d Posaconazole (PCZ), approved for prophylaxis against invasive fungal disease in high-risk patients, is commercially available orally as a suspension formulation (PCZ-susp) and as a delayed-release tablet (PCZ-tab). We evaluated the serum steady-state concentrations (C ss ) of PCZ stratified by the administered formulation for antifungal prophylaxis in patients with myeloid malignancies (n ‫؍‬ 150). The primary outcome was the attainment rate of the target C ss of >700 ng/ml. Secondary outcomes included toxicity assessment (hepatotoxicity and corrected QT [QTc] interval prolongation) and breakthrough fungal infections. Patients who received the PCZ-susp (n ‫؍‬ 118) or PCZ-tab (n ‫؍‬ 32) and had PCZ C ss assessment after at least 7 days of therapy were eligible. The median C ss in the PCZ-susp group was 390 ng/ml (range, 51 to 1,870 ng/ml; mean, 436 ng/ml) compared to 1,740 ng/ml (range, 662 to 3,350 ng/ml; mean, 1,781 ng/ml) in the PCZ-tab group (P < 0.0001). The percentages of patients achieving the target goal of >700 ng/ml were 17% versus 97%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Hepatotoxicity (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 1 patient in each group. QTc interval measurements were available for 32 patients in the PCZ-susp group and for 12 patients in the PCZ-tab group, and prolonged intervals of grade 2 or higher were noted in 9% (n ‫؍‬ 3) and 17% (n ‫؍‬ 2), respectively (P ‫؍‬ 0.6). Breakthrough fungal infections in the PCZ-susp and PCZ-tab groups were 7% (n ‫؍‬ 8) and 3% (n ‫؍‬ 1), respectively (P ‫؍‬ 0.68). We conclude that the use of PCZ-tab was associated with higher C ss and with the probability of achieving therapeutic goals without worsening of adverse effects. P osaconazole (PCZ) is a triazole antifungal agent that is approved for invasive fungal disease prophylaxis in high-risk patients. Oral formulations of PCZ are commercially available as a suspension (PCZ-susp) and as delayed-release tablets (PCZ-tab) (1). Several studies have shown that the gastrointestinal absorption and bioavailability of PCZ-susp are unpredictable and dependent on various factors, including food intake and concomitant acid suppressants (2-7). Due to its superior oral bioavailability, the PCZ-tab can be administered without regard to food intake and seems less likely to be affected by concomitant acid-suppressing medications (8-11).PCZ concentrations follow dose-dependent pharmacokinetics at steady state with saturation of absorption of the PCZ-susp occurring at 800 mg/day (12). The current guidelines recommend as a goal steady-state concentrations (C ss ) of Ն700 ng/ml in the prophylaxis setting (13). Comparative studies evaluating the PCZsusp and the newer PCZ-tab are not available. Herein, we report a retrospective analysis comparing the serum concentrations of the two formulations. MATERIALS AND METHODSPatient population. For this study, 152 consecutive patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or high-grade myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were admitted to the inpatient hematologic malignancy service at West Virginia Unive...

Results: 97 allo HSCT patients were enrolled between 7/ 2013-9/2014 and were discharged with a mean of 14 medications. Pharmacists completed 134 interventions; 80% of patients required at least 1 pharmacist intervention. Median time to complete medication reconciliation, interventions, and education was 52 (IQR 25-105) minutes. 90% of patients were able to describe 2 or 3 of the following concepts: how to take their medications, administration instructions, and what to do with missed doses. 77% of patients were able to explain the indications of each medication; while only 30% could list all clinically relevant side effects for their medications. Encouragingly, 76% of patients knew their dose of tacrolimus and reported and an overall compliance of 98%. Level of education, marital status, co-morbidities, and medication availability are potentially associated with patient education outcomes, which provide areas of improvement in the process. Conclusions: The majority of HSCT patients required some form of a pharmacist intervention during discharge medication reconciliation. Pharmacist helped to improve the transition of care at discharge for HSCT patients by improving patient understanding of their medications, medication adherence, and accuracy of patient medication lists

Pediatric patients between the ages of 12 months and 17 years with a confirmed malignancy who were scheduled to receive aprepitant as part of triple therapy antiemetic prophylaxis for a cycle of moderately‐ or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were eligible for enrollment. Patients were evaluated for the incidence of nausea, episodes of emesis, interference with activities of daily living (ADLs), and appetite through utilization of a patient survey. Eleven patients were enrolled for a total of 20 patient encounters, mean age 9.55 ± 4.85 (range, 12 months–17 years). Aprepitant was well‐tolerated and complete response (CR) rate was 38.9%. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2014;61:1111–1113. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) mobilization with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) and plerixafor results in superior CD34+ cell yield, when compared to mobilization with G-CSF alone in patients with myeloma and lymphoma. However, plerixafor-based approaches are associated with high costs. To circumvent this, several institutions use a so-called “just-in-time” plerixafor (JIT-P) approach, where plerixafor is only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Whether such a JIT-P approach is cost effective has not been confirmed to date. We present here, results of 136 patients with myeloma or lymphoma who underwent mobilization with two different approaches of plerixafor utilization. Between Jan 2010-Oct 2012 (n=76) patients uniformly received mobilization with G-CSF and plerixafor (routine G+P cohort). To reduce mobilization costs, between Nov 2012-Jun 2014 (n=60) patients were mobilized with JIT-P where plerixafor was only administered to patients likely to fail mobilization with G-CSF alone. Patients in routine G+P group had a higher median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (62 vs. 29 cells/μL, p<0.001) and a higher median day 1 CD34+ cell yield (2.9 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg vs. 2.1 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg, p=0.001). The median total CD34+ cell collection was also higher in routine G+P group (5.8 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg vs. 4.5 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg, p=0.007). In the JIT-P group 40% (n=24) completed adequate HPC collection without plerixafor. There was no difference in mobilization failure rates. The mean number of plerixafor doses utilized in JIT-P was lower (1.3 vs. 2.1, p=0.0002). The mean estimated cost in the routine G+P group was higher than that in the JIT-P group (USD 27,513 vs. USD 23,597, p=0.01). Our analysis demonstrates that mobilization with a JIT-P approach is a safe, effective and cost efficient strategy for HPC collection.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of aprepitant and fosaprepitant, a neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor inhibitor, in children and adolescents at a large academic medical center, for the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted using an electronic medical record system to evaluate the use of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in all pediatric patients that were discharged from a single academic medical center between February 25, 2009 and May 25, 2012. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were included in this review and received a total of 287 doses over the span of 114 cycles. Mean age was 10.1 years, with a range of 11 months to 17 years old. In 16 of 26 patients, aprepitant was used as the primary prophylaxis. Of those patients who received primary prophylaxis, 6 of 16 received it for highly emetogenic chemotherapy, and 10 of 16 received it for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Intravenous fosaprepitant was used in 7 of 26 patients, ages 13 to 17 (median 14) years old. No adverse effects attributable to aprepitant were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Use of aprepitant and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients appeared to be well tolerated. No currently published reports data using aprepitant in a patient younger than 32 months old, whereas we reported its use in patients as young as 11 months old.