High incidence of major bleeding with off-label use of edoxaban.

In clinical practice, edoxaban is sometimes prescribed for off-label use based on the hypothesis that it is as safe and effective as warfarin. However, there is limited safety information on off-label use due to lack of clinical trial. We aimed to analyze the tolerability of off-label use of edoxaban and to identify patient characteristics associated with major bleeding as adverse effects. Patients under edoxaban treatment between January 2017 and December 2017 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The incidence of major bleeding with off-label use compared with on-label use was analyzed using by log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis were undertaken to detect independent variables with significant odds ratio that associated with major bleeding. After the exclusion criteria were applied, the patients were divided into two groups: off-label group (n = 30) and on-label group (n = 161). Incidence of major bleeding was found to be higher in the off-label group (13.3%) than in the on-label group (3.7%) (p<0.05). Multivariate adjustment showed that the off-label use or portal vein thrombosis and patients with history of major bleeding has significantly higher incidence of major bleeding. We demonstrated that off-label use of edoxaban may be a significant risk factor for major bleeding.

Cerebellar hemorrhage in patients treated with edoxaban for portal vein thrombosis after hepatobiliary surgery: a report of two cases.

BACKGROUND: The standard therapeutic agent administered for portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with or without cirrhosis is warfarin or low-molecular weight heparin. However, therapy with edoxaban appears to be one of the most promising treatments for patients who require anticoagulation therapy. We encountered two cases of cerebellar hemorrhage in patients treated with edoxaban for PVT after hepatobiliary surgery during the past 2 years. CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1 A 67-year-old male underwent cholecystectomy and choledocholithotomy with choledochoduodenostomy to treat choledocholithiasis after cholangitis. Enhanced computed tomography (CT) on the 1st postoperative day (POD) revealed thrombosis in the left and anterior segment of the portal vein branches. We administered antithrombin III concentrate with heparin for 5 days; thereafter, we switched to 60 mg edoxaban. A sudden decrease in the patient's level of consciousness was observed due to cerebellar hemorrhage on POD 27. Cerebellar hemorrhage was successfully treated with craniotomy hematoma evacuation and ventricular drainage; however, the patient died from aggravation of hepatic failure due to PVT and intra-abdominal infection. Case 2 A 67-year-old male received laparoscopic microwave coagulation therapy for two hepatic nodules suggestive of hepatocellular carcinoma in the left lobe of the liver due to alcoholic hepatitis. Enhanced CT on POD 5 revealed a thrombosis in the 4th segment branch of the portal vein, and the patient was treated with 60 mg edoxaban. Cerebellar hemorrhage with ventricular perforation occurred on POD 15. Cerebellar hemorrhage was successfully treated by craniotomy hematoma evacuation with ventricular drainage. Prolonged consciousness disorder persisted, and the patient was transferred to another medical facility for rehabilitation 49 days after brain surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Although edoxaban is recently described to be one of the options for patients with PVT who require anticoagulation therapy instead of heparin or warfarin, it should be used with caution, given its propensity to induce severe hemorrhagic adverse events in cases such as those described above. The monitoring of hepatic dysfunction and decision for continuation of drug may be required during edoxaban use for PVT, especially after hepatobiliary surgery.

Granisetron plus aprepitant versus granisetron in preventing nausea and vomiting during CHOP or R-CHOP regimen in malignant lymphoma: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (CHOP) regimen includes a high dose of prednisolone (100 mg/body), which exhibits an anticancer and antiemetic effect. However, its optimal use for antiemetic therapy has not been established yet. We assessed the efficacy of granisetron plus aprepitant versus granisetron for CHOP or rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) regimen-induced nausea and vomiting in malignant lymphoma. METHODS: This retrospective and observational clinical study included patients who received CHOP or R-CHOP regimen as initiating chemotherapy between July 2010 and March 2016 (N = 39). Patients were assigned to an aprepitant [aprepitant (125 mg on day 1, 80 mg on days 2-3) plus granisetron (3 mg); n = 15] or control regimen group [granisetron (3 mg); n = 24]. Complete response (CR), defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy during overall phase (0-120 h), was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication and complete protection (CP) defined as no vomiting and no retching and/or no nausea and no rescue therapy. The patient records were investigated, and data were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: CR rate CP rates did not significantly differ between the groups during the observation period (80.0% versus 83.3%, p = 1.000; and 80.0% versus 79.2%, p = 1.000, respectively). Additionally, the time to first vomiting and using rescue medication in did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.909). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that granisetron alone could be one treatment option in the management of CINV in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving CHOP or R-CHOP regimen.

Change in blood tacrolimus concentration by fluctuation of renal function in a bone marrow transplant patient.

The authors report a case showing a marked change in blood tacrolimus concentration due to modification of renal function in a bone marrow transplant recipient. Blood tacrolimus concentration was well controlled after transplantation, but an approximately threefold increase in the concentration was observed on day 10 even though the dosage was unchanged. Although there were no pronounced changes in hepatic enzyme activities in serum, marked elevations of renal function test values were noted; concentrations of serum creatinine (SCr) and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) were increased by more than 300% from the original levels. The tacrolimus concentration was gradually decreased by the dose reduction, but the dose-adjusted tacrolimus blood concentration (C/D) was increased contrary to the decreased tacrolimus concentration. The C/D of tacrolimus also began to decline from several days after the recovery of Scr and BUN levels and returned to the basal level. Our finding suggests that renal function has a significant effect on the pharmacokinetic disposition of tacrolimus, although this agent is almost completely eliminated by hepatic metabolism. Careful attention should be paid to alteration in tacrolimus blood concentration, especially when renal function fluctuates during post-transplant immunosuppressive therapy.

Fluctuation in therapeutic control associated with interchange of prednisolone tablet formulations: assessment of bioequivalence by dissolution test.

A 47-year-old woman received combination therapy with prednisolone (PSL), danazol, cepharanthin, ascorbic acid, and cimetidine for the treatment of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. The platelet count was well controlled for over 1 year. Then the PSL tablet formulation was altered from Tablet A to Tablet B with the same treatment regimen, but the platelet counts fell drastically thereafter. However, the platelet counts recovered by changing the PSL tablet formulation back from Tablet B to Tablet A. In vitro dissolution testing was undertaken to assess bioequivalence between Tablet A and Tablet B. PSL in Tablet B was released more slowly compared with that in Tablet A regardless of the medium pH conditions, and the difference in the release rate between the two tablet formulations increased with increasing medium pH value. The difference exceeded the allowance limit (15%) for judgment of bioequivalence under conditions above pH 4, indicating that Tablet A and Tablet B might be nonbioequivalent. The intragastric pH of the patient was probably raised due to coadministration of cimetidine. Therefore the present results suggest that the disparity in the immunosuppressive effects between the two PSL tablet formulations was attributable to the difference in their dissolution behavior in the gastrointestinal tract. We consider that it is better to avoid interchanging PSL tablet formulations in clinical practice.