Purpose: This study aimed to assess pharmacy students' knowledge and attitudes towards geriatric pharmacy education and older patients to determine their preparation in delivering appropriate medical care to the geriatric population.
Methods: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed among pharmacy students in different Malaysian universities. The survey included several sections to assess multiple aspects such as sociodemographic information, assessment of knowledge using a validated 28-item Geriatric Knowledge Assessment Scale (GKAS), and attitudes towards geriatrics education.
Results: The response rate was around 70% of the respondents. The mean (± standard deviation) age of the cohort was 22.28 (±1.12) years. Despite around 78% of pharmacy students claiming that their knowledge of geriatric care is adequate, their GKAS score showed that only around 20% have high geriatric knowledge. Around 80% of them showed a positive attitude on the importance of taking courses focused on geriatric care and demonstrated interest to further knowledge and training in geriatric care. However, more than half of the students were uncertain of their answers towards their attitudes regarding older patients.
Conclusion: Given the growing role of pharmacists in the ageing population, this study highlights the importance of geriatric care education among potential pharmacists. Therefore, we urge the need to improve/develop geriatrics education and training into the pharmacy curriculum to ensure sufficient preparation for actual practice after graduation.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.