Effect of fluconazole on the pharmacokinetics of fuzuloparib: an open-label, crossover study in Chinese healthy male volunteers

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as anticancer agents: An outlook on clinical progress, synthetic strategies, biological activity, and structure-activity relationship

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is considered an essential component in case of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) damage, response by sensing DNA damage and engaging DNA repair proteins. Those proteins repair the damaged DNA via an aspect of posttranslational modification, known as poly (ADP-Ribosyl)ation (PARylation). Specifically, PARP inhibitors (PARPi) have shown better results when administered alone in a variety of cancer types with BRCA (Breast Cancer gene) mutation. The clinical therapeutic benefits of PARP inhibitors have been diminished by their cytotoxicity, progression of drug resistance, and limitation of indication, regardless of their tremendous clinical effectiveness. A growing number of PARP-1 inhibitors, particularly those associated with BRCA-1/2 mutations, have been identified as potential cancer treatments. Recently, several researchers have identified various promising scaffolds, which have resulted in the resuscitation of the faith in PARP inhibitors as cancer therapies. This review provided a comprehensive update on the anatomy and physiology of the PARP enzyme, the profile of FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and CFDA (China Food and Drug Administration)-approved drugs, and small-molecule inhibitors of PARP, including their synthetic routes, biological evaluation, selectivity, and structure-activity relationship.

Itraconazole interferes in the pharmacokinetics of fuzuloparib in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

Fuzuloparib is an orally administered poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibitor and has potential anti-tumor effect on ovarian cancer (such as fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer) in China. As fuzuloparib is metabolized mainly by CYP3A4, we explored the effect of itraconazole, a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor, on a single oral dose of fuzuloparib in healthy male subjects.

METHODS

An open-label, single-arm, fixed sequence study was conducted. Twenty healthy adult males received one single dose of fuzuloparib (20 mg) with one dose administered alone and the other dose coadministered with itraconazole. Subjects received 200 mg QD itraconazole for 6 days during the study. Serials of blood samples were collected pre-dose of each fuzuloparib capsule administration and 48 h post-dose, and were used to analyze the PK parameters of fuzuloparib.

RESULTS

Coadministration of repeated 200 mg QD oral doses of itraconazole for 6 days increased fuzuloparib exposure by 1.51-fold and 4.81-fold for peak plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), respectively. Oral administration of 20 mg fuzuloparib alone or together with itraconazole was safe and tolerable in healthy male subjects.

CONCLUSION

The CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole has a significant influence on the PK behavior of fuzuloparib, suggesting to avoid using strong CYP3A4 inhibitors simultaneously with fuzuloparib. If it is necessary to use a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor, fuzuloparib would be discontinued and be restored to the original dose and frequency of administration after 5-7 half lives of CYP3A4 inhibitor stopped.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html , CTR20191271.

Effect of a moderate CYP3A inducer efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of fuzuloparib: An open-label, fixed sequence study in Chinese healthy male subjects

To evaluate the potential drug-drug interaction (DDI), safety and tolerability of fuzuloparib co-administered with a moderate CYP3A inducer efavirenz in healthy male subjects. Eighteen healthy male subjects were enrolled in a single-center, single-arm, open-label, fixed-sequence study. Fuzuloparib was administered as a single oral 50 mg under a fasting state on day 1, efavirenz (600 mg once daily) was given on days 4-17 before bed time, concomitantly with fuzuloparib on day 18, and for the follow-up 3 additional days (days 19-20). Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed following each fuzuloparib dose. Safety and tolerability were assessed during the whole process via clinical laboratory tests. Ratios of least-squares means (GMRs) and 90% geometric confidence interval (90% CI) of maximum plasma concentration (C_max), the area under the curve of plasma concentration-time from zero to the last measurable concentration (AUC_0 - t) and the area under the curve of blood concentration from zero to infinity (AUC_0-∞) for fuzuloparib combined with efavirenz to fuzuloparib alone were 0.473 (0.394, 0.568), 0.220 (0.185, 0.263) and 0.221 (0.185, 0.263), respectively. Co-administration with efavirenz led to 53% and 78% decreases in fuzuloparib C_max and AUC_0-∞. All 18 subjects enrolled in this study were included in the safety analysis set. A total of 16 subjects had 62 AEs during the study period. No serious adverse events (SAE) were reported. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2 based on CTCAE. Only one grade 3 adverse event was observed. Concomitant intake of fuzuloparib with the moderate CYP3A inhibitor efavirenz resulted in a decrease in fuzuloparib AUC_0-∞ and C_max of 78% and 53% respectively. The results suggested that concomitant moderate CYP3A inducers should be avoided during the administration of fuzuloparib, or else the dosage adjustments should be required. (This trial was registered at http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn . The registration No. is CTR20211022, and the date of registration is 2021-05-13).

Guidance on the management of adverse reactions induced by poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors

The common adverse reactions caused by poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors include hematological toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity and fatigue. The main prevention and treatment of hematological toxicity include: regular blood tests, referral to hematology department when routine treatment is ineffective, and being alert of myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia. The key points to deal with gastrointestinal toxicity include: taking medicine at the right time, light diet, appropriate amount of drinking water, timely symptomatic treatment, prevention of expected nausea and vomiting, and so on. For fatigue, full assessment should be completed before treatment because the causes of fatigue are various; the management includes massage therapy, psychosocial interventions and drugs such as methylphenidate and Panax quinquefolius according to the severity. In addition, niraparib and fluzoparib can cause hypertension, hypertensive crisis and palpitation. Blood pressure and heart rate monitoring, timely symptomatic treatment, and multidisciplinary consultation should be taken if necessary. When cough and dyspnea occur, high resolution CT and bronchoscopy should be performed to exclude pneumonia. If necessary, PARP inhibitors should be stopped, and glucocorticoid and antimicrobial therapy should be given. Finally, more attention should be paid to drug interaction management, patient self-management and regular monitoring to minimize the risk and harm of adverse reactions of PARP inhibitors.

Targeting the gut microbiota for cancer therapy

Growing evidence suggests that the gut microbiota modulates the efficacy and toxicity of cancer therapy, most notably immunotherapy and its immune-related adverse effects. The poor response to immunotherapy in patients treated with antibiotics supports this influential role of the microbiota. Until recently, results pertaining to the identification of the microbial species responsible for these effects were incongruent, and relatively few studies analysed the underlying mechanisms. A better understanding of the taxonomy of the species involved and of the mechanisms of action has since been achieved. Defined bacterial species have been shown to promote an improved response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors by producing different products or metabolites. However, a suppressive effect of Gram-negative bacteria may be dominant in some unresponsive patients. Machine learning approaches trained on the microbiota composition of patients can predict the ability of patients to respond to immunotherapy with some accuracy. Thus, interest in modulating the microbiota composition to improve patient responsiveness to therapy has been mounting. Clinical proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated that faecal microbiota transplantation or dietary interventions might be utilized clinically to improve the success rate of immunotherapy in patients with cancer. Here, we review recent advances and discuss emerging strategies for microbiota-based cancer therapies.