Polypharmacy is a highly prevalent problem in older persons, and is challenging to assess and improve due to variations in definitions of the problem and the heterogeneous methods of medication review and reduction. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in geriatric oncology patients and to provide recommendations for assessment and management. Polypharmacy has somewhat variably been incorporated into geriatric assessment studies in geriatric oncology, and polypharmacy has not been consistently evaluated as a predictor of negative outcomes in patients with cancer. Once screened, interventions for polypharmacy are even more uncertain. There is a great need to create standardized interventions to improve polypharmacy in geriatrics, and particularly in geriatric oncology. The process of deprescribing is aimed at reducing medications for which real or potential harm outweighs benefit, and there are numerous methods to determine which medications are candidates for deprescribing. However, deprescribing approaches have not been evaluated in older patients with cancer. Ultimately, methods to identify polypharmacy will need to be clearly defined and validated, and interventions to improve medication use will need to be based on clearly defined and standardized methods.

Background Polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are highly prevalent in older adults with cancer. This study systematically reviews the associations of PP and/or PIM with outcomes and, through a meta‐analysis, obtains estimates of postoperative outcomes associated with PP in this population. Materials and Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials using standardized terms for concepts of PP, PIM, and cancer. Eligible studies included cohort studies, cross‐sectional studies, meta‐analyses, and clinical trials which examined outcomes associated with PP and/or PIM and included older adults with cancer. A random effects model included studies in which definitions of PP were consistent to examine the association of PP with postoperative complications. Results Forty‐seven articles met the inclusion criteria. PP was defined as five or more medications in 57% of the studies. Commonly examined outcomes included chemotherapy toxicities, postoperative complications, functional decline, hospitalization, and overall survival. PP was associated with chemotherapy toxicities (4/9 studies), falls (3/3 studies), functional decline (3/3 studies), and overall survival (2/11 studies). A meta‐analysis of four studies indicated an association between PP (≥5 medications) and postoperative complications (overall odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval [1.3–2.8]). PIM was associated with adverse outcomes in 3 of 11 studies. Conclusion PP is associated with postoperative complications, chemotherapy toxicities, and physical and functional decline. Only three studies showed an association between PIM and outcomes. However, because of inconsistent definitions, heterogeneous populations, and variable study designs, these associations should be further investigated in prospective studies. Implications for Practice Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are prevalent in older adults with cancer. This systematic review summarizes the associations of polypharmacy and PIM with health outcomes in older patients with cancer. Polypharmacy and PIM have been associated with postoperative complications, frailty, falls, medication nonadherence, chemotherapy toxicity, and mortality. These findings emphasize the prognostic importance of careful medication review and identification of PIM by oncology teams. They also underscore the need to develop and test interventions to address polypharmacy and PIM in older patients with cancer, with the goal of improving outcomes in these patients.

BACKGROUND:The concomitant use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is a significant concern because of potential drug-drug interaction that reduces TKI absorption, thus potentially reducing the effectiveness of TKIs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of concomitant TKI-PPI receipt and its impact on survival and therapy discontinuation in older adults with cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study used linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data for the years 2007 through 2012. In total, 12,538 patients with lung cancer, renal cell cancer, chronic myelogenous leukemia, liver cancer, or pancreatic cancer were included. The primary exposure variable was concomitant receipt of TKI-PPI, defined as at least 30 days of PPI use in the first 90 days from the start of the TKI (exposure period). The outcomes measured were overall survival and discontinuation of therapy in 90 days and 1 year after the end of the exposure period. Cox proportional-hazards regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to evaluate the association between exposure and outcome. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of TKI-PPI receipt was 22.7%. Predictors that were associated with increased use included polypharmacy and prior PPI receipt. TKI-PPI use decreased survival in 90 days (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.28) and in 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18) but was not associated with discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 4 older adults with cancer who receive TKIs also receive PPIs concomitantly, and concomitant use is associated with an increased risk of death. Concerted efforts to manage medications are needed to identify and reduce the receipt of PPIs when TKIs are initiated.

