Erlotinib in wild type epidermal growth factor receptor non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Targeting epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR) is an innovative approach to managing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) which harbors EGFR mutation. However, the efficacy of these agents like erlotinib in patients without the mutation is not known. METHODS: This systematic review included Phase III randomized clinical trials that compared single agent erlotinib to other management options in the setting of NSCLC with reported outcome data on patients with EGFR wild type (EGFRWT) tumors. Outcome data include overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool outcomes across studies. RESULTS: Three studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies included a total of 2044 patients with outcome data on 674 patients with EGFRWT tumors (33%). Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant improvement in OS with erlotinib (hazard ratio of 0.780; 95% confidence interval: 0.654-0.930, P = 0.006). Data were not available to perform PFS or RR analysis. The quality of this evidence is considered to be moderate to high. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed a significant benefit of erlotinib in patient with EGFRWT tumors compared with other approaches. These findings add another therapeutic option to patients generally considered difficult to treat.

Documenting clinical pharmacist intervention before and after the introduction of a web-based tool.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a database for documenting pharmacist intervention through a web-based application. The secondary endpoint was to determine if the new, web-based application provides any benefits with regards to documentation compliance by clinical pharmacists and ease of calculating cost savings compared with our previous method of documenting pharmacist interventions. SETTING: A tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia. METHOD: The documentation of interventions using a web-based documentation application was retrospectively compared with previous methods of documentation of clinical pharmacists' interventions (multi-user PC software). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number and types of interventions recorded by pharmacists, data mining of archived data, efficiency, cost savings, and the accuracy of the data generated. RESULTS: The number of documented clinical interventions increased from 4,926, using the multi-user PC software, to 6,840 for the web-based application. On average, we observed 653 interventions per clinical pharmacist using the web-based application, which showed an increase compared to an average of 493 interventions using the old multi-user PC software. However, using a paired Student's t-test there was no statistical significance difference between the two means (P = 0.201). Using a χ² test, which captured management level and the type of system used, we found a strong effect of management level (P < 2.2 × 10⁻¹6) on the number of documented interventions. We also found a moderately significant relationship between educational level and the number of interventions documented (P = 0.045). The mean ± SD time required to document an intervention using the web-based application was 66.55 ± 8.98 s. Using the web-based application, 29.06% of documented interventions resulted in cost-savings, while using the multi-user PC software only 4.75% of interventions did so. The majority of cost savings across both platforms resulted from the discontinuation of unnecessary drugs and a change in dosage regimen. Data collection using the web-based application was consistently more complete when compared to the multi-user PC software. CONCLUSIONS: The web-based application is an efficient system for documenting pharmacist interventions. Its flexibility and accessibility, as well as its detailed report functionality is a useful tool that will hopefully encourage other primary and secondary care facilities to adopt similar applications.

Medical marijuana and the developing role of the pharmacist.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, therapeutic uses, safety, drug-drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions of medical marijuana are reviewed, and the legal issues related to its use and the implications of medical marijuana for the pharmacist are presented. SUMMARY: Marijuana contains more than 460 active chemicals and over 60 unique cannabinoids. The legal landscape surrounding marijuana is surprisingly complex and unsettled. In the United States, 11 states and several municipalities have legalized medical marijuana. Another state provides legislation that allows patients to claim a defense of medical necessity. Nevertheless, patients using medical marijuana may never interact with a pharmacist. Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance and its use is illegal under federal law. Marijuana has a number of purported therapeutic uses with a broad range of supporting evidence. There are five general indications for medical marijuana: (1) severe nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy or other causes, (2) weight loss associated with debilitating illnesses, including HIV infection and cancer, (3) spasticity secondary to neurologic diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, (4) pain syndromes, and (5) other uses, such as for glaucoma. Marijuana is associated with adverse psychiatric, cardiovascular, respiratory, and immunologic events. Moreover, marijuana may interact with a number of prescription drugs and concomitant disease states. CONCLUSION: Several states have legalized the use of marijuana for chronic and debilitating medication conditions. Pharmacists need to understand the complex legal framework surrounding this issue so that they can protect themselves and better serve their patients.

Lichenoid drug eruption probably associated with rofecoxib.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of lichenoid drug eruption (LDE) probably induced by rofecoxib. CASE SUMMARY: A 73-year-old woman was prescribed rofecoxib 25 mg/day for rheumatoid arthritis in addition to other medications on which the patient had been stabilized. Six months after initiation of rofecoxib, linear plaques over the infra-orbital and bitemporal areas of both eyes were observed. Several itchy violaceous papules also developed on her right wrist and dorsum of the left foot. She also had a hyperpigmented macule on her right buccal mucosa. As the skin rash was localized and the patient was initially unwilling to undergo skin biopsy, rofecoxib was continued and a topical steroid was started. One month later, the patient was seen in the dermatology clinic, and the improvement of her skin reaction was significant. A skin biopsy performed during this visit was consistent with LDE. On the next day, her rheumatologist decided to discontinue the offending drug, rofecoxib. Two months later, all skin lesions had completely resolved. No rechallenge with rofecoxib was attempted. DISCUSSION: LDE is a rare skin reaction that can be associated with several drugs. Rofecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, has never before been reported to cause LDE. An objective causality assessment indicates that rofecoxib was the probable cause of the skin reaction. CONCLUSIONS: As of this writing, to our knowledge, this is the first case report in the English literature in which rofecoxib had led to the development of LDE.