Warfarin-5-FU interaction--a consecutive case series

Relationships, Current Issues, Safety and Efficacy of Oral Anticoagulation in Cancer Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

A relationship between malignancy and impaired hemostasis has been proven, and balancing clotting and bleeding risks can be challenging. Half of cancer patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) do not receive any oral anticoagulation (OAC). Using PubMed on the relationship between cancer and AF and their association with hemostasis, targeting studies comparing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct OAC (DOAC) strategies in AF cancer patients, three RCTs (>3000 patients) and eight observational studies (>250,000 patients) comparing different OACs were retrieved. The VKA prescribed was always warfarin. Dabigatran was the only DOAC not analyzed in the RCTs but the most used in non-randomized studies, whereas edoxaban-treated patients were the majority in the RCTs. Overall, the DOAC patients showed similar or lower rates of efficacy (thromboembolic) and safety (bleeding) outcomes compared to the VKA patients. DOACs are subject to fewer interactions with antineoplastic agents. DOACs may be preferable to VKAs as a thromboembolic prophylaxis in cancer patients with non-valvular AF.

Pharmacokinetics and Comparative Bioavailability of Test or Reference Capecitabine and Discrepant Pharmacokinetics Among Various Tumors in Chinese Solid Cancer Patients

The main objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) bioequivalence of two capecitabine tablets and explore the different PK profiles of various tumors in Chinese patients with cancer. All 76 patients with a confirmed cancer diagnosis were included in this study. A single dose of 2000 mg of test or reference capecitabine (Xeloda, Hoffmann-La Roche) was orally administered postprandially. After 24 hours of washout, the patients were administered the test or the reference capecitabine alternately. PK samples were taken at the time of predose up to 6 hours postdose. Bioequivalence evaluation was performed using the geometric mean ratios of peak concentration in plasma (C_max) , area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 6 h (AUC_0-t) , and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC_0-∞ ) for capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). In this study, 90% confidence intervals of test/reference mean ratios of C_max , AUC_0-t , AUC_0-∞ of capecitabine and 5-FU were in the range of 80%-125%. Both the test and reference capecitabine regimens were well tolerated in this study. Furthermore, we found that patients with esophageal-gastrointestinal cancers had higher exposure to capecitabine and a shorter time to C_max (T_max) than those with breast cancer. In conclusion, a single oral dose of 2000 mg of test capecitabine tablets after postprandial administration was bioequivalent to the reference drug.

In vivo evaluation of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions between fluorinated pyrimidine anticancer drugs, 5-fluorouracil and capecitabin, and an anticoagulant, warfarin

Warfarin is a common anticoagulant and has demonstrated interactions with several drugs. Among them, as a serious adverse event, a case of death due to the enhanced warfarin action owing to its combined use with a fluoropyrimidine anticancer drug has been reported, but the detailed mechanism has not been elucidated.Some reports have advocated that fluorinated pyrimidine anticancer drugs reduce cytochrome P450 2C9 expression, leading to the enhanced pharmacological effects of warfarin.The purpose of this study was to clarify the mechanisms of drug-drug interactions between warfarin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine in vivo using rats. Rats were administered warfarin in combination with 5-FU (15 mg/kg/d) or capecitabine (15 mg/kg/d) for 7 d. Prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial thromboplastin time were significantly prolonged in the warfarin plus 5-FU or capecitabine groups compared with those in the warfarin alone group. No significant difference was observed in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve of the warfarin alone group compared with the warfarin with 5-FU or capecitabine groups.These data suggest that the enhancement of warfarin efficacy caused by the combination of 5-FU or capecitabine was due to a pharmacological interaction rather than a pharmacokinetic interaction.

Capecitabine and Warfarin Interaction: A Case Report With Review of Literature and Management Options

Capecitabine is an orally active prodrug of 5-fluorouracil with improved safety and efficacy that is extensively used as an antineoplastic agent. It is converted to 5-Fluorouracil in the liver and tumor tissues. In vitro assays did not reveal any significant potential for interaction between capecitabine and its metabolites with warfarin. However, several reports provided clinical evidence of such interaction resulting in an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) and bleeding. Here, we report another case of capecitabine and warfarin concurrent administration that resulted in sub- or supra- therapeutic INR without any bleeding episode or venous-thromboembolic event through the follow-up period. Moreover, a review of available management options is also presented in this paper.

Onco-cardiology: Drug-drug interactions of antineoplastic and cardiovascular drugs

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and cancer are still the leading causes of death. There are many common etiologic factors, especially smoking and obesity. Therefore, it is not uncommon for CVD and cancer to coexist. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) inevitably occur in this group of patients, where polypharmacy is increasing due to older age and multiple comorbidities. However, multidisciplinary studies, especially close collaboration of medical oncologists and cardiologists, who deals with the diagnosis and treatment of these diseases, awareness and preventive approaches to DDIs may reduce serious morbidity and mortality. In this review, information about the common treatments used in cardiology and oncology and possible DDIs are discussed.

Prevalence study on potential drug–drug interaction in cancer patients in Piacenza hospital’s Onco-Haematology department

Background

Cancer patients can be a human model of potential drug interactions. Usually they receive a large number of different medications, including antineoplastic agents, drugs for comorbid illness and medication for supportive care, however information about these interactions are fragmented and poor.

Objective

We assessed a prospective study to evaluate the prevalence of drug interaction among patients hospitalized in the Onco-Haematology department, Hospital of Piacenza.

Methods

Data on drugs administered for cancer, comorbidities, or supportive care were collected from different computerized prescription software in use in the department; we compared them with a database to focus on the co-administration of drugs. A literature review was performed to identify major potential drug interaction and to classify them by level of severity and by strengths of scientific evidence.

Results

In this study 284 cancer patients were enrolled; patients had taken an average of seven drugs on each day of therapy plus chemotherapeutic agents, we identified 67 potential drug interactions. At least 53 patients had one potential drug interaction. Of all potential drug interactions 63 were classified as moderate severity and only four as major. In 55 cases chemotherapeutic agents were involved in possible interactions with supportive care drugs, meanwhile in 12 cases the potential drug interactions were between supportive care drugs.

