ModraDoc006, an oral docetaxel formulation in combination with ritonavir (ModraDoc006/r), in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients: A phase Ib study

Impact of loperamide on the pharmacokinetics and tissue disposition of ritonavir-boosted oral docetaxel therapy; a preclinical assessment

PURPOSE

An oral docetaxel formulation boosted by the Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3 A inhibitor ritonavir, ModraDoc006/r, is currently under clinical investigation. Based on clinical data, the incidence of grade 1-2 diarrhea is increased with this oral docetaxel formulation compared to the conventional intravenous administration. Loperamide, a frequently used diarrhea inhibitor, could be added to the regimen as symptomatic treatment. However, loperamide is also a substrate of the CYP3A enzyme, which could result in competition between ritonavir and loperamide for this protein. Therefore, we were interested in the impact of coadministered loperamide on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted oral docetaxel.

METHODS

We administered loperamide simultaneously or with an 8-hour delay to humanized CYP3A4 mice (with expression in liver and intestine) receiving oral ritonavir and docetaxel. Concentrations of docetaxel, ritonavir, loperamide and two of its active metabolites were measured.

RESULTS

The plasma exposure (AUC and Cmax) of docetaxel was not altered during loperamide treatment, nor were the ritonavir plasma pharmacokinetics. However, the hepatic and intestinal dispositions of ritonavir were somewhat changed in the simultaneous, but not 8-hour loperamide treatment groups, possibly due to loperamide-induced delayed drug absorption. The pharmacokinetics of loperamide itself did not seem to be influenced by ritonavir.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that delayed loperamide administration can be added to ritonavir-boosted oral docetaxel treatment, without affecting the overall systemic exposure of docetaxel.

Is Higher Docetaxel Clearance in Prostate Cancer Patients Explained by Higher CYP3A? An In Vivo Phenotyping Study with Midazolam

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) have a lower docetaxel exposure for both intravenous (1.8-fold) and oral administration (2.4-fold) than patients with other solid cancers, which could influence efficacy and toxicity. An altered metabolism by cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) due to castration status might explain the observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics. In this in vivo phenotyping, pharmacokinetic study, CYP3A activity defined by midazolam clearance (CL) was compared between patients with PCa and male patients with other solid tumors. All patients with solid tumors who did not use CYP3A-modulating drugs were eligible for participation. Patients received 2 mg midazolam orally and 1 mg midazolam intravenously on 2 consecutive days. Plasma concentrations were measured with a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Genotyping was performed for CYP3A4 and CYP3A5. Nine patients were included in each group. Oral midazolam CL was 1.26-fold higher in patients with PCa compared to patients with other solid tumors (geometric mean [coefficient of variation], 94.1 [33.5%] L/h vs 74.4 [39.1%] L/h, respectively; P = .08). Intravenous midazolam CL did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .93). Moreover, the metabolic ratio of midazolam to 1'-hydroxy midazolam did not differ between the 2 groups for both oral administration (P = .67) and intravenous administration (P = .26). CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genotypes did not influence midazolam pharmacokinetics. The observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics between both patient groups therefore appears to be explained neither by a difference in midazolam CL nor by a difference in metabolic conversion rate of midazolam.

Ritonavir reverses resistance to docetaxel and cabazitaxel in prostate cancer cells with acquired resistance to docetaxel

Aim: Docetaxel is a microtubule-stabilizing drug used for the treatment of several cancers, including prostate cancer. Resistance to docetaxel can either occur through intrinsic resistance or develop under therapeutic pressure, i.e., acquired resistance. A possible explanation for the occurrence of acquired resistance to docetaxel is increased drug efflux via P-glycoprotein (P-gp) drug transporters. Methods: We have generated docetaxel-resistant cell lines DU-145DOC10 and 22Rv1DOC8 by exposing parental cell lines DU-145DOC and 22Rv1 to increasing levels of docetaxel. Gene expression levels between DU-145DOC10 and 22Rv1DOC8 were compared with those of their respective originator cell lines. Both parental and resistant cell lines were treated with the taxane drugs docetaxel and cabazitaxel in combination with the P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitor ritonavir and the P-gp inhibitor elacridar. Results: In the docetaxel-resistant cell lines DU-145DOC10 and 22Rv1DOC8, the ABCB1 (P-gp) gene was highly up-regulated. Expression of the P-gp protein was also significantly increased in the docetaxel-resistant cell lines in a Western blotting assay. The addition of ritonavir to docetaxel resulted in a return of the sensitivity to docetaxel in the DU-145DOC10 and 22Rv1DOC8 to a level similar to the sensitivity in the originator cells. We found that these docetaxel-resistant cell lines could also be re-sensitized to cabazitaxel in a similar manner. In a Caco-2 P-gp transporter assay, functional inhibition of P-gp-mediated transport of docetaxel with ritonavir was demonstrated. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that ritonavir restores sensitivity to both docetaxel and cabazitaxel in docetaxel-resistant cell lines, most likely by inhibiting P-gp-mediated drug efflux.

A self-microemulsion enhances oral absorption of docetaxel by inhibiting P-glycoprotein and CYP metabolism

Oral absorption of docetaxel was limited by drug efflux pump p-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome P450 enzyme (CYP 450). Therefore, co-loading agent that inhibits P-gp and CYP450 in self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SMEs) is considered a promising strategy for oral delivery of docetaxel. In this study, curcumin was selected as an inhibitor of P-gp and CYP450, and it was co-encapsuled in SMEs to improve the oral bioavailability of docetaxel. SMEs quickly dispersed in water within 20 s, and the droplet size was 32.23 ± 2.21 nm. The release rate of curcumin from DC-SMEs was higher than that of docetaxel in vitro. Compared with free docetaxel, SMEs significantly increased the permeability of docetaxel by 4.6 times. And competitive experiments showed that the increased permeability was the result of inhibition of p-gp. The half-life and oral bioavailabilty of DC-SMEs increased about 1.7 times and 1.6 times than docetaxel SMEs, which indicated that its good pharmacokinetic behavior was related to the restriction of hepatic first-pass metabolism. In conclusion, DC-SME was an ideal platform to facilitate oral delivery of docetaxel through inhibited P-gp and CYP 450.

