Phase I study of cabazitaxel plus cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors: study to evaluate the impact of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors (aprepitant, ketoconazole) or inducers (rifampin) on the pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel

Drug-Drug Interactions in Prostate Cancer Treatment

Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), which can cause serious and debilitating drug-induced adverse events. With a steadily aging population and associated increasing multimorbidity and polypharmacy, the potential for DDIs becomes considerably important. Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men and occurs mostly in elderly men in the Western world. Therefore, the aim of this review is to give an overview of DDIs in PCa therapy to better understand pharmacodynamic and pharm kinetic side effects as well as their interactions with other medications. Last, we explore potential future strategies, which might help to optimize treatment and reduce adverse events patients with polypharmacy and PCa.

Influence of Enzalutamide on Cabazitaxel Pharmacokinetics: a Drug-Drug Interaction Study in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Patients

Purpose: In ongoing clinical research on metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treatment, the potential enhanced efficacy of the combination of taxanes with AR-targeted agents, that is, enzalutamide and abiraterone, is currently being explored. Because enzalutamide induces the CYP3A4 enzyme and taxanes are metabolized by this enzyme, a potential drug-drug interaction needs to be investigated.Experimental Design: Therefore, we performed a pharmacokinetic cross-over study in mCRPC patients who were scheduled for treatment with cabazitaxel Q3W (25 mg/m²). Patients were studied for three consecutive cabazitaxel cycles. Enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) was administered concomitantly after the first cabazitaxel cycle, during 6 weeks. Primary endpoint was the difference in mean area under the curve (AUC) between the first (cabazitaxel monotherapy) and third cabazitaxel cycle, when enzalutamide was added.Results: A potential clinically relevant 22% (95% CI, 9%-34%; P = 0.005) reduction in cabazitaxel exposure was found with concomitant enzalutamide use. The geometric mean AUC_0-24h of cabazitaxel was 181 ng*h/mL (95% CI, 150-219 ng*h/mL) in cycle 3 and 234 ng*h/mL (95% CI, 209-261 ng*h/mL) in cycle 1. This combination did not result in excessive toxicity, whereas PSA response was promising.Conclusions: We found a significant decrease in cabazitaxel exposure when combined with enzalutamide. In an era of clinical trials on combination strategies for mCRPC, it is important to be aware of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. Because recent study results support the use of a lower standard cabazitaxel dose of 20 mg/m², the clinical relevance of this interaction may be substantial, because the addition of enzalutamide may result in subtherapeutic cabazitaxel exposure. Clin Cancer Res; 24(3); 541-6. ©2017 AACR.

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant drug interactions: a systematic review

AIMS

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant, commonly used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, alter cytochrome P450 activity. This systematic review evaluates clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with aprepitant and fosaprepitant and describes adverse events ascribed to drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature to September 11, 2016, to identify articles evaluating drug interactions involving aprepitant/fosaprepitant. The clinical significance of each reported pharmacokinetic drug interaction was evaluated based on the United States Food and Drug Administration guidance document on conducting drug interaction studies. The probability of an adverse event reported in case reports being due to a drug interaction with aprepitant/fosaprepitant was determined using the Drug Interaction Probability Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 4377 publications were identified. Of these, 64 met inclusion eligibility criteria: 34 described pharmacokinetic drug interactions and 30 described adverse events ascribed to a drug interaction. Clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and bosutinib PO, cabazitaxel IV, cyclophosphamide IV, dexamethasone PO, methylprednisolone IV, midazolam PO/IV, oxycodone PO and tolbutamide PO were identified, as were adverse events resulting from an interaction between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and alcohol, anthracyclines, ifosfamide, oxycodone, quetiapine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential for a drug interaction with aprepitant and fosaprepitant should be considered when selecting antiemetic therapy.

Pharmacokinetic Interaction of Rifampicin with Oral Versus Intravenous Anticancer Drugs: Challenges, Dilemmas and Paradoxical Effects Due to Multiple Mechanisms

