Assessment of Adverse Drug Reactions in Oral Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Treatment at Tertiary Care Centres in North-Western India

Kopal Sharma; Sandeep Jasuja; Monica Jain; Yatendra  Singh

doi:10.5937/scriptamed54-42967

Kopal Sharma SMS Medical College, Jaipur, India
Sandeep Jasuja SMS Medical College, Jaipur
Monica Jain SMS Medical College, Jaipur
Yatendra Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/scriptamed54-42967

Keywords: Adverse drug reactions, causality assessment, chemotherapy, oral cancers, risk factors

Abstract

Background/Aim: Pharmacovigilance in oncology is imperative as antineoplastic drugs are two-edged swords whose irrational use can pose a major health problem and a needless financial burden on the patient. The aim of this study was to study the comprehensive safety profile of anti-neoplastic drugs used for treating oral cancers.

Methods: This hospital-based prospective observational study was conducted at two premiers (a government and a private) tertiary care centres in North-Western India among newly diagnosed cases of oral cancers of both sexes between the ages of 20-70 years and requiring chemotherapy treatment. The prescribing pattern of chemotherapy drugs, associated adverse effects and potential risk factors for the development of adverse effects was studied. An adverse drug reaction (ADR) causality was assessed by the WHO-UMC algorithm and preventability by Schumock and Thornton's criteria. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the predictors related to chemotherapy-induced adverse effects.

Results: The data concerned 188 patients, of which 64.3 % developed chemotherapy-related adverse effects. Among the prescribed anti-neoplastic drugs, a combination of 5-Fluorouracil, Cisplatin and Paclitaxel regimen was associated with the majority (91.42 %) of the adverse effects. Alopecia was the most common adverse effect noted in 26.44 % of patients, followed by nausea and anaemia in 15.7 % and 9.9 % of patients, respectively. Independent predictors of chemotherapy-related adverse effects were site (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.95; 95 % CI 1.04 - 3.62, p = 0.03), chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment (AOR = 5.00; 95 % CI 2.62 - 9.53, p < 0.001), combination regimen of 5-Fluorouracil, Cisplatin and Paclitaxel (AOR = 8.68; 95 % CI 2.55 - 29.48, p = 0.001), associated comorbidities (AOR = 16.68; 95 % CI 2.45 - 28.34, p < 0.001). Causality assessment revealed most adverse effects (82.64 %) to be possible.

Conclusion: The adverse effect varies with the type of regimen which is prescribed for the patient. Site of cancer, concomitant radiotherapy treatment and associated comorbidities were the identifiable risk factors for developing adverse effects. Onco-pharmacovigilance studies in the future will help to provide tailored treatment to patients and improve their quality of life.

References

1. Arokiasamy P. India's escalating burden of non-communicable diseases. The Lancet 2018;6(12):E1262-3.

2. Chemotherapy, American Cancer Society [Internet]. Cancer.org. 2018 [Cited: 3 January 2018]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/treatment-types/chemotherapy.html.>

3. Thun MJ, DeLancey JO, Center MM, Jemal A, Ward EM. The global burden of cancer: priorities for prevention. Carcinogenesis 2009;31(1):100-10.

4. Nandkumar A, Gupta PC, Gangadharan P, Visweswara RN. Development of an atlas of cancer in India - First All India Report 2001-2002. [Internet]. National Cancer Registry Programme. 2001 [Cited: 5 March 2018]. Available from: http://www.canceratlasindia.org/map.aspx.>

5. World Health Organization. International drug monitoring: the role of the hospital. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1996. Technical Report Series: No. 425.

6. Saini VK, Sewal RK, Ahmad Y, Medhi B. Prospective observational study of adverse drug reactions of anticancer drugs used in cancer treatment in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Pharm Sci 2015;77:687-93.

7. Malhotra V, Perry MC. Classical chemotherapy: mechanisms, toxicities and the therapeutic window. Cancer Biol Ther 2003;2(4 Suppl 1):S2-4.

8. Baldo P, Fornasier G, Ciolfi L, Sartor I, Francescon S. Pharmacovigilance in oncology. Int J Clin Pharm 2018;40(4):832-41.