Circulating Cell-Free DNA as Biomarker of Taxane Resistance in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

There are no biomarkers predictive of resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel validated for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We assessed the association between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for patients with mCRPC, using circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Patients with ≥1 plasma sample drawn within 12 months before starting docetaxel (cohort A) or cabazitaxel (cohort B) for mCRPC were identified from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute IRB approved database. Sparse whole genome sequencing was performed on the selected cfDNA samples and tumor fractions were estimated using the computational tool ichorCNA. We evaluated the association between ABCB1 amplification or other copy number alterations and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. Of the selected 176 patients, 45 samples in cohort A and 21 samples in cohort B had sufficient tumor content. No significant association was found between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel (p = 0.58; odds ratio (OR) = 1.49) or cabazitaxel (p = 0.97; OR = 1.06). No significant association was found between exploratory biomarkers and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. In this study, ABCB1 amplification did not predict primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for mCRPC. Future studies including ABCB1 amplification in a suite of putative biomarkers and a larger cohort may aid in drawing definitive conclusions.

Pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and ritonavir after oral administration of ModraDoc006/r in patients with prostate cancer versus patients with other advanced solid tumours

PURPOSE

ModraDoc006 is a novel oral formulation of docetaxel. The clearance of intravenous docetaxel is higher in medically castrated prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours. Oral docetaxel requires co-administration ritonavir (r), which might further impact the pharmacokinetics (PK). We now compare the PK of docetaxel and ritonavir between patients with Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer (HSPC), metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) and other metastatic solid tumours, treated on the same dose and weekly schedule of ModraDoc006/r.

METHODS

The docetaxel and ritonavir PK were compared between four patient groups from three clinical phase I trials, including eight male and eight female patients with different types of solid tumours (study 1), seven patients with HSPC (study 2) and five patients with mCRPC (study 3). All patients were treated with ModraDoc006 30 mg and ritonavir 100 mg in the morning, followed by ModraDoc006 20 mg and ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100). For comparative purposes, the PK of six mCRPC patients that received 30-20/200-100 in study 3 were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The maximum plasma concentration (C_max) was significantly lower for both docetaxel and ritonavir in the prostate cancer patients as compared to the patients with other types of solid tumours treated at ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100. The docetaxel area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) was significantly different at this dose, with a mean AUC_0-48 of 1359 ± 374 ng/mL*h (N = 8) in female patients and 894 ± 223 ng/mL*h (N = 8) in male patients with different solid tumours (study 1), 321 ± 81 (N = 7) in HSPC (study 2) and 367 ± 182 ng/mL*h (N = 5) in mCRPC (study 3). A similar pattern was observed for ritonavir. ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100 in six mCRPC patients led to a comparable ritonavir exposure as compared to the patients at 30-20/100-100 in study 1 and increased the docetaxel AUC_0-48 to 1266 ± 473 ng/mL*h (N = 6).

CONCLUSION

The exposure to docetaxel and ritonavir was significantly lower in prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours, treated on ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100. An increase of the ritonavir dose increased the docetaxel exposure in mCRPC patients. Therefore, a different RP2D of ModraDoc006/r is pursued in castrated prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study 1: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01173913, date of registration August 2, 2010. Study 2: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03066154, date of registration February 28, 2017. Study 3: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03136640, date of registration May 2, 2017.

ModraDoc006, an oral docetaxel formulation in combination with ritonavir (ModraDoc006/r), in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients: A phase Ib study

BACKGROUND

ModraDoc006 is an oral formulation of docetaxel, which is co-administered with the cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. Weekly treatment with ModraDoc006/r had been evaluated in phase I trials in patients with different types of advanced solid tumors, but up to this point in time not in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

AIM

We assessed safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ModraDoc006/r to establish the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) in patients with mCRPC.

METHODS

mCRPC patients, treatment naïve or following abiraterone or enzalutamide treatment, were included. Dose-escalation of ModraDoc006/r was based on safety and docetaxel PK. Antitumor activity was assessed by serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and radiological evaluation.

RESULTS

Cohort 1 (n = 5) received once weekly ModraDoc006 30 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the morning, and ModraDoc006 20 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (30-20/100-100). The mean docetaxel area under the plasma concentration-time curve (mAUC0-inf) was 461 ng/mL × h with 1 dose limiting toxicity (DLT); grade 3 alanine transferase increase. In cohort 2 (n = 6, ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-200), the mAUC0-inf was 1687 ng/mL × h with 2 DLTs; grade 3 diarrhea and mucositis. In cohort 3A (n = 6, ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100), the mAUC0-inf was 1517 ng/mL × h with 1 DLT; grade 3 diarrhea. In cohort 3B (n = 3, ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100), the mAUC0-inf was 558 ng/mL × h without DLTs. The mAUC0-inf exceeded estimated exposures of intravenous docetaxel in cohort 2 and 3A, was lower in cohort 1 and was in range in cohort 3B. PSA decreases of >50% occurred in 6/10 evaluable patients throughout the various cohorts. In five radiological evaluable patients, two confirmed partial responses were observed.

CONCLUSION

The RP2D was established at weekly ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100. Observed PSA and radiological responses suggest promising clinical activity. These results have led to an ongoing randomized Phase 2b study, comparing weekly ModraDoc006/r with 3-weekly IV docetaxel in patients with mCRPC.