Actual versus recommended storage temperatures of oral anticancer medicines at patients' homes.

BACKGROUND: Substantial quantities of unused medicines are returned by patients to the pharmacy each year. Redispensing these medicines would reduce medicinal waste and health care costs. However, it is not known if medicines are stored by patients as recommended in the product label. Inadequate storage may negatively affect the medicine and reduce clinical efficacy whilst increasing the risk for side effects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the proportion of patients storing oral anticancer medicines according to the temperature instructions in the product label. METHODS: Consenting adult patients from six Dutch outpatient hospital pharmacies were included in this study if they used an oral anticancer medicine during February 2014 - January 2015. Home storage temperatures were assessed by inclusion of a temperature logger in the original cancer medicines packaging. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients storing oral anticancer medicines as specified in the Summary of Product Characteristics, either by recalculating the observed temperature fluctuations to a single mean kinetic temperature or by following the temperature instructions taking into account a consecutive 24-h tolerance period. RESULTS: Ninety (81.1%) of the 111 included patients (47.8% female, mean age 65.2 (SD: 11.1)) returned their temperature loggers to the pharmacy. None of the patients stored oral anticancer medicines at a mean kinetic temperature above 25℃, one patient stored a medicine requiring storage below 25℃ longer than 24 h above 25℃. None of the patients using medicines requiring storage below 30℃ kept their medicine above 30℃ for a consecutive period of 24 h or longer. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients using oral anticancer medicines store their medicines according to the temperature requirements on the product label claim. Based on our results, most oral anticancer medicines will not be negatively affected by temperature conditions at patients' homes for a maximum of three months and are likely to be suitable for redispensing.

[Oral drops: unsafe or unwieldy method of administration?] / Druppels: onveilige of onhandige toedieningsvorm?

The Netherlands Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) was recently informed about a serious pipamperone overdose in a 6-year-old boy, which happened because the boy was given the medication in streams rather than in drops. This article describes the use of drops in pharmaceutical patient care and explains why the MEB has maintained marketing authorization for the product on the basis of currently available information. The MEB urgently requests the healthcare professional groups to report all problems concerning drug use to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, and the Portal for Patient Safety; this is the only way in which it can be verified whether incidental medication errors are actually, and continue to be, incidental.

Disintegration of sublingual tablets: proposal for a validated test method and acceptance criterion.

In the Netherlands the market share of isosorbide dinitrate 5 mg sublingual tablets is dominated by 2 products (A and B). In the last few years complaints have been received from health care professionals on product B. During patient use the disintegration of the tablet was reported to be slow and/or incomplete, and ineffectiveness was experienced. In the European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) no requirement is present for the disintegration time of sublingual tablets. The purpose of this study was to compare the in vitro disintegration time of products A and B, and to establish a suitable test method and acceptance criterion. A and B were tested with the Ph. Eur. method described in the monograph on disintegration of tablets and capsules as well as with 3 modified tests using the same Ph. Eur. apparatus, but without movement of the basket-rack assembly. In modified test 1 and modified test 2 water was used as medium (900 ml and 50 ml respectively), whereas in modified test 3 artificial saliva was used (50 ml). In addition, disintegration was tested in Nessler tubes with 0.5 and 2 ml of water. Finally, the Ph. Eur. method was also applied to other sublingual tablets with other drug substances on the Dutch market. With modified test 3 no disintegration could be achieved within 20 min. With the Ph. Eur. method and modified tests 1 and 2 product A and B differed significantly (p < 0. 001), with product B having longer disintegration times. These 3 methods were capable of discriminating between products and between batches. The time measured with the Ph. Eur. method was significantly lower compared to modified tests 1 and 2 (p < 0.001) and correlated well with the Nessler tube results. It is concluded that the in vivo complaints on product B could be related to the in vitro data. Furthermore, it is proposed that for immediate release of sublingual tablets the disintegration time should be tested. The Ph. Eur. method is considered suitable for this test. In view of the products currently on the market and taking into consideration requirements in the United States Pharmacopeia and Japanese Pharmacopoeia, an acceptance criterion of not more than 2 min is proposed.

An improved in vitro method for the evaluation of antacids with in vivo relevance.

An improved in vitro method for the evaluation of antacids for use with standard equipment is described. The method is a modification of an older method (RIGO method) and has in vivo relevance. The improved method uses USP dissolution test apparatus 2 with a stirring rate of 125 rpm in combination with a computerized automatic burette. The test solution is 250 ml 0.02 M HCl. A total of 20 min after addition of an antacid to the test solution titration starts at a constant speed of 2.0 ml/min 0.1 M HCl. The proposed acceptance criteria for a waiver for clinical studies are: pH after 4 min not less than 2.5 to ensure a rapid onset of effect, pH after 20 min not exceeding 7.0 to ensure that the pH in the stomach remains within physiological values, buffering capacity between pH 2.5 and 4.5 not less than 8 meq/dose and neutralizing capacity not less than 10 meq/dose to ensure sufficient efficacy within the physiological range. The improved method has been validated with respect to robustness to variations in sample preparation, repeatability and intermediate precision and has been cross-validated versus the RIGO method. The improved method has been found to be rather insensitive to variations in sample pretreatment and at least equivalent to the RIGO method.