Potential drug-drug interactions with abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients: a prevalence study in France

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Abiraterone, Apalutamide, Darolutamide or Enzalutamide and Antithrombotic Drugs: Prediction of Clinical Events and Review of Pharmacological Information

PURPOSE

Abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide and enzalutamide are second-generation hormone therapies used for advanced prostate cancer; the majority of patients receiving these treatments are elderly, poly-medicated patients. Since their first market authorizations, their pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics are increasingly well known. A potential risk of drug-drug interaction (DDI), especially with cardiovascular drugs, needs to be considered. In the case of antithrombotics, treatment imbalance can lead to severe consequences.

OBJECTIVES

To describe PK profiles of hormone therapies and antithrombotics and to predict DDIs and potentially related clinical events.

METHODS

PK profiles (CYP450 and P-gp substrate, inducer or inhibitor) are described by cross-referencing data sources (summary of product characteristics, European public assessment reports, PubMed database, Micromedex®, etc.); a description of the potential interactions with anti-cancer drugs for each DDI and related clinical events is provided. We discuss management recommendations, including those set out in international guidelines.

RESULTS

Antithrombotics are mainly metabolized by CYP 2C9, 2C19 or 3A4. For abiraterone (CYP 2C8, 2D6 inhibitor) and darolutamide (CYP 3A4 inducer), no interaction was identified with antithrombotics. For apalutamide (CYP 2C9, 2C19, 3A4 and P-gp inducer) and enzalutamide (CYP 2C9, 2C19, 3A4 inducer and P-gp inhibitor), several PK interactions were identified with antithrombotics, which could lead to various clinical events (haemorrhage or thromboembolism).

CONCLUSION

Numerous interactions are expected between enzalutamide or apalutamide and antithrombotics, for which management should be deployed on a case-by-case basis. PK and pharmaco-epidemiological studies could shed light on whether or not there are clinically significant events related to DDIs with antithrombotics.

Drug-Drug Interactions in Hospitalized Urological Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Exposure to potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) can be a notable source of avoidable drug-related harm that requires adequate management to prevent medical errors. We aimed to evaluate pDDIs and associated factors in hospitalized urological patients on admission, during hospitalization, and on discharge.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Clinic of Urology of the University Clinical Centre Kragujevac, Serbia. To detect pDDIs, we used Lexicomp, which categorizes pDDIs as follows: X (avoid combination), D (consider therapy modification), C (monitor therapy), B (no action needed), and A (no known interaction). Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with the number of pDDIs.

RESULTS

More than half of the 220 included patients had at least one pDDI on admission and discharge (57.3% and 63.6%, respectively), whereas 95.0% had at least one pDDI during hospitalization. The total number and number of X, D, C, and B categories of pDDIs were the highest during hospitalization and the lowest on admission. Duration of hospitalization, arrhythmias, dementia, renal failure, cancer, surgery during hospitalization, number of prescribed drugs, and various pharmacological drug classes were risk factors for a higher number of pDDIs, while age, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, and development of infection during hospitalization were protective factors in at least one of the stages. The impact of renal colic depended on the stage and category of pDDI.

CONCLUSION

More than half of the urological patients were exposed to at least one pDDIs at all stages. Medical professionals should regularly screen for pDDIs, particularly in patients with risk factors.

Impact of Comorbidities and Drug Interactions in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors

PURPOSE

Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) are widely prescribed in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Real-world frequencies and potential impacts of comorbidities and concomitant medication (conmed) interactions with ARPIs are not well described.

METHODS

Patients receiving ARPIs for mCRPC were identified from the electronic Prostate Cancer Australian Database (ePAD). Demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and outcome data were extracted. Conmeds and comorbidities were collected from medical records. Potential interacting comorbidities were defined from trial and post-trial data. Clinically significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were identified using UpToDate Lexicomp and Stockley's databases. Patient characteristics, comorbidity interactions, DDIs, and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-five patients received first- or second-line ARPIs for mCRPC from 2012 to 2021, with a median follow-up of 27 months. One hundred sixteen received abiraterone acetate (AAP) and 135 received enzalutamide (ENZ). The median age was 74 years, and the median number of conmeds was 4. Clinically significant DDIs occurred in 55 (47%) AAP patients and 90 (67%) ENZ patients. Only 5% of DDIs were predicted to affect ARPI pharmacokinetics (PK) or pharmacodynamics, whereas 95% were predicted to impact conmed PK or increase toxicity risk. In patients receiving ENZ, DDIs were associated with lower PSA50 (50% v 74%, P = .04) and poorer overall survival (28 v 45 months, P = .04), although statistical significance was not maintained on multivariate analysis. No significant survival differences were seen with DDIs in patients receiving AAP. Potential interactions between comorbidities and ARPI were present in 72% on AAP and 14% on ENZ with no significant associated survival differences.

