Enhancement of warfarin response in a patient receiving etoposide and carboplatin chemotherapy

Extreme Elevation of the Prothrombin Time-International Normalized Ratio due to a Probable Interaction between Warfarin and Flutamide

Flutamide, a chemotherapeutic agent for prostate cancer, is known to enhance warfarin anticoagulation. However, not much is known about its pharmaceutical interaction. We herein report the case of a patient with an implanted pacemaker for atrial fibrillation with bradycardia who was on warfarin. This patient presented with deterioration of hematuria, gingival, ear, and subcutaneous bleeding. The prothrombin time-international normalized ratio was extremely elevated after starting flutamide to treat progression of prostate cancer. Fatal bleeding complications were able to be prevented by the immediate administration of prothrombin complex concentrate, but the effect of flutamide on warfarin was prolonged for about two more weeks after the withdrawal of flutamide.

A guide to clinically relevant drug interactions in oncology

This paper presents an overview of new information on clinically relevant drug-drug interactions, particular focuses on negative drug interactions in oncology. We have generated a concise table of drug-drug interactions that provides a synopsis of the clinical outcome of the interaction along with a recommendation for management. We have also generated other tables that describe specific interactions with methotrexate and dosing guidelines for cytotoxic drugs in the presence of renal or hepatic dysfunction. Since warfarin is one of the non-anticancer drugs that is commonly used in cancer patients for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism, its interactions with other anticancer drugs that have been reported in literatures were also reviewed in this paper. In general, drug interactions observed in cancer patients may be categorized into pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and pharmaceutic interactions. Pharmacokinetic interactions involve one drug altering the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion of another drug. Interpatient variability in the pharmacokinetic profile of many anticancer agents often complicates the predictability of the antitumor response and toxicities. Among four pharmacokinetic characteristics, drug interactions involving hepatic metabolism is probably the most common and important mechanism responsible for oncologic drug interactions. For example, several anticancer drugs including taxanes, vinca alkaloids, and irinotecan are known to be metabolized by cytochrome CYP3A4. Enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants have been shown to significantly decrease the plasma levels of these anticancer drugs, thereby compromising the anti-tumor effects. N ephrotoxicity or changes in hepatic function caused by some anticancer drugs (e.g., cisplatin, asparaginase) may also have an impact on the pharmacokinetics of the interacting agents. Pharmacodynamic interactions may occur when two or more drugs acting at a common receptor-binding site impact on the pharmacologic action of the object drug, without influencing the pharmacokinetics of each interacting agent. In clinical setting, a decrease of antitumor efficacy was observed in breast cell lines when gemcitabine or vinorelbine were used in combination with paclitaxel. On the other hand, a decreased incidence of thrombocytopenia was seen in patients receiving combination of carboplatin and palcitaxel compared to those receiving carboplatin alone. The third type of drug-drug interaction is known as pharmaceutic interaction. When one drug may alter the physical or chemical compatibility of another drug that utlimately leads to a change in appearance of the solution or a decrease of effectiveness of the drug due to drug inactivation or degradation.

Assessment of Drug-Drug Interaction between Warfarin and Aprepitant and Its Effects on PT-INR of Patients Receiving Anticancer Chemotherapy

Aprepitant is a known inducer of CYP2C9, the main warfarin-metabolizing enzyme. Consequently, co-administration of these two drugs may result in reduction of the anticoagulation activity of warfarin. However, the nature and degree of time-dependent changes in prothrombin time international normalized ratio (PT-INR) after aprepitant and warfarin co-treatment in patients receiving anticancer chemotherapy has not been elucidated. We retrospectively examined the changes in warfarin dose, PT-INR, and warfarin sensitivity index (WSI; average of PT-INR value/average of daily warfarin dose) during four weeks, i.e., one week before and three weeks after aprepitant administration. The mean and standard deviation values of WSI for one week before and one, two, and three weeks after the beginning of aprepitant administration were 0.51±0.22 (1.00, n=34), 0.74±0.30 (1.53±0.59, n=30), 0.38±0.15 (0.82±0.22, n=28), and 0.46±0.29 (0.87±0.23, n=24), respectively. Values in parentheses represent relative changes versus WSI of one week before and number of subjects. Although the mean value of WSI significantly increased one week after aprepitant administration compared to that at one week before the administration, it in turn significantly decreased two weeks after compared to one week before (paired t-test, p<0.05 after Bonferoni correction). In patients taking warfarin, PT-INR should be carefully monitored for at least two weeks after the beginning of aprepitant administration because it may fluctuate with both aprepitant and chemotherapy during this period.

Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Diagnosed With Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Considering the high prevalence of lung cancer, our purpose was to summarize the existing literature to identify the several factors that contribute to the increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with lung cancer and to analyze the current recommendations for thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE in those patients.

