Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33771105›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2021

Drug-drug interactions in subjects enrolled in SWOG trials of oral chemotherapy.

Lauren A Marcath, Colin M Finley, Siu Fun Wong, Daniel L Hertz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Managing Drug Interactions With Oral Anticancer Treatments.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2023
    Article
  4. Precision antiplatelet therapy.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren A MarcathDepartment of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, 99203, USA.
Colin M FinleyDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, 428 Church St., Room 3054 College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1065, USA.
Siu Fun WongChapman University School of Pharmacy, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
Daniel L HertzDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, 428 Church St., Room 3054 College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1065, USA. DLHertz@med.umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0501-1035
University of Michigan · USChapman University · USWashington State University Spokane · US

Funding

SWOG Network Group Operations Center of the NCTNU10CA180888 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI PRIMO N. LARA · 2014 to 2026
$152.1M
SWOG Statistics & Data Management Center complex - extension supplement for GY06U10CA180819 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Michael L. LeBlanc · 2014 to 2026
$115.2M
UM LAPs -UG1 GrantUG1CA233160 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI ANNE F SCHOTT · 2019 to 2026
$5.4M
NCI NIH HHS CA180819NCI NIH HHS CA180888NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180819NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180888NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA233160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with cancer are at increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI), which can increase treatment toxicity or decrease efficacy. It is especially important to thoroughly screen DDI in oncology clinical trial subjects to ensure trial subject safety and data accuracy. This study determined the prevalence of potential DDI involving oral anti-cancer trial agents in subjects enrolled in two SWOG clinical trials.

methodsCompleted SWOG clinical trials of commercially available agents with possible DDI that had complete concomitant medication information available at enrollment were included. Screening for DDI was conducted through three methods: protocol-guided screening, Lexicomp® screening, and pharmacist determination of clinical relevance. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

resultsSWOG trials S0711 (dasatinib, n = 83) and S0528 (everolimus/lapatinib, n = 84) were included. Subjects received an average of 6.6 medications (standard deviation = 4.9, range 0-29) at enrollment. Based on the clinical trial protocols, at enrollment 18.6% (31/167) of subjects had a DDI and 12.0% (20/167) had a DDI that violated a protocol exclusion criterion. According to Lexicomp®, 28.7% of subjects (48/167) had a DDI classified as moderate or worse, whereas pharmacist review indicated that 7.2% of subjects (12/167) had a clinically relevant interaction. The majority of clinically relevant DDI identified were due to the coadministration of acid suppression therapies with dasatinib (83.3%, 10/12).

conclusionsThe high DDI prevalence in subjects enrolled on SWOG clinical trials, including a high prevalence that violate trial exclusion criteria, support the need for improved processes for DDI screening to ensure trial subject safety and trial data accuracy.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAntineoplastic AgentsDrug InteractionsFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsOncology clinical trial drug interaction

Identifiers

PMID33771105
PMCPMC7995697
OpenAlexW3136745123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.