Since many drugs are cytochrome P450 (CYP)-3A4 substrates, it has become common practice to assess drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential with a CYP3A4 inhibitor (ketoconazole) or inducer (rifampicin) in early drug development. Such an evaluation is relevant to anticancer drugs with metabolism governed by CYP3A4. DDIs with rifampicin are complex, involving other physiological mechanisms that may impact overall pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to study and delineate such mechanisms for oral versus intravenous anticancer drugs. We hypothesized that DDIs between anticancer drugs and rifampicin were primarily driven by CYP3A4 induction. This hypothesis was proven for the oral anticancer drugs; however, in some cases, other intrinsic mechanisms such as P-glycoprotein (Pgp)/UDP glucuronosyl transferase (UGT) induction and transporter inhibition may have played an important role alongside the induced CYP3A4 enzymes. The hypothesis that CYP3A4 induction would decrease drug exposure appeared paradoxical for intravenous romidepsin and-to a somewhat lesser extent-for cabazitaxel. In light of this dilemma in the interpretation of the pharmacokinetic data with rifampicin, several questions require further consideration. Given the complexity and paradoxical effects arising with DDIs with rifampicin, the continued preference for rifampicin as CYP3A4 inducer needs immediate re-appraisal.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel in patients with hepatic impairment: a phase I dose-escalation study

Purpose

Cabazitaxel has not been studied in patients with hepatic impairment (HI). This phase I study assessed cabazitaxel safety and pharmacokinetics in patients with HI.

Methods

Patients with advanced, non-hematologic cancer, and normal hepatic function (Cohort 1: C-1), or mild (C-2), moderate (C-3), severe (C-4) HI received cabazitaxel starting doses of 25, 20, 10, and 10 mg/m², respectively. Doses were escalated in patients with HI based on Cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Adverse events and the cabazitaxel pharmacokinetic profile were assessed.

Results

In C-2, three patients receiving cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² experienced DLTs; maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was 20 mg/m². In C-3, two patients receiving 20 mg/m² experienced DLTs; MTD was 15 mg/m². C-4 was discontinued early due to DLTs. The most frequent cabazitaxel-related, grade 3–4 toxicity was neutropenia (42%). Cabazitaxel clearance normalized to body surface area (CL/BSA) was lower in C-1 (geometric mean [GM] 13.4 L/h/m²) than expected (26.4 L/h/m²), but similar in C-2 (23.5 L/h/m²) and C-3 (27.9 L/h/m²). CL/BSA in C-4 was 18.1 L/h/m². Compared with C-2, CL/BSA increased 19% in C-3 (GM ratio 1.19; 90% CI 0.74–1.91), but decreased 23% in C-4 (0.77; 0.39–1.53). Cabazitaxel free fraction was unaltered. No significant correlation was found between grade 3–4 toxicities and pharmacokinetic parameters.

Conclusions

Mild–moderate HI did not cause substantial decline in cabazitaxel clearance. Cabazitaxel dose reductions in patients with mild–moderate HI, and a contraindication in patients with severe HI, are justified based on safety data.

Oral pristinamycin for the treatment of resistant Gram-positive infections in patients with cancer: Evaluation of clinical outcomes

Pristinamycin has been used to treat a range of Gram-positive infections, but reported experience in patients with malignancy is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the use of pristinamycin in patients with cancer at an Australian centre. All patients commenced on oral pristinamycin therapy at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre between January 2005 and December 2014 were identified using the hospital pharmacy dispensing system. Information on demographics, co-morbidities, cancer diagnosis, infection characteristics, pristinamycin regimen, pristinamycin tolerability and outcomes was collected. The median duration of follow-up was 398 days. In total, 26 patients received pristinamycin, with median age of 61 years and a male predominance (65%). Underlying diagnoses were haematological malignancies (50%) and solid tumours (50%). Pathogens included 13 meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 6 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium, 4 meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis, 2 meticillin-susceptible S. aureus and 1 vancomycin-susceptible E. faecium. Infection sites were osteomyelitis (6), skin and soft-tissue (4), intra-abdominal/pelvic abscess (4), bloodstream (3), empyema (3), endocarditis/endovascular (3), prosthesis-related infection (2) and epididymo-orchitis (1). One patient ceased pristinamycin due to nausea. Regarding outcome, 13 patients (50%) were cured of infection, 8 (31%) had suppression and 5 (19%) had relapse. Relapses included 1 endovascular infection, 2 episodes of osteomyelitis, 1 pelvic abscess and 1 skin and soft-tissue infection. Overall, 81% of patients achieved cure or suppression of antibiotic-resistant or complex Gram-positive infections, consistent with published experience in non-cancer populations. A favourable tolerability profile makes oral pristinamycin a viable treatment option, particularly in settings where outpatient management of cancer is the objective.

