Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Lurbinectedin Administrated with Itraconazole in Cancer Patients: A Drug-Drug Interaction Study.

This open-label, two-part, phase Ib drug-drug interaction study investigated whether the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles of lurbinectedin (LRB), a marine-derived drug, are affected by co-administration of itraconazole (ITZ), a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor, in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. In Part A, three patients were sequentially assigned to Sequence 1 (LRB 0.8 mg/m2, 1-h intravenous [IV] + ITZ 200 mg/day oral in Cycle 1 [C1] and LRB alone 3.2 mg/m2, 1 h, IV in Cycle 2 [C2]). In Part B, 11 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either Sequence 1 (LRB at 0.9 mg/m2 + ITZ in C1 and LRB alone in C2) or Sequence 2 (LRB alone in C1 and LRB + ITZ in C2). Eleven patients were evaluable for PK analysis: three in Part A and eight in Part B (four per sequence). The systemic total exposure of LRB increased with ITZ co-administration: 15% for Cmax, area under the curve (AUC) 2.4-fold for AUC0-t and 2.7-fold for AUC0-∞. Co-administration with ITZ produced statistically significant modifications in the unbound plasma LRB PK parameters. The LRB safety profile was consistent with the toxicities described in previous studies. Co-administration with multiple doses of ITZ significantly altered LRB systemic exposure. Hence, to avoid LRB overexposure when co-administered with strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, an LRB dose reduction proportional to CL reduction should be applied.

Impact of a Moderate CYP3A4 Inducer (Bosentan) on Lurbinectedin Pharmacokinetics and Safety in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: An Open-Label, Two-Way, Crossover, Phase Ib Drug-Drug Interaction Study.

This open-label, two-way, crossover, phase Ib drug-drug interaction study investigated whether the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety profile of lurbinectedin (LRB) are affected by co-administration of a moderate CYP3A4 inducer (bosentan, BOS) in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. Eleven patients were randomly assigned to Sequence 1 (LRB + BOS in Cycle 1 [C1] and LRB alone in Cycle 2 [C2]) or Sequence 2 (LRB alone in C1 and LRB + BOS in C2), and finally, eight patients (four per sequence) were considered evaluable for PK assessment. LRB (3.2 mg/m2, 1 h [h], intravenous) was administered alone or combined with multiple BOS administration (125 mg/12 h oral; 5.5 days). Co-administration with BOS decreased the systemic total exposure (area under the curve, AUC) of LRB by 21% for AUC0-t and 20% for AUC0-∞ and increased clearance by 25%. Co-administration with BOS did not significantly modify the unbound plasma LRB PK parameters. BOS increased the conversion of LRB to its metabolite M1, with no changes on its metabolite M4. The LRB safety profile was consistent with the toxicities previously described for this drug. No differences in terms of toxicity were found between LRB with and without BOS. In summary, the magnitude of the observed changes precludes a clinically relevant effect of BOS co-administration on LRB exposure and its safety profile.

A model-based head-to-head comparison of single-agent lurbinectedin in the pivotal ATLANTIS Study.

Introduction: Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) as monotherapy at 3.2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (q3wk). ATLANTIS was a phase 3 study in SCLC with lurbinectedin 2.0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40 mg/m2 q3wk vs physician's choice, with overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint and objective response rate (ORR) as the secondary endpoint. This work aimed to dissect the contribution of lurbinectedin and doxorubicin to antitumor effects in SCLC, and to predict the efficacy of single-agent lurbinectedin at 3.2 mg/m2 in ATLANTIS to allow for a head-to-head comparison with the control arm. Methods: The dataset included exposure and efficacy data from 387 patients with relapsed SCLC (ATLANTIS, n=288; study B-005, n=99). Patients in the ATLANTIS control arm (n=289) were used for comparison. Unbound plasma lurbinectedin area under the concentration-time curve (AUCu) and total plasma doxorubicin area under the concentration-time curve (AUCDOX) were used as exposure metrics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the best predictors and predictive model for OS and ORR. OS baseline hazard was best described by a log-logistic distribution, with chemotherapy-free interval (CTFI), lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, brain metastases, neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio, AUCu, and the interaction between AUCu and AUCDOX as predictors. Effect of AUCu on ORR best fitted to a sigmoid-maximal response (Emax) logistic model, where Emax was dependent on CTFI. Results: Head-to-head comparisons with predicted 3.2 mg/m2 lurbinectedin resulted in a positive outcome in ATLANTIS, with hazard ratio (95% prediction intervals [95% PI]) for OS of 0.54 (0.41, 0.72), and odds ratio (95% PI) for ORR of 0.35 (0.25, 0.5). Conclusion: These results support the superiority of lurbinectedin monotherapy for relapsed SCLC over other approved therapies.

