Mihaela A Popa1, Kristie J Wallace2, Antonella Brunello3, Martine Extermann4, Lodovico Balducci5. 1. Biovest International, Inc., Tampa, FL, United States. 2. Edward White Hospital, St. Petersburg, FL, United States. 3. Istituto Oncologico Veneto-IOV, I.R.C.C.S., Padova, Italy. 4. Senior Adult Oncology Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States. 5. Senior Adult Oncology Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States. Electronic address: lodovico.balducci@moffitt.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Increased risk of drug interactions due to polypharmacy and aging-related changes in physiology among older patients with cancer is further augmented during chemotherapy. No previous studies examined potential drug interactions (PDIs) from polypharmacy and their association with chemotherapy tolerance in older patients with cancer. METHODS: This study is a retrospective medical chart review of 244 patients aged 70+ years who received chemotherapy for solid or hematological malignancies. PDI among all drugs, supplements, and herbals taken with the first chemotherapy cycle were screened for using the Drug Interaction Facts software, which classifies PDIs into five levels of clinical significance with level 1 being the highest. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to describe rates of PDI. The association between PDI and severe chemotoxicity was tested with logistic regressions adjusted for baseline covariates. RESULTS: A total of 769 PDIs were identified in 75.4% patients. Of the 82 level 1 PDIs identified among these, 32 PDIs involved chemotherapeutics. A large proportion of the identified PDIs were of minor clinical significance. The risk of severe non-hematological toxicity almost doubled with each level 1 PDI (OR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.22-3.09), and tripled with each level 1 PDI involving chemotherapeutics (OR=3.08, 95% CI: 1.33-7.12). No association between PDI and hematological toxicity was found. CONCLUSIONS: In this convenience sample of older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy we found notable rates of PDI and a substantial adjusted impact of PDI on risk of non-hematological toxicity. These findings warrant further research to optimize chemotherapy outcomes.
PURPOSE: Increased risk of drug interactions due to polypharmacy and aging-related changes in physiology among older patients with cancer is further augmented during chemotherapy. No previous studies examined potential drug interactions (PDIs) from polypharmacy and their association with chemotherapy tolerance in older patients with cancer. METHODS: This study is a retrospective medical chart review of 244 patients aged 70+ years who received chemotherapy for solid or hematological malignancies. PDI among all drugs, supplements, and herbals taken with the first chemotherapy cycle were screened for using the Drug Interaction Facts software, which classifies PDIs into five levels of clinical significance with level 1 being the highest. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to describe rates of PDI. The association between PDI and severe chemotoxicity was tested with logistic regressions adjusted for baseline covariates. RESULTS: A total of 769 PDIs were identified in 75.4% patients. Of the 82 level 1 PDIs identified among these, 32 PDIs involved chemotherapeutics. A large proportion of the identified PDIs were of minor clinical significance. The risk of severe non-hematological toxicity almost doubled with each level 1 PDI (OR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.22-3.09), and tripled with each level 1 PDI involving chemotherapeutics (OR=3.08, 95% CI: 1.33-7.12). No association between PDI and hematological toxicity was found. CONCLUSIONS: In this convenience sample of older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy we found notable rates of PDI and a substantial adjusted impact of PDI on risk of non-hematological toxicity. These findings warrant further research to optimize chemotherapy outcomes.
Authors: Arti Hurria; Kayo Togawa; Supriya G Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Stuart M Lichtman; Ajeet Gajra; Smita Bhatia; Vani Katheria; Shira Klapper; Kurt Hansen; Rupal Ramani; Mark Lachs; F Lennie Wong; William P Tew Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michelle Shayne; Jeffrey Crawford; David C Dale; Eva Culakova; Gary H Lyman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-05-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Barbara J Zarowitz; Lesia A Stebelsky; Bruce K Muma; Tanya M Romain; Edward L Peterson Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Dima M Qato; G Caleb Alexander; Rena M Conti; Michael Johnson; Phil Schumm; Stacy Tessler Lindau Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J T Hanlon; M Weinberger; G P Samsa; K E Schmader; K M Uttech; I K Lewis; P A Cowper; P B Landsman; H J Cohen; J R Feussner Journal: Am J Med Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: María Vallet-Regí; Miguel Manzano; Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas; Marta Checa López; Matti Aapro; Lodovico Balducci Journal: Oncologist Date: 2017-02-20
Authors: Sean Oldak; Stephanie Ioannou; Priyanka Kamath; Marilyn Huang; Sophia George; Brian Slomovitz; Matthew Schlumbrecht Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-04-05
Authors: M-E Rougé Bugat; M Bourgouin; S Gérard; S Lozano; D Brechemier; P Cestac; C Cool; L Balardy Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075