CONCLUSION

DDIs and drug-comorbidity interactions in real-world patients receiving ARPIs for mCRPC are common and may affect outcomes. Ongoing clinician education regarding DDIs is necessary to optimize patient outcomes.

A new method to quantify the effect of co-medication on the efficacy of abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients

Background and Objective: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with abiraterone acetate (AA) have co-morbidities treated with different drugs. The aim was to quantify the potential effect of co-medications on AA treatment duration (TD) and overall survival (OS). Methods: A new parameter, called "individual drug score" (IDS) was calculated by summing the "drug score"-s (DS) of all co-medications for each patient. The DS was determined by quantifying the effect of a given co-drug on enzymes involved in steroidogenesis and metabolism of AA. The correlation between log (IDS) and TD was tested by non-linear curve fit. Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate Cox regression was used for analysis of TD and OS. Results: The IDS and TD of AA+prednisolone showed a dose-response correlation (n = 166). Patients with high IDS had significantly longer TD and OS (p <0.001). In multivariate analysis IDS proved to be an independent marker of TD and OS. The same analysis was performed in a separate group of 81 patients receiving AA+dexamethasone treatment. The previously observed relationships were observed again between IDS and TD or OS. After combining the AA+prednisolone and AA+dexamethasone groups, analysis of the IDS composition showed that patients in the high IDS group not only used more drugs (p <0.001), but their drugs also had a higher mean DS (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The more co-drugs with high DS, the longer the duration of AA treatment and OS, emphasizing the need for careful co-medication planning in patients with mCRPC treated with AA. It is recommended that, where possible, co-medication should be modified to minimize the number of drugs with negative DS and increase the number of drugs with high DS. Our new model can presumably be adapted to other drugs and other cancer types (or other diseases).

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

New Oral Antitumor Drugs and Medication Safety in Uro-Oncology: Implications for Clinical Practice Based on a Subgroup Analysis of the AMBORA Trial

Oral antitumor therapeutics (OAT) bear a high risk for medication errors, e.g., due to drug–drug or drug–food interactions or incorrect drug intake. Advanced age, organ insufficiencies, and polymedication are putting uro-oncological patients at an even larger risk. This analysis sets out to (1) investigate the frequency and relevance of medication errors in patients with prostate cancer or renal cell carcinoma treated with OAT and (2) compile recommendations for clinical practice. This post-hoc subgroup analysis used data collected in the randomized AMBORA trial (2017–2020; DRKS00013271). Clinical pharmacologists/pharmacists conducted advanced medication reviews over 12 weeks after initiation of a new oral regimen and assessed the complete medication process for drug–related problems. Medication errors related to either the OAT, prescribed or prescription-free concomitant medication, or food were classified regarding cause and severity. We identified 67 medication errors in 38 patients within the complete medication within 12 weeks. Thereof, 55% were detected at therapy initiation, 27% were caused by the patients, and 25% were drug–drug or drug–food interactions. Problem-prone issues are summarized in a ‘medication safety table’ to provide recommendations for clinical practice in uro-oncology. Tailored strategies including intensified care by clinical pharmacologists/pharmacists should be implemented in clinical practice to improve medication safety.

[The interactions of abiraterone and its pharmacologically active metabolite D4A with cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9)]

Interactions of cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) were studied with the antitumor drug abiraterone and its pharmacologically active metabolite D4A, promising as an agent for prostate cancer treatment. It was shown by absorption spectroscopy, that both investigated compounds induced spectral changes of CYP2C9, indicating interactions of the pyridine nitrogen atom with the heme iron ion of the active site of the enzyme, but interactions of the ligands with the enzyme could be mediated by a water molecule bound to the heme iron ion. Based on the spectral changes, the values of dissociation constants (KS) for complexes of abiraterone and D4A with CYP2C9 were calculated as 1.73±0.14 μM and 3.95±0.16 μM. Both compounds inhibited O-demethylase activity of CYP2C9 towards its substrate. At 100 μM concentration of naproxen the concentrations of abiraterone, D4A and sulfaphenazole inhibiting CYP2C9 activity by 50% (IC50) were determined as 13.9 μM, 40 μM and 41 μM, respectively. The obtained results can be used for prognosis of drug-drug interactions at CYP2C9 level during administration of abiraterone or D4A as an antitumor agent for prostate cancer treatment in complex pharmacotherapy.