Quantitative determination of lurbinectedin, its unbound fraction and its metabolites in human plasma utilizing ultra-performance LC-MS/MS.

AIMS: Ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) methods to quantify total lurbinectedin, its plasma protein binding to derive the unbound fraction and its main metabolites 1',3'-dihydroxy-lurbinectedin (M4) and N-desmethyl-lurbinectedin (M6) in human plasma, were developed and validated. MATERIALS & METHODS: For lurbinectedin, sample extraction was performed using supported liquid extraction. For metabolites, liquid-liquid extraction with stable isotope-labeled analogue internal standards was used. Plasma protein binding was evaluated using rapid equilibrium dialysis. In vitro investigations at different plasma protein concentrations were carried out to estimate dissociation rate constants to albumin and alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AAG). RESULTS: Calibration curves displayed good linearity over 0.1 to 50 ng/mL for lurbinectedin and 0.5 to 20 ng/mL for the metabolites. Methods were validated in accordance with established guidance. The inter-day precision and accuracy ranged from 5.1% to 10.7%, and from -5% to 6% (lurbinectedin in plasma); from 3.1% to 6.6%, and from 4% to 6% (lurbinectedin in plasma:PBS); from 4.5% to 12.9%, and from 4% to 9% (M4); and from 7.5% to 10.5%, and from 6% to 12% (M6). All methods displayed good linearity (r2 >0.99). Recovery was evaluated for lurbinectedin in plasma:PBS (66.4% to 86.6%), M4 (7.82% to 13.4%) and M6 (22.2% to 34.3%). The method for lurbinectedin in plasma has been applied in most clinical studies, while the plasma:PBS and metabolites methods were used to evaluate the impact of special conditions on lurbinectedin PK. Lurbinectedin plasma protein binding was 99.6% and highly affected by AAG concentration. CONCLUSIONS: These UPLC-MS/MS methods enable the rapid and sensitive quantification of lurbinectedin and its main metabolites in clinical samples.

Phase I study of plitidepsin in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Previous studies showed antitumor activity for plitidepsin plus dexamethasone (DXM) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (r/r MM), and in vitro synergism with bortezomib (BTZ) or DXM against MM cells. This phase I trial evaluated plitidepsin (3-h intravenous infusion Day 1 and 15), BTZ (subcutaneous bolus Day 1, 4, 8, and 11), and DXM (orally Day 1, 8, 15, and 22), every 4 weeks in 36 r/r MM patients. Twenty-two patients were treated using a standard dose escalation design (10 at the recommended dose [RD] cohort), and 14 additional patients were treated to expand the RD cohort. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred during dose escalation. The highest dose level evaluated (plitidepsin 5.0 mg/m2 , BTZ 1.3 mg/m2 , DXM 40.0 mg) was the RD for phase II studies. Results shown herein are focused on this RD. Two patients had DLTs (grade 3 diarrhea, and grade 3 nausea/vomiting refractory to antiemetic therapy). Grade ≥ 3 hematological toxicity (thrombocytopenia 46%, anemia 33%, and neutropenia 17%) was manageable and did not result in treatment discontinuation. Transient and manageable grade 3 ALT increase (26%) was the most common biochemical abnormality. At the RD cohort, overall response rate was 22.2% (95%CI, 6.4%-47.6%), including one stringent complete response, one very good partial response, and two partial responses in r/r patients to BTZ and/or lenalidomide. The clinical benefit rate was 77.8% (95%CI, 52.4-93.6%). No major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction was found. In conclusion, the triple combination of plitidepsin, BTZ, and DXM showed an acceptable safety profile and had moderate activity in adult patients with r/r MM.

