Evaluation of in vitro absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion and assessment of drug-drug interaction of rucaparib, an orally potent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor

PARP inhibitor-related acute renal failure: a real-world study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system database

BACKGROUND

Current clinical trial data on PARP inhibitors (PARPis)-related acute renal failure (ARF) are not entirely representative of real-world situations. Therefore, in this study, the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) was used to evaluate PARPis-related ARF.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were obtained from 1 January 2015, to 30 September 2023. ARF event reports were analyzed based on four algorithms. The time-to-onset (TTO) and clinical outcomes of PARPis-associated ARF were assessed.

RESULTS

The total included cases were 2726. Significant signals were observed for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib (reporting odds ratio (ROR): 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.49-1.78, 1.25, 95% CI: 1.19-1.32 and 1.59, 95% CI: 1.47-1.72 respectively). The median TTO of ARF onset was 57, 36, and 85 days for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib, respectively. The proportion of deaths with olaparib (9.88%) was significantly higher than for niraparib (2.52%) and rucaparib (2.94%) (p < 0.005). The proportion of life-threatening adverse events associated with niraparib (4.89%) was significantly higher than for rucaparib (0.98%) (p < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

ARF and PARPi were related, with the exception of talazoparib. More emphasis should be given to PARPis-related ARF due to the high proportion of serious AEs and delayed adverse reactions.

Predicting routes of phase I and II metabolism based on quantum mechanics and machine learning

Unexpected metabolism could lead to the failure of many late-stage drug candidates or even the withdrawal of approved drugs. Thus, it is critical to predict and study the dominant routes of metabolism in the early stages of research.We describe the development and validation of a 'WhichEnzyme' model that accurately predicts the enzyme families most likely to be responsible for a drug-like molecule's metabolism. Furthermore, we combine this model with our previously published regioselectivity models for Cytochromes P450, Aldehyde Oxidases, Flavin-containing Monooxygenases, UDP-glucuronosyltransferases and Sulfotransferases - the most important Phase I and Phase II drug metabolising enzymes - and a 'WhichP450' model that predicts the Cytochrome P450 isoform(s) responsible for a compound's metabolism.The regioselectivity models are based on a mechanistic understanding of these enzymes' actions and use quantum mechanical simulations with machine learning methods to accurately predict sites of metabolism and the resulting metabolites. We train heuristics based on the outputs of the 'WhichEnzyme', 'WhichP450', and regioselectivity models to determine the most likely routes of metabolism and metabolites to be observed experimentally.Finally, we demonstrate that this combination delivers high sensitivity in identifying experimentally reported metabolites and higher precision than other methods for predicting in vivo metabolite profiles.

PARP inhibitors: A review of the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacogenetics

PARP inhibitors have emerged as a promising class of anticancer agents approved for the treatment of ovarian, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer. These inhibitors target PARP enzymes involved in DNA repair pathways and exhibit remarkable efficacy in cancers with genetic deficiencies in the homologous recombination pathway responsible for mending DNA double-strand breaks. While all PARP inhibitors demonstrate potent and selective inhibition of PARP1 and PARP2, the key enzymes involved in DNA repair, each agent within the class possesses unique pharmacological profiles distinguishing them from one another. This review aims to comprehensively examine the properties of the entire PARP inhibitor class while emphasizing individual pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic distinctions that inform clinical recommendations. Currently, four agents, namely olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib, have obtained approval in the United States and Europe. Olaparib, the first approved PARP inhibitor, has been extensively studied and is indicated for a wider range of cancer types. Niraparib and talazoparib, the more recent additions to the PARP inhibitor class, possess the longest half-lives and are formulated for convenient once-daily dosing, alleviating the pill burden for patients when compared to older agents. Moreover, talazoparib undergoes minimal hepatic metabolism, reducing the potential for drug-drug interactions. Notably, niraparib is the sole PARP inhibitor recommended for dose reduction in hepatically impaired populations, whereas talazoparib and olaparib should be dose reduced in renally impaired populations. The mechanisms underlying these dose adjustment recommendations are further explored in this review. Additionally, this review briefly covers veliparib, a PARP inhibitor under development, and two recently approved PARP inhibitors in China, fuzuloparib and pamiparib. Although significant progress has been made in understanding PARP inhibitors, there are several unanswered questions that remain, necessitating further research across a broader spectrum of cancer types within this evolving class of anticancer agents.

