFD risk and management. With the emergence of novel agents, clinical judgment must be used to assess the risk of developing an IFD. Care must also be taken when administering azoles with drug--drug interactions, often requiring dose adjustment of the cancer therapies.

The use of the SUBA-itraconazole formulation was associated with more rapid attainment of therapeutic levels with less interpatient variability compared with conventional liquid itraconazole when used as IFI prophylaxis in allogeneic HSCT or intermediate-/high-IFI risk haematological malignancy patients.

The sulfotransferase (SULTs) catalyzes the sulfonation of a multitude of xenobiotics, hormones and neurotransmitters. This review has summarised the SULT family in detail, the structure of the twelve known enzymes, in their four known groups (SULT1, SULT2, SULT4, and SULT6) and the substrates for each respective SULT. Hepatic sulfonation is a common phase II metabolic mechanism for increasing molecular hydrophilicity in preparation for biliary excretion or efflux across the hepatic basolateral membrane for subsequent renal clearance. To date, a total of 13 human cytosolic SULT genes have been identified which spread across four families; SULT1, SULT2, SULT4, and SULT6. The established structures of SULTs provide evidence for both enzyme/substrate and enzyme/cofactor binary complexes, consistent with a random bi-bi mechanism and ruling out an ordered mechanism in which binding of substrate requires binding of cofactor (or vice versa). Members of the SULT1 family have demonstrated the ability to sulfonate simple (small planar) phenols including estradiol, thyroid hormones, environmental xenobiotics and drugs. The SULT2 family members catalyze sulfonation of hydroxyl groups of steroids, such as androsterone, allopregnanolone, and dehydroepiandrosterone. As yet, no known substrate or function has been identified for the SULT4 family, and the SULT6B1 gene, expressed in the testis of primates, has neither the protein nor its enzymatic activity characterized. The extent of nucleotide variation found in members of the SULT gene family is similar to that observed for other groups of human genes. Substrate inhibition was observed for most substrates with a trend in maximum velocity (V(max)) of *1>*3>*2. There does appear to be an inter-ethnic/inter-racial difference in the incidence of the various SULT1A1 alleles also. There is mounting evidence to suggest that further research and understanding in the area of phase II metabolism and the SULT enzyme will have a great benefit in a clinical setting. Already research in the field is finding links with cancer and sulfonation-related disease, promising to deliver great advances in clinical practice in the future.

To address the limited bioavailability and intolerance of the conventional itraconazole (ITZ) formulations, a new formulation labeled super bioavailability (SUBA) itraconazole has been developed; however, the specific effects of food and gastric pH are unknown. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetic profile of SUBA itraconazole under fasting and fed conditions, as well as with the concomitant administration of a proton pump inhibitor. First, the effect of food was assessed in an open-label, randomized, crossover bioavailability study of 65-mg SUBA itraconazole capsules (2 65-mg capsules twice a day) in healthy adults (n = 20) under fasting and fed conditions to steady-state levels. Second, an open-label, two-treatment, fixed-sequence comparative bioavailability study in healthy adults (n = 28) under fasted conditions compared the pharmacokinetics of a single oral dose of SUBA itraconazole capsules (2 65-mg capsules/day) with and without coadministration of daily omeprazole delayed-release capsules (1 40-mg capsule/day) under steady-state conditions. In the fed and fasted states, SUBA itraconazole demonstrated similar concentrations at the end of the dosing interval, with modestly lower total and peak ITZ exposure being shown when it was administered under fed conditions than when it was administered in the fasted state, with fed state/fasted state ratios of 78.09% (90% confidence interval [CI], 74.49 to 81.86%) for the area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (14,183.2 versus 18,479.8 ng · h/ml), 73.05% (90% CI, 69.01 to 77.33%) for the maximum concentration at steady state (1,519.1 versus 2,085.2 ng/ml), and 91.53% (90% CI, 86.41 to 96.96%) for the trough concentration (1,071.5 versus 1,218.5 ng/ml) being found. When dosed concomitantly with omeprazole, there was a 22% increase in the total plasma exposure of ITZ, as measured by the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (P = 0.0069), and a 31% increase in the peak plasma exposure of ITZ, as measured by the maximum concentration (P = 0.0083).

No abstract