Background: Although bicarbonate has traditionally been used to treat patients with rhabdomyolysis at high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), it is unclear whether this is beneficial. This study compared bicarbonate therapy to non-bicarbonate therapy for the prevention of AKI and mortality in rhabdomyolysis patients. Methods: In a propensity score-matched cohort study, patients with a creatine kinase (CK) level of >1,000 U/L during hospitalization were divided into bicarbonate and non-bicarbonate groups. Patients were subgrouped based on low-volume (<3 mL/kg/hr) or high-volume (≥3 mL/kg/hr) fluid resuscitation in the first 72 hours. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify the impacts of bicarbonate use and fluid resuscitation on AKI risk and need for dialysis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Volume overload and electrolyte imbalances were assessed. Results: Among 4,077 patients, we assembled a cohort of 887 pairs of patients treated with and without bicarbonate. Bicarbonate group had a higher incidence of AKI, higher rate of dialysis dependency, higher 30-day mortality, and longer hospital stay than the non-bicarbonate group. Further, patients who received high-volume fluid therapy had worse renal outcomes and a higher mortality than those who received low-volume fluids regardless of bicarbonate use. Bicarbonate use, volume overload, and AKI were associated with higher mortality. Volume overload was significantly higher in the bicarbonate group than in the non-bicarbonate group. Conclusion: Bicarbonate or high-volume fluid therapy for patients with rhabdomyolysis did not reduce AKI or improve mortality compared to non-bicarbonate or low-volume fluid therapy. Limited use of bicarbonate and adjustment of fluid volume may improve the short- and long-term outcomes of patients with rhabdomyolysis.

Although FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) has been proven efficacious in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), physicians hesitate to administer it due to its hematologic toxicities. We investigated the usefulness of primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis. We reviewed electronic medical records of MPC patients with good performance status who were administered FOLFIRINOX as the first-line treatment from 2011 to 2017. The patients were divided into primary G-CSF prophylaxis users (group A) and non-users or therapeutic/secondary users (group B). Cumulative relative dose (cRDI), adverse effects (AEs), and overall survival (OS) were compared. A total of 165 patients (group A (57) vs. group B (108)) were investigated. Intergroup differences in baseline characteristics were not significant, although the cRDI and the number of treatment cycles were both higher in group A than in group B (cRDI: 80.6% vs. 73.9%, p = 0.007; 9 vs. 6 cycles, p = 0.004). Primary G-CSF prophylaxis reduced the risk of neutropenia (55.6% to 31.6%, p = 0.003) and febrile neutropenia (18.5% to 1.8%, p = 0.002) and improved OS (8.8 to 14.7 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.766, 95% CI: 1.257–2.481, p = 0.001). When administering FOLFIRINOX for MPC, primary G-CSF prophylaxis could be rationalized to reduced AEs and improve survival; more prospective studies are needed.

Jin Myung Park, Chang Don Kang, Jong-chan Lee, Jin-Hyeok Hwang, and Jaihwan Kim. Gut and Liver 1999;0:. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl19249

Soomin Ahn, Jong-chan Lee, Jaihwan Kim, Young Hoon Kim, Yoo-Seok Yoon, Ho-Seong Han, Haeryoung Kim, and Jin-Hyeok Hwang. Gut and Liver 2022;16:129-37. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20312

Background: FOLFIRINOX, used in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), is highly efficacious but also toxic. Various dose modifications for FOLFIRINOX have been introduced to reduce toxicity. However, these studies lack a unified pattern for ‘planned’ dose modification, and the ‘actually administered’ dose varied more. Objective: To map a 10-year trend for ‘planned’ and ‘actual’ doses of FOLFIRINOX and investigate the clinical outcomes according to dose modification. Data sources and methods: A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted from January 2011 to September 2021. All studies for FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment in MPC were considered. Selected studies were firstly classified according to prospective versus retrospective research, secondly standard versus modified FOLFIRINOX, and thirdly ‘planned’ versus ‘actual’ dose. For evidence-mapping for the trend of dose modification, we developed a web-based interactive bubble-plot program ( www.RDI-map.com ). Objective response rate (ORR) and hematologic toxicity were set as endpoints for the comparison of clinical outcomes according to dose modification. Results: A total of 37 studies were identified for evidence-mapping (11 prospective and 26 retrospective studies). There were 12 different types of ‘planned’ dose modification in FOLFIRINOX ranging 75–100% oxaliplatin, 75–100% irinotecan, 0–100% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus, and 75–133% 5-FU continuous injection. The ‘actual’ dose further decreased to 54–96%, 61–88%, 0–92%, and 63–98%, respectively. For the standard versus modified FOLFIRINOX, the ORR was 28.2% (95% CI: 22.5–33.9%) and 33.8% (95% CI: 30.3–37.3%), respectively ( p = 0.100), and the incidence of febrile neutropenia was 11.6% (95% CI: 0–16.0%) and 5.5% (95% CI: 0–8.9%), respectively ( p = 0.030). Conclusions: RDI-map.com enables multifactorial evidence-mapping for practical FOLFIRINOX dose reduction. The pattern of dose modification was not consistent across studies, and there was a significant gap between the ‘planned’ and ‘actual’ doses. Modified FOLFIRINOX showed similar efficacy to the standard regimen with reduced incidence of febrile neutropenia.