It's time for comprehensive polypharmacy reviews for older people with cancer

The number of older people with cancer is growing and so is their risk of harmful polypharmacy — care for this expanding group of patients must improve

How-to guide for medication reviews in older adults with cancer: A Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology and Nursing & Allied Health Interest Group initiative

For patients with polypharmacy or potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use identified on geriatric assessment, a medication review is recommended. The medication review aims to ensure that the potential benefits of medication outweigh any potential harms and ensures the patient is receiving medication to effectively treat their medical conditions while minimizing risk of toxicity. The medication review encompasses: (1) collecting information to identify medication indications, efficacy and side effects, (2) evaluating adherence, (3) identifying PIMs, (4) identifying drug interactions, and (5) deprescribing. This paper provides the “how-to” guide to conduct a high-quality medication review by the cancer care multidisciplinary team

How-to guide for medication reviews in older adults with cancer: A Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology and Nursing & Allied Health Interest Group initiative

For patients with polypharmacy or potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use identified on geriatric assessment, a medication review is recommended. The medication review aims to ensure that the potential benefits of medication outweigh any potential harms and ensures the patient is receiving medication to effectively treat their medical conditions while minimizing risk of toxicity. The medication review encompasses: (1) collecting information to identify medication indications, efficacy and side effects, (2) evaluating adherence, (3) identifying PIMs, (4) identifying drug interactions, and (5) deprescribing. This paper provides the “how-to” guide to conduct a high-quality medication review by the cancer care multidisciplinary team.</p

Optimising medications for patients with cancer and multimorbidity: The case for deprescribing

The majority of patients diagnosed with cancer are aged over 65 years and have two or more chronic conditions in addition to cancer and the risk of chronic conditions increases further after cancer. The presence of multimorbidity adds complexity to care, as patients' goals of care and the focus of treatment can change with a diagnosis of cancer. Multimorbidity is frequently associated with polypharmacy, the use of potentially inappropriate medications, the presence of adverse drug reactions and potential drug–drug interactions: all of which impact on health outcomes and the cost of care. Consequently, it is vital that a systematic approach is taken to regularly review cancer patients' medication regimens to ensure that they support an optimal balance of benefits with acceptable levels of harm. Several patient and clinician resources are presented to guide the process of medication review and deprescribing

Medication assessment in older adults with cancer – Current practices in clinical pharmacy

The needs of older adults (aged ≥65 years) are evolving and complex, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Guidelines from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) [ [1] ] advocate for healthcare providers to perform a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). A CGA is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process, assessing a patient's medical, psychosocial, and functional capacity to tailor an integrated treatment plan, including long-term follow-up [ [1] ]. Nurses and allied healthcare professionals have a crucial role to play in the CGA process

A scoping review of ageism towards older adults in cancer care

Introduction: Ageism towards older adults with cancer may impact treatment decisions, healthcare interactions, and shape health/psychosocial outcomes. The purpose of this review is twofold: (1) To synthesize the literature on ageism towards older adults with cancer in oncology and (2) To identify interventions that address ageism in the healthcare context applicable to oncology. Materials and methods: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted an exhaustive multi-database search, screening 30,926 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we conducted tabular, narrative, and textual synthesis. Results: We extracted data on 133 papers. Most (n = 44) were expert opinions, reviews, and letters to editors highlighting the negative impacts of ageism, expressing the need for approaches addressing heterogeneity of older adults, and calling for increased clinical trial inclusion for older adults. Qualitative studies (n = 3) described healthcare professionals' perceived influence of age on treatment recommendations, whereas quantitative studies (n = 32) were inconclusive as to whether age-related bias impacted treatment recommendations/outcomes or survival. Intervention studies (n = 54) targeted ageism in pre/post-licensure healthcare professionals and reported participants' improvement in knowledge and/or attitudes towards older adults. No interventions were found that had been implemented in oncology. Discussion: Concerns relating to ageism in cancer care are consistently described in the literature. Interventions exist to address ageism; however, none have been developed or tested in oncology settings. Addressing ageism in oncology will require integration of geriatric knowledge/interventions to address conscious and unconscious ageist attitudes impacting care and outcomes. Interventions hold promise if tailored for cancer care settings

Cancer treatment-related decision-making among culturally and linguistically diverse older adults with cancer: A scoping review by the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Nursing and Allied Health Interest Group

INTRODUCTION: Countries with large economies are observing a growing number of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) older adults, many of whom will be affected by cancer. Little is known about the experiences and factors that influence cancer treatment decision-making in this population. The purposes of this scoping review are: (1) to summarize the published literature on cancer treatment-related decision-making with this population; and (2) to identify potential differences in how cancer treatment decisions are made compared to non-CALD older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review Guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive multidatabase search, screening 1,139 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we analyzed the data using tabular and narrative summary. RESULTS: We extracted data from six studies that met the inclusion criteria: four quantitative and two qualitative; five from the United States and one from Canada. Three themes were identified: (1) barriers to decision-making, (2) the influence of family and friends on decisionmaking, and (3) differences in uptake and types of treatment received between CALD and non-CALD older adults. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive review of treatment decision-making among CALD older adults with cancer highlights the paucity of research in this area. The findings are limited to North American populations and may not represent experiences in other regions of the world. Future research should focus on studying their treatment-related decision-making experiences to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population

Cancer treatment-related decision-making among culturally and linguistically diverse older adults with cancer : a scoping review by the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Nursing and Allied Health Interest Group

Introduction: Countries with large economies are observing a growing number of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) older adults, many of whom will be affected by cancer. Little is known about the experiences and factors that influence cancer treatment decision-making in this population. The purposes of this scoping review are: (1) to summarize the published literature on cancer treatment-related decision-making with this population; and (2) to identify potential differences in how cancer treatment decisions are made compared to non-CALD older adults with cancer. Materials and Methods: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review Guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive multidatabase search, screening 1,139 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we analyzed the data using tabular and narrative summary. Results: We extracted data from six studies that met the inclusion criteria: four quantitative and two qualitative; five from the United States and one from Canada. Three themes were identified: (1) barriers to decision-making, (2) the influence of family and friends on decisionmaking, and (3) differences in uptake and types of treatment received between CALD and non-CALD older adults. Discussion: This comprehensive review of treatment decision-making among CALD older adults with cancer highlights the paucity of research in this area. The findings are limited to North American populations and may not represent experiences in other regions of the world. Future research should focus on studying their treatment-related decision-making experiences to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population

Immunogenicity Assessment of AAV-based Gene Therapies: An IQ Consortium Industry White Paper

Immunogenicity is critical to AAV-based gene therapy during discovery and development. The cross industry working groups organized by International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ) have focused on various aspects of critical questions related to AAV-based gene therapy. This white paper summarizes the immunogenicity potential and risks associated with recombinant AAV-based GTs based on current clinical experiences and provides a framework for bioanalytical approaches related to the immunogenicity assessment of rAAV-based GTs. The paper provides a comprehensive overview of immunogenicity risks associated with rAAV GTs, as well as describes the methodologies for monitoring pre-existing and treatment boosted/or induced immune responses (humoral vs cellular). In addition, we discuss current clinical mitigation strategies deployed to reduce immunogenicity upon administration of rAAV-based G