Conclusions

In our centre, thanks to a computerized prescription software, integrated with caution alarm in case of possible interaction, we had a lower rate of potential drug interactions than the one from literature. It is possible to improve the software integrating the alarm with the potential drug interactions between chemotherapy agents and supportive care drugs.

Subdural Hematoma Due to Probable Warfarin–Fluorouracil Interaction

Objective:

To describe the occurrence of a subdural hematoma in a woman undergoing chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil combined with warfarin therapy.

Case Summary:

A 60-year-old white woman with atrial fibrillation underwent radical mastectomy for primary breast cancer with histologically positive axillary lymph nodes. Following surgery, the patient received adjuvant chemotherapy with a CMF 1–8 regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1–14, methotrexate 40 mg/m2 intravenously, and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 by intravenous bolus on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks. Warfarin 5 mg/day was administered concomitantly due to atrial fibrillation. Following the second course of concomitant therapy, the patient developed a headache, hemiparesis, and an international normalized ratio (INR) of 7.6, which was highly suggestive of a drug interaction between fluorouracil and warfarin. A computed tomography scan of the brain revealed a left parieto-occipital subdural hematoma.

Discussion:

This case emphasizes the importance of the potentially fatal drug interaction involving warfarin and fluorouracil.

Conclusions:

Several adverse interactions between warfarin and fluorouracil have been reported. Considering the severity of this interaction, close monitoring of the INR is recommended in patients receiving these agents concomitantly.

Impact of capecitabine and S-1 on anticoagulant activity of warfarin in patients with gastrointestinal cancer

PURPOSE

Capecitabine and S-1 are orally administered fluoropyrimidine anticancer drugs widely used to treat gastrointestinal cancer. While anticoagulant therapy for cancer patients is recommended, many studies have shown that the effects of warfarin are enhanced by its interaction with fluoropyrimidine. We investigated the effects of capecitabine or S-1 on the anticoagulant activity of warfarin in patients coadministered both drugs.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated the clinical features of and anticoagulant activity in nine consecutive patients who received capecitabine or S-1 in combination with warfarin from January 2008 to December 2014 at our institution. The prothrombin time international normalized ratio divided by current warfarin dosage (PT-INR/dose) was measured over time to evaluate warfarin titer in each patient.

RESULTS

Reductions in warfarin dosage were required, from 2.6 mg/day before chemotherapy to a minimum of 1.7 mg/day after chemotherapy initiation, on average. The median time until the first dosage reduction after initiation was 22 days for the capecitabine group and 43 days for the S-1 group. The median time until minimal dosage of warfarin was reached was 43 days in both groups. PT-INR/dose was elevated from 0.85 before chemotherapy to a maximum of 1.41 after its initiation. The median time until the maximal PT-INR/dose was reached was 46 days for the capecitabine group and 46.5 days for the S-1 group.

CONCLUSIONS

The anticoagulant activity of warfarin may be enhanced by coadministration with capecitabine or S-1. Close monitoring of anticoagulant activity is required to avoid a hyperfibrinolytic state due to a severe adverse interaction.

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.

Adverse Interaction between Capecitabine and Warfarin Resulting in Altered Coagulation Parameters: A Review of the Literature Starting from a Case Report

Capecitabine is an orally active prodrug of fluorouracil and is extensively used as an antineoplastic agent. It is converted to 5-Fluorouracil in the liver and tumor tissues. Warfarin is an anticoagulant agent for preventing and treating venous and arterial thrombosis and embolism and is metabolized by cytochrome P450 isoenzymes in the liver. Preclinical in vitro studies using human liver microsomes report no inhibitory effects between capecitabine and substrates of cytochrome P. However, the concomitant administration of capecitabine and warfarin resulted in INR elevation in the cases previously reported in the literature. The exact mechanism of this interaction is unknown but may be related to downregulation of cytochrome P450 2C9 by capecitabine or its metabolites. We report on the possible adverse interaction between capecitabine and warfarin in a patient with metastatic breast cancer and critically review the existing literature on this topic. Physicians should be aware of adverse reactions arising from the combined use of capecitabine and warfarin. In the light of the current data, INR levels should be closely monitored in patients using these drugs together.

Increased anticoagulant activity of warfarin used in combination with doxifluridine

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to report the first case of markedly increased anticoagulant activity of warfarin when used in combination with doxifluridine, given as a replacement for capecitabine.

METHODS

International normalized ratio (INR) of a 73-year-old female patient receiving warfarin was increased after starting chemotherapy using oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine or doxifluridine). Since the concomitant use of warfarin and the oral fluoropyrimidines was unavoidable in this case, the warfarin dosage was adjusted to keep INR within goal range (1.7-2.7). To evaluate the effects of the oral fluoropyrimidines on the anticoagulant activity of warfarin, the INR/Dose (warfarin dose in mg/day) was used.

RESULTS

To keep INR within goal range, the maintenance dosage of warfarin was reduced during the treatment with doxifluridine as well as capecitabine. It was finally reduced from 5 mg daily in the absence of oral fluoropyrimidines to 1.5 mg daily during the concomitant use of doxifluridine (600 mg daily). In contrast, the higher INR/Dose (1.03-1.66) was continued during the concomitant use of warfarin and doxifluridine compared with the INR/Dose before the start of chemotherapy (about 0.5). These results clearly indicate that the anticoagulant activity of warfarin was markedly increased by the concomitant use of doxifluridine as well as capecitabine.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important that physicians closely monitor anticoagulant activity in patients concomitantly receiving doxifluridine and warfarin, and appropriately adjust the dose of warfarin.

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.

