BACKGROUND: Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline.
METHODS: To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria.
RESULTS: Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review.
CONCLUSIONS: The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.

In the US, 3 rescue treatment options are approved for patients with seizure clusters (ie, acute repetitive seizures), which are intermittent increases of seizure activity. This narrative PubMed review of these 3 treatments examines newer intranasal options that are well suited for adolescent and adult patients who may desire a transition from rectal treatment. Diazepam rectal gel is indicated for patients ≥2 years, diazepam nasal spray for those ≥6 years, and midazolam nasal spray for those ≥12 years. Approvals for diazepam rectal gel and midazolam nasal spray were based on safety and efficacy comparisons with placebo. Approval for diazepam nasal spray was based on results from long-term safety and tolerability studies in addition to its comparable bioavailability to diazepam rectal gel, while also showing less interpatient variability. The safety profiles of diazepam rectal gel and nasal spray are similar, and the medications share safety, warning, and precaution labeling. Thus, patients ≥6 years could be introduced to intranasal diazepam, allowing for continuity of familiar treatment while improving access and comfort. Intranasal midazolam also has a well-characterized safety profile. A proxy for effectiveness is the number of seizure clusters that were treated with a single dose, and these differed in separate, noncomparative studies. The safety and effectiveness of diazepam nasal spray have been examined in multiple subpopulations, whereas patient/caregiver experiences with both approved intranasal formulations have been characterized. Users may prefer nasal administration because it is noninvasive and effective, and provides social advantages, comfort, ease of use, and less variability compared with rectal gel. Nasal sprays are portable and convenient for use in the community (school, work, travel), and self-administration was reported in one study, with patients as young as 11 years old self-administering diazepam nasal spray. These newer, intranasal rescue treatments for seizure clusters provide an alternative to the rectal route.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this review is to analyse the literature regarding studies centred on the clinical outcome of individuals affected by schizophrenia and treated with various antipsychotics, and then switched to orally administered partial D2-dopamine agonists (PD2A): Aripiprazole (ARI), brexpiprazole (BREX) or cariprazine (CARI).
UNASSIGNED: A PubMed literature search was performed on 16 February 2021, and updated on Jan 26, 2022 for literature on antipsychotic switching in individuals affected by schizophrenia. Literature was included from 2002 onward. Six strategies were defined: Abrupt, gradual and cross-taper switch, and 3 hybrid strategies. The primary outcome was all-cause discontinuation rate per switch strategy per goal medication.
UNASSIGNED: In 10 reports on switching to ARI, 21 studies with different strategies were described, but there were only 4 reports and 5 strategies on switching to BREX. Only one study about CARI was included, but it was not designed as a switch study. The studies are difficult to compare due to differences in methodology, previous antipsychotic medication, doses of the introduced P2DA and study duration.
UNASSIGNED: This analysis did not reveal evidence for a preferable switching strategy. A protocol should be developed which defines optimal duration, instruments to be used, and the timing of the exams.KEY MESSAGESMost switch studies on partial D2-agonists focus on ARI, with only a few on BREX, while little is known about the clinical outcome of switching individuals to CARIThere is a wide variation of possible switch methods: Abrupt switch - gradual switch - cross-tapering switch - hybrid strategies including plateau switchThe protocols used differ considerably between the studies. A strict comparison between the studies is difficult, for which reason the present evidence does not support an unambiguous preference for a particular switch strategy.From a methodological point of view, a standardised clinical protocol should be developed to allow comparisons between studies regarding the clinical outcome of individuals switched from one antipsychotic drug to another.

