Ruxolitinib, formerly known as INCB018424 or INC424, is a potent and selective oral inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2. Ruxolitinib has been approved for the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011 and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2012, followed by the approval for the treatment of hydroxyurea (HU)-resistant or -intolerant polycythemia vera (PV) in 2014. Both MF and PV are myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) which are characterized by the aberrant activation of the JAK-STAT pathway. Clinically, MF features bone marrow fibrosis, splenomegaly, abnormal blood counts, and poor quality-of-life through associated symptoms. PV is characterized by the overproduction of primarily red blood cells (RBC), risk of thrombotic complications, and development of secondary MF. Ruxolitinib treatment results in a meaningful reduction in spleen size and symptom burden in the majority of MF patients and may also have a favorable effect on survival. In PV, ruxolitinib effectively controls the hematocrit and reduces splenomegaly. Since recently, ruxolitinib is also under investigation for the treatment of graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Toxicities of ruxolitinib include myelosuppression, which results in dose-limiting thrombocytopenia and anemia, and viral reactivations. The metabolization of ruxolitinib through CYP3A4 needs to be considered particularly if co-administered with potent CYP3A4 inhibitors. Several further JAK inhibitors are currently under investigation for MPNs or other immuno-inflammatory diseases.

Background At Freiburg University Medical Center, chemotherapy prescriptions are processed via a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) tool and clinically checked by a designated chemotherapy surveillance team. Any error detected is reported instantly, corrected, and prospectively recorded. The objective of the current study was to gain insight into the causes, potential consequences, and future preventability of chemotherapy prescribing errors. Methods A detailed analysis of 18,823 consecutive antineoplastic orders placed in 2013 through 2014 was performed. In cooperation with information technology (IT) specialists, the intercepted errors were analyzed for effective future prevention using IT measures. Potential error consequences were determined by case discussions between pharmacists and physicians. Results Within 24 months, a total of 406 chemotherapy prescribing errors were intercepted that affected 375 (2%) of the total orders. Errors were classified as clinically relevant in 279 of the chemotherapy orders (1.5%). In these cases, reduced therapeutic efficacy (0.44%), the need for increased monitoring (0.48%), prolonged hospital stay (0.55%), and fatality (0.02%) were avoided as potential consequences. The most efficient conventional measures for error prevention comprised checking the order history and patient’s medical record, and a detailed knowledge of chemotherapy protocols. Of all the errors analyzed, 61% would be avoided through further software development. The improvements identified are implemented through a validated next‐generation CPOE tool. Conclusions The upgraded CPOE tool can be shared across other hospitals to raise safety standards and spread potential benefits across a wider patient population. The current analysis also highlighted that approximately 30% to 40% of errors cannot be avoided electronically. Therefore, pharmacovigilance initiatives remain indispensable.

No abstract

No abstract