Thymidylate synthase and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene polymorphisms and toxicity to capecitabine in advanced colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of thymidylate synthase (TYMS) and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) genotypes on toxicity in patients treated with capecitabine for advanced colorectal cancer and to determine the effect of these polymorphisms on the pretreatment levels of serum folate and plasma homocysteine.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Fifty-four patients with a diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with fixed-dose capecitabine. Germ line DNA from patients was genotyped for TYMS TSER, TSER*3G>C, and 3'-untranslated 6 bp insertion/deletion (3' untranslated region insertion/deletion), and MTHFR c.677C>T and c.1298A>C using PCRs and RFLP. Toxicity was graded by National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0. Response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

RESULTS

MTHFR c.677C>T and c.1298A>C genotypes and diplotypes predicted for grade 2/3 toxicities, whereas the TYMS genotypes had no influence. MTHFR c.677 genotype tended to predict overall survival (P = 0.08). MTHFR c.677 influenced pretreatment homocysteine (P < 0.05) and serum folate levels (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis suggests that MTHFR c.1298 is an independent predictor of toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that common genetic variation in MTHFR but not TYMS may be useful for predicting toxicity from capecitabine in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. In addition, MTHFR single nucleotide polymorphisms predicted serum folate and plasma homocysteine levels, and, combined, these factors may be important predictors of capecitabine-induced toxicity.

PK/PD model of indisulam and capecitabine: interaction causes excessive myelosuppression

The anticancer agent indisulam was evaluated in a dose-escalation study in combination with capecitabine. Severe myelotoxicity was observed after multiple treatment cycles. We hypothesized that capecitabine inhibits the synthesis of CYP2C9, which metabolizes indisulam. The objectives were to develop a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model for the combination treatment and to estimate the impact of a drug-drug interaction on the safety of various dose levels. NONMEM was used to develop a PK/PD model, including the impact of capecitabine coadministration on indisulam pharmacokinetics. A simulation study was performed to evaluate the risk of dose-limiting neutropenia. A time-dependent pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction resulted in increased exposure to indisulam and in increased myelotoxicity. The risk of dose-limiting neutropenia increased with treatment duration and with dose. The excessive myelosuppression after multiple cycles may be explained by a pharmacokinetic interaction between indisulam and capecitabine. The combination of 550 mg/m(2) indisulam and 1,250 mg/m(2) capecitabine twice daily was considered safe.

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.

A systematic review on drug interactions in oncology

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review drug interactions in oncology.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for eligible articles and online databases abstracts of major oncology meetings from 2002 to 2005.

RESULTS

One study reported on the frequency of drug interactions. Interactions between chemotherapy and nonchemotherapy agents have been reported mostly in small clinical trials and case series. Interactions between chemotherapic agents have been reported mostly in Phase I studies. Few studies described fatal outcomes of drug interactions in cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Drug interactions comprise an important issue in oncology, but very limited data exist on their frequency and clinical consequences.

A phase II study of fixed-dose capecitabine and assessment of predictors of toxicity in patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and activity of fixed-dose capecitabine in patients with advanced colorectal cancer and to correlate pretreatment plasma concentrations of homocysteine and serum and red cell folate with toxicity. Patients received capecitabine 2000 mg (4 x 500 mg tablets) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks. They were reviewed weekly during the first cycle and then three weekly for safety assessment. Eligibility criteria were advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer, < or = 2 prior chemotherapy regimens, ECOG performance status 0-2 and life expectancy >12 weeks. A total of 60 patients were enrolled and 55 were evaluable for efficacy. The median age was 72 years and 63% of patients had a performance status of 1 or 2. Confirmed tumour responses were reported in 15 patients (28%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 15.7-40.3%). The median time to disease progression was 4.9 months and median overall survival was 11.2 months. The median ratio of fixed dose to body surface area (BSA)-calculated dose was 88% (range 65-108%). Significant myelosuppression was not observed. Grade 2/3 treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (34%), fatigue (27%), stomatitis (15%) and hand-foot syndrome (22%). Dose reduction due to adverse events was required in 16 patients (29%) and multiple reductions in five patients (9%). There was no grade 3/4 haematological toxicity, any grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. Patients with higher pretreatment levels of serum folate experienced significantly greater toxicity (P = 0.02, CI: 1.0-1.2) during cycle 1 and over the entire treatment period (P = 0.04, CI: 1.0-1.3). Pretreatment homocysteine concentrations did not predict for toxicity. In conclusion, fixed-dose capecitabine appears to have similar efficacy and safety compared to the currently recommended dose schedule based on body surface area and simplifies drug administration. A high pretreatment folate may be predictive of increased toxicity from capecitabine.

An observational study examining the impact of capecitabine on warfarin antithrombotic activity and bleeding complications

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to quantify the frequency of concomitant use of capecitabine and warfarin, and to quantify the rate of bleeding events and elevated international normalized ratio (INR) among concomitant users of warfarin and capecitabine.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective population-based study within the Henry Ford Health System (Detroit, MI) and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California (Oakland, CA). The study population included patients prescribed concomitant capecitabine and warfarin from 1 April 1997 through 31 July 2002. Data from the medical records of concurrent users were extracted through 31 August 2002.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Concomitant use of capecitabine and warfarin, bleeding events, and INR laboratory results, collected from computerized databases and medical record review.

RESULTS

Overall, 11% of capecitabine users also received warfarin (99 / 883). Among 17 patients who received warfarin for venous access device prophylaxis, one bleeding event occurred during concomitant capecitabine/warfarin use (rate = 35.7 bleeding events per 100 person-years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-198.9), and no events occurred during use of warfarin alone (95% CI 0.0-136.2) (p = 0.50). Among patients prescribed warfarin for indications other than port prophylaxis, no bleeding events occurred during concomitant use of capecitabine and warfarin (95% CI 0.0-34.6), and one event occurred during warfarin use alone (rate = 9.2 bleeding events per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0.2-51.3) (p = 0.54). We found one INR elevation > 3.0 among concomitant capecitabine/warfarin users receiving warfarin for port prophylaxis (rate = 35.7 per 100 person-years) and no INR elevations > 3.0 during use of warfarin alone (p = 0.46). Among patients using warfarin for indications other than port prophylaxis, the rates of INR > 3.0 were 309.7 per 100 person-years (95% CI 213.2-434.9) during concomitant capecitabine/warfarin use and 193.5 events per 100 person-years (95% CI 119.8-295.8) during use of warfarin alone (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study show a low prevalence of capecitabine and warfarin concomitant use. We did not find large differences in the rates of bleeding events and elevated INR in patients receiving concomitant capecitabine and warfarin when compared with use of warfarin alone. While these results do not imply a lack of biologic interaction, our findings indicate that patients appear to be appropriately managed in clinical practice.

