[Support of oncology caregivers by pharmacists]. / Accompagnement des soignants en oncologie par les pharmaciens.

Beyond the checking of a prescription, the pathophysiological characteristics of the patient and the other prescribed medicines, pharmacists contribute to the field of oncology in their other missions. The benefits in terms of the reduction of risks for caregivers have been favoured by the centralisation of preparations combined with the application of other methods derived from industry. Research is continuing in order to dispense safe medicines which comply with the prescription and control the risks linked to the use of these highly active medicines.

Bicarbonate-buffered ropivacaine-mepivacaine solution for medial caruncle anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: To compare self-reported pain during injection of plain versus alkalinised 0.75% ropivacaine-2% mepivacaine solution for anaesthesia performed at the medial caruncle site for eye surgery. METHODS: This prospective, monocentric, double blind, randomised, controlled trial involved 40 consecutive patients who received either a standard local anaesthetic solution (0.75% ropivacaine 5ml and 2% mepivacaine 5ml with a pH of 5.9), or an alkalinised solution composed with a pH-adjusted solution of 7.0 through adjunction of 0.15mEq sodium bicarbonate per 10ml of the same mixture. Before anaesthesia, patients received intravenous midazolam (0.03mg/kg) to ease potential anxiety. During injection performed at the medial caruncle site, patients were asked to grade a pain VRS (0 to 10) for the injection using a verbal analogue scale. The primary end point was to investigate pain during injection of local anaesthetics. RESULTS: Anxiety levels before anaesthesia were low and similar for both groups. The mean pain score for the alkalinised group was significantly reduced compared to the control group (6 [25-75%, IQR 4-9] versus 3 [25-75%, IQR 1-5]; P=0.02; 95% CI for the difference in median pain scores [1.9-3.3]). CONCLUSION: Buffering local anaesthetics used in caruncular injection for eye surgery significantly reduces pain during injection. This simple strategy should be tested in routine clinical practice to improve patient satisfaction.

Dose intensity and toxicity associated with Taxotere formulation: a retrospective study in a population of breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel as an adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Docetaxel is an antineoplastic drug from the taxane family that inhibits tubulin polymerization. Its brand name is Taxotere. In mid-2010, the formulation of Taxotere changed from a two-vial preparation needing a predilution (T2V) to a one-vial ready-to-use preparation (T1V). The aim of this study was to compare the toxicity profile of these two formulations. This retrospective observational and monocentric study included all patients who received Taxotere-based chemotherapy (100 mg/m) as an adjuvant or a neoadjuvant treatment for localized breast cancer, following initial treatment with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Patients received either T2V or T1V Taxotere depending on the period of treatment. The main endpoint was the ratio of the dose of Taxotere received to that scheduled (R=docetaxel dose received/docetaxel dose scheduled). The secondary endpoint was tolerance. A total of 97 patients were included: 39 in the T2V group and 58 in the T1V group. The ratio of docetaxel received/docetaxel scheduled was significantly lower in the T1V than in the T2V group (0.83 vs. 0.95, respectively; P=0.028). A higher proportion of patients did not receive the totality of the scheduled dose in the T1V than in the T2V group (28 vs. 8%, respectively; P=0.03). Furthermore, the proportion of patients experiencing cutaneous toxicity was significantly higher in the T1V than in the T2V group (50 vs. 15%, respectively; P<0.001) as well as for neurological toxicity (31 vs. 15%, respectively; P=0.03). The frequency of grade 3 toxicities was higher in the T1V than in the T2V group (50 vs. 8%, P=0.016). The frequency of idiosyncratic toxicities was not affected by the change of formulation (4.7 vs. 5.4%, P=0.98). This study shows that patients treated with the T1V formulation received a significantly smaller dose of Taxotere than patients treated with T2V. In this small retrospective study, no conclusions can be drawn as to why a change in formulation would be associated with differences in dose tolerance. However, it does encourage caution and need for clinical data analysis when adopting even minor changes in the formulation of well-known anticancer drugs.