ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Abiraterone acetate is an inhibitor of androgens biosynthesis, approved as first-line treatment in castration-resistant prostate cancer and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Abiraterone has been rarely associated with severe rhabdomyolysis, but the mechanism of muscle toxicity is unknown. CASE REPORT: We hereby present a case of severe rhabdomyolysis resulting in acute on chronic kidney injury following abiraterone initiation in a patient previously under rosuvastatin. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Rhabdomyolysis was resolutive after rosuvastatin and abiraterone discontinuation, and kidney function recovered. There was no recurrence of muscle toxicity after re-initiation of abiraterone alone. DISCUSSION: Abiraterone selectively inhibits CYP17 as well as the hepatic transporter OATP1B1. OATP1B1 is an efflux transporter, whose function is to extract several drugs from the portal blood, allowing them to undergo hepatic metabolism. We hypothesize that abiraterone-induced inhibition of plasmatic uptake of rosuvastatin by OATP1B1 increased plasmatic concentration of rosuvastatin, leading to toxicity on muscle cells. We therefore suggest that the association between rosuvastatin and abiraterone should be avoided.
Subject(s)
Abiraterone Acetate/adverse effects , Acute Kidney Injury/chemically induced , Rhabdomyolysis/chemically induced , Rosuvastatin Calcium/adverse effects , Aged , Humans , Liver-Specific Organic Anion Transporter 1/antagonists & inhibitors , Male , Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/drug therapyABSTRACT
In the original publication of an article, the corresponding author name has been swapped. Now the correct name has been published in this correction.
ABSTRACT
Background Initiatives are needed to promote and evaluate clinical pharmacy. In this context, benchmarking could be useful. Objective To develop and validate a benchmarking tool for clinical pharmacy activities. Setting Six Belgian hospitals. Method A narrative literature review and two focus groups were performed to identify (1) clinical pharmacy benchmarking projects, (2) clinical pharmacy activities with a proven positive impact on the quality of care for patients, (3) quality indicators and (4) contextual factors to be included in the tool. Next, a Delphi survey and a test of the tool in practice led to content validation and usability of the benchmarking tool. Main Outcome Measure To identify quality indicators and contextual factors to be included in the tool. Results Three Delphi rounds were required (rounds 1-2: 9 participants, round 3: 8 participants). Ten quality indicators and 36 relevant contextual factors were selected. These 10 quality indicators represent 6 clinical pharmacy activities that demonstrated to improve patient outcomes: medication reconciliation at admission, patient monitoring, information provided to the health care team, patient education, discharge and transfer medication counselling, and adverse drug reaction monitoring. To collect the information needed to compose the quality indicators and to benchmark, the tool consists of three data collection instruments. An instruction manual accompanies the tool. Conclusion We have developed and validated a benchmarking tool, designed to identify and promote clinical pharmacy activities that demonstrated to improve patient outcomes. Future perspectives include the use of the tool on a national scale to identify the most efficient practices and their enablers and barriers.