BACKGROUND: Recalcitrant neovascular age-related macular degeneration (rnAMD) despite intensive intravitreal anti-neovascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment, can be handled by switching to another anti-VEGF agent. This first systematic review and meta-analysis presents long-term data after switching from another anti-VEGF agent to brolucizumab.
METHODS: Retrospective case series over two years of patients switched to brolucizumab, and a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies presenting patients switched to brolucizumab. Weighted mean differences based on the random-effects models were calculated for best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central subfield thickness (CST).
RESULTS: The systematic review draws on 1200 eyes switched to brolucizumab. The meta-analysis showed a clinically irrelevant decrease in BCVA after one and two months, together with significant decreases in CST for up to one year after the switch but lacking power over 2 years. Of twelve eyes (twelve patients) in our case series, five continued treatment for two years without experiencing significant changes.
CONCLUSIONS: After switch to brolucizumab, a significant morphological improvement with CST reduction was shown in eyes with rnAMD. The small worsening of BCVA may be owing to the chronically active nature of rnAMD. Brolucizumab thus remains a treatment option in rnAMD despite its potential side effects.

Switching a vaccine for another on a pediatric national immunization program is often done for the betterment of society. However, if poorly implemented, switching vaccines could result in suboptimal transitions with negative effects. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the existing knowledge from identifiable documents on implementation challenges of pediatric vaccine switches and the real-world impact of those challenges. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. We synthesized three themes: vaccine availability, vaccination program deployment, and vaccine acceptability. Switching pediatric vaccines can pose unforeseen challenges to health-care systems worldwide and additional resources are often required to overcome those challenges. Yet, the magnitude of the impact, especially economic and societal, was frequently under-researched with variability in reporting. Therefore, an efficient vaccine switch requires a thorough consideration of the added benefits of replacing the existing vaccine, preparation, planning, additional resource allocation, implementation timing, public-private partnerships, outreach campaigns, and surveillance for program evaluation.

Biosimilars are highly similar but nonidentical biologic agents with no differences in clinical efficacy and safety when compared to bio-originator products. Considering the long-term costs of managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), biosimilars, through economic competition, provide an opportunity for cost savings to payors, may increase access to IBD medications, and could decrease health care spending in the long run. Studies investigating the use of biosimilars in IBD have shown a comparable clinical efficacy and safety profile compared to originator products. Moreover, studies have also suggested that solitary switches between bio-originators and biosimilars are acceptable and do not lead to worsening disease burden or increased immunogenicity or safety concerns. Despite available data and proposed benefits of biosimilars, skepticism about the widespread adoption of biosimilars throughout the United States continues to be present and creates many barriers. Herein, we detail the real-world, nonmedical switching experiences of 2 IBD centers in the United States and review best practices, which can be used as a potential roadmap for successful biosimilar adoption in other institutions.

Biological medicines have improved patients\' outcomes, but their high costs may limit access. Biosimilars, alternatives that have demonstrated high similarity in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy to an already licensed originator biological product, could increase competition and decrease prices. Given the expanding number of biosimilars, patients may switch from originator to biosimilar or among biosimilars. Randomized trials and observational studies conducted with multiple biosimilars over many disease areas confirmed the safety and efficacy of switching from originator to biosimilar. This study summarizes evidence on switching between biosimilars for which there are concerns to provide future guidance. A systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) for studies on anti-TNF agents, assessing clinical efficacy and safety of biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch in chronic inflammatory diseases, was performed. We retrieved 320 records and included 19 clinical studies. One study with historical control compared switching between biosimilars to maintenance of the same biosimilar. Ten were controlled cohort studies comparing switching between two biosimilars vs. switching from originator to a biosimilar or vs. multiple switches. Eight were single-arm cohort studies, where participants switched from one biosimilar to another, and the outcomes were compared before and after the switch. Overall, these studies did not highlight significant concerns in switching between biosimilars. Therefore, switching studies seem difficult to perform and unnecessary with the body of evidence suggesting no real problems in practice coupled with stringent regulatory requirements. Monitoring the use of biosimilars in clinical practice could support clinical decision-making, rational use of biological medicines, and help to further realize possible savings.

