Comparison of pharmacist managed anticoagulation with usual medical care in a family medicine clinic

Background The beneficial outcomes of oral anticoagulation therapy are dependent upon achieving and maintaining an optimal INR therapeutic range. There is growing evidence that better outcomes are achieved when anticoagulation is managed by a pharmacist with expertise in anticoagulation management rather than usual care by family physicians. This study compared a pharmacist managed anticoagulation program (PC) to usual physician care (UC) in a family medicine clinic. Methods A retrospective cohort study was carried out in a family medicine clinic which included a clinical pharmacist. In 2006, the pharmacist assumed anticoagulation management. For a 17-month period, the PC group (n = 112) of patients on warfarin were compared to the UC patients (n = 81) for a similar period prior to 2006. The primary outcome was the percentage of time patients' INR was in the therapeutic range (TTR). Secondary outcomes were the percentage of time in therapeutic range within ± 0.3 units of the recommended range (expanded TTR) and percentage of time the INR was >5.0 or <1.5. Results The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Fifty-five percent of the PC group was male with a mean age of 67 years; 51% of the UC group was male with a mean age of 71 years. The most common indications for warfarin in both groups were atrial fibrillation, mechanical heart valves and deep vein thrombosis. The TTR was 73% for PC and 65% for UC (p 5 were 0.3% for PC patients and 0.1% for UC (p < 0.0001). Conclusion The pharmacist-managed anticoagulation program within a family practice clinic compared to usual care by the physicians achieved significantly better INR control as measured by the percentage of time patients' INR values were kept in both the therapeutic and expanded range. Based on the results of this study, a collaborative family practice clinic using pharmacists and physicians may be an effective model for anticoagulation management with these results verified in future prospective randomized studies

Afatinib versus gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Overall survival data from the phase IIb LUX-Lung 7 trial

<b>Background</b>\ud \ud In LUX-Lung 7, the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and objective response rate (ORR) versus gefitinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we present primary analysis of mature overall survival (OS) data.\ud \ud <b>Patients and methods</b>\ud \ud LUX-Lung 7 assessed afatinib 40 mg/day versus gefitinib 250 mg/day in treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion/L858R). Primary OS analysis was planned after ∼213 OS events and ≥32-month follow-up. OS was analysed by a Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by EGFR mutation type and baseline brain metastases.\ud \ud <b>Results</b>\ud \ud Two-hundred and twenty-six OS events had occurred at the data cut-off (8 April 2016). After a median follow-up of 42.6 months, median OS (afatinib versus gefitinib) was 27.9 versus 24.5 months [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66‒1.12, P = 0.2580]. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed similar OS trends (afatinib versus gefitinib) in patients with exon 19 deletion (30.7 versus 26.4 months; HR, 0.83, 95% CI 0.58‒1.17, P = 0.2841) and L858R (25.0 versus 21.2 months; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62‒1.36, P = 0.6585) mutations. Most patients (afatinib, 72.6%; gefitinib, 76.8%) had at least one subsequent systemic anti-cancer treatment following discontinuation of afatinib/gefitinib; 20 (13.7%) and 23 (15.2%) patients received a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib.\ud \ud <b>Conclusion</b>\ud \ud In LUX-Lung 7, there was no significant difference in OS with afatinib versus gefitinib. Updated PFS (independent review), TTF and ORR data were significantly improved with afatinib