Inhibitory Effect of 5-Fluorouracil on Cytochrome P450 2C9 Activity in Cancer Patients

Drug interactions have been reported between 5-fluorouracil and cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) substrates, S-warfarin and phenytoin. This study was performed to determine the influence of 5-fluorouracil on cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) activity in colorectal cancer patients (n=17) receiving 5-fluorouracil. Losartan was used as a marker to assess CYP2C9 activity. Losartan and its CYP2C9 dependent metabolite, E-3174, were determined in urine. The ratios of urinary losartan/E-3174 before and after the 5-fluorouracil treatment were compared for each patient. Genotyping was performed to detect the CYP2C9*2 and CYP2C9*3. At the end of the first cycle of 5-fluorouracil, losartan/E-3174 ratio was increased by 28.0% compared to the pre-treatment values (P=0.15). In five patients recruited for phenotyping after three 5-fluorouracil cycles, the metabolic ratio was increased significantly by 5.3 times (P=0.03). The results suggest that in most patients 5-fluorouracil inhibited CYP2C9 activity. This inhibition was more pronounced when the total administered dose increased. This finding may help explain the mechanism of interaction between 5-fluorouracil and CYP2C9 substrates.

A Retrospective Study of Coagulation Abnormalities in Patients Receiving Concomitant Capecitabine and Warfarin

BACKGROUND

The extent and complications of the interaction between capecitabine and warfarin are not fully known.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of 77 patients who received capecitabine was performed to analyze coagulation abnormalities with or without warfarin.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients received warfarin with capecitabine. Twelve were on an average warfarin dosage of 19.4 mg per week (range, 7-35 mg) before capecitabine treatment, with a stable international normalized ratio (INR; range, 0.9-3.3). The dose of capecitabine ranged from 1.6 g/m2 to 2 g/m2 per day. Thirteen patients (11 on warfarin) had an INR > 3 (range, 3.23-11.5), resulting in a probability of an INR > 3 of 32% in the warfarin group versus 4% for those not on warfarin (P = 5.1 x 10(-14)) at 130 days. Six patients required a warfarin dose reduction (1-2.5 mg decrease). There were 7 episodes of bleeding (all gastrointestinal; 5 with warfarin). Seven patients who experienced bleeding had INRs ranging from 1.06 to 8 (average, 3.31) at the time bleeding occurred. Of the 7 bleeding episodes, 5 patients required transfusions, averaging 3.25 units of red blood cells and 2.4 units of fresh frozen plasma. The incidence of bleeding at 130 days of treatment with capecitabine was 18% with warfarin versus 2% without (P = 4 x 10(-13)). Bleeding episodes were not significantly different between patients with or without liver involvement (4 of 40 episodes vs. 3 of 37 episodes, respectively; P = 0.12). Patients with an INR > 3 were evenly distributed between those with or without liver involvement (6 of 40 patients vs. 7 of 37 patients, respectively). No INR increases persisted after discontinuation of capecitabine.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms a clinically significant interaction between warfarin and capecitabine-based chemotherapy akin to that already known for 5-fluorouracil. In addition to altered coagulation parameters, bleeding can be a complication. These events occurred in patients with and without liver metastases. We recommend weekly monitoring of coagulation parameters for all patients receiving concomitant warfarin and capecitabine, with an appropriate adjustment of warfarin dose. The nature and extent of this interaction requires further investigation.

An Adverse Interaction Between Warfarin and Fluoropyrimidines Revisited

Regimens based on flouropyrimidines (eg, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] and capecitabine) are the mainstay of chemotherapy for several malignancies, including colon, pancreatic, upper gastrointestinal, and breast cancers. Warfarin is one of the most commonly used oral anticoagulants. Patients receiving concomitant capecitabine or 5-FU and warfarin have, at times, exhibited altered coagulation parameters and consequent bleeding, even causing death in some cases. Reports have shown clinically significant increases in partial thromboplastin time (PTT) and International Normalized Ratio (INR) in patients whose condition was stabilized with the use of anticoagulants at the time capecitabine or 5-FU was introduced. These alterations in coagulation parameters occurred within several days and for as long several months after initiation of capecitabine or 5-FU therapy and, in a few cases, within a month after stopping capecitabine or 5-FU therapy. These events occurred in patients with and without liver metastases. The inhibition of hepatic metabolism of warfarin by 5-FU was postulated to explain this drug interaction, but the true mechanism and how to monitor it remain under investigation. The US Food and Drug Administration and Roche have added a "Black Box" warning and strengthened the "Precautions" section on the label of capecitabine, which is indicated for the treatment of colorectal and breast cancer. Patients should have their anticoagulant response (INR or PTT) monitored frequently in order to adjust the anticoagulant dose accordingly. The current article includes a review of the literature to describe the interaction between capecitabine or 5-FU and warfarin, its clinical presentation, a comparison between 5-FU and capecitabine interactions, the mechanism of altered coagulation parameters, findings with agents such as uracil/tegafur, and guidelines to monitor the patients simultaneously receiving these agents.

Drug–drug interactions in oncology: Why are they important and can they be minimized?

Adverse drug-drug interactions are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Cancer patients are at particularly high risk of such interactions because they commonly receive multiple medications, including cytotoxic chemotherapy, hormonal agents and supportive care drugs. In addition, the majority of cancer patients are elderly, and so require medications for co-morbid conditions such as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and rheumatological diseases. Furthermore, the age-related decline in hepatic and renal function reduces their ability to metabolize and clear drugs and so increases the potential for toxicity. Not all drug-drug interactions can be predicted, and those that are predictable are not always avoidable. However, increased awareness of the potential for these interactions will allow healthcare providers to minimize the risk by choosing appropriate drugs and also by monitoring for signs of interaction. This review considers the basic principles of drug-drug interactions, and presents specific examples that are relevant to oncology.