BACKGROUND: Switching inhaler regimens can be driven by poor disease control but also by nonclinical factors, such as cost and environmental impact. The consequences of switching for nonclinical reasons are largely unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the real-world consequences of switching inhaler regimens for nonclinical reasons in asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.
METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, and EconLit were searched to November 21, 2020. Conference searches and reference checking were also performed. Real-world studies of asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients undergoing a switch in inhaler regimen for any reason apart from clinical need were included. Two reviewers screened and extracted data. Key outcomes included symptom control, exacerbations, and patient-doctor relationships.
RESULTS: A total of 8,958 records were screened and 21 studies included. Higher-quality (matched comparative) studies were prioritized. Five matched studies (6 datasets) reported on symptom control: 5 datasets (n = 7,530) with unclear patient consent reported improved disease control following switching, and 1 dataset (n = 1,648) with non-consented patients reported significantly worsened disease control. Three matched studies (5 datasets, n = 10,084) reported on exacerbation rate ratios; results were heterogeneous depending on the definition used. Two studies (n = 137) reported that switching inhaler regimens could have a negative impact on the doctor-patient relationship, especially when the switches were non-consented. Study quality was generally low.
CONCLUSIONS: Switching inhaler regimens is a complex issue that can have variable clinical consequences and can harm the patient-doctor relationship. Limited high-quality evidence was identified, and study designs were heterogeneous. A robust framework is needed to guide the personalized switching of inhalers.

This review aimed to summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial stewardship interventions to improve the practice of IV-to-PO antimicrobial switch therapy in hospitalized adults.
Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE/PubMed, and Scopus from inception to September 1, 2020, for original articles investigating any interventions aimed to improve the practice of IV-to-PO antimicrobial switch therapy in hospitalized adults with infectious diseases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies. Studies were excluded if they evaluated drugs other than antimicrobials, head-to-head comparison of interventions, included pediatrics or oncology patients.
Of 506 unique citations identified, 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The 36 included studies reported 92 interventions as a single (n = 10) or a bundle of interventions (n = 26). The most common interventions used were guideline/protocol/pathway (n = 25), audit and feedback (n = 20), and education (n = 17).
This review provides health care providers with a comprehensive summary on the interventions to promote IV-to-PO antimicrobial switch. While no one intervention could be identified as the safest and most effective as most of the included studies used a bundle of interventions, all interventions resulted in optimizing antibiotic use and reducing health care expenditures without compromising the clinical outcomes. As such, each hospital should design and utilize interventions that are applicable based on available resources and expertise.

BACKGROUND: Medication regimens for Parkinson\'s disease (PD) may change as the disease progresses, symptoms fluctuate, or medication-related adverse events occur. This study evaluated treatment trends by observation year for patients initially receiving monotherapy with levodopa and a peripheral dopa decarboxylase inhibitor (PDDI).
METHODS: In this retrospective chart review, therapy changes were evaluated for patients across the US diagnosed with PD on or before 6/30/2014 who initially received levodopa-PDDI monotherapy. Index date was the first clinic visit. Post-index was any time between the first 31 days after index and study end (6/30/2019). Index Hoehn-Yahr (H-Y) score and medication changes were also analyzed by index low (<400 mg/day) or high (≥400 mg/day) levodopa doses in the levodopa-PDDI combinations.
RESULTS: In the levodopa-PDDI cohort (n = 95), there were 0.39 dose escalations, 0.16 dose reductions, 0.12 discontinuations, 0.19 therapy switches, and 0.24 add-ons per patient per year during the study. Most dose escalations or add-ons occurred within the first 6 months post-index. Of those who ever stopped levodopa-PDDI (n = 34), 31 (91%) restarted within the study period. Most (83%) patients who restarted levodopa-PDDI did so in the same year as stopping treatment. Index low dose users were associated with lower H-Y scores, were more inclined to escalate their dose, and were less inclined to reduce their dose in the first 2 years of treatment than index high dose users.
CONCLUSIONS: Prescribers and patients tend to experiment with levodopa-PDDI treatment. Although many patients appeared to stop levodopa-PDDI after an initial course of treatment, most subsequently restarted treatment.