Search

Despite their availability for over a decade, the exact nature of biosimilar medicines is still poorly understood with paucity of clear treatment guidelines for their use in clinical practice in Australia. Although hematologists have had experience with biosimilars in the setting of supportive care, with the approval of the first biosimilar rituximab in hematological malignancies, it is important to revisit this topic. To inform the use of biosimilar medicines in clinical practice, we have developed a consensus statement from an Expert Panel of Australian hematologists, oncologists, and cancer pharmacists. These recommendations address the approach to use of biosimilar products in place of the corresponding reference medicine in a number of different clinical contexts. Our recommendations are based on the premise that biosimilar medicines can be considered therapeutically equivalent to their reference brand and used in a similar way to the reference product in any approved indication. We advocate for local approaches to the provision of patient information, dispensing of the intended brand and pharmacovigilance, to be developed in consultation with local hematologists and aim to improve confidence in the appropriate use of biosimilar medicines and their expected outcomes among hematologists.

With the development of innovative cancer treatments over recent decades, the cost of cancer care has risen exponentially, limiting patient access to patented originator biotherapeutics in many countries. The introduction of biosimilars to the market has created new opportunities as well the need for changes in practice within healthcare institutions. A ‘biosimilar’ is a biotherapeutic product which is highly similar in terms of quality, safety and efficacy to an already licensed originator product. Although biosimilars lack clinically meaningful differences in therapeutic activity as compared to the originator product, these complex biological molecules are not considered identical chemical copies, unlike generics, and minor differences in molecular structure and inactive compounds may exist. A thorough understanding of these differences and their clinical implications is necessary for optimising medicines-use practices involving biosimilars. This position statement, developed by the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners Biosimilars Taskforce, aims to provide the global oncology pharmacy community with guidance to support decisions around biosimilar use. The 11 statements cover the regulation and evaluation of biosimilars, practical issues around local implementation, the education of healthcare staff and patients, and the requirement for ongoing pharmacovigilance and outcome monitoring.

Background The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) Biosimilar Task Force was charged to develop educational resources to address the learning needs related to biosimilars use of oncology pharmacy practitioners. To facilitate the process, the task force conducted a survey in order to identify unmet education needs as well as barriers for obtaining biosimilar education among oncology pharmacy practitioners. Methods A cross sectional survey was conducted between 10 December 2018 and 18 February 2019. Members of International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners and national oncology pharmacy groups were invited to complete the survey. The survey contained 22 items and consisted of four sections. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the survey results. Results A total of 363 International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners members were surveyed, with 75 members providing a response (response rate = 21%). In addition, 11 non-International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners members also participated in the survey, bringing the total to 86 respondents. The top three areas in which respondents reported learning needs included evaluating comparative efficacy of a biosimilar to an originator’s product (74.4%), managing the switchover to a biosimilar from the original product (74.4%), and understanding medication safety issues in relation to biosimilars use (73.3%). The most common challenges faced in obtaining education on biosimilars included limited financial support for education on biosimilar products (38.4%), heavy workload (31.4%), and inadequate educational resources (27.9%). Conclusion This survey has identified numerous biosimilar learning needs as well as challenges faced in obtaining biosimilars education among oncology pharmacy practitioners. Educational activities should be created to address these learning needs, and innovative strategies should be considered to overcome practitioner’s barriers in obtaining biosimilars education.

Background The International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) Biosimilars Task Force was charged to develop educational activities and resources to assist members when implementing biosimilar medicines into their local practice. To facilitate the process, the task force conducted a survey in order to understand biosimilar implementation practice by ISOPP members across the world and the challenges that oncology pharmacists face when adopting biosimilars into their clinical practice. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted between 20 April 2019 and 27 May 2019. Members of ISOPP and a number of national oncology pharmacy groups were invited to complete the survey. The survey contained 29 items and consisted of three sections: respondents’ demographics, respondents’ institutional practice relating to biosimilar implementation and post implementation practice at the respondents’ institutions. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the survey results. Results A total of 265 ISOPP members were surveyed, with 50 members providing a response (response rate = 19%). In addition, 40 nonmembers participated in the survey, bringing the total to 90 respondents. The most common factors that influence the decision to implement use of a biosimilar as reported by respondents are medication costs/pricing (92%), available clinical data (73%), and product availability (63%). Respondents also commented on the barriers to biosimilar implementation at their institutions, which included a reluctance of prescribers to use biosimilars (due to the lack of familiarity or perceived inferiority), a reluctance to switch established patients from an originator to a biosimilar and the preferences of insurance companies or funding bodies. Conclusion The results of this survey reinforce the need for greater education and training for health care professionals in the use of biosimilars, the importance of sharing good practice, and a need for standardization.

