MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the clinical notes of all patients prescribed with oral capecitabine chemotherapy for any tumour sites in University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) from 1st January 2009 till 31st June 2010. Information collected included patient demographics, histopathological features, treatment received including the different chemotherapy regimens and intent of treatment whether the chemotherapy was given for neoadjuvant, concurrent with radiation, adjuvant or palliative intent. The aim of this study is to establish the pattern of usage, FN and TRD rates with capecitabine in clinical practice outside of clinical trial setting. FN is defined as an oral temperature >38.5°or two consecutive readings of >38.0° for 2 hours and an absolute neutrophil count <0.5 x 109/L, or expected to fall below 0.5 x 109/L (de Naurois et al., 2010). Treatment related death was defined as death occurring during or within 30 days of last chemotherapy treatment.
RESULTS: Between 1st January 2009 and 30th June 2010, 274 patients were treated with capecitabine chemotherapy in UMMC. The mean age was 58 years (range 22 to 82 years). Capecitabine was used in 14 different tumour sites with the colorectal site predominating with a total of 128 cases (46.7%), followed by breast cancer (35.8%). Capecitabine was most commonly used in the palliative setting accounting for 63.9% of the cases, followed by the adjuvant setting (19.7%). The most common regimen was single agent capecitabine with 129 cases (47.1%). The other common regimens were XELOX (21.5%) and ECX (10.2%). The main result of this study showed an overall FN rate of 2.2% (6/274). The overall TRD rate was 5.1% (14/274). The FN rate for the single agent capecitabine regimen was 1.6% (2/129) and the TRD rate was 5.4% (7/129). All the TRDs were with single agent capecitabine regimen were used for palliative intent.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is used widely in clinical practice in a myriad of tumour sites and bears a low risk of febrile neutropaenia. However, capecitabine like any other intravenous chemotherapeutic agent carries a significant risk of treatment related death.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of unlicensed and off-label use of medicines in hospitalised children in the intensive care units of a tertiary care teaching hospital.
METHODS: A prospective, observational exploratory study was conducted on medicines prescribed to children admitted to the 3 intensive care units of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC).
RESULTS: A total of 194 patients were admitted to UKMMC, 168 of them received one or more drugs. Of 1,295 prescriptions, 353 (27.3 %) were unlicensed and 442 (34.1 %) were for off-label use. Forty-four percent of patients received at least one medicine for unlicensed use and 82.1 % received at least one medicine off-label. Preterm infants, children aged 28 days to 23 months, patients with hospital stays of more than 2 weeks, and those prescribed increasing numbers of medicines were more likely to receive medicines for unlicensed use. Term neonates and patients prescribed increasing numbers of medicines had increased risk of receiving medicines for off-label use.
CONCLUSION: Prescribing of medicines in an unlicensed or off-label fashion to the children in the intensive care units of UKMMC was common. Further detailed studies are necessary to ensure the delivery of safe and effective medicines to children.
DESIGN: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Sepsis PRevalence, OUtcomes, and Therapies study. Data about PICU characteristics, patient demographics, therapies, and outcomes were compared. Multivariable regression models were used to determine adjusted differences in morbidity and mortality.
SETTING: European and U.S. PICUs.
PATIENTS: Children with severe sepsis managed in European and U.S. PICUs enrolled in the Sepsis PRevalence, OUtcomes, and Therapies study.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: European PICUs had fewer beds (median, 11 vs 24; p < 0.001). European patients were younger (median, 1 vs 6 yr; p < 0.001), had higher severity of illness (median Pediatric Index of Mortality-3, 5.0 vs 3.8; p = 0.02), and were more often admitted from the ward (37% vs 24%). Invasive mechanical ventilation, central venous access, and vasoactive infusions were used more frequently in European patients (85% vs 68%, p = 0.002; 91% vs 82%, p = 0.05; and 71% vs 50%; p < 0.001, respectively). Raw morbidity and mortality outcomes were worse for European compared with U.S. patients, but after adjusting for patient characteristics, there were no significant differences in mortality, multiple organ dysfunction, disability at discharge, length of stay, or ventilator/vasoactive-free days.
CONCLUSIONS: Children with severe sepsis admitted to European PICUs have higher severity of illness, are more likely to be admitted from hospital wards, and receive more intensive care therapies than in the United States. The lack of significant differences in morbidity and mortality after adjusting for patient characteristics suggests that the approach to care between regions, perhaps related to PICU bed availability, needs to be considered in the design of future international clinical trials in pediatric severe sepsis.