Vedolizumab for pediatric patients with gastrointestinal acute graft-versus-host-disease.

Vedolizumab, an anti-α4ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody, impairs homing of T-cells to the gastrointestinal (GI) endothelium and acts as a gut-selective anti-inflammatory agent. Recent reports of the efficacy of vedolizumab in treating lower GI acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) are promising, but experience in children is scarce. We present a cohort of 13 pediatric patients who were treated with vedolizumab for GI aGVHD. Ten of the patients were treated for steroid-refractory disease, out of which, six suffered from severe (stage 3 or 4) GI disease before the first dose of vedolizumab. In the other three patients, vedolizumab was introduced early in the disease course. Median time between GI GVHD onset to vedolizumab treatment was 23 days (range 7-59 days), with a median of 3 doses (range 1-5) per patient. GI GVHD staging was evaluated at various time points after the first vedolizumab dose, showing improvement in nine of the 13 patients. After a median follow-up time of 13 months (range 6-34 months), eight patients completely recovered, two had ongoing chronic colitis, and three patients died. During the vedolizumab treatment period, 38 infectious episodes were noted, most of them GI related. The unique activity profile of vedolizumab makes it an appealing treatment option for lower GI aGVHD, but caution for concurrent infections is warranted.

Clinical pharmacist led hospital-wide direct oral anticoagulant stewardship program.

INTRODUCTION: In the past decade, direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have been introduced to medical practice for several indications, with a wide range of dosing regimens. As both over- and under-dosing might lead to life-threatening events, development of methods promoting safe and effective utilization of these agents is imperative. The Hadassah Clinical Pharmacy team initiated a hospital-wide program, for monitoring and promoting safe and effective prescription of DOAC during hospitalization. This study describes the types of drug related problems addressed and the program's performance in terms of consultation rates and physician acceptance. METHODS: Electronic medical records throughout the hospital were screened for DOAC orders. All DOAC orders were assessed by a clinical pharmacist for potentially-inappropriate prescribing. When potentially-inappropriate prescribing or a drug-related problem was identified, the clinical pharmacist provided consultation on management options. In specific cases, additional guidance was provided by coagulation and pharmacology specialists. Data on patient characteristics, clinical pharmacist consultations, and physician response was retrospectively retrieved for the first six months of 2017. Characteristics of patients with and without consultations were compared, consultations were categorized by the recommended management of the drug related problem, and physician acceptance rates were evaluated by category. RESULTS: During the evaluated period, 585 patients with DOAC orders were identified. Patients were evenly distributed by gender, and age averaged 78 years. Most patients received apixaban (75%) followed by rivaroxaban (14%) and dabigatran (11%), and most (63%) received "reduced dose" regimens. Clinical pharmacists provided 258 consultations for 210 patients, regarding anticoagulation management, such that more than one in three patients on DOAC had potentially inappropriate prescribing or drug related problems. Consultations included alerts regarding potentially inappropriate DOAC doses and recommendations to increase (29%) or decrease (5%) the dose, potentially inappropriate concomitant antiplatelet agents (20%), need for DOAC level monitoring (23%), and alerts regarding other drug related problems (23%). More than 70% of recommendations were accepted by the attending physician. CONCLUSION: Due to the complexity of DOAC management, potentially-inappropriate prescribing and drug related problems are common. Multidisciplinary collaborative projects including review and consultation by clinical pharmacists are an effective method of improving management of patients on DOAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03527615 .

Management strategies of the interaction between direct oral anticoagulant and drug-metabolizing enzyme inducers.

Little is known regarding the management of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with enzyme-inducing drugs (EID). The use of EID may lead to sub-therapeutic concentrations of DOACs and to treatment failure. Thus, many patients on EIDs cannot benefit from the advantages of DOACs. This was a retrospective study, evaluating the management of hospitalized patients with DOACs. Characteristics of hospitalized patients with a prescription for DOACs, with and without EIDs, were summarized and evaluated, and management strategies addressing the potential interaction were documented, including the use of DOAC concentration monitoring. During the period evaluated, 1596 hospitalized patients with prescriptions for DOACs were identified. Most patients received apixaban (n = 1227, 77%), followed by rivaroxaban (240, 15%), and dabigatran (129, 8%). Twenty-two patients (1.4%) had concomitant EIDs. Demographic and clinical characteristics of hospitalized patients with DOACs were similar in those receiving EID and those not. Management strategies included stopping DOAC or EID (41%), and DOAC dose increase (14%). During management of these interactions, DOAC concentrations were measured for 11 of 22 patients and were below the 5th percentile of expected concentration for six of these patients. The management of patients with DOAC concentration measurement differed significantly from those without (p = 0.005), as they were much less likely to have one of the medications stopped and more often had the DOACs' dose increased. Among hospitalized patients with DOACs, EIDs are not rare. DOAC concentrations are often low in the presence of EIDs. DOAC concentration monitoring may be useful in settings requiring both DOAC and EIDs.

The Effect of Piperine Pro-Nano Lipospheres on Direct Intestinal Phase II Metabolism: The Raloxifene Paradigm of Enhanced Oral Bioavailability.

Phase II biotransformation reactions have been gaining more attention due to their acknowledged significance in drug bioavailability, drug development, and drug-drug interactions. However, the predominant role of phase I metabolism has always overshadowed phase II metabolism, resulting in insufficient data regarding its mechanisms. In this paper, we investigate the effect of an advanced lipid based formulation on the phase II metabolism process of glucuronidation, occuring in the enterocytes monolayer. The investigated formulation is a self-emulsifying drug delivery system, termed pro-nano lipospheres, which contains the natural absorption enhancer piperine. To evaluate the effect of this formulation on direct glucuronidation we chose the model molecule raloxifene. First, glucuronidation is the main clearance pathway of this compound without involvement of preceding mechanisms. Second, raloxifene's extensive glucuronidation site is primarily at the intestine. Raloxifene's oral bioavailability was determined in a series of pharmacokinetic experiments using the freely moving rat model. In order to test the effect of the formulation on the relevant UGT enzymes reported in the clinic, we used the in vitro method of UGT-Glo Assay. Coadministration of raloxifene and piperine pro-nano lipospheres to rats resulted in a 2-fold increase in the relative oral bioavailability of raloxifene. However, coadministration of raloxifene with blank pro-nano lipospheres had no effect on its oral bioavailability. In contrast to the difference found in vivo between the two vehicles, both formulations extended an inhibitory effect on UGT enzymes in vitro. Ultimately, these findings prove the ability of the formulation to diminish intestinal direct phase II metabolism which serves as an absorption obstacle for many of today's marketed drugs. Pro-nano lipospheres is a formulation that serves as a platform for the simultaneous delivery of the absorption enhancer and a required drug. The discrepancy found between the in vivo and in vitro models demonstrates that the in vitro method may not be sensitive enough to distinguish the difference between the formulations.