Significant Effect of Capecitabine on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Warfarin in Patients With Cancer

Purpose

Clinical cases of capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based chemotherapies potentiating the effects of coumarin derivatives have been reported. This study assessed the influence of capecitabine on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of warfarin.

Patients and Methods

Four patients with advanced/metastatic cancer completed the study, receiving a single oral dose of 20 mg warfarin before the start of standard capecitabine treatment (day 1), and again during the third cycle of capecitabine (day 61). PK parameters of warfarin and capecitabine and PD parameters of warfarin were assessed on days 1 and 61.

Results

During capecitabine treatment, the area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) of S-warfarin increased by 57% (90% CI, 32% to 88%) with a 51% prolongation of the elimination half-life (t1/2; 90% CI, 32% to 74%). Exposure to R-warfarin was not significantly affected. Plasma concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites were not influenced by warfarin. During capecitabine treatment, the effect of warfarin on the baseline corrected AUC of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) increased by 2.8 times (90% CI, 1.33 to 5.70), with the maximum observed INR value almost doubling. Because of the administration of vitamin K to some patients with elevated INRs, these figures are likely to underestimate the true PD effect. Mean baseline factor VII levels dropped while on capecitabine therapy, potentially contributing to the observed PD interaction, though this effect did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

There is a significant pharmacokinetic interaction between capecitabine and S-warfarin, resulting in exaggerated anticoagulant activity. Patients receiving warfarin anticoagulant therapy concomitantly with capecitabine should have their INR closely monitored and warfarin doses adjusted accordingly.

Chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer

Over the past decade, metastatic colorectal cancer has evolved from a relatively resistant disease to one that is sensitive to a variety of chemotherapeutic drugs and combinations of drugs. During the same period, the median survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer increased from approximately 14 months to almost 20 months. First-line chemotherapy prolongs survival and delays the appearance of symptoms and should be considered in patients who are still asymptomatic. Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and adequate performance status should be treated with a combination of fluorouracil (5-FU) and either oxaliplatin or irinotecan. Bevacizumab, the monoclonal antibody against the vascular endothelial growth factor, has been shown to prolong survival with acceptable toxicity and may be added when available. When the disease recurs, second-line chemotherapy may also prolong survival in appropriately selected patients. Typically, treatment includes 5-FU and one of the drugs not used in the first-line therapy (oxaliplatin or irinotecan). Several oral prodrugs of 5-FU are currently available. Capecitabine, approved in the United States, may be safely substituted for 5-FU in the majority of settings and combinations. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor and is approved both as a single agent and in combination with irinotecan for patients with recurrent disease. This treatment may represent a second-line or third-line option in selected patients. Treatment of patients with isolated liver metastases may also include surgical or other ablative procedures. In carefully selected patients, these modalities add to the efficacy of chemotherapy and may be used with potentially curative intent. However, for the vast majority of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment is palliative.

Capecitabine: a review

BACKGROUND

Fluorouracil (FU) is an antimetabolite with activity against numerous types of neoplasms, including those of the breast, esophagus, larynx, and gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts. Systemic toxicity, including neutropenia, stomatitis, and diarrhea, often occur due to cytotoxic nonselectivity. Capecitabine was developed as a prodrug of FU, with the goal of improving tolerability and intratumor drug concentrations through tumor-specific conversion to the active drug.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article is to review the available information on capecitabine with respect to clinical pharmacology, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, clinical efficacy for breast and colorectal cancer adverse-effect profile, documented drug interactions, dosage and administration, and future directions of ongoing research.

METHODS

Relevant English-language literature was identified through searches of PubMed (1966 to August 2004), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1977 to August 2004), and the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (January 1995 to August 2004). Search terms included capecitabine, Xeloda, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer. The references of the identified articles were reviewed for additional sources. In addition, product information was obtained from Roche Pharmaceuticals. Studies from the identified literature that addressed this article's objectives were selected for review, with preference given to Phase II/III trials.

RESULTS

Capecitabine is an oral prodrug that is converted to its only active metabolite, FU, by thymidine phosphorylase. Higher levels of this enzyme are found in several tumors and the liver, compared with normal healthy tissue. In adults, capecitabine has a bioavailability of approximately 100% with a Cmax of 3.9 mg/L, Tmax of 1.5 to 2 hr, and AUC of 5.96 mg.h/L. The predominant route of elimination is renal, and dosage reduction of 75% is recommended in patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) of 30 to 50 mL/min. The drug is contraindicated if CrCl is < 30 mL/min. Capecitabine has shown varying degrees of efficacy with acceptable tolerability in numerous cancers including prostate, renal cell, ovarian, and pancreatic, with the largest amount of evidence in metastatic breast and colorectal cancer. Single-agent capecitabine was compared with IV FU/leucovorin (LV) using the bolus Mayo Clinic regimen in 2 Phase III trials as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall response rate (RR) favored the capecitabine arm (26% vs 17%, P < 0.001); however, this did not translate into a difference in time to progression (TTP) (4.6 months vs 4.7 months) or overall survival (OS) (12.9 months vs 12.8 months). In Phase II noncomparative trials, combinations of capecitabine with oxaliplatin or irinotecan have produced results similar to regimens combining FU/LV with the same agents in patients with colorectal cancer. In metastatic breast cancer patients who had received prior treatment with an anthracycline-based regimen, a Phase III trial comparing the combination of capecitabine with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone demonstrated superior objective tumor RR (42% vs 30%, P = 0.006), median TTP (6.1 months vs 4.2 months, P < 0.001), and median OS (14.5 months vs 11.5 months, P = 0.013) with the combination treatment. Noncomparative Phase II studies have also supported efficacy in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with both anthracyclines and taxanes, yielding an overall RR of 15% to 29% and median OS of 9.4 to 15.2 months. The most common dose-limiting adverse effects associated with capecitabine monotherapy are hyperbilirubinemia, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome. Myelosuppression, fatigue and weakness, abdominal pain, and nausea have also been reported. Compared with bolus FU/LV, capecitabine was associated with more hand-foot syndrome but less stomatitis, alopecia, neutropenia requiring medical management, diarrhea, and nausea. Capecitabine has been reported to increase serum phenytoin levels and the international normalized ratio in patients receiving concomitant phenytoin and warfarin, respectively. The dose of capecitabine approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for both metastatic colorectal and breast cancer is 1250 Mg/M2 given orally twice per day, usually separated by 12 hours for the first 2 weeks of every 3-week cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine is currently approved by the FDA for use as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy is preferred. The drug is also approved for use as (1) a single agent in metastatic breast cancer patients who are resistant to both anthracycline- and paclitaxel-based regimens or in whom further anthracycline treatment is contra indicated and (2) in combination with docetaxel after failure of prior anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Single-agent and combination regimens have also shown benefits in patients with prostate, pancreatic, renal cell, and ovarian cancers. Improved tolerability and comparable efficacy compared with IV FU/LV in addition to oral administration make capecitabine an attractive option for the treatment of several types of cancers as well as the focus of future trials.