Anti-cancer drug combinations approved by US FDA from 2011 to 2021: main design features of clinical trials and role of pharmacokinetics.

During the last decade, the treatment for many cancer indications has evolved due to intensive clinical research into anti-tumor agents' combination. In most instances, new combination treatments consist of an add-on to the standard of care (SOC), which then demonstrate a substantial gain in efficacy and no detrimental effect in tolerability. In the era of targeted therapies, for which maximum tolerated dose (MTD)-based dosing strategies are no longer applicable, early stage studies exploring new combinations are often conducted in the population of interest, expediting the collection of preliminary safety data, to be promptly expanded to collect preliminary efficacy data. Nevertheless, rule-based dose-finding studies are still a prevailing approach for early stage cancer, especially for chemotherapy (CT)-containing combinations. Pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments play a key role throughout the clinical development of drug combinations, informing potential PK interactions. But most importantly, they allow the development of innovative exposure-response (E-R) models aimed at exploring the contribution of each agent to the overall effect of the combination therapy. This review identifies 81 new drug combinations approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for hemato-oncology during the 2011-2021 period and summarizes the main design features of clinical trials and the role of PK assessments.

Preclinical and randomized phase I studies of plitidepsin in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

Plitidepsin, a marine-derived cyclic-peptide, inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication at nanomolar concentrations by targeting the host protein eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1A. Here, we show that plitidepsin distributes preferentially to lung over plasma, with similar potency against across several SARS-CoV-2 variants in preclinical studies. Simultaneously, in this randomized, parallel, open-label, proof-of-concept study (NCT04382066) conducted in 10 Spanish hospitals between May and November 2020, 46 adult hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection received either 1.5 mg (n = 15), 2.0 mg (n = 16), or 2.5 mg (n = 15) plitidepsin once daily for 3 d. The primary objective was safety; viral load kinetics, mortality, need for increased respiratory support, and dose selection were secondary end points. One patient withdrew consent before starting procedures; 45 initiated treatment; one withdrew because of hypersensitivity. Two Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events were observed (hypersensitivity and diarrhea). Treatment-related adverse events affecting more than 5% of patients were nausea (42.2%), vomiting (15.6%), and diarrhea (6.7%). Mean viral load reductions from baseline were 1.35, 2.35, 3.25, and 3.85 log10 at days 4, 7, 15, and 31. Nonmechanical invasive ventilation was required in 8 of 44 evaluable patients (16.0%); six patients required intensive care support (13.6%), and three patients (6.7%) died (COVID-19-related). Plitidepsin has a favorable safety profile in patients with COVID-19.

Integrated exposure-response analysis of efficacy and safety of lurbinectedin to support the dose regimen in small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: These exposure-response (E-R) analyses integrated lurbinectedin effects on key efficacy and safety variables in relapsed SCLC to determine the adequacy of the dose regimen of 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks (q3wk). METHODS: Logistic models and Cox regression analyses were applied to correlate lurbinectedin exposure metrics (AUCtot and AUCu) with efficacy and safety endpoints: objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in SCLC patients (n = 99) treated in study B-005 with 3.2 mg/m2 q3wk, and incidence of grade 4 (G4) neutropenia and grade 3-4 (G ≥ 3) thrombocytopenia in a pool of cancer patients from single-agent phase I to III studies (n = 692) treated at a wide range of doses. A clinical utility index was used to assess the appropriateness of the selected dose. RESULTS: Effect of lurbinectedin AUCu on ORR best fitted to a sigmoid-maximal response (Emax) logistic model, where Emax was dependent on chemotherapy-free interval (CTFI). Cox regression analysis with OS found relationships with both CTFI and AUCu. An Emax logistic model for G4 neutropenia and a linear logistic model for G ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia, which retained platelets and albumin at baseline and body surface area, best fitted to AUCtot and AUCu. AUCu between approximately 1000 and 1700 ng·h/L provided the best benefit/risk ratio, and the dose of 3.2 mg/m2 provided median AUCu of 1400 ng·h/L, thus maximizing the proportion of patients within that lurbinectedin target exposure range. CONCLUSIONS: The relationships evidenced in this integrated E-R analysis support a favorable benefit-risk profile for lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 q3wk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02454972; registered May 27, 2015.