Potential and real drug interactions in patients treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone and enzalutamide, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), are at high risk of potential drug interactions (PDIs). We aimed to describe PDIs and their management, and triggered adverse events (AEs) in clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in mCRPC patients who started treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide in a university hospital between August 1st, 2016 and July 31st, 2020. Lexicomp® was used to identify and analyze PDIs, and the clinical records to assess their management and the occurrence of AEs.

RESULTS

We included 173 patients: 36.8% and 93.0% of patients treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide, respectively, had at least 1 PDI. Globally, 6.3% of PDIs had X-risk (contraindication due to high probability of AE). Treatment was modified in 9.2% of patients and 9.8% suffered AEs due to PDIs. Factors associated with a higher risk of PDIs were polypharmacy (OR=41.0, p=0.003) and treatment with enzalutamide (OR=128.26, p< 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

At least two-thirds of patients treated with ARPI suffered a PDI. Overall, abiraterone would have a more favorable PDI profile. Knowing these interaction profiles may be helpful to develop a more efficient therapeutic follow-up and to select the safest treatment.

Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction of Apalutamide, Part 1: Clinical Studies in Healthy Men and Patients with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two phase I studies assessed the drug-drug interaction potential of apalutamide as a substrate and perpetrator.

METHODS

Study A randomized 45 healthy men to single-dose apalutamide 240 mg alone or with strong inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 (itraconazole) or CYP2C8 (gemfibrozil). In study B, 23 patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer received probes for CYP3A4 (midazolam), CYP2C9 (warfarin), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), and CYP2C8 (pioglitazone), and transporter substrates for P-glycoprotein (P-gp) (fexofenadine) and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP)/organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B1 (rosuvastatin) at baseline and after repeat once-daily administration of apalutamide 240 mg to steady state.

RESULTS

Systemic exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve) to single-dose apalutamide increased 68% with gemfibrozil but was relatively unchanged with itraconazole (study A). Apalutamide reduced systemic exposure to midazolam ↓92%, omeprazole ↓85%, S-warfarin ↓46%, fexofenadine ↓30%, rosuvastatin ↓41%, and pioglitazone ↓18% (study B). After a single dose, apalutamide is predominantly metabolized by CYP2C8, and less by CYP3A4.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-administration of apalutamide with CYP3A4, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, P-gp, BCRP or OATP1B1 substrates may cause loss of activity for these medications. Therefore, appropriate mitigation strategies are recommended.

Prevalence of drug-drug interactions in sarcoma patients: key role of the pharmacist integration for toxicity risk management

BACKGROUND

The risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI) has become a major issue in cancer patients. However, data in sarcoma patients are scarce. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and the factors associated with DDI with antitumor treatments, and to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist evaluation before anticancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of consecutive sarcoma patients starting chemotherapy (CT) or Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). A pharmacist performed medication reconciliation and established an early toxicity risk assessment. Potential DDI with antitumor drugs were identified using Micromedex electronic software.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-two soft-tissue and 80 bone sarcoma patients (103 males, median age 50 years,) were included before CT (86%) or TKI (14%). The median number of medications was 3; 34 patients (22% of patients with medication reconciliation) reported complementary medicine use. 37 potential DDI classified as major, were identified (12% of the 243 pre-therapeutic assessments). In multivariate analysis, TKI (p < 0.0001), proton pump inhibitor (p = 0.026) and antidepressant (p < 0.001) were identified as risk factors of DDI (p < 0.02). Only marital status (p = 0.003) was associated with complementary medicine use. A pharmacist performed 157 medication reconciliations and made 71 interventions among 59 patients (37%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with pharmacist intervention were: complementary medicines (p = 0.004), drugs number (p = 0.005) and treatment with TKI (p = 0.0002) CONCLUSIONS: Clinical interventions on DDI are more frequently required among sarcoma patients treated with TKI than CT. Multidisciplinary risk assessment including a medication reconciliation by a pharmacist could be crucial to prevent DDI with TKI.

Pharmacokinetic drug–drug interactions: an insight into recent US FDA-approved drugs for prostate cancer

Pharmacokinetic drug–drug interaction is a significant safety and efficiency concern as it results in considerable concentration changes. Drug–drug interactions are a substantial concern in anticancer drugs that possess a narrow therapeutic index. These interactions remain as the principal regulatory obstacle that can lead to termination in the preclinical stage, restrictions in the prescription, dosage adjustments or withdrawal of the drugs from the market. Drug metabolizing enzymes or transporters mediate the majority of clinically relevant drug interactions. Cancer diagnosed aged patients use multiple medications and are more prone to significant drug–drug interactions. This review provides detailed information on clinically relevant drug–drug interactions resulting from drug metabolism by enzymes and transporters with a particular emphasis on recent FDA approved antiprostate cancer drugs.

