Subcutaneous vs Intravenous Trastuzumab/Pertuzumab: A Time and Motion Substudy of a Phase II Trial of Adjuvant Trastuzumab/Pertuzumab for Stage I HER2+ Breast Cancer (ADEPT trial).

PURPOSE: The time required for in-clinic drug administration can substantially affect breast cancer patients' quality of life. Subcutaneous (SC) drug administration, as opposed to intravenous (IV), may reduce this time commitment. This study sought to estimate the difference in time burden between IV and SC administration of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a subcohort of patients participating in the ADEPT trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04569747, investigating adjuvant HP plus endocrine therapy for stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer) to this single-arm crossover time and motion substudy. Patients received two cycles of IV HP followed by two cycles of SC HP. During each cycle, time points in drug preparation and administration were captured. The primary end point was total patient time in the treatment chair. Additional end points included total patient treatment experience time and total pharmacy workflow time. A sample size of 22 patients was estimated to provide 90.7% power with two-sided alpha .05 to detect a difference of 70 minutes in the primary end point by treatment arm (IV v SC). RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were enrolled. The mean total patient time in the treatment chair was 61.8 minutes shorter with SC versus IV HP (22.5 v 84.3 minutes; P < .0001). The mean total patient treatment experience time (incorporating time spent waiting for treatment initiation and time spent in the treatment chair) was 81.8 minutes shorter for SC administration (96 v 177.8 minutes; P < .0001). The pharmacy workflow time was 78.2 minutes shorter for SC versus IV formulation (41 v 119.2 minutes; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: SC administration of HP shortened patient time burden by approximately 1 hour. SC drug administration can facilitate faster workflows for health care professionals and improve patients' breast cancer treatment experience.

A review of medical marijuana for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: Real symptom re-leaf or just high hopes?

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is common within the population and even more so among veterans. Current medication treatment is limited primarily to antidepressants. Such medicines have shown to produce low remission rates and may require 9 patients to be treated for 1 to have a response. Aside from the Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense guidelines, other guidelines do not recommend pharmacotherapy as a first-line option, particularly in the veteran population. Marijuana has been evaluated as an alternative and novel treatment option with 16 states legalizing its use for PTSD. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to evaluate the evidence for the use of marijuana for PTSD. Studies for the review were included based on a literature search from Ovid MEDLINE and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Five studies were identified that evaluated the use of marijuana for PTSD. One trial was conducted in Israel and actively used marijuana. Three studies did not use marijuana in the treatment arm but instead evaluated the effects postuse. A retrospective chart review from New Mexico relied on patients to recall their change in PTSD symptoms when using marijuana. Three studies concluded there might be a benefit, but two discouraged its use. Although the two negative studies show a statistical difference in worse PTSD outcomes, clinical significance is unclear. DISCUSSION: Conflicting data exist for the use of marijuana for PTSD; however, current evidence is limited to anecdotal experiences, case reports, and observational studies, making it difficult to make clinical recommendations.

Psychiatric pharmacists' perception on the use of pharmacogenomic testing in the mental health population.

AIM: Pharmacogenomics could play a role in improving patient care, reducing adverse drug reactions and overall healthcare costs. However, whether it is utilized may be determined by how it is perceived by healthcare professionals, including pharmacists. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey evaluated psychiatric pharmacists' use, knowledge and perception of the effectiveness of such testing. RESULTS: Among participants, 80% worked at sites not offering pharmacogenomic testing, mostly due to a lack of funding. About 36% of pharmacists considered themselves more knowledgeable and 47% considered themselves less knowledgeable about pharmacogenomic testing; however, most agreed on the potential usefulness of testing. CONCLUSION: Among psychiatric pharmacists, the use of pharmacogenomics appears underappreciated due to factors such as lack of availability and understanding of testing. Original submitted 26 November 2014; Revision submitted 13 February 2015.