No abstract

For now, pharmacists should continue to recommend the use of lorcaserin as a complement to, not in lieu of, ongoing lifestyle and behavioral modification.

Background Hypersensitivity reactions to etoposide have been reported and patients have been safely transitioned to etoposide phosphate for continued therapy. However, the safety and efficacy of substituting etoposide phosphate for etoposide has not been well established in pediatric orthopedic malignancies. The aim of this study is to determine whether etoposide phosphate can be substituted for etoposide in pediatric orthopedic malignancies. Methods A chart review of pediatric patients who developed hypersensitivity reactions to etoposide while being treated for orthopedic malignancies was performed at a large academic medical center. Three patients were identified, two with Ewing sarcoma and one with an osteosarcoma. All three patients experienced hypersensitivity reactions to their first doses of etoposide and were switched to etoposide phosphate for further therapy. Results After premedication, all three patients tolerated full doses of etoposide phosphate without a graded dose challenge or desensitization. Two of the patients were premedicated with diphenhydramine alone, while the third received diphenhydramine and dexamethasone. Conclusions Etoposide phosphate is a potentially safe alternative for pediatric patients with orthopedic malignancies who experience etoposide hypersensitivity. However, caution is needed as there are cases of etoposide phosphate hypersensitivity.

Introduction Dabrafenib and trametinib are oral targeted agents indicated for BRAF mutated non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma. There is little data to support the administration of these two agents via enteral feeding tube. This case series describes three patients who received compounded dabrafenib and trametinib suspensions through enteral feeding tubes. Case report: We present three patients who required dabrafenib and trametinib to be prepared as a non-standard compound for the medications to be administered via feeding tube. The patients were diagnosed with with BRAF mutated cancers including melanoma, non-small-cell lung carcinoma, and anaplastic thyroid cancer. In all three cases, there was evidence of initial disease response on imaging, and there were no unexpected toxicities secondary to dabrafenib and trametinib. Discussion: There are patients that are unable to tolerate medications by mouth due to dysphagia, anatomical malfunctions, or other digestive disorders. There is limited literature that describes preparation of trametinib and dabrafenib into an enteral suspension. Identifying a safe and efficacious method of administering these two medications via feeding tube ensures that these patients continue to be able to receive them as part of their anti-cancer therapy. Conclusion: Despite the lack of available data, compounding of dabrafenib and trametinib may be clinically appropriate when benefits outweigh the risk of unconventional administration. Further studies are warranted to assess for the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, stability, and storage for these liquid medications.

No abstract