A clinically relevant decrease in abiraterone exposure associated with carbamazepine use in a patient with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer

ADVERSE EVENT

Decreased abiraterone exposure after introducing carbamazepine.

DRUGS IMPLICATED

Abiraterone acetate and carbamazepine.

THE PATIENT

A 65-year-old man with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer, was treated with abiraterone acetate and prednisolone, and received concomitant carbamazepine for treatment of facial neuropathy.

EVIDENCE THAT LINKS THE DRUG TO THE EVENT

The interaction was confirmed by a decrease in abiraterone exposure >2-fold (area-under-the-curve and trough levels). After discontinuation of carbamazepine therapy, the abiraterone exposure normalized. No alternative causes were found that explain the decrease in abiraterone exposure.

MECHANISM

Induction of CYP3A and potentially phase I metabolism (SULT2A1) by carbamazepine.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY

Clinicians and pharmacists should be aware of this clinically relevant interaction. The national drug-drug interaction checker does not warn for this interaction, whereas both the Lexicomp® and Micromedex® advice to avoid if possible or to increase the abiraterone dose frequency to twice daily. Carbamazepine should not be combined with abiraterone to avoid underexposure and suboptimal therapy. Therapeutic drug monitoring of abiraterone is useful to guide therapy when drug-drug interactions cannot be avoided.

The unidirectional hypoxia-activated prodrug OCT1002 inhibits growth and vascular development in castrate-resistant prostate tumors

BACKGROUND

OCT1002 is a unidirectional hypoxia-activated prodrug (uHAP) OCT1002 that can target hypoxic tumor cells. Hypoxia is a common feature in prostate tumors and is known to drive disease progression and metastasis. It is, therefore, a rational therapeutic strategy to directly target hypoxic tumor cells in an attempt to improve treatment for this disease. Here we tested OCT1002 alone and in combination with standard-of-care agents in hypoxic models of castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

METHODS

The effect of OCT1002 on tumor growth and vasculature was measured using murine PC3 xenograft and dorsal skin fold (DSF) window chamber models. The effects of abiraterone, docetaxel, and cabazitaxel, both singly and in combination with OCT1002, were also compared.

RESULTS

The hypoxia-targeting ability of OCT1002 effectively controls PC3 tumor growth. The effect was evident for at least 42 days after exposure to a single dose (30 mg/kg) and was comparable to, or better than, drugs currently used in the clinic. In DSF experiments OCT1002 caused vascular collapse in the PC3 tumors and inhibited the revascularization seen in controls. In this model OCT1002 also enhanced the anti-tumor effects of abiraterone, cabazitaxel, and docetaxel; an effect which was accompanied by a more prolonged reduction in tumor vasculature density.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies provide the first evidence that OCT1002 can be an effective agent in treating hypoxic, castrate-resistant prostate tumors, either singly or in combination with established chemotherapeutics for prostate cancer.

Drug-drug interaction potential in men treated with enzalutamide: Mind the gap

AIMS

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients are generally older patients with several co-morbidities and are therefore at increased risk of complications due to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). We assessed the prevalence of potential DDIs in a cohort of mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of pharmacy records to retrieve individual drug histories of mCRPC patients who started enzalutamide therapy in a tertiary care setting. Potential DDIs were analysed using two international drug interaction compendia: Lexicomp^® and Micromedex^® , and the Dutch drug database. Two potential pharmacodynamic DDIs were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 105 records were evaluated for potential DDIs with enzalutamide. Of 205 different co-medications, 56 were flagged by at least one of the three compendia: Lexicomp, Micromedex and the Dutch drug database flagged for potential DDIs in 85%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Eighty-five per cent of DDIs were classified as major. The median number of co-medications per patient was 11 (range 1-26). The median (range) number of interactions per patient was 4 (0-10), 1 (0-5) and 0 (0-2) for Lexicomp, Micromedex and the Dutch drug database, respectively. In 23% and 45% of all patients, a potential DDI was found with PPIs and CNS depressants, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A high prevalence of potential DDIs was found. The inclusion and grading of potential DDIs was highly variable between the three drug interaction compendia. Physicians, nurses and pharmacists should be aware of this potential problem, which might require intensive monitoring or alternative treatment strategies to prevent suboptimal treatment of the co-morbidities in patients treated with enzalutamide.