METHODS

We searched the Medline and EMBASE databases from February 1985 to February 2014 to identify retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies that investigate one or more risk factors for VTEs in patients with lung cancer.

RESULTS

A VTE is a major complication for patients diagnosed with lung cancer. The risk factors for VTE events in patients with lung cancer consist of cancer-related (histological type and stage of cancer), treatment-related (surgery, chemotherapy, angiogenic agents, and supportive care agents), and patient-related factors (comorbidities, immobility, performance status, and prior thrombosis). Low-molecular-weight heparins are recommended for long-term treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Duration of anticoagulant therapy beyond 6 months should be based on individual clinical evaluation. Thromboprophylaxis for patients with lung cancer during hospitalization and immediate postoperative period is well established.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to assess thrombotic risk in patients with lung cancer may improve therapeutic and preventive strategies in the future, with final goal to minimize the burden and consequences of thrombotic events in patients with lung cancer.

Potential drug interactions and chemotoxicity in older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Increased risk of drug interactions due to polypharmacy and aging-related changes in physiology among older patients with cancer is further augmented during chemotherapy. No previous studies examined potential drug interactions (PDIs) from polypharmacy and their association with chemotherapy tolerance in older patients with cancer.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective medical chart review of 244 patients aged 70+ years who received chemotherapy for solid or hematological malignancies. PDI among all drugs, supplements, and herbals taken with the first chemotherapy cycle were screened for using the Drug Interaction Facts software, which classifies PDIs into five levels of clinical significance with level 1 being the highest. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to describe rates of PDI. The association between PDI and severe chemotoxicity was tested with logistic regressions adjusted for baseline covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 769 PDIs were identified in 75.4% patients. Of the 82 level 1 PDIs identified among these, 32 PDIs involved chemotherapeutics. A large proportion of the identified PDIs were of minor clinical significance. The risk of severe non-hematological toxicity almost doubled with each level 1 PDI (OR=1.94, 95% CI: 1.22-3.09), and tripled with each level 1 PDI involving chemotherapeutics (OR=3.08, 95% CI: 1.33-7.12). No association between PDI and hematological toxicity was found.

CONCLUSIONS

In this convenience sample of older patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy we found notable rates of PDI and a substantial adjusted impact of PDI on risk of non-hematological toxicity. These findings warrant further research to optimize chemotherapy outcomes.

Potential drug interactions in cancer therapy: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method

BACKGROUND

In cancer patients, drug interactions may intensify adverse events or reduce antitumour effects. We assessed the prevalence of potential drug interactions (PDIs) among ambulatory cancer patients on i.v. treatment using an advanced screening method.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data on drugs used for comorbidities, anticancer agents, over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, and comorbidities were collected by means of a structured interview among the patients and review of medical charts. PDIs were identified using electronic (Drug Interaction Facts software, version 4.0) and manual screening methods (peer-reviewed reports).

RESULTS

In this study, 278 patients were enrolled. We identified 348 PDIs. Of all patients, 161 (58%) had at least one PDI. Of all PDIs, 34% was classified as major and 60% as moderate. Coumarins, quinolones, antiepileptics, and hydrochlorothiazide were frequently part of a PDI. Interactions that potentially cause QT interval prolongation, gastrointestinal toxicity, and central nervous system depression were also common. In multivariate analysis, an increasing number of drugs [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4, confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.52; P < 0.001] and the use of an OTC drug (OR = 0.56, CI 0.32-0.97; P = 0.045) were risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

PDIs are common in patients treated for an (haemato-) oncological disease. Screening for potential interactions should take place routinely before administering chemotherapy.

Drug interactions in oncology: how common are they?

BACKGROUND

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) comprise an important problem in medical oncology practice. We systematically reviewed the frequency of DDIs in oncology.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for eligible articles and on-line databases for abstracts of major oncology meetings.

RESULTS

Eight studies reported on the frequency of DDIs: six evaluated the frequency of potential DDIs, while two studies reported on real DDIs, i.e. interactions that had clinical consequences. Studies of potential DDIs found that approximately one-third of patients are exposed to dangerous drug doublets, with the most common ones involving warfarin and anticonvulsants. One study of real DDIs found that 2% of hospitalized cancer patients had a DDI as the cause of admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug interactions comprise an important issue in oncology, with approximately one-third of ambulatory cancer patients being at risk of DDIs. Data are limited on the clinical consequences of drug interactions among cancer patients.

Effect of gefitinib on warfarin antithrombotic activity

BACKGROUND

Despite the literature indicating adverse interactions between warfarin and cytotoxic agents, whether such an interaction occurs when warfarin and gefitinib are used concomitantly is unknown. We analyzed the prevalence of the concomitant use of warfarin and gefitinib, and the incidence of prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (PT-INR) alterations or adverse interactions in concomitant users of warfarin and gefitinib.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated at the Kitasato University Hospital who received concomitant warfarin and gefitinib between September 2002 and January 2007. Medical information, including the indication for warfarin use, warfarin dosing and dosing changes, and exposure to gefitinib were collected from computerized databases and medical records.

