Herbal medicine: women's views, knowledge and interaction with doctors: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that serious interactions are occurring between prescribed/over the counter and herbal medicines and that there is a lack of disclosure of herbal use by patients to doctors. This study explores women's perspectives about the safety of herbal remedies, herb-drug interactions and communication with doctors about herbal medicines. METHODS: Qualitative, cross-sectional study, with purposive sampling which took place in Cheshire, UK. Eighteen in depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with female herbal medicine users aged 18 years and above. RESULTS: The large majority did not inform their GPs of their use of herbal medicines. This was due to lack of physician enquiry, perception of importance and fear of a negative response. Several women were not aware that herbal remedies could interact with prescribed or over the counter medicines. Of the women who had experienced adverse effects none had reported them, believing them of low importance. CONCLUSION: The women had little knowledge about herb-drug interactions and rarely disclosed use of herbal medicines to their doctor. Doctors' communication and openness regarding herbal medicines needs to improve and there should be increased access to accurate information on herbal medicines in the public and health care domain

Multidisciplinary approach of early breast cancer: The biology applied to radiation oncology

Early breast cancer treatment is based on a multimodality approach with the application of clinical and histological prognostic factors to determine locoregional and systemic treatments. The entire scientific community is strongly involved in the management of this disease: radiologists for screening and early diagnosis, gynecologists, surgical oncologists and radiation oncologists for locoregional treatment, pathologists and biologists for personalized characterization, genetic counselors for BRCA mutation history and medical oncologists for systemic therapies

Incidence of and risk factors for major haemorrhage in patients treated with ibrutinib: An integrated analysis.

Ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for treatment of various B-cell malignancies. In ibrutinib clinical studies, low-grade haemorrhage was common, whereas major haemorrhage (MH) was infrequent. We analysed the incidence of and risk factors for MH from 15 ibrutinib clinical studies (N = 1768), including 4 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Rates of any-grade bleeding were similar for single-agent ibrutinib and ibrutinib combinations (39% and 40%). Low-grade bleeding was more common in ibrutinib-treated than comparator-treated patients (35% and 15%), and early low-grade bleeding was not associated with MH. The proportion of MH in RCTs was higher with ibrutinib than comparators (4.4% vs. 2.8%), but after adjusting for longer exposure with ibrutinib (median 13 months vs. 6 months), the incidence of MH was similar (3.2 vs. 3.1 per 1000 person-months). MH led to treatment discontinuation in 1% of all ibrutinib-treated patients. Use of anticoagulants and/or antiplatelets (AC/AP) during the study was common (~50% of patients) and had an increased exposure-adjusted relative risk for MH in both the total ibrutinib-treated population (1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.0) and RCT comparator-treated patients (2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-5.6), indicating that ibrutinib may not alter the effect of AC/AP on the risk of MH in B-cell malignancies

Updated results from the phase 3 HELIOS study of ibrutinib, bendamustine and rituximab in 1 relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma

We report follow-up results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 HELIOS trial of ibrutinib+bendamustine and rituximab (BR) for previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) without deletion 17p. Overall, 578 patients were randomized 1: 1 to either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo, in combination with 6 cycles of BR, followed by ibrutinib or placebo alone. Median follow-up was 34.8 months (range: 0.1-45.8). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached for ibrutinib+BR, versus 14.3 months for placebo+BR (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.206 [0.159-0.265]; P < 0.0001); 36-month PFS rates were 68.0% versus 13.9%, respectively. The results are consistent with the primary analysis findings (HR = 0.203, as assessed by independent review committee, with 17-month median follow-up). Median overall survival was not reached in either arm; HR (95% CI) for ibrutinib+BR versus placebo: 0.652 (0.454-0.935; P = 0.019). Minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative response rates were 26.3% for ibrutinib+BR and 6.2% for placebo+BR (P < 0.0001). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (including grades 34) were generally consistent with the initial HELIOS report. These long-term data support improved survival outcomes and deepening responses with ibrutinib+BR compared with BR in relapsed CLL/SLL