Martin, Catherine E.

ABSTRACT As interest in the use of cannabinoids for supportive care in pediatric cancers grows, there are emerging concerns about potential interactions with antineoplastic agents. This review provides an overview of potential drug–drug interactions between cannabinoids and 25 antineoplastic agents commonly used in pediatric hematology/oncology. Antineoplastic agents were stratified into low, medium, or high interaction risk based on the potential impact of cannabinoids on metabolic and/or pharmacodynamic pathways. The antineoplastic agents identified as high risk for interactions with cannabinoids included cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, ifosfamide, irinotecan, vinblastine, and vincristine. Key mechanisms of interaction include inhibition of cytochrome P450 enzymes and UDP‐glucuronosyltransferases and modulation of drug transporters such as P‐glycoprotein and breast cancer resistance protein. There is emerging evidence of a synergistic effect between cannabinoids and antineoplastic agents such as temozolomide, vinblastine, vinorelbine, and irinotecan. Pediatric patients exhibit developmental differences in drug metabolism and transporter expression, yet most pharmacokinetic data on cannabinoids are extrapolated from adult studies. There is a lack of pediatric‐specific safety, efficacy, and dosing data that underscores the need for age‐appropriate studies to ensure safe and effective integration of cannabinoids in pediatric cancer care.

ABSTRACT Background Patients at high risk for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HCT) should receive CMV prophylaxis. Historically, ganciclovir has been the preferred agent. However, its side effect profile, particularly myelosuppression, is undesirable. Letermovir is a newer agent that is not myelosuppressive and has replaced ganciclovir as the preferred agent for CMV prophylaxis in high‐risk adult patients. Methods The primary objective was to compare the incidence of dose modifications or discontinuation of CMV prophylaxis between pediatric patients who received ganciclovir versus letermovir. Secondary objectives included comparing the use of granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor (G‐CSF) support and the incidence of CMV DNAemia. We reviewed records of all pediatric patients who received an HCT at our institution between 2000 and 2024 and received either ganciclovir/valganciclovir or letermovir for CMV prophylaxis. Results Between 2000 and 2024, 65 pediatric patients receiving prophylactic ganciclovir, valganciclovir, or letermovir were evaluated. The median age at transplant was 12.2 years. No patients receiving letermovir required dose modification or discontinuation as opposed to 14 (29.2%) patients receiving ganciclovir ( p = 0.014). After engraftment, 12 (25%) patients receiving ganciclovir required G‐CSF support compared to seven (41.2%) patients receiving letermovir ( p = 0.23). In the ganciclovir group, 10 (20.8%) patients experienced CMV infection versus one (5.9%) patient receiving letermovir ( p = 0.26). Conclusion Compared with those receiving letermovir, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the ganciclovir/valganciclovir group experienced dose modifications or discontinuation of CMV prophylaxis due to adverse effects. Letermovir shows great promise as a CMV prophylactic agent in pediatric HCT patients due to its favorable side effect profile.

AbstractStudy ObjectiveTo develop and validate a model for predicting acute kidney injury (AKI) after high‐dose methotrexate (HDMTX) exposure.DesignRetrospective analysis.SettingMultisite integrated health system throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin.PatientsAdult patients with lymphoma who received HDMTX as a 4‐h infusion.Measurements and Main ResultsLASSO methodology was used to identify factors available at the outset of therapy that predicted incident AKI within 7 days following HDMTX. The model was then validated in an independent cohort. The incidence of AKI within 7 days following HDMTX was 21.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.4%‐24.8%) in the derivation cohort (435 unique patients who received a total of 1642 doses of HDMTX) and 15.6% (95% CI 5.3%‐24.8%) in the validation cohort (55 unique patients who received a total of 247 doses of HDMTX). Factors significantly associated with AKI after HDMTX in the multivariable model included age ≥ 55 years, male sex, and lower HDMTX dose number. Other factors that were not found to be significantly associated with AKI on multivariable analysis, but were included in the final model, were body surface area, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. The c‐statistic of the model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69‐0.75) in the derivation cohort and 0.72 (95% CI 0.60‐0.84) in the validation cohort.ConclusionThis model utilizing identified sociodemographic and clinical factors is predictive of AKI following HDMTX administration in adult patients with lymphoma.

Abstract Study Objective To determine whether there is a drug‐drug interaction precluding the concomitant use of levetiracetam and high‐dose methotrexate (HDMTX). Design Retrospective analysis. Setting Large academic tertiary care medical center. Patients Adult lymphoma patients who received HDMTX as a 4‐h infusion with or without concomitant levetiracetam. Measurements and Main Results Generalized estimating equations clustered on patient were used to assess each outcome. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed MTX elimination (MTX level >1 µmol/L at 48 h). Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hospital length of stay (LOS). The 430 included patients receiving 1993 doses of HDMTX had a median (IQR) age of 66 (57.5, 72.6) years, 88 (20.5%) received concomitant levetiracetam with at least one dose of MTX, 267 (62.1%) were male, and 397 (92.3%) were Caucasian. HDMTX doses ranged from 1 to 8 g/m 2 . The most common lymphoma diagnoses were systemic diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 58.5%) and systemic DLBCL with central nervous system (CNS) involvement (32.8%). Rates of delayed elimination with and without levetiracetam were 13.4% and 16.3%, respectively (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.47–1.34, p = 0.39). AKI occurred in 15.6% and 17.0% of patients with and without concomitant levetiracetam, respectively (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.52–1.33, p = 0.28). The median LOS with and without levetiracetam was 4.2 and 4.1 days, respectively ( p = 0.039). On multivariable analyses, only age, body surface area, diagnosis of systemic DLBCL with CNS involvement, serum creatinine, hemoglobin, total bilirubin, and dose of HDMTX were associated with delayed elimination. Conclusions High‐dose methotrexate administered with concomitant levetiracetam was not associated with increased risk for delayed MTX elimination or AKI. These results support that levetiracetam and HDMTX are safe for coadministration.