No abstract

Cancer is a known hypercoagulable state that leads to an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low molecular weight heparin remains the preferred anticoagulant for VTE in patients with cancer over vitamin K antagonist. However, the preferred anticoagulant in prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with cancer has yet to be determined. The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being utilized; however their role in cancer has only recently been investigated. The objective of this retrospective cohort was to describe real-world anticoagulation prescribing patterns in cancer patients at a large academic medical center between January 1, 2013 and October 31, 2016. We sought to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DOACs in patients with cancer for either VTE and/or AF. Patient demographic, clinical characteristics, as well as bleeding and thrombotic events were collected. There were 214 patients in our analysis, of which 71 patients (33%) received a DOAC [apixaban (n = 22), dabigatran (n = 17), and rivaroxaban (n = 32)]. There were fewer bleeding events and/or discontinuations in the DOAC group compared to enoxaparin (13 vs. 27, p = 0.022). There was no difference in major or minor bleeds or thromboembolic events in comparing DOAC to enoxaparin or DOAC to warfarin. This was a retrospective, single-institution study assessing the safety and efficacy of DOACs compared to warfarin or enoxaparin in patients with cancer. DOACs may represent an alternative to warfarin or enoxaparin in patients with cancer for VTE and/or stroke reduction in AF.

Tacrolimus is a mainstay medication for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis in combination with other immunosuppressive agents. Achieving therapeutic tacrolimus levels is vital in preventing acute GVHD (aGVHD), while supratherapeutic levels may increase risk of toxicity and relapse. We performed a single center retrospective chart review including all adult patients post-allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation who received initial tacrolimus continuous intravenous infusion for GVHD prophylaxis between June 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was the percent of patients with an initial therapeutic tacrolimus level, defined as 5–12 ng/mL, after empiric weight-based dosing at 0.02 mg/kg/day. Secondary outcomes included evidence of tacrolimus toxicity within seven days of initiation, incidence of aGVHD by day 100, and relapse after six months. An initial therapeutic level was achieved in 47% of patients with a median initial level of 12.4 ng/mL. Fifty-two percent of patients had supratherapeutic levels. No significant nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, or neurotoxicity occurred within a week of starting tacrolimus or at neutrophil engraftment. Grade II-IV aGVHD by day 100 was observed in 22% of patients, and relapse after six months was found in 16% of patients. These results have led to consideration of an empiric 20% dose reduction to 0.016 mg/kg/day or an expanded initial tacrolimus target of 5–15 ng/mL as there was low aGVHD incidence and no increased risk of toxicity.

Introduction For multiple myeloma patients who respond to primary therapy, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) is considered standard of care with high-dose melphalan for transplant candidates. There are now two different melphalan formulations available, including a propylene glycol containing (PG-MEL) product and a propylene glycol-free (PG-free MEL) product. Although considered bioequivalent, there remains limited literature directly evaluating the adverse events between the two agents. We seek to assess the tolerability and severity of side effects between the two formulations in a real-life practice setting. Methods A retrospective, descriptive analysis was conducted of multiple myeloma patients who received autologous stem cell conditioning with either melphalan formulation when dosed at 100 mg/m2/dose for two consecutive doses. The primary outcome was the assessment of tolerability and severity of side effects. Tolerability was split into four major categories including hematologic toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, renal toxicity, and highest recorded mucositis grade. Results There were a total of 78 patients who received a melphalan preparation during the study. The median time to myeloablation and neutrophil engraftment was five and seven days post-HSCT, respectively, for all patients. Patients who received PG-free MEL were less likely to develop mucositis, with 22 (56%) reported highest grade 0, defined by World Health Organization oral toxicity scale, compared to those who received PG-MEL (33%), p = 0.04. Conclusion There were minimal differences in tolerability or side effects observed between PG-free MEL and PG-MEL. These data may assist in better understanding the anticipated adverse effects of a high-dose melphalan conditioning therapy.

No abstract