The relationship between hematological malignancy and chemotherapy on the prevalence of antibiotic allergy label (AAL) is ill-defined. We performed a multicenter retrospective case-control study comparing AAL rates among cladribine-treated hairy cell leukemia (C-HCL) cases, non-HCL cladribine-treated controls (control-1), and fludarabine-treated controls (control-2). The prevalence of AALs in C-HCL patients was 60%, compared with control-1 (14%, p

The issue of medication safety is highly significant when anti-cancer therapy is used as a treatment modality due to the high potential for harm from these agents and the disease context in which they are being used. These guidelines provide recommendations on the safe prescribing, dispensing and administration of chemotherapy and related agents used in the treatment of cancer. The guidelines represent a multidisciplinary collaboration to standardise the complex process of providing chemotherapy for cancer and to enhance patient safety. These are consensus guidelines based on the best available evidence and expert opinion of professionals working in cancer care. The aim of these guidelines is to assist in the prevention of medication errors and to improve patient safety with respect to the treatment of cancer. This guidance is intended for a multi-disciplinary audience and will have most relevance for medical, nursing and pharmacy staff involved in the complex processes of delivering chemotherapy and associated treatment. The scope of the guidelines includes; all patients and age groups receiving chemotherapy and targeted therapy for the treatment of cancer and cancer therapy administered by any route in both the hospital and home setting. These guidelines should be seen as point of reference for practitioners providing cancer chemotherapy services.

Background. The potential for staff exposure to antineoplastic agents exists in the workplace despite current recommended safe handling procedures. Reliance on cytotoxic drug safety cabinets (CDSC) to provide total protection from exposure to hazardous drugs is insufficient. Preventing workplace contamination is the best strategy to minimise exposure. PhaSeal® is a commercially available system for ensuring the leak-free transfer of hazardous drugs, fitting both the NIOSH and ISOPP definitions of a closed system. To date, there have been no published studies examining the use of a closed system drug transfer device (PhaSeal®) under Australian conditions. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of a closed system drug transfer device on cytotoxic surface contamination in the cytotoxic preparation areas of two Australian metropolitan public hospitals. Method. This was a pre- and post-intervention study in which chemical contamination was tested at baseline then at five and 12 months after the introduction of the a closed system drug transfer device. Cyclophosphamide was used as a surrogate marker for all cytotoxic drugs. Surface wipe sampling was performed at specified sites within the cytotoxic suite using a standardized technique. Commercial products of cyclophosphamide were also sampled. Results. After five months, contamination was reduced in 13 of the 22 sites sampled (59%), with four of these samples showing undetectable levels of contamination. Two other site samples (9%) remained unchanged. The total contamination of surfaces tested was reduced by 24%. After five months hospital 1 withdrew from the study. After 12 months, surface contamination was reduced in 75% of sample sites. The total contamination of surfaces tested was reduced by 68%. The wipes of the external surface of commercial products detected cyclophosphamide contamination. Conclusion. When used inside a CDSC, the closed system drug transfer device PhaSeal® further reduces surface contamination, in some instances to undetectable levels.

The relative efficacy and toxicity of cytotoxic drugs in those over the age of 65 years is an important but still controversial and under-researched area. Age-related physiological changes, particularly changes in renal function, may lead to increased toxicity in the elderly. However, treatment policies chosen to reduce toxicity may compromise therapeutic results, creating the impression that chemotherapy may be less effective in the elderly. An individualised approach to dosing of cytotoxic agents is required in this age group. The older cancer patient will frequently have concomitant chronic diseases, particularly renal or cardiac impairment, which may affect the choice or dose of cytotoxic agents. Close attention should be paid to potential interactions of medications with cytotoxic drugs. Therapeutic decisions regarding patients should be based on physiological rather than chronological age. Research to determine the most appropriate use of chemotherapeutic agents, and to evaluate new cytotoxic and biologic approaches to treatment in the elderly cancer patient, must be given a high priority. (author abstract)

Summary Background: In many centres, the use of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) combined with levamisole has become standard therapy for the treatment of patients with Dukes' C colon cancer. However, the role of levamisole remains unclear. Materials and methods: All of the published adjuvant studies for colorectal cancer in which 5-FU (either as a single agent or in combination with other cytotoxics or levamisole) was compared to a no-treatment control group were ranked according to the total planned dose of 5-FU (assuming a body weight of 70 kg or a body surface area of 1.7 m2) over a three-month time frame. The effect of planned total dose of adjuvant therapy on the reduction of mortality was analysed using indirect comparisons of dose on the log odds ratio of death in a linear regression analysis. Results: Overall, this analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in the odds of death for those receiving 5-FU regimens compared to untreated controls (estimate 0.82,95% CI 0.74 to 0.91, p < 0.001). This effect was larger in those receiving a larger planned dose; for a total dose of 5-FU in the first three months of greater than 10 grams, 8 to 10 grams, less than 8 grams or oral 5-FU, estimates were 0.71, 0.79, 0.93 and 1.04, respectively (p - 0.02 for trend). Similar results were observed when the planned total dose of 5-FU received over 12 months was analysed. The analysis was then repeated by separating those studies in which 5-FU and levamisole were compared to a no-treatment control. A larger effect was seen in the 5-FU/levamisole trials (odds ratio, 0.64) compared to the other 5-FU regimens (odds ratio 0.86, p — 0.04). However, when adjusted for dose, the effect of levamisole was no longer significant (p — 0.09). Conclusion: These data suggest two separate hypotheses. The first is that the benefit associated with the use of 5-FU and levamisole given as adjuvant therapy in Dukes' C colon cancer is directly related to the planned total dose of 5-FU administered. Alternatively, in view of the fact that levamisole was part of the treatment regimens in two of the three studies in which the total planned dose of 5-FU exceeded 10 grams in three months (or 40 grams in 12 months), levamisole may be critical to outcome and the 5-FU total dose or dose intensity less relevant.

