Antibody drug conjugates: Design implications for clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: There are currently 11 antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) that are FDA approved for use in oncologic disease states, with many more in the pipeline. The authors aim to review the pharmacokinetic profiles of the components of ADCs to engage pharmacist practitioners in practical considerations in the care of patients. This article provides an overview on the use of ADCs in the setting of organ dysfunction, drug-drug interactions, and management of on- and off-target adverse effects. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of the literature on ADCs through September 2023 was conducted. Clinical trials as well as articles on ADC design and functional components, adverse effects, and pharmacokinetics were reviewed. Reviewed literature included prescribing information as well as tertiary sources and primary literature. DATA SUMMARY: A total of 11 ADCs were reviewed for the purpose of this article. A description of the mechanism of action and structure of ADCs is outlined, and a table containing description of each currently FDA-approved ADC is included. Various mechanisms of ADC toxicity are reviewed, including how ADC structure may be implicated. CONCLUSION: It is imperative that pharmacist clinicians understand the design and function of each component of an ADC to continue to assess new approvals for use in oncology patients. Understanding the design of the ADC can help a pharmacy practitioner compare and contrast adverse effect profiles to support their multidisciplinary teams and to engage patients in education and management of their care.

US Public Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinical Services in an Era of Declining Public Health Funding: 2013-14.

BACKGROUND: We examined the infrastructure for US public sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinical services. METHODS: In 2013 to 2014, we surveyed 331 of 1225 local health departments (LHDs) who either reported providing STD testing/treatment in the 2010 National Profile of Local Health Departments survey or were the 50 local areas with the highest STD cases or rates. The sample was stratified by jurisdiction population size. We examined the primary referral clinics for STDs, the services offered and the impact of budget cuts (limited to government funding only). Data were analyzed using SAS, and analyses were weighted for nonresponse. RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of LHDs cited a specialty STD clinic as their primary referral for STD services; this increased to 53.5% of LHDs when combination STD-family planning clinics were included. The majority of LHDs (62.8%) referred to clinics providing same-day services. Sexually transmitted disease clinics more frequently offered extragenital testing for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea (74.7%) and gonorrhea culture (68.5%) than other clinics (52.9%, 46.2%, respectively; P < 0.05). The majority of LHDs (61.5%) reported recent budget cuts. Of those with decreased budgets, the most common impacts were fewer clinic hours (42.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.4-61.2), reduced routine screening (40.2%; 95% CI, 21.7-58.8) and reductions in partner services (42.1%; 95% CI, 23.6-60.7). One quarter of those with reduced STD budgets increased fees or copays for clients. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate gaps and reductions in US public STD services including clinical services that play an important role in reducing disease transmission. Furthermore, STD clinics tended to offer more specialized STD services than other public clinics.