BackgroundWhile many new medications may offer advantages over existing drugs, some newer drugs are reformulations of existing products that provide little innovation or incremental benefit while driving up drug costs. Despite the lack of benefit of these medications, prescribers may be motivated by payments made by the pharmaceutical industry. The objective of the study was to determine the association between payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical industry and prescriptions for certain selected costly brand name drugs.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, retrospective study linking the Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File for 2014, including 667,278 physicians who prescribed one of 6 brand-name drugs with less costly but similarly effective alternatives: lovastatin ER, almotriptan, amlodipine+olmesartan, ibuprofen+famotidine, saxagliptin+metformin and naproxen+esomeprazole. The primary outcome was the odds of a physician prescribing one of the selected drugs, and the primary predictor was the receipt of any payment from the pharmaceutical industry.ResultsThe odds of prescribing 3 of the 6 drugs were increased among physicians who received industry payment, compared to those without payment: amlodipine+olmesartan, aOR 1.42, (95% CI 1.36–1.49); saxagliptin+metformin, aOR 1.50, (95% CI 1.42–1.59); and naproxen+esomeprazole, aOR 1.45, (95% CI 1.25–1.68). Payment from the manufacturer of the specific drug, compared to not receiving payment from the drug’s manufacturer, was associated with increased odds of prescribing 4 of the 6 drugs: amlodipine+olmesartan, aOR 2.40, (95% CI 2.29–2.52), ibuprofen+famotidine, aOR 8.06, (95% CI 5.42–12.00), saxagliptin+metformin, aOR 2.21, (95% CI 2.10–2.34) and naproxen+esomeprazole, aOR 5.96, (95% CI 5.08–7.00).ConclusionsA physician-industry financial relationship was associated with increased odds of prescribing costly brand-name drugs of uncertain medical benefit. Patients, as healthcare consumers, should demand transparency from their physicians about payment from the pharmaceutical industry to increase shared decision-making. Physician and policy makers need increased awareness and reflection on how industry payment influences their prescribing practices.

No abstract

Purpose Although oral chemotherapy offers advantages over intravenous chemotherapy, it creates a unique set of challenges. Potential barriers include treatment complexity, patient responsibility for medication adherence and monitoring, reduced healthcare contact, and increased financial burden. The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence of drug-related problems among a sample of patients treated with oral chemotherapy agents. Methods A single-center, retrospective chart review was conducted on patients prescribed oral chemotherapy at our institution between 1 January 2017 and 31 August 2017. The primary endpoint was the incidence of drug-related toxicities within 90 days of starting treatment. Secondary endpoints included incidence of drug-drug interactions, proportion of patients receiving medication education by a clinical pharmacist, and quantification of issues related to medication access. Results Charts of 100 patients were reviewed. Median time to oral chemotherapy receipt by the patient from the day the order was written was eight days. Prior to initiating therapy, 27% of patients received education by a clinical pharmacist. Toxicity checks were conducted by the provider at 30, 60, and 90 days for 80%, 65%, and 48% of patients, respectively. Treatment-related toxicities secondary to oral chemotherapy were reported by 79% of patients, with 55% classified as severe. Potential drug interactions were in 55% of the patients. Conclusion Data from this study have highlighted avenues for pharmacists to make an impact on patients newly started on oral chemotherapy. Opportunities exist to increase patient education, ensure appropriate follow-up, and assess adherence while preventing and managing treatment-related toxicities.

No abstract

Statins are the most effective and widely used drugs for treating dyslipidemia, a major risk factor for coronary heart disease. These are one of the safest hypolipidemic drugs but many patients are bound to discontinue statins due to their side effects. Hepatotoxicity, myotoxicity and peripheral neuropathy are important out of them. Discontinuation of statins leads to dylipidemia and its grave consequences. Hence, there should be enough strategies for statin intolerant patients, so that they can be saved from these consequences. These side effects can be avoided by the awareness of certain factors viz. potential drug interactions and dose adjustment according to patho-physiology of the patient. Baseline investigations for liver function and muscle toxicity should be done before initiating statin therapy. Here, we are discussing various options for statin intolerant hyperlipidemic patients such as lower and intermittent dosing of statins, alternate hypolipidemic drugs, red yeast rice, supplementation with coenzyme Q10 and vitamin D. A number of hypolipidemic drugs are in trial phases and hold promise for statin intolerant patients.