A phase I trial of lurbinectedin in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background In vitro/in vivo data showed synergism of cisplatin and lurbinectedin in ovarian cancer cells and grafts. This phase I trial investigated the recommended phase II dose (RD) of cisplatin and lurbinectedin combination, with (Group A) or without aprepitant (Group B), in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods All patients received 60 mg/m2 cisplatin 90-min intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by lurbinectedin 60-min i.v. infusion at escalating doses on Day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wk). Patients in Group A additionally received orally 125 mg aprepitant one hour before cisplatin on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2 and 3. Toxicity was graded according to the NCI-CTCAE v.4. Results RD for Group A was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.1 mg/m2. RD for Group B was cisplatin 60 mg/m2 plus lurbinectedin 1.4 mg/m2. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hematological [neutropenia (41%), lymphopenia (35%), leukopenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (18%)] and fatigue (35%) in Group A (n = 17), and neutropenia (50%), leukopenia (42%), lymphopenia (29%), and fatigue (13%) and nausea (8%) in Group B (n = 24). Four patients (2 in each group) had a partial response. Disease stabilization for ≥ 4 months was observed in 4 and 10 patients, respectively. Conclusion The combination of lurbinectedin with cisplatin was not possible in meaningful therapeutic dosage due to toxicity. The addition of aprepitant in combination with cisplatin did not allow increasing the dose due to hematological toxicity, whereas omitting aprepitant increased the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Modest clinical activity was observed in general.Clinical trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov code: NCT01980667. Date of registration: 11 November 2013.

Plitidepsin has a positive therapeutic index in adult patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization.

Plitidepsin is a marine-derived cyclic-peptide that inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication at low nanomolar concentrations by the targeting of host protein eEF1A (eukaryotic translation-elongation-factor-1A). We evaluated a model of intervention with plitidepsin in hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients where three doses were assessed (1.5, 2 and 2.5 mg/day for 3 days, as a 90-minute intravenous infusion) in 45 patients (15 per dose-cohort). Treatment was well tolerated, with only two Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events observed (hypersensitivity and diarrhea). The discharge rates by Days 8 and 15 were 56.8% and 81.8%, respectively, with data sustaining dose-effect. A mean 4.2 log10 viral load reduction was attained by Day 15. Improvement in inflammation markers was also noted in a seemingly dose-dependent manner. These results suggest that plitidepsin impacts the outcome of patients with COVID-19. ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY: Plitidepsin, an inhibitor of SARS-Cov-2 in vitro , is safe and positively influences the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Population Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Covariate Analyses of Neutropenia and Thrombocytopenia in Patients With Solid Tumors Treated With Lurbinectedin.

Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Reversible myelosuppression is its most relevant toxicity. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses were conducted to characterize the time course of absolute neutrophil count and platelet count recovery and to detect and quantify the effect of relevant covariates in patients with advanced solid tumors treated with lurbinectedin. Absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and lurbinectedin total plasma concentration were assessed in 244 patients treated with lurbinectedin with varied dosing schedules and doses. A reference extended semimechanistic pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of myelosuppression was used. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration was modeled as a dichotomous covariate, and platelet transfusions were included as a bolus dose into the last compartment of the model, representing the central circulation. Final models were suitable to describe the time course of absolute neutrophil count and platelet count recovery. A lurbinectedin dose of 3.2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks can be administered without primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. G-CSF followed by ≤2 dose reductions of 20%, if needed, gradually reduced grade 4 neutropenia from cycle 3 onward. BSA-based dosing reduced the incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia. One-week dose delays because of low absolute neutrophil count occurred in 3.5% of patients, thus supporting every-3-week administration. CYP3A inhibitors produced absolute 11.0% and 6.2% increases in grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, respectively. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia after lurbinectedin administration to cancer patients are noncumulative, reversible, short lasting, and clinically manageable with secondary prophylaxis of G-CSF or platelet transfusion and, if needed, dose reductions.