RESULTS

Twelve (4.1%) of 296 patients treated with gefitinib received warfarin. PT-INR elevation occurred in 6 patients (50.0%). Two (16.7%) of the 12 patients had liver metastases. Liver dysfunction was associated with PT-INR elevation (P = 0.0100).

CONCLUSION

As there is a possibility of PT-INR abnormalities occurring during the concomitant use of gefitinib and warfarin, clinicians should be aware of this interaction. Because of the potentially severe consequences of this interaction, close monitoring of PT-INR and warfarin dose adjustment are recommended for patients receiving warfarin and gefitinib, especially during the first 2 weeks in the beginning of warfarin therapy.

Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients receive numerous medications, including antineoplastic agents, drugs for supportive care, and medications for comorbid illnesses. Therefore, they are at risk for drug interactions and duplicate prescribing.

METHODS

A questionnaire eliciting information on demographics and medications taken in the previous 4 weeks was given to adult outpatients receiving systemic anticancer therapy for solid tumors. The Drug Interaction Facts software, version 4.0, was used to identify potential drug interactions and to classify them by level of severity (major, moderate, or minor) and the strength of scientific evidence for them (using categories [1-5] of decreasing certainty). Summary statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 405 patients. We observed 276 potential drug interactions, and at least one potential interaction was identified in 109 patients (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 23% to 31%). Of the potential interactions, 25 (9%) were classified as major and 211 (77%) as moderate. Nearly half (49%) of potential interactions were supported by level 1 or 2 scientific evidence. Most potential drug interactions (87%) involved non-anticancer agents such as warfarin, antihypertensive drugs, corticosteroids, and anticonvulsants, but some (n = 36, 13%) involved antineoplastic agents. In multivariable analysis, increased risk of receiving drug combinations in which there were potential drug interactions was associated with receipt of increasing numbers of drugs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4 per additional drug, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.58, P<.001 from the Wald chi-square test), type of medication (drugs to treat comorbid conditions versus supportive care medications only; OR = 8.6, 95% CI = 2.9 to 25, P<.001), and the presence of brain tumors. Thirty-two (8%) patients were exposed to duplicate medications, most often corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, or benzodiazepines.

CONCLUSION

Potential drug interactions were common among cancer patients and most often involved medications to treat comorbid conditions. Duplicate medications were infrequent.

Drug Interaction Between Gefitinib and Warfarin

Gefitinib is a synthetic, oral anilinoquinazoline specifically designed to inhibit the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, and is the first targeted drug to demonstrate reproducible activity in non-small cell lung cancer patients who do not respond to platinum-based chemotherapy. In this report, we present two cases of an interaction between gefitinib and warfarin which has not been reported previously. Because of the potentially serious consequences of this interaction, close monitoring of the International Normalized Ratio and warfarin dosage adjustment are recommended for patients receiving warfarin together with gefitinib.

Drug interactions in oncology

Drug interactions are an ongoing concern in treatment of cancer, especially when cytotoxic drugs are being used. However, the clinical relevance of these interactions is not always investigated. Drug interactions can be pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic, or pharmacodynamic. They can also be wanted (eg, use of ciclosporin to enhance the oral bioavailability of paclitaxel); unwanted (eg, combination of the antiviral agent sorivudine and oral fluorouracil analogues can lead to fatal complications); between cytotoxic drugs, cytotoxic drugs and non-cytotoxic drugs; or with pharmaceutical vehicles. Potential interactions between anticancer drugs and over-the-counter or alternative medicines and herbs should not be underestimated. More attention should be given to the recognition of potential drug interactions in the preclinical and early clinical development phase of a new anticancer drug. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of drug interactions, with selected examples.

Identification of a gemcitabine-warfarin interaction

A man anticoagulated with warfarin 57.5 mg/week (international normalized ratio [INR] 1.94) was diagnosed with nonsmall cell lung cancer and prescribed weekly gemcitabine. With the first dose of the first cycle, his INR rose to 3.52, and his weekly warfarin dose was decreased to 52.5 mg. The lower warfarin dose was continued during the 2-week rest period between cycles 1 and 2 of gemcitabine therapy, and his INR decreased to 2.08. The patient resumed gemcitabine while taking warfarin 52.5 mg/week; however, the warfarin dosage had to be reduced to 48.5 mg/week to achieve a therapeutic INR. After gemcitabine was discontinued, the patient was restabilized at the prechemotherapy baseline dosage. We conclude that an interaction between warfarin and gemcitabine occurred with the first dose of the latter and recommend weekly INRs for anticoagulated patients receiving gemcitabine.