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

Arsenic trioxide in the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukaemia is relatively safe with minimal side effects. Dental toxicities associated with its use are uncommon. We describe the first case report of toothache associated with arsenic trioxide. A 45-year-old male with relapsed APL was commenced on a treatment schedule of all-trans-retinoic acid 20mg four times a day for 14 days concurrent with a 10mg intravenous infusion of arsenic trioxide for 28 days. After 14 doses of the 6th cycle of treatment he experienced severe acute pain in various parts of the oral cavity. Extensive examination including an orthodontic review concluded there was no indication that the pain symptoms were due to a dental or endodontic cause. Four days after completing his 6th cycle the pain completely resolved. The mechanism of this adverse event remains unclear. Physicians with patients receiving arsenic trioxide with unexplained toothache should consider the arsenic as the cause of the pain. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2010) 16: 127—128.

Background: Published studies suggest that cytotoxic contamination in the workplace may originate from the external surface of commercially available vials. No published studies were found describing the testing of surface contamination of cytotoxic products purchased from commercial compounders. Aim: To determine if cytotoxic admixtures purchased from a commercial compounder would test positive for surface contamination with cyclophosphamide. Method: Surface wipe sampling was performed to detect cyclophosphamide surface contamination on products sourced from a commercial compounder. Surface wipe sampling was performed using previously published methods. Results: Surface contamination was detected on all of the samples taken. Conclusion: Cytotoxic products purchased from commercial compounders may have external surface cytotoxic contamination. Safe handling procedures should be instituted for these products. J Pharm Pract Res 2011; 41: 181-2.

Antineoplastic drugs entail significant risks. Even modest deviation from prescribed doses can result in unwanted toxicity. Well informed patients are a vital link in the safety chain to prevent errors, with verbal communication an essential tool. Good communication is of great importance when dealing with similar sounding names. Errors in prescribing can result where a patient mispronounces the medication they are taking. The purpose of this review was to determine if a pronunciation guide was available in the Consumer Medicine Information for antineoplastic drugs available in Australia. Of the 145 drugs available for review, a Consumer Medicine Information was available in 88% of cases. A pronunciation guide was available for 17% of generic and 2.3% of trade names. Of the oral drugs, a pronunciation guide was available for 7.6% of generic and 3.0% of trade names. Practitioners involved in the preparation of Consumer Medicine Information should consider the inclusion of a pronunciation guide for medicines. (author abstract)

The usefulness of pharmacokinetically guided individualisation of drug therapy will depend, among other things, on the quality of the analytical and pharmacokinetic methods used. We surveyed the quality of analytical and pharmacokinetics methodology and reporting in a literature search of the oncology literature from 1987 to 1992, using the Medline database. Thirty articles that examined relationships between normal tissue toxicity and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) formed the study sample. Analytical procedures were adequately described in 77% of the articles, but details of validation of the assay were seriously deficient in the great majority of articles. Methods for calculation of AUC were also deficient in over half of the articles. The findings suggest that greater attention needs to be paid to the quality of pharmacokinetic investigation in oncology, otherwise progress in the use of pharmacokinetically guided individualisation of dosage may be hindered.

Dear Editor, I read with interest the review on the use of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy recently published in The Journal [1]. The authors have overlooked one important aspect in relation to IT therapy, which can result in patient harm. Any medication used for administration via the IT route should be preservative-free. The IT injection of products containing preservatives, particularly benzyl alcohol, must be avoided because of the documented risks of anaphylaxis and potential for neurotoxicity from the preservative agent [2]. An IT injection of preparations containing benzyl alcohol is known to increase the incidence of adverse neurological events. Reported events include paraparesis, fibrosis of the cauda equina and segmental demyelination of the dorsal and ventral roots. [2] It is standard practice that any agent given intrathecally must be preservative-free. [2] Physicians, pharmacists and nurses involved in the preparation or administration of IT therapy must ensure preservative-free products are used.

Readers are invited to write in with their questions about decisions of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory...