Drug-drug interaction (DDI) with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) in patients with cancer

Current Molecular Combination Therapies Used for the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of death for women worldwide. While monotherapy (single agent) treatments have been used for many years, they are not always effective, and many patients relapse after initial treatment. Moreover, in some patients the response to therapy becomes weaker, or resistance to monotherapy develops over time. This is especially problematic for metastatic breast cancer or triple-negative breast cancer. Recently, combination therapies (in which two or more drugs are used to target two or more pathways) have emerged as promising new treatment options. Combination therapies are often more effective than monotherapies and demonstrate lower levels of toxicity during long-term treatment. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of current combination therapies, including molecular-targeted therapy, hormone therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy. We also describe the molecular basis of breast cancer and the various treatment options for different breast cancer subtypes. While combination therapies are promising, we also discuss some of the challenges. Despite these challenges, the use of innovative combination therapy holds great promise compared with traditional monotherapies. In addition, the use of multidisciplinary technologies (such as nanotechnology and computer technology) has the potential to optimize combination therapies even further.

Complexity and clinical significance of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in oncology: challenging issues in the care of patients regarding cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT)

Cancer patients have an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation management includes prophylactic or therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). However, the management of thrombosis in patients with cancer is complex due to various individual and disease-related factors, including drug–drug interactions (DDIs). Furthermore, DDIs may impact both, cancer and venous thrombosis, treatment effectiveness and safety; their relevance is highlighted by the advances in cancer therapeutics. Given that these new oncology drugs are extensively used, more attention should be given to monitoring potential DDIs to minimize risks. Recognition of DDIs is of utmost importance in an era of rapid developments in cancer treatments and introduction of novel treatments and protocols. When managing cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), the concomitant use of a DOAC and a moderate or strong modulator (inhibitor or inducer) of CYP3A4 or a P-glycoprotein (P-gp) is most likely to be associated with significant DDIs. Therefore, LMWHs remain the first-line option for the long-term management of CAT under these circumstances and physicians must consider utilizing LMWHs as first line. This review describes the risk of DDIs and their potential impact and outcomes in patients with cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) receiving anticoagulation.

Efficacy and Safety Considerations With Dose-Reduced Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Review

Importance

Dose-reduced regimens of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be used for 2 main purposes: dose-adjusted treatment intended as full-intensity anticoagulation (eg, for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation [AF] in patients requiring dose reduction) or low-intensity treatment (eg, extended-duration treatment of venous thromboembolism [VTE]). We reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to understand the scenarios in which dose-adjusted or low-intensity DOACs were tested and reviewed the labeled indications by regulatory authorities, using data from large registries to assess whether the use of dose-reduced DOACs in routine practice aligned with the findings of RCTs.

Observations

Among 4191 screened publications, 35 RCTs that used dose-adjusted DOACs were identified for dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban. Of these 35 RCTs, 29 were related to stroke prevention in AF. Efficacy and safety results for dose-adjusted DOACs in large RCTs of AF were similar to those found for full-dose DOACs. To our knowledge, dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban have not been studied as dose-adjusted therapy for acute VTE treatment. Low-intensity DOACs were identified in 37 RCTs. Low-intensity DOACs may be used for extended-duration treatment of VTE (apixaban and rivaroxaban), primary prevention in orthopedic surgeries (dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban), primary prevention in ambulatory high-risk cancer patients (apixaban and rivaroxaban) or (postdischarge) high-risk medical patients (rivaroxaban), in stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, or after a recent revascularization for peripheral artery disease in conjunction with aspirin (rivaroxaban). Minor variations exist between regulatory authorities in different regions regarding criteria for dose adjustment of DOACs. Data from large registries indicated that dose-reduced DOACs were used occasionally with doses or for clinical scenarios different from those studied in RCTs or recommended by regulatory authorities.

Conclusions and Relevance

Dose adjustment and low-intensity treatment are 2 different forms of dose-reduced DOACs. Dose adjustment is mostly relevant for AF and should be done based on the approved criteria. Dose adjustment of DOACs should not be used for acute VTE treatment in most cases. In contrast, low-intensity DOACs may be used for primary or secondary VTE prevention for studied and approved indications. Attention should be given to routine practice patterns to align the daily clinical practice with existing evidence of safety and efficacy.

Impact of the Genotype and Phenotype of CYP3A and P-gp on the Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Exposure in a Real-World Setting

Apixaban and rivaroxaban are the two most prescribed direct factor Xa inhibitors. With the increased use of DOACs in real-world settings, safety and efficacy concerns have emerged, particularly regarding their concomitant use with other drugs. Increasing evidence highlights drug−drug interactions with CYP3A/P-gp modulators leading to adverse events. However, current recommendations for dose adjustment do not consider CYP3A/P-gp genotype and phenotype. We aimed to determine their impact on apixaban and rivaroxaban blood exposure. Three-hundred hospitalized patients were included. CYP3A and P-gp phenotypic activities were assessed by the metabolic ratio of midazolam and AUC0−6h of fexofenadine, respectively. Relevant CYP3A and ABCB1 genetic polymorphisms were also tested. Capillary blood samples collected at four time-points after apixaban or rivaroxaban administration allowed the calculation of pharmacokinetic parameters. According to the developed multivariable linear regression models, P-gp activity (p < 0.001) and creatinine clearance (CrCl) (p = 0.01) significantly affected apixaban AUC0−6h. P-gp activity (p < 0.001) also significantly impacted rivaroxaban AUC0−6h. The phenotypic switch (from normal to poor metabolizer) of P-gp led to an increase of apixaban and rivaroxaban AUC0−6h by 16% and 25%, respectively, equivalent to a decrease of 38 mL/min in CrCl according to the apixaban model. CYP3A phenotype and tested SNPs of CYP3A/P-gp had no significant impact. In conclusion, P-gp phenotypic activity, rather than known CYP3A/P-gp polymorphisms, could be relevant for dose adjustment.