Increasing Warfarin Dosage Reductions Associated with Concurrent Warfarin and Repeated Cycles of 5-Fluorouracil Therapy

Concurrent use of warfarin and 5-fluorouracil has resulted in elevated international normalized ratios (INRs). Although this drug interaction is well established in the literature, we found no documented cases that address its effects on anticoagulation parameters in patients requiring repeated cycles of 5-fluorouracil and continuous warfarin therapy. We describe the effect of multiple cycles of 5-fluorouracil administration in a patient receiving warfarin therapy. The patient's INR increased 11-14 days after each cycle of chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. In addition, she required additive reductions of 33-42% in her weekly warfarin dose with each chemotherapy cycle to maintain a therapeutic INR (goal range 2.0-3.0). After three cycles of chemotherapy over a 10-week period, the patient's dosage requirements returned to her baseline level (before treatment with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin had started). Pertinent literature was reviewed to provide supporting evidence for the mechanism and clinical implications of the drug interaction. Based on this report and previous case reports, caution is advised when concurrent warfarin and 5-fluorouracil are prescribed. In addition, patients should be closely monitored for a possible delayed interaction that may occur with each repeated cycle of 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy.

Catheter-Related Thrombosis in Cancer Patients: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management

Central venous catheters (CVCs) are commonly used in oncology patients. Up to 50% of CVCs are complicated by thrombosis within the catheter or the blood vessel. These thrombi are the result of local tissue damage, the catheter itself, and the thrombophilia of cancer. Frequent flushes with saline or heparin may reduce the frequency of catheter dysfunction but do not reduce the rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in the catheterized blood vessel. Efforts to use prophylactic heparin or warfarin to reduce catheter-related DVT have not been rewarding.

Two cases of retroperitoneal hematoma caused by combination of anticoagulant therapy and 5-fluorouracil

We reported two cases of retroperitoneal hematoma in patients who received a combination of anticoagulant therapy and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We should be aware of the possible interaction of this combination therapy and monitor prothrombin time (PT) prolongation. CT is useful for evaluation of the disease.

Dissemination of information on potentially fatal adverse drug reactions for cancer drugs from 2000 to 2002: first results from the research on adverse drug events and reports project

PURPOSE

To describe the clinical findings, occurrence rates, causality evidence, and dissemination media for serious cancer drug-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in the postmarketing setting.

METHODS

ADRs were termed serious if they resulted in death or severe organ failure. ADR information for oncology drugs from package insert (PI) revisions, so-called Dear Doctor letters, and journal articles was evaluated to identify serious ADRs reported from 2000 to 2002. Timing and content of information disseminated was assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five serious ADRs associated with 22 oncology drugs were identified after approval. Approximately half of these serious ADRs are associated with drugs approved before 1995. ADRs were described in articles in medical journals (17 ADRs), PI revisions (18 ADRs), and Dear Doctor letters (12 ADRs). PI revisions occurred less than 1 year after peer-reviewed publication for four ADRs. These revisions often differed for similar ADRs that occurred with drugs of the same class. Five of the seven ADRs lacking PI changes occurred with off-label use, for which PI change is not recommended by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy. No cancer drug was withdrawn from the market during the observation period.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that serious ADRs may be discovered as long as 36 years after a drug receives FDA approval. This suggests a need for continued vigilance and efficient strategies for dissemination of information about ADRs associated with cancer drugs.

Inhibitory effect of 5-fluorouracil on human cytochrome P(450) isoforms in human liver microsomes

OBJECTIVE

A number of case reports have been described regarding drug interactions with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and co-administered drugs. However, little is known regarding the inhibitory potential of 5-FU on the metabolism of co-administered drugs by cytochrome P(450) (CYP). The aim of the present study was to elucidate the inhibitory effect of 5-FU on CYP isoforms using human liver microsomes.

METHODS

The inhibitory effect of 5-FU on CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2C8, CYP2E1, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4 activities was examined with specific probe drugs in human liver microsomes.

RESULTS

5-FU showed little or no inhibitory effect on CYP-catalyzed reactions in human liver microsomal preparations.

CONCLUSION

5-FU has no inhibitory effect on CYP isoforms or drug metabolism causing drug interaction with 5-FU. The mechanism that causes drug interaction between co-administered drugs and 5-FU may not be related to direct CYP inhibition by 5-FU.

Minidose warfarin prophylaxis for catheter-associated thrombosis in cancer patients: can it be safely associated with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy?

PURPOSE

The use of prophylactic low-dose oral warfarin in cancer patients with a central venous catheter (CVC) in place has an established role in the prevention of thrombotic complications and is associated with a low hemorrhagic risk. Despite the literature indicating an adverse interaction between warfarin and fluorouracil (FU), the frequency of this interaction and whether it occurs when minidose warfarin is used is unknown. We analyzed the incidence of alterations in the International Normalized Ratio (INR) and bleeding in cancer patients given minidose warfarin during treatment with continuous-infusion FU-based regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 1999 and August 2001, 95 cancer patients were evaluated. Forty-one patients (43%) had liver metastases. Seventy-nine patients (83%) had a Groshong CVC (Bard Access System, Salt Lake City, UT), and 16 (17%) had a Port-a-Cath device (Bard Access System). All patients received oral warfarin at a dose of 1 mg/daily as prophylaxis beginning the day after the catheter was positioned. An INR of more than 1.5 was considered significantly elevated.