Drug interactions with aprepitant or fosaprepitant: Review of literature and implications for clinical practice

Purpose Aprepitant and its parenteral formulation fosaprepitant are widely used for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Aprepitant exerts modest inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 and modest inductive effect on CYP2C9 substrates such as some antineoplastics and multiple other medications. This article is aimed to provide pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with an updated summary of drug-drug interactions of aprepitant/fosaprepitant and implications for clinical practice. Method We reviewed publications reporting drug-drug interactions between aprepitant/fosaprepitant and other medications. Results Coadministration of aprepitant with antineoplastics or opiods may result in significant elevations in the serum levels of the agents metabolized via CYP3A4, with the best documentation for cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, erlotinib and oxycodone. These alterations did not translate into adverse outcomes and/or necessitate dosing adjustments. The levels of warfarin were significantly decreased by aprepitant requiring prolonged monitoring after discontinuation of aprepitant. Among direct oral anticoagulants, a theoretical interaction between aprepitant and rivaroxaban or apixaban exists. Interactions between aprepitant and quetiapine or diltiazem or sirolimus required dose reductions to avoid adverse outcomes. The intravenous route had a weaker inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 than the oral pathway. Conclusion The evidence on drug interactions of aprepitant with other medications is limited, and the impact on therapeutic outcomes remains to be determined. The intravenous regimen may be a preferred option. As utilization of aprepitant is expanding, practitioners and patients need to be educated about the potential for drug interactions and a need for careful monitoring of patients concurrently receiving aprepitant and CYP2C9 or CYP3A4 substrates, especially those with a narrow therapeutic window.

Effects of repeated administration of rifampicin and isoniazid on vitamin D metabolism in mice

Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent in tuberculosis (TB) patients and the anti-TB drugs, especially rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH), are associated with altered endocrine actions of vitamin D. Although it is well-known that these two drugs can affect a variety of cytochrome P450 (CYP450) activity, their influence on the CYP450 enzymes involved in vitamin D metabolism remains largely unknown. To fill this critical gap, serum vitamin D status and the expression of hepatic CYP2R1 and CYP27A1 and renal CYP27B1 and CYP24A1 were assessed in mice following 3-week exposure to 100 mg/kg/day RIF or (and) 50 mg/kg/day INH. Unexpectedly, we found either RIF or co-treatment the two drugs increased the concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3) and 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (24,25(OH)2D3), without affecting 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (1,25(OH)2D3) status. In parallel, enhanced hepatic expressions of 25-hydroxylase enzymes, CYP2R1 and (or) CYP27A1, were found in RIF and RIF+INH groups. However, co-administration of RIF and INH inhibited the expression of CYP27B1, while inducing CYP24A1 expression. Collectively, our data firstly showed that RIF and co-treatment of RIF and INH can both enhance 25-hydroxylation and 24-hydroxylation of vitamin D, providing novel evidence for the involvement of anti-TB drugs in the metabolism of vitamin D.

P-glycoprotein, CYP3A, and Plasma Carboxylesterase Determine Brain Disposition and Oral Availability of the Novel Taxane Cabazitaxel (Jevtana) in Mice

We aimed to clarify the roles of the multidrug-detoxifying proteins ABCB1, ABCG2, ABCC2, and CYP3A in oral availability and brain accumulation of cabazitaxel, a taxane developed for improved therapy of docetaxel-resistant prostate cancer. Cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics were studied in Abcb1a/1b, Abcg2, Abcc2, Cyp3a, and combination knockout mice. We found that human ABCB1, but not ABCG2, transported cabazitaxel in vitro. Upon oral cabazitaxel administration, total plasma levels were greatly increased due to binding to plasma carboxylesterase Ces1c, which is highly upregulated in several knockout strains. Ces1c inhibition and in vivo hepatic Ces1c knockdown reversed these effects. Correcting for Ces1c effects, Abcb1a/1b, Abcg2, and Abcc2 did not restrict cabazitaxel oral availability, whereas Abcb1a/1b, but not Abcg2, dramatically reduced cabazitaxel brain accumulation (>10-fold). Coadministration of the ABCB1 inhibitor elacridar completely reversed this brain accumulation effect. After correction for Ces1c effects, Cyp3a knockout mice demonstrated a strong (six-fold) increase in cabazitaxel oral availability, which was completely reversed by transgenic human CYP3A4 in intestine and liver. Cabazitaxel markedly inhibited mouse Ces1c, but human CES1 and CES2 only weakly. Ces1c upregulation can thus complicate preclinical cabazitaxel studies. In summary, ABCB1 limits cabazitaxel brain accumulation and therefore potentially therapeutic efficacy against (micro)metastases or primary tumors positioned wholly or partly behind a functional blood-brain barrier. This can be reversed with elacridar coadministration, and similar effects may apply to ABCB1-expressing tumors. CYP3A4 profoundly reduces the oral availability of cabazitaxel. This may potentially be greatly improved by coadministering ritonavir or other CYP3A inhibitors, suggesting the option of patient-friendly oral cabazitaxel therapy.