Introduction: L-carnosine has been found to have multimodal activity. Aim: The aim of this review was to find out the efficacy of Lcarnosine in patients with age-related diseases. Methods: Clinical studies evaluated the effect of L-carnosine on cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and neurodegenerative disorders were searched in electronic bibliographic databases. The protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314033). The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess all of the reports for risk of bias. RevMan 5.4 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Following the screening process, 14 papers were selected for systematic review, with 9 of them being qualified for meta-analysis. Many of the included studies showed that L-carnosine has potential therapeutic activity in age related diseases. Results from the meta-analysis showed that in diabetes mellitus, HbA1c [mean difference (MD) 95% CI = -1.25 (-2.49, -0.022); p = 0.05; p = 0.001; I 2 = 85%] and fasting blood sugar (FBS) [MD 95% CI = -12.44 (-22.44, -2.44); p = 0.01; p = 0.40; I 2 = 0%] and in neurodegenerative disorder, Wechsler Memory Scale Logical Memory 2 (WMS-LM2) [MD 95% CI = 1.34 (0.83, 1.85); p < 0.00001; p = 0.43; I 2 = 0%], showed statistically significant difference, favoring the L-carnosine group over the control group. While in neurodegenerative disorder, Alzheimer 's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS) [MD 95% CI = 0.98 (-1.55, -0.42); p = 0.0007; p = 0.86; I 2 = 0%] and Back Depression Inventory (BDI) [MD 95% CI = -1.12 (-1.87, -0.37); p = 0.003; p = 0.73; I 2 = 0%] showed statistically significant difference, favoring the control group over L-carnosine group. Conclusions: Clinical studies were conducted to manage chemotherapy induced toxicities and there are no clinical studies available for its anti-cancer use, and the current evidence does not support its use in the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Objective The study aims to examine the toxicity profile, pattern of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in geriatric cancer patients receiving metronomic chemotherapy. Patients and Methods Patients were followed after each cycle till 12 weeks. Haematological parameters such as complete blood count, liver function test and renal function test were recorded from the baseline to the final visit. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale was used to characterise the toxicity profile. ADRs that the patients had were documented and assessed for its causality, severity and preventability. The Lexicomp drug interaction checker was used to grade DDIs. Results Of 129 patients, according to CTCAE grading, haemoglobin indicated grade 1 toxicity, while other haematological parameters revealed no toxicity. Although there was a statistically significant difference in ALT, alkaline phosphate, serum creatinine and potassium ( p < 0.05), it was not clinically significant. A total of 226 ADRs were documented. Anaemia was the most frequently occurred ADR (14%) and Capecitabine caused the highest number of ADRs. Assessments of causality showed that the majority of cases are “possible” (63%). In evaluating the severity of ADRs, 99% ADRs were “mild” and 61% of ADRs were “probably” preventable. Upon assessing the DDIs, 82% of the prescriptions had “no known interaction”. Conclusion Metronomic chemotherapy in geriatric cancer patients exhibited grade 1 toxicity for haemoglobin. Anemia was the most common ADRs. The majority of cases were “possible” in causality, “mild” in severity, and “probably” preventable. The majority of the prescriptions have no known DDIs.

Purpose The goal of this study is to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) for elderly cancer patients receiving chemotherapy by implementing pharmaceutical care services. Methods In this interventional study, patients were followed after each cycle till 12 weeks. The MOATT-MASCC teaching tool was used to educate patients about their therapy. The outcome measures included the occurrences of any DRPs such as inappropriate medication dose, dosage form, route of administration, therapeutic duplication, failure of the patient to adhere to the medication regimen, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and drug–drug interactions (DDIs) and to resolve it. Results On 186 patients, there were 38% ADRs, 16% DDIs, 6% non-adherence to therapy, 4% medical conditions for which no medication was prescribed, and 1% therapeutic duplication and transcribing error was identified. A total of 226 ADRs were documented. Nausea and vomiting were the most frequently occurring ADRs (24%) and platinum compounds caused the highest number of ADRs. Assessments of causality showed that the majority of cases are ‘probable’ (50%). In evaluating the severity of ADRs, 53% of ADRs were ‘moderate’ and 51% of ADRs were ‘probably’ preventable. Upon assessing the DDIs, 35% of the prescriptions had ‘monitor therapy’. All of the DRPs, that were identified were notified to the treating oncologists and resolved without any disagreement. Conclusions Pharmaceutical care is essential for elderly cancer patients. Oncologists and pharmacists should work together to identify and manage DRPs as well as educate patients about their disease. This will help in improved patient care and a better therapeutic outcome.