9. Turgay AS, Khorshid L, Eser I. Effect of the first chemotherapy course on the quality of life of cancer patients in Turkey. Cancer Nurs 2008;31:E19-23.

10. Motghare VM, Dhargawe NH, Bajait CS, Mahobia V, Diwan AK. Study of prescription patterns and adverse drug reaction monitoring in patients of oral cavity malignancies attending radiotherapy department in a tertiary care teaching institute. IJPP 2017;4(1):38-41.

11. Murti K, Pandey K, Krishna RK, Rastogi MK, Ali M, Gahlot V. Pharmacovigilance study on platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimens in oral cancer patients: a prospective cohort study. Indian J Pharm Sci 2016;78(6):741-47.

12. Sharma PK, Misra AK, Gupta A, Singh S, Dhamija P, Pareek P. A retrospective analysis of reporting of adverse drug reactions to oncology drugs: An experience from a national center of clinical excellence. Indian J Pharmacol 2018;50(5):273-78.

13. Chopra D, Rehan HS, Sharma V, Mishra R. Chemotherapy-induced adverse drug reactions in oncology patients: A prospective observational survey. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2016;37:42–6.

14. Falzone L, Salomone S, Libra M. Evolution of cancer pharmacological treatments at the turn of the third millennium. Front Pharmacol 2018;9:1300. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01300.

15. Müller S, Pan Y, Li R, Chi AC. Changing trends in oral squamous cell carcinoma with particular reference to young patients: 1971-2006. The Emory University experience. Head Neck Pathol 2008;2(2):60-6.

16. Sawlani K, Kumari N, Mishra AK, Agrawal U. Oral cancer prevalence in a tertiary care hospital in India. J Family Med Community Health 2014;1(4):1022.

17. Sharma S, Satyanarayana L, Asthana S, Shivalingesh KK, Goutham BS, Ramachandra S. Oral cancer statistics in India on the basis of first report of 29 population-based cancer registries. J Oral Maxillofacial Pathol 2018;22(1):18-26.

18. Sharma A, Kumari KM, Manohar HD, Bairy KL, Thomas J. Pattern of adverse drug reactions due to cancer chemotherapy in a tertiary care hospital in South India. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:109–15.

19. Sneha SG, Simhadri K, Subeesh VK, Sneha SV. Predictors of adverse drug reactions in geriatric patients: An exploratory study among cancer patients. South Asian J Cancer 2019;8(2):130-33.

20. Shah R, Gajjar B, Desai S. A profile of adverse drug reactions with risk factors among geriatric patients in a tertiary care teaching rural hospital in India. Nat J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2012;2(2):113–22.

21. Davis MP. New therapies for antiemetic prophylaxis for chemotherapy. J Community Support Oncol 2016;14(1):11-20.

22. MacDonald V. Chemotherapy: managing side effects and safe handling. Can Vet J 2009;50(6):665-8.

23. Sibaud V, Lebœuf NR, Roche H, Belum VR, Gladieff L, Deslandres M, et al. Dermatological adverse events with taxane chemotherapy. Eur J Dermatol 2016;26(5):427-43.

24. Khan GM, Thapa RK, Adhikari DS, Rajbhandari M, Dwa P, Shrestha S, et al. Evaluation of cancer prevalence and cytotoxic medication prescribing in central region of Nepal. KUSET 2013;9(1):189-99.

25. Mugada V, Paruchuri A, Munagala M. Drug utilization evaluation of anticancer drugs in a tertiary care teaching hospital: A descriptive observational study. J Appl Pharm Sci 2016;6(10):98-101.

26. Maggiore RJ, Gross CP, Hurria A. Polypharmacy in older adults with cancer. Oncologist 2010;15(5):507-22.

27. Mustian KM, Devine K, Ryan JL, et al. Treatment of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy. US Oncol Hematol 2011;7(2):91-7.

28. Mallik S, Palaian S, Ojha P, Mishra P. Pattern of adverse drug reactions due to cancer chemotherapy in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Nepal. Pak J Pharm Sci 2007;20:214–8.

29. Lau PM, Stewart K, Dooley M. The ten most common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in oncology patients: Do they matter to you? Support Care Cancer 2004;12:626–33.