Effect of lurbinectedin on the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors: an exposure-response analysis.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the effect of lurbinectedin, a highly selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, on the change from baseline in Fridericia's corrected QT interval (∆QTcF) and electrocardiography (ECG) morphological patterns, and lurbinectedin concentration-∆QTcF (C-∆QTcF) relationship, in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with QTcF ≤ 500 ms, QRS < 110 ms, PR < 200 ms, and normal cardiac conduction and function received lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. ECGs were collected in triplicate via 12-lead digital recorder in treatment cycle 1 and 2 and analyzed centrally. ECG collection time-matched blood samples were drawn to measure lurbinectedin plasma concentration. No effect on QTc interval was concluded if the upper bound (UB) of the least square (LS) mean two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) for ΔQTcF at each time point was < 20 ms. C-∆QTcF was explored using linear mixed-effects analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1707 ECGs were collected from 39 patients (females, 22; median age, 56 years). The largest UB of the 90% CI of ΔQTcF was 9.6 ms, thus lower than the more conservative 10 ms threshold established at the ICH E14 guideline for QT studies in healthy volunteers. C-∆QTcF was better fit by an effect compartment model, and the 90% CI of predicted ΔQTcF at Cmax was 7.81 ms, also below the 10 ms threshold of clinical concern. CONCLUSIONS: ECG parameters and C-ΔQTcF modelling in this prospective study indicate that lurbinectedin was not associated with a clinically relevant effect on cardiac repolarization.

Population-Pharmacokinetic and Covariate Analysis of Lurbinectedin (PM01183), a New RNA Polymerase II Inhibitor, in Pooled Phase I/II Trials in Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lurbinectedin is an inhibitor of RNA polymerase II currently under clinical development for intravenous administration as a single agent and in combination with other anti-tumor agents for the treatment of several tumor types. The objective of this work was to develop a population-pharmacokinetic model in this patient setting and to elucidate the main predictors to guide the late stages of development. METHODS: Data from 443 patients with solid and hematologic malignancies treated in six phase I and three phase II trials with lurbinectedin as a single agent or combined with other agents were included in the analysis. The potential influence of demographic, co-treatment, and laboratory characteristics on lurbinectedin pharmacokinetics was evaluated. RESULTS: The final population-pharmacokinetic model was an open three-compartment model with linear distribution and linear elimination from the central compartment. Population estimates for total plasma clearance, and apparent volume at steady state were 11.2 L/h and 438 L, respectively. Inter-individual variability was moderate for all parameters, ranging from 20.9 to 51.2%. High α-1-acid glycoprotein and C-reactive protein, and low albumin reduced clearance by 28, 20, and 20%, respectively. Co-administration of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors reduced clearance by 30%. Combinations with other anti-tumor agents did not modify the pharmacokinetics of lurbinectedin significantly. CONCLUSION: The population-pharmacokinetic model indicated neither a dose nor time dependency, and no clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic differences were found when co-administered with other anticancer agents. A chronic inflammation pattern characterized by decreased albumin and increased C-reactive protein and α-1-acid glycoprotein levels led to high lurbinectedin exposure. Co-administration of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors increased lurbinectedin exposure.

First-in-human phase I study of the microtubule inhibitor plocabulin in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Background Plocabulin (PM060184) is a novel marine-derived microtubule inhibitor that acts as an antitumor agent. This first-in-human study evaluated dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and phase II recommended dose (RD) of plocabulin given as a 10-min infusion on Day (D) 1, D8 and D15 every four weeks. Patients and methods Forty-four patients with advanced solid tumors received plocabulin following an accelerated titration design. Results Plocabulin was escalated from 1.3 mg/m2 to 14.5 mg/m2, which was defined as the MTD. No RD was confirmed, because frequent dose delays and omissions resulted in low relative dose intensity (66%) at the 12.0 mg/m2 expansion cohort. The main DLT was grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN); other DLTs were grade 4 tumor lysis syndrome, grade 4 cardiac failure and grade 3 myalgia. Toxicities were mainly mild to moderate, and included abdominal pain, myalgia, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Myelosuppression was transient and manageable. Plocabulin had a half-life of ~4 h and a wide diffusion to peripheral tissues. Antitumor response was observed in cervix carcinoma and heavily pretreated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients, and disease stabilization (≥3 months) in patients with colorectal, thymic, gastrointestinal stromal and breast tumors, among others. The clinical benefit rate was 33%. Conclusion The main DLT of plocabulin was PSN, as anticipated for a tubulin-binding agent. Since encouraging antitumor activity was observed, efforts to improve toxicity and to find the RD were planned in other trials evaluating D1&D8 and D1-D3 plus D15-D17 schedules.

Phase I dose-escalation study of plitidepsin in combination with sorafenib or gemcitabine in patients with refractory solid tumors or lymphomas.

This phase I trial evaluated the combination of the marine-derived cyclodepsipeptide plitidepsin (trade name Aplidin) with sorafenib or gemcitabine in advanced cancer and lymphoma patients. The study included two treatment arms: a sorafenib/plitidepsin (S/P) and a gemcitabine/plitidepsin (G/P) arm. In the S/P arm, patients were treated orally with sorafenib continuous dosing at two dose levels (DL1: 200 mg twice daily and DL2: 400 mg twice daily) combined with plitidepsin (1.8 mg/m, day 1, day 8, day 15, and, q4wk, intravenously). In the G/P arm, patients with solid tumors or lymphoma were treated at four different DLs with a combination of gemcitabine (DL1: 750 mg/m, DL2-DL4: 1000 mg/m) and plitidepsin (DL1-DL2: 1.8 mg/m; DL3: 2.4 mg/m; DL4: 3 mg/m). Both agents were administered intravenously on day 1, day 8, day 15, and, q4wk. Forty-four patients were evaluable for safety and toxicity. The safety of the combination of plitidepsin with sorafenib or gemcitabine was manageable. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild; no grade 4 treatment-related AEs were reported in any of the groups (except for one grade 4 thrombocytopenia in the gemcitabine arm). The most frequently reported study drug-related (or of unknown relationship) AEs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, erythema, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue in the S/P arm and nausea, fatigue, and vomiting in the G/P arm. In the S/P arm, one dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two out of six patients treated at the maximum dose tested (DL2): palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia and grade 2 aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase increase that resulted in omission of days 8 and 15 plitidepsin infusions. In the G/P arm, one dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two out of six patients at DL4: grade 2 alanine aminotransferase increase resulted in omission of days 8 and 15 plitidepsin infusions and grade 4 thrombocytopenia. The recommended dose for the combination of plitidepsin with sorafenib was not defined because of a sponsor decision (no expansion cohort to confirm) and for plitidepsin with gemcitabine, it was 2.4 mg/m plitidepsin with 1000 mg/m gemcitabine. In the S/P group, objective disease responses were not observed; however, disease stabilization (≥3months) was observed in four patients. In the gemcitabine group, two lymphoma patients showed an objective response (partial response and complete response) and nine patients showed disease stabilization (≥3months). Combining plitidepsin with gemcitabine and sorafenib is feasible for advanced cancer patients; some objective responses were observed in heavily pretreated lymphoma patients.

Overuse of PPIs in patients at admission, during treatment, and at discharge in a tertiary Spanish hospital.

BACKGROUND: The first generic PPI was introduced in Spain in 2001, and since then their prescriptions have increased steadily by about 200%. AIM: To evaluate the frequency of use and the appropriateness of indications of PPIs in hospitalised patients, and possible factors predicting their use. We also evaluated relevant PPI-drug interactions and serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, prescription-indication drug-utilisation study in hospitalised patients with follow-up until discharge. Sampling was random and stratified by services, and was calculated to obtain an error in the precision of prescription of ±4% with a 95% confidence interval with maximum variability (50%). RESULTS: 328 patients were included; 28.65% were prescribed a PPI at admission, 82.62% were prescribed a PPI during hospitalisation, and 54.75% at discharge, with inappropriate indications in 74.47%, 61