Inhibition of efflux transporters by poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors

Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of various cancers. They share a similar mechanism of action but have differences in pharmacokinetic characteristics and potential for drug-drug interactions (DDI). This study evaluated the potential ATP-binding cassette transporter-mediated interactions between PARP inhibitors (niraparib, olaparib and rucaparib) and statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin). We studied the inhibitory activity of PARP inhibitors on breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), multidrug resistance-associated protein 3 (MRP3) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) using vesicular transport assays and determined the concentrations required for 50% inhibition (IC50 ). Then, we predicted the increase of statin exposure followed by the administration of PARP inhibitors using a mechanistic static model. Rucaparib was the strongest inhibitor of BCRP-mediated rosuvastatin transport (IC50 13.7 μM), followed by niraparib (42.6 μM) and olaparib (216 μM). PARP inhibitors did not affect MRP3. While niraparib appeared to inhibit P-gp, the inhibition showed large variability. The inhibition of intestinal BCRP by rucaparib, niraparib and olaparib was predicted to elevate rosuvastatin exposure by 52%, 37% and 24%, respectively. The interactions between PARP inhibitors and rosuvastatin are probably of minor clinical significance alone, but combined with other predisposing factors, they may increase the risk of rosuvastatin-associated adverse effects.

Managing Adverse Effects Associated With Poly (ADP-ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer: A Synthesis of Clinical Trial and Real-World Data

The use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy is standard care in the management of patients with various malignancies including ovarian, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancers. PARP inhibitors have been approved in different settings for patients with specific hereditary pathogenic variants, most notably homologous recombination repair pathways such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The vast experience with PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib) has been in the management of epithelial ovarian cancer. There have not been any head-to-head comparisons of PARP inhibitors in randomized trials, and we can only perform cross-comparison on the basis of the reported literature. The three approved PARP inhibitors share several common adverse effects because of a class effect including nausea, fatigue, and anemia, but there are notable differences likely because of variations in their poly-pharmacology and off-target effects. Finally, patients included in clinical trials are often younger with a good performance status and less comorbidities than the real-world population, and hence, the potential benefits and adverse effects may not be superimposable. In this review, we describe these differences and discuss strategies to mitigate and manage adverse side effects effectively.

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).

Predicting disruptions to drug pharmacokinetics and the risk of adverse drug reactions in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis patients

The liver plays a central role in the pharmacokinetics of drugs through drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) causes disease-specific alterations to the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) processes, including a decrease in protein expression of basolateral uptake transporters, an increase in efflux transporters, and modifications to enzyme activity. This can result in increased drug exposure and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Our goal was to predict drugs that pose increased risks for ADRs in NASH patients. Bibliographic research identified 71 drugs with reported ADRs in patients with liver disease, mainly non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), 54 of which are known substrates of transporters and/or metabolizing enzymes. Since NASH is the progressive form of NAFLD but is most frequently undiagnosed, we identified other drugs at risk based on NASH-specific alterations to ADME processes. Here, we present another list of 71 drugs at risk of pharmacokinetic disruption in NASH, based on their transport and/or metabolism processes. It encompasses drugs from various pharmacological classes for which ADRs may occur when used in NASH patients, especially when eliminated through multiple pathways altered by the disease. Therefore, these results may inform clinicians regarding the selection of drugs for use in NASH patients.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of PARP Inhibitors in Oncology

Olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib are poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors approved for the treatment of ovarian, breast, pancreatic, and/or prostate cancer. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are potent inhibitors of the PARP enzymes with comparable half-maximal inhibitory concentrations in the nanomolar range. Olaparib and rucaparib are orally dosed twice a day, extensively metabolized by cytochrome P450 enzymes, and inhibitors of several enzymes and drug transporters with a high risk for drug-drug interactions. Niraparib and talazoparib are orally dosed once a day with a lower risk for niraparib and a minimal risk for talazoparib to cause drug-drug interactions. All four PARP inhibitors show moderate-to-high interindividual variability in plasma exposure. Higher exposure is associated with an increase in toxicity, mostly hematological toxicity. For talazoparib, exposure-efficacy relationships have been described, but for olaparib, niraparib, and rucaparib this relationship remains inconclusive. Further studies are required to investigate exposure-response relationships to improve dosing of PARP inhibitors, in which therapeutic drug monitoring could play an important role. In this review, we give an overview of the pharmacokinetic properties of the four PARP inhibitors, including considerations for patients with renal dysfunction or hepatic impairment, the effect of food, and drug-drug interactions. Furthermore, we focus on the pharmacodynamics and summarize the available exposure-efficacy and exposure-toxicity relationships.

