RESUMO
PURPOSE: Although prescription of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for epileptic patients on anti-seizure medications (ASMs) is on the increase, international guidelines pose strict restrictions because this may lead to pharmacologic interactions. However, current evidence on their clinical relevance remains scanty. This retrospective, case-control study assessed the frequency of ischemic/hemorrhagic events and epileptic seizures involving DOAC-ASM cotherapy in the real world, compared with DOAC and ASM monotherapy, in age- and gender-matched controls. METHODS: Data on patients who had been prescribed a concomitant DOAC and ASM therapy for at least 6 months were extracted from the database of the Pharmaceutical Service of the Alessandria Province (Italy). After exclusions, the case group included 124 patients, 44 on valproic acid (VPA) and 80 on levetiracetam (LEV) concomitant with a DOAC, and it was compared with the DOAC-control and ASM-control groups. The clinical and laboratory data were extracted from the electronic archives of the hospitals in the same province. FINDINGS: Two (1.6%) ischemic and 2 (1.6%) major hemorrhagic events were observed in the case group. Four (3.2%) ischemic and no hemorrhagic events occurred in the DOAC-control group. There were no statistically significant differences in the ischemic and hemorrhagic events between the case group (patients on concomitant LEV or VPA who were prescribed a DOAC) and the DOAC-control group, and there was no difference in the recurrence rate of epileptic seizures between the case group and the ASM-control group. IMPLICATIONS: Although this study has some limits, mainly the small sample size, our findings indicate that neither LEV nor VPA concomitant treatment significantly affects the effects of DOACs in a real-world setting.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: We performed a phase II study to assess feasibility, pain relief, and toxicity of a tetracaine-based oral gel in the treatment of radiotherapy (RT)-induced mucositis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty patients treated with RT for head-and-neck cancer with clinical evidence of acute oral mucositis of grade>or=2 were scheduled to receive the tetracaine gel. A questionnaire evaluating the effect of the gel was given to all subjects. RESULTS: In 38 patients (79.2%), a reduction in oral cavity pain was reported. Thirty-four patients (82.9%) reported no side effect. Seventy-one percent of patients had no difficulties in gel application. Unpleasant taste of the gel and interference with food taste were noticed in 5 (12%) and 16 patients (39%), respectively. Planned RT course was interrupted less frequently in patients who reported benefit from gel application than in patients who did not (p=0.014). None of the patients who experienced pain relief needed a nasogastric tube, opposite to the patients who did not report any benefit from gel application (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Tetracaine oral gel administration seemed feasible and safe while reducing RT-induced mucositis-related oral pain in a sizeable proportion of treated head-and-neck cancer patients. A trial designed to compare efficacy of this gel vs. standard treatment is warranted.