RESULTS

INR elevation occurred in 31 patients (33%), with 18 patients (19%) having an INR more than 3.0. Twelve (39%) of the 31 patients had liver metastases. Bleeding was observed in eight patients (8%); seven of these patients had elevated INR levels. We observed INR elevations in 12 of 21 patients treated with a FU, folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen, 11 of 40 treated with a de Gramont regimen (FU and folinic acid), and five of 19 treated with a FU, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen.

CONCLUSION

A high incidence of INR abnormalities was observed in our cohort of patients, especially those treated with FOLFOX regimen. Clinicians should be aware of this interaction and should regularly monitor the prothrombin time in patients receiving warfarin and FU.

A multicentre phase II trial of primary chemotherapy with cisplatin and protracted venous infusion 5-fluorouracil followed by chemoradiation in patients with carcinoma of the oesophagus

BACKGROUND

We undertook a multicentre phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of primary chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation for localised adenocarcinoma or squamous carcinoma of the oesophagus.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy comprised five 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin and protracted continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil, with conformally planned radiotherapy commencing at the start of the fifth cycle.

RESULTS

The planned treatment programme was completed by 39 of 72 patients (54%), and a further 13% completed chemotherapy and proceeded to surgical oesophagectomy. Response rates to chemotherapy and to the entire treatment programme were 47% [95% confidence interval (CI) 34% to 60%] and 56% (CI 43% to 68%). The dysphagia score improved in 54% of patients. The median survival duration was 14.6 months with 1- and 2-year survival rates of 58.7% and 44.1%, respectively. Grade III/IV chemotherapy-related toxicity occurred in 38% of patients, and there were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a feasible and active treatment regimen providing palliative benefits for patients with poor-prognosis localised oesophageal cancer.

Effect of 5-fluorouracil on the anticoagulant activity and the pharmacokinetics of warfarin enantiomers in rats

The interaction between the antineoplastic agent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and the oral anticoagulant warfarin enantiomers was investigated in rats. An increase in hypoprothrombinaemic response, assessed by means of percent changes of prothrombin complex activity and clotting factor VII activity, to warfarin, was observed following oral administration of 1.5 mg/kg racemic warfarin to rats during a 8-day intraperitoneal dose regimen of 5-FU (13.3 mg/kg daily). 5-FU had no apparent effect on the baseline blood coagulation, the in vitro rat serum protein binding as well as the absorption and distribution of the S- and R-enantiomers of warfarin in rats. Yet treatment with 5-FU produced a significant decrease in the total serum clearance value of S-warfarin in rats. The decreased total clearance was attributed mainly to a significant decrease in the formation rate of the overall oxidative metabolites of the more potent S-enantiomer of warfarin.

Probable metabolic interaction of doxifluridine with phenytoin

OBJECTIVE

To report the marked elevation of the serum phenytoin concentration during treatment with antineoplastic agents.

CASE SUMMARY

A 51-year-old Japanese woman, who was diagnosed with multiple brain metastatic tumors, was placed on oral phenytoin at a maintenance dose of 200 mg/d (3.8 mg/kg/d) to prevent seizures. The serum concentration of phenytoin was well controlled within the therapeutic range; no seizures occurred. Four months later, combination therapy with doxifluridine (5'-DFUR) 800 mg/d, cyclophosphamide 100 mg/d, and medroxyprogesterone acetate 800 mg/d was initiated because of further metastasis. Approximately 1 month after the start of concurrent treatment with the antineoplastic agents, the serum phenytoin concentration was elevated to fourfold of the original concentration. Staggering was observed at that time, but toxic symptoms gradually subsided with the decline in the serum phenytoin concentration after its withdrawal.

DISCUSSION

A probable explanation for the marked elevation of serum phenytoin concentration is a reduction of the capacity of CYP2C-dependent phenytoin metabolism, and the antineoplastic agents could be involved in this event. The interaction of fluorouracil and phenytoin is known in clinical practice, and it is reported that the expression of hepatic CYP2C enzymes is depressed by exposure of rats to fluorouracil. 5'-DFUR, a prodrug of fluorouracil, was considered the likeliest candidate responsible for the interaction. This interaction was of clinical significance because of the great extent of changes in the serum phenytoin concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be aware of the elevation of serum phenytoin concentrations when phenytoin is given in combination with fluorouracil derivatives, including 5'-DFUR.

Capecitabine: a review of its use in the treatment of advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer

Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine which is selectively activated in tumour tissue to the active moiety fluorouracil and is cytotoxic through inhibition of DNA synthesis. In patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, first-line therapy with intermittent capecitabine achieved significantly higher objective tumour response rates than therapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin in pooled analysis. Response rates were also higher in patients pretreated in the adjuvant setting and whose primary site of metastasis was the lung. However, no significant differences between the two treatment groups were seen in the time to disease progression, time to treatment failure or overall survival. Preliminary data suggest response may be improved by combining capecitabine with other anticancer therapies such as oxaliplatin, irinotecan and radiotherapy. Capecitabine in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability. Diarrhoea and hand-and-foot syndrome are the major dose-limiting toxicities associated with capecitabine therapy, with adverse effects generally of a gastrointestinal nature. Overall, diarrhoea, stomatitis, nausea and alopecia were significantly less common with capecitabine than with bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin. In addition, capecitabine recipients experienced significantly less myelosuppression, although more capecitabine recipients discontinued therapy because of adverse events. Importantly, patients spent less time in hospital after capecitabine than after bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin therapy, and the oral route of administration of capecitabine is likely to be preferred. In conclusion, capecitabine has shown superior tumour response and less myelosuppression, although more grade 3 hand-and-foot syndrome, in comparison with the 'Mayo Clinic' regimen of fluorouracil therapy, but is unlikely to improve survival. Significantly, its oral route of administration is likely to be preferred by patients. Future strategies to improve patient response may involve selection of those patients likely to respond best to capecitabine, through determination of relevant enzyme levels and combination of capecitabine with various antineoplastic agents. Data on the effect of the drug on quality of life would help establish its role. In the meantime, capecitabine appears to offer an effective and more convenient alternative to fluorouracil as first-line monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Phenytoin and fluorouracil interaction

OBJECTIVE

To report a probable drug interaction between phenytoin and fluorouracil.

