Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of remote proactive management of toxicities during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer. Design Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. Setting 20 cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, allocated by covariate constrained randomisation to remote management of toxicities or routine care. Participants All patients starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer at each centre. 25 patients from each centre completed patient reported outcome questionnaires. Interventions Proactive, standardised, nurse led telephone management of common toxicities at two time points after each chemotherapy cycle. Main outcome measures The primary outcome, cluster level mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient during the whole course of chemotherapy treatment, was evaluated with routinely available administrative healthcare data. Secondary patient reported outcomes included toxicity, self-efficacy, and quality of life. Results Baseline characteristics of participants were similar in the intervention (n=944) and control arms (n=1214); 22% were older than 65 years. Penetration (that is, the percentage of patients who received the intervention at each centre) was 50-86%. Mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient was 0.91 (standard deviation 0.28) in the intervention arm and 0.94 (0.40) in the control arm (P=0.94); 47% (1014 of 2158 patients) had at least one visit to the emergency department or a hospital admission during chemotherapy. Among 580 participants who completed the patient reported outcome questionnaires, at least one grade 3 toxicity was reported by 48% (134 of 278 patients) in the intervention arm and by 58% (163 of 283) in the control arm. No differences in self-efficacy, anxiety, or depression were found. Compared with baseline, the functional assessment of cancer therapy trial outcome index decreased by 6.1 and 9.0 points in the intervention and control participants, respectively. Conclusions Proactive, telephone based management of toxicities during chemotherapy did not result in fewer visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions. With the rapid rise in remote care because of the covid-19 pandemic, identifying scalable strategies for remote management of patients during cancer treatment is particularly relevant. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02485678 .

No abstract

These preliminary findings suggest that the SGRI tiagabine may be an effective and generally well tolerated augmentation therapy in patients with anxiety who remain symptomatic despite adequate drug trials for treatment of anxiety symptoms.

Argatroban is a direct thrombin inhibitor approved for the treatment of heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) type II. Argatroban is predominantly metabolized in the liver. It is widely believed that no dosage adjustment is required in patients with renal insufficiency, making it a preferred agent in patients on renal replacement therapy (Reddy and Grossman, Ann Pharm 2005;39:1601–1605). The elimination half‐life of argatroban is ∼50 min. Lupus anticoagulants can cause baseline elevation of the PTT and hence it is difficult to monitor the effects of anticoagulants such as heparin, lepirudin, or argatroban in patients with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. Heparin levels may be used as an alternative for heparin monitoring but plasma levels of argatroban are not commercially available. A chromogenic antifactor IIa assay could be useful for monitoring argatroban in the presence of a lupus anticoagulant, but it is not widely available at present. We report a patient with end‐stage renal disease, maintained on peritoneal dialysis with HIT, who demonstrated a markedly prolonged half‐life when treated with argatroban despite the discontinuation of therapy. This case also demonstrates the lack of guidelines for the monitoring of argatroban therapy in the presence of an underlying lupus anticoagulant. Am. J. Hematol., 2008. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The increased use of immune checkpoint inhibitors across cancer programs has created the need for standardized patient assessment, education, monitoring, and management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). At William Osler Health System in Brampton, Ontario, a practical step-wise approach detailing the implementation of cancer immunotherapy in routine practice was developed. The approach focuses on four key steps: (1) identification of patient educators; (2) development of patient education materials; (3) development of patient monitoring tools; (4) involvement and education of multidisciplinary teams. Here, we provide an in-depth description of what was included in each step and how we integrated the different elements of the program. For each step, resources, tools, and materials that may be useful for patients, healthcare providers, and multidisciplinary teams were developed or modified based on existing materials. At our centre, the program led to improved patient comprehension of irAEs, the ability to act on symptoms (patient self-efficacy), and low rates of emergency room visits at first presentation for irAEs. We recognize that centres may need to tailor the approaches to their institutional policies and encourage centres to adapt and modify the forms and tools according to their needs and requirements.