Targeted therapies such as Cyclin Dependent Kinase 4 and 6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors have improved the prognosis of metastatic hormone receptor (HR) positive breast cancer by combating the resistance seen with traditional endocrine therapy. The three approved agents currently in the market are palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib. Besides the overall similarities associated with CDK4/6 inhibition, there are differences between the three approved agents that may explain the differences noted in unique clinical scenarios- monotherapy, patients with brain metastases or use in the adjuvant setting. This review article will explore the preclinical and pharmacological differences between the three agents and help understand the benefits seen with these agents in certain subgroups of patients with metastatic HR positive breast cancer.

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a high-risk and aggressive malignancy characterized by the absence of estrogen receptors (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR) on the surface of malignant cells, and by the lack of overexpression of human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2). It has limited therapeutic options compared to other subtypes of breast cancer. There is now a growing body of evidence on the role of immunotherapy in TNBC, however much of the data from clinical trials is conflicting and thus, challenging for clinicians to integrate the data into clinical practice. Landmark phase III trials using immunotherapy in the early-stage neoadjuvant setting concluded that the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy improved the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate compared to chemotherapy with placebo while others found no significant improvement in pCR. Phase III trials have investigated the utility of immunotherapy in previously untreated metastatic TNBC, and these studies have similarly arrived at inconsistent conclusions. Some studies showed no benefit while others demonstrated a clinically significant improvement in overall survival in the PD-L1 positive population. It is not yet clear which biomarkers are most useful, and assays for these biomarkers have not been standardized. Given the often serious and severe side effects of immunotherapy, it is important and necessary to identify predictive biomarkers of response and resistance in order to enhance patient selection. In this review, we will discuss both the challenges of traditional biomarkers and the opportunities of emerging biomarkers for patient selection.

Introduction: Pharmacogenomic testing can indicate which drugs may have limited therapeutic action or lead to adverse effects, hence guiding rational and safe prescribing. However, in the UK and other countries, there are still significant barriers to implementation of testing in primary care. Objective: This systematic review presents the barriers and enablers to the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care setting. Materials & methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched through to July 2020 for studies that reported primary qualitative data of primary care professionals and patient views. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, data synthesis was undertaken using meta-aggregation based on the theoretical domain’s framework (TDF). Confidence in the synthesized findings relating to credibility and dependability was established using CONQual. Eligible papers were categorized into six TDF domains – knowledge; social and professional roles; behavioral regulation; beliefs and consequences; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Results: From 1669 citations, eighteen eligible studies were identified across seven countries, with a sample size of 504 participants including both primary care professionals and patients. From the data, 15 synthesized statements, all with moderate CONQual rating emerged. These categories range from knowledge, awareness among Primary Care Physicians and patients, professional relationships, negative impact of PGx, belief that PGx can reduce adverse drug reactions, clinical evidence, cost–effectiveness, informatics, reporting issues and social issues. Conclusion: Through use of TDF, fifteen synthesized statements provide policymakers with valuable recommendations for the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care. In preparation, policymakers need to consider the introduction of effective educational strategies for both PCPs and patients to raise knowledge, awareness, and engagement. The actual introduction of PGx will require reorganization with decision support tools to aid use of PGx in primary care, with a clear delegation of roles and responsibilities between general professionals and pharmacists supplemented by a local pool of experts. Further policy makers need to address the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics and having appropriate infrastructure supporting testing and interpretation including informatic solutions for utilizing pharmacogenomic results.

Background: Public awareness of the large mortality toll of COVID-19 particularly among elderly and frail persons is high. This public awareness represents an enhanced opportunity for early and urgent goals-of-care discussions to reduce medically ineffective care. Objective: To assess the end-of-life experiences of hospitalized patients dying of COVID-19 with respect to identifying the clinical factors associated with utilization or non-utilization of the ICU. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of hospital outcomes using electronic medical records and individual chart review from March 15, 2020 to October 15, 2020 of every patient with a COVID-19 diagnosis who died or was admitted to hospice while hospitalized. Logistic regression multivariate analysis was used to identify the clinical and demographic factors associated with non-utilization of the ICU. Results: 133/749 (18%) of hospitalized COVID-19 patients died or were admitted to hospice as a result of COVID-19. Of the 133, 66 (49.6%) had no ICU utilization. In multivariate analysis, the significant patient factors associated with non-ICU utilization were increasing age, normal body mass index, and the presence of an advanced directive calling for limited life sustaining therapies. Race and residence at time of admission (home vs. facility) were significant only in the unadjusted analyses but not in adjusted. Gender was not significant in either form of analyses. Conclusion: Goals of care discussions performed by an augmented palliative care team and other bedside clinicians had renewed urgency during COVID-19. Large percentages of patients and surrogates, perhaps motivated by public awareness of poor outcomes, opted not to utilize the ICU.

Further to plans to make England ‘smoke-free’ by 2030, a new English community pharmacy smoking cessation service was launched in March 2022. The service includes offering people admitted to hospital an opportunity to enrol on a smoking cessation service that allows care to be maintained through their community pharmacy upon discharge. There is a high expectation for this service, which is expected to increase 1-year quit rates by 11% and in its first year, save the UK NHS £85 million in healthcare resources. The service also offers opportunities for pharmacists to assume a greater role in managing the long-term care of smokers. However, as with any new service, without careful monitoring of the implementation, there may be unforeseen and unintended consequences for what are otherwise well-intentioned actions. For instance, despite existing smoking cessation services being effective, historically there has always been poor smoker uptake, particularly people from less affluent backgrounds and from marginalised groups. Questions also arise about service adoption and implementation and how the risks associated with transitions between care providers will be managed. This timely commentary explores and examines these issues. Specifically, we add to the debate by focusing on the extent to which the new service caters or enables people from disadvantaged groups to participate fully. The challenges of adoption and implementation in pharmacies are discussed as well as the strategies to overcome foreseeable problems that might arise during transitions of care.