CASE REPORT

A 66-year-old white man started adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer with weekly bolus injections of fluorouracil and leucovorin calcium. He had been taking phenytoin 300 mg/d for epilepsy for more than four years. Eleven weeks later, the patient was reported to be unsteady on his feet and had fallen several times. The serum phenytoin concentration at that time was 36 microg/mL. The phenytoin dosage was decreased and the symptoms resolved. Phenytoin concentrations were monitored and the dosages were adjusted accordingly throughout the remaining 15 weeks of treatment with fluorouracil. After completion of chemotherapy, the phenytoin dose was gradually increased to the original dose with no signs of toxicity.

DISCUSSION

Phenytoin is principally metabolized by CYP2C9. Inhibition of that isoenzyme by fluorouracil, and possible interference with its synthesis, appears to be the most likely cause of this interaction. The reduction in saturating substrate concentration of phenytoin was reduced as a result of this interaction, thus causing decreased clearance and increased serum concentrations. No previous interaction between phenytoin and fluorouracil has been reported. Both phenytoin and warfarin are metabolized by CYP269 and therefore exhibit the same spectrum of interactions when that isoenzyme is inhibited. Interactions have been reported with concurrent administration of warfarin and fluorouracil.

CONCLUSIONS

The nature and extent of this phenytoin-fluorouracil interaction should be elucidated by in vitro investigations and a prospective study. Until then, clinicians should be aware of this potentially serious drug interaction and monitor patients closely for phenytoin toxicity.

An adverse interaction between warfarin and capecitabine: a case report and review of the literature

Warfarin is one of the most commonly used oral anticoagulants in the clinic. It is well established that a wide range of antineoplastic drugs interact with warfarin, resulting in altered coagulation parameters and/or bleeding sequelae. While altered coagulation parameters have been observed in patients taking the oral 5-fluorouracil prodrug, capecitabine, in combination with warfarin, no report to date has described clinically overt evidence of bleeding. Herein, we report 2 cancer patients who presented with bleeding episodes that most likely resulted from an adverse interaction between capecitabine and warfarin after 6 weeks of concomitant therapy. In each case, there was a marked elevation in both the prothrombin time and international normalized ratio (> 10), with subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding. The exact mechanism of this interaction is yet unknown, but it is possible that capecitabine might, in some manner, reduce the hepatic metabolism of warfarin. Close monitoring of coagulation parameters is recommended for all patients receiving concomitant warfarin and capecitabine, with appropriate adjustment of warfarin dosage. The nature and extent of this interaction requires further investigation.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of capecitabine

Capecitabine is a novel oral fluoropyrimidine carbamate that is preferentially converted to the cytotoxic moiety fluorouracil (5-fluorouracil; 5-FU) in target tumour tissue through a series of 3 metabolic steps. After oral administration of 1250 mg/m2, capecitabine is rapidly and extensively absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract [with a time to reach peak concentration (tmax) of 2 hours and peak plasma drug concentration (Cmax) of 3 to 4 mg/L] and has a relatively short elimination half-life (t(1/2)) [0.55 to 0.89 h]. Recovery of drug-related material in urine and faeces is nearly 100%. Plasma concentrations of the cytotoxic moiety fluorouracil are very low [with a Cmax of 0.22 to 0.31 mg/L and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 0.461 to 0.698 mg x h/L]. The apparent t(1/2) of fluorouracil after capecitabine administration is similar to that of the parent compound. Comparison of fluorouracil concentrations in primary colorectal tumour and adjacent healthy tissues after capecitabine administration demonstrates that capecitabine is preferentially activated to fluorouracil in colorectal tumour, with the average concentration of fluorouracil being 3.2-fold higher than in adjacent healthy tissue (p = 0.002). This tissue concentration differential does not hold for liver metastasis, although concentrations of fluorouracil in liver metastases are sufficient for antitumour activity to occur. The tumour-preferential activation of capecitabine to fluorouracil is explained by tissue differences in the activity of cytidine deaminase and thymidine phosphorylase, key enzymes in the conversion process. As with other cytotoxic drugs, the interpatient variability of the pharmacokinetic parameters of capecitabine and its metabolites, 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine and fluorouracil, is high (27 to 89%) and is likely to be primarily due to variability in the activity of the enzymes involved in capecitabine metabolism. Capecitabine and the fluorouracil precursors 5'-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine and 5'-deoxy-5-fluorouridine do not accumulate significantly in plasma after repeated administration. Plasma concentrations of fluorouracil increase by 10 to 60% during long term administration, but this time-dependency is assumed to be not clinically relevant. A potential drug interaction of capecitabine with warfarin has been observed. There is no evidence of pharmacokinetic interactions between capecitabine and leucovorin, docetaxel or paclitaxel.

Cancer, thrombosis, and anticoagulants

Rapid progress has been made recently in our understanding of the pathogenesis of coagulation activation in malignancy and mechanisms by which the coagulation mechanism may control malignant growth. Idiopathic thromboembolic disease may be the sentinel presentation in patients subsequently diagnosed with malignancy. Thrombosis complicating the course of malignancy may be notoriously difficult to treat, but the introduction of the low-molecular-weight heparins has greatly improved management and may obviate the need for invasive approaches, such as the use of inferior vena cava filters, in many cases. Tantalizing clues from clinical trials of anticoagulant therapy in cancer have suggested that components of coagulation pathways may support tumor growth. Many of these can be intercepted using drugs that are well known and non-toxic. The importance of performing high-quality controlled clinical trials that build on past studies and on data from basic research cannot be overemphasized.