Role of Rucaparib in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: Clinical Perspectives and Considerations

Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer worldwide and has strong genetic associations. This is important for the development of therapeutics for the condition, as metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is resistant to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and has a relatively poor prognosis. We conducted a literature review on rucaparib, a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor that is currently indicated for the treatment of patients with mCRPC who harbor mutations in BRCA1/2 (homologous recombination repair [HRR] genes) and who have already tried androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies (ARAT) and a taxane chemotherapy. We describe rucaparib's FDA approval, which was based on the results of the single-arm, open-label, Phase II TRITON2 clinical trial, which found an objective response rate (ORR) of 43.5%, a duration of response (DOR) of over six months in length and an acceptable safety profile. Rucaparib's dosage and clinical considerations for use were also discussed. We also compared rucaparib's use and safety profile with Olaparib, niraparib and talazoparib, three other PARP inhibitors tested for the treatment of mCRPC. Overall, initial results show that the safety profile of all four drugs in mCRPC was relatively similar, and further testing is currently indicated for all four. Differences in their metabolism, however, also warrant further research. The clinical validity of rucaparib will be tested by the follow-up TRITON3 clinical trial, which is comparing the effect of rucaparib compared to standard therapies for mCRPC harboring BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations. Other than TRITON3, other clinical trials are testing rucaparib's ability against other cancers (prostate or otherwise) with HRR mutations, and also the efficacy of combination therapies involving rucaparib. Finally, more research is needed to elucidate rucaparib's effect on HRR mutations other than BRCA1/2. Advancements in understanding the genetic landscape of mCRPC will also assist in understanding rucaparib's full therapeutic potential.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Rucaparib

Rucaparib is an oral small-molecule poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor indicated for patients with recurrent ovarian cancer in the maintenance and treatment settings and for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Rucaparib has a manageable safety profile; the most common adverse events reported were fatigue and nausea in both indications. Accumulation in plasma exposure occurred after repeated administration of the approved 600-mg twice-daily dosage. Steady state was achieved after continuous twice-daily dosing for a week. Rucaparib has moderate oral bioavailability and can be dosed with or without food. Although a high-fat meal weakly increased maximum concentration and area under the curve, the effect was not clinically significant. A mass balance analysis indicated almost a complete dose recovery of rucaparib over 12 days, with metabolism, renal, and hepatic excretion as the elimination routes. A population pharmacokinetic analysis of rucaparib revealed no effect of age, sex, race, or body weight. No starting dose adjustments were necessary for patients with mild-to-moderate hepatic or renal impairment; the effect of severe organ impairment on rucaparib exposure has not been evaluated. In patients, rucaparib moderately inhibited cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 and weakly inhibited CYP3As, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19. Rucaparib weakly increased systemic exposures of oral contraceptives and oral rosuvastatin and marginally increased the exposure of oral digoxin (a P-glycoprotein substrate). In vitro studies suggested that rucaparib inhibits transporters MATE1, MATE2-K, OCT1, and OCT2. No clinically meaningful drug interactions with rucaparib as a perpetrator were observed. An exposure-response analysis revealed dose-dependent changes in selected clinical efficacy and safety endpoints. Overall, this article provides a comprehensive review of the clinical pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, drug-drug interactions, effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, and exposure-response relationships of rucaparib.

Appropriate Selection of PARP Inhibitors in Ovarian Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a class of anti-cancer drugs that target DNA repair pathways and have shown promising efficacy in patients with ovarian cancer in recent clinical trials. To date, there have been 9 FDA PARPi approvals/indications in ovarian cancer since 2014, highlighting the importance of this class of agents in the treatment of ovarian cancer. BRCA1/2-mutated tumors or other forms of homologous recombination deficient (HRD) tumors are particularly susceptible to PARP inhibition and have seen the greatest benefits of improvement in response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) in clinical trials. Patients with homologous recombination-proficient tumors also receive benefit, especially when a nice response to paltinum is noted, but to a lesser extent. PARP inhibitors now have FDA approval and indications in first-line and recurrent maintenance, and treatment. PARP inhibitor use as maintenance therapy in the front-line setting is now considered the standard of care in patients with BRCA1/2 mutations based on the SOLO-1/GOG-3004/ENGOT study. PARP inhibitors are also recommended per ASCO guidelines in all patients with ovarian cancer as front-line maintenance therapy based on the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial. The combination of PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and the anti-angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab is also approved as maintenance therapy after front-line chemotherapy treatment in patients with HRD tumors and is an option for patients who have initiated bevacizumab with their chemotherapy treatment. PARPi are also FDA approved and can be utilized as a treatment in third-line and beyond in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with BRCA1/2 mutations and HRD tumors. In this review, we will cover in detail when PARP inhibitor use is appropriate in ovarian cancer, as well as the various clinical factors to take into consideration when selecting a PARP inhibitor regimen.

Adverse Event Profiles of PARP Inhibitors: Analysis of Spontaneous Reports Submitted to FAERS

Background: Several poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) are currently approved for the treatment of a variety of cancers. The safety profile of PARPis has not yet been systemically analyzed in the real world. We conducted this pharmacovigilance analysis using the US FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to explore the difference in adverse events (AEs) among PARPis. Methods: FAERS data (December 2014 to October 2021) were searched for reports of all FDA-approved PARPis across all indications. We used the standardized MedDRA query (SMQ) generalized search AEs on the preferred term (PT) level based on case reports. After filtering duplicate reports, disproportionality analysis was used to detect safety signals by calculating reporting odds ratios (ROR). Reports were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval did not contain the null value. Results: Within the standardized MedDRA queries, significant safety signals were found, including those for olaparib [blood premalignant disorders (ROR = 17.06)], rucaparib [taste and smell disorders (ROR = 9.17)], niraparib [hematopoietic throbocytopenia (ROR = 28.2)], and talazoparib [hematopoietic erythropenia (ROR = 9.38)]. For AEs on the PT level, we found several significant signals, including platelet count decreased with niraparib (ROR = 52.78); red blood cell count decreased with niraparib (ROR = 70.47) and rucaparib (ROR = 15.09); myelodysplastic syndrome with olaparib (ROR = 35.47); acute myeloid leukaemia with olaparib (ROR = 25.14); blood pressure fluctuation with niraparib (ROR = 20.54); lymphangioleiomyomatosis with niraparib (ROR = 471.20); photosensitivity reaction with niraparib (ROR = 21.77) and rucaparib (ROR = 18.92); renal impairment with rucaparib (ROR = 33.32); and interstitial lung disease with Olaparib (ROR = 11.31). All the detected safety signals were confirmed using signals of disproportionality reporting methods. Conclusion: PARPis differed in their safety profile reports. The analysis of the FAERS database revealed significant safety signals that matched previously published case reports, including serious gastrointestinal, blood and lymphatic system, cardiovascular and respiratory complications, which require individualized drug administration according to patients' conditions.

PARP Inhibitors as Monotherapy in Daily Practice for Advanced Prostate Cancers

Despite recent improvements in survival, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs) remain lethal. Alterations in genes involved in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway are associated with poor prognosis. Poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) have demonstrated anti-tumoral effects by synthetic lethality in patients with mCRPCs harboring HRR gene alterations, in particular BRCA2. While both olaparib and rucaparib have obtained government approvals for use, the selection of eligible patients as well as the prescription of these treatments within the clinical urology community are challenging. This review proposes a brief review of the rationale and outcomes of PARPi treatment, then a pragmatic vision of PARPi use in terms of prescription and the selection of patients based on molecular screening, which can involve potential genetic counseling in the case of associated germinal alterations.

Metabolism‑related pharmacokinetic drug‑drug interactions with poly (ADP‑ribose) polymerase inhibitors (Review)

Poly (ADP‑ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, including olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, talazoparib and veliparib, have emerged as one of the most exciting new treatments for solid tumors, particularly in patients with breast‑related cancer antigen 1/2 mutations. Oral administration is convenient and shows favorable compliance with the majority of patients, but it may be affected by numerous factors, including food, metabolic enzymes and transporters. These interactions may be associated with serious adverse drug reactions or may reduce the treatment efficacy of PARP inhibitors. In fact, numerous pharmacokinetic (PK)‑based drug‑drug interactions (DDIs) involve the metabolism of PARP inhibitors, particularly those metabolized via cytochrome P450 enzymes. The present review aims to characterize and summarize the metabolism‑related PK‑based DDIs of PARP inhibitors, and to provide specific recommendations for reducing the risk of clinically significant DDIs.

PARPs in lipid metabolism and related diseases

PARPs and tankyrases (TNKS) represent a family of 17 proteins. PARPs and tankyrases were originally identified as DNA repair factors, nevertheless, recent advances have shed light on their role in lipid metabolism. To date, PARP1, PARP2, PARP3, tankyrases, PARP9, PARP10, PARP14 were reported to have multi-pronged connections to lipid metabolism. The activity of PARP enzymes is fine-tuned by a set of cholesterol-based compounds as oxidized cholesterol derivatives, steroid hormones or bile acids. In turn, PARPs modulate several key processes of lipid homeostasis (lipotoxicity, fatty acid and steroid biosynthesis, lipoprotein homeostasis, fatty acid oxidation, etc.). PARPs are also cofactors of lipid-responsive nuclear receptors and transcription factors through which PARPs regulate lipid metabolism and lipid homeostasis. PARP activation often represents a disruptive signal to (lipid) metabolism, and PARP-dependent changes to lipid metabolism have pathophysiological role in the development of hyperlipidemia, obesity, alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, type II diabetes and its complications, atherosclerosis, cardiovascular aging and skin pathologies, just to name a few. In this synopsis we will review the evidence supporting the beneficial effects of pharmacological PARP inhibitors in these diseases/pathologies and propose repurposing PARP inhibitors already available for the treatment of various malignancies.

A phase 1, open-label, drug-drug interaction study of rucaparib with rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors

Purpose

This study aimed at evaluating the effect of rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors and the safety of rucaparib with and without coadministration of rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives.

Methods

Patients received single doses of oral rosuvastatin 20 mg (Arm A) or oral contraceptives ethinylestradiol 30 µg + levonorgestrel 150 µg (Arm B) on days 1 and 19 and continuous doses of rucaparib 600 mg BID from day 5 to 23. Serial blood samples were collected with and without rucaparib for pharmacokinetic analysis.

Results

Thirty-six patients (n = 18 each arm) were enrolled and received at least 1 dose of study drug. In the drug–drug interaction analysis (n = 15 each arm), the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of maximum concentration (C_max) with and without rucaparib was 1.29 for rosuvastatin, 1.09 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.19 for levonorgestrel. GMR of area under the concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable measurement (AUC_0–last) was 1.34 for rosuvastatin, 1.43 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.56 for levonorgestrel. There was no increase in frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) when rucaparib was given with either of the probe drugs. In both arms, most TEAEs were mild in severity and considered unrelated to study treatment.

Conclusion

Rucaparib 600 mg BID weakly increased the plasma exposure to rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Rucaparib safety profile when coadministered with rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives was consistent with that of rucaparib monotherapy. Dose adjustments of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives are not necessary when coadministered with rucaparib.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03954366; Date of registration May 17, 2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00280-021-04338-7.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of rucaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors and hepatic impairment

PURPOSE

The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib is approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; however, limited data are available on its use in patients with hepatic dysfunction. This study investigated whether hepatic impairment affects the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of rucaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

METHODS

Patients with normal hepatic function or moderate hepatic impairment according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria were enrolled and received a single oral dose of rucaparib 600 mg. Concentrations of rucaparib and its metabolite M324 in plasma and urine were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between hepatic function groups, and safety and tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were enrolled (n = 8 per group). Rucaparib maximum concentration (Cmax) was similar, while the area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf) was mildly higher in the moderate hepatic impairment group than in the normal control group (geometric mean ratio, 1.446 [90% CI 0.668-3.131]); similar trends were observed for M324. Eight (50%) patients experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 2 had normal hepatic function and 6 had moderate hepatic impairment.

CONCLUSION

Patients with moderate hepatic impairment showed mildly increased AUC0-inf for rucaparib compared to patients with normal hepatic function. Although more patients with moderate hepatic impairment experienced TEAEs, only 2 TEAEs were considered treatment related. These results suggest no starting dose adjustment is necessary for patients with moderate hepatic impairment; however, close safety monitoring is warranted.

Identification of different side effects between PARP inhibitors and their polypharmacological multi-target rationale

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine the differences and potential mechanistic rationale for observed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) between four approved PARP inhibitors (PARPi).

METHODS

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) Yellow Card drug analysis profiles and NHS secondary care medicines database enabled the identification of suspected ADRs associated with the PARPi in the UK from launch to 2020. The polypharmacology of the PARPi were data-mined from several public data sources.

RESULTS

The overall ADRs per 100 000 R_x identified across the four PARPi are statistically significant (χ² test, P < .001). Rucaparib has the greatest relative suspected ADRs, which can be explained by its least clean kinome and physicochemical properties. The suspected gastrointestinal ADRs of rucaparib and niraparib can be ascribed to their kinase polypharmacology. Suspected blood and lymphatic system ADRs of PARPi can be linked to their high volume of distribution (V_d ). The thrombocytopenia rate of niraparib > rucaparib > olaparib tracked with the V_d trend. Hypertension is only associated with niraparib and could be explained by the therapeutically achievable inhibition of DYRK1A and/or transporters. Arrhythmia cases are potentially linked to the structural features of hERG ion-channel inhibition found in rucaparib and niraparib. Enhanced psychiatric/nervous disorders associated with niraparib can be interpreted from the diverse neurotransporter off-targets reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite their similar mode of action, the differential polypharmacology of PARP inhibitors influences their ADR profile.

Update on drug-drug interaction at organic cation transporters: mechanisms, clinical impact, and proposal for advanced in vitro testing

Introduction: Organic cation transporters collectively called OCTs belong to three gene families (SLC22A1 OCT1, SLC22A2 OCT2, SLC22A3 OCT3, SLC22A4 OCTN1, SLC22A5 OCTN2, SLC29A4 PMAT, SLC47A1 MATE1, and SLC47A1 MATE2-K). OCTs transport structurally diverse drugs with overlapping selectivity. Some OCTs were shown to be critically involved in pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy of cationic drugs. Drug-drug interactions at individual OCTs were shown to result in clinical effects. Procedures for in vitro testing of drugs for interaction with OCT1, OCT2, MATE1, and MATE2-K have been recommended.Areas covered: An overview of functional properties, cation selectivity, location, and clinical impact of OCTs is provided. In addition, clinically relevant drug-drug interactions in OCTs are compiled. Because it was observed that the half maximal concentration of drugs to inhibit transport by OCTs (IC₅₀) is dependent on the transported cation and its concentration, an advanced protocol for in vitro testing of drugs for interaction with OCTs is proposed. In addition, it is suggested to include OCT3 and PMAT for in vitro testing.Expert opinion: Research on clinical roles of OCTs should be reinforced including more transporters and drugs. An improvement of the in vitro testing protocol considering recent data is imperative for the benefit of patients.

A high-throughput cell-based gaussia luciferase reporter assay for measurement of CYP1A1, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4 induction

The induction of cytochrome P450s can result in reduced drug efficacy and lead to potential drug-drug interactions. The xenoreceptors-aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), constitutive androstane receptor (CAR), and pregnane X receptor (PXR)-play key roles in CYP induction by xenobiotics. In order to be able to rapidly screen for the induction of three enzymes (CYP1A1, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4), we generated a stable AhR-responsive HepG2 cell line, a stable CAR-responsive HepG2 cell line, and a stable PXR-responsive HepG2 cell line.To validate these stable xenoreceptor-responsive HepG2 cell lines, we evaluated the induction of the different Gaussia reporter activities, as well as the mRNA and protein expression levels of endogenous CYPs in response to different inducers.The induction of luciferase activity in the stable xenoreceptor-responsive HepG2 cell lines by specific inducers occurred in a concentration dependent manner. There was a positive correlation between the induction of luciferase activities and the induction endogenous CYP mRNA expression levels. These xenoreceptor-responsive HepG2 cell lines were further validated with known CYP1A1, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4 inducers.These stable xenoreceptor-responsive HepG2 cell lines may be used in preclinical research for the rapid and sensitive detection of AhR, CAR, and PXR ligands that induce CYP450 isoforms.

Prostate cancer and PARP inhibitors: progress and challenges

Despite survival improvements achieved over the last two decades, prostate cancer remains lethal at the metastatic castration-resistant stage (mCRPC) and new therapeutic approaches are needed. Germinal and/or somatic alterations of DNA-damage response pathway genes are found in a substantial number of patients with advanced prostate cancers, mainly of poor prognosis. Such alterations induce a dependency for single strand break reparation through the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) system, providing the rationale to develop PARP inhibitors. In solid tumors, the first demonstration of an improvement in overall survival was provided by olaparib in patients with mCRPC harboring homologous recombination repair deficiencies. Although this represents a major milestone, a number of issues relating to PARP inhibitors remain. This timely review synthesizes and discusses the rationale and development of PARP inhibitors, biomarker-based approaches associated and the future challenges related to their prescription as well as patient pathways.

Drug-Drug Interactions at Organic Cation Transporter 1

The interaction between drugs and various transporters is one of the decisive factors that affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs. The organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1) is a member of the Solute Carrier 22A (SLC22A) family that plays a vital role in the membrane transport of organic cations including endogenous substances and xenobiotics. This article mainly discusses the drug-drug interactions (DDIs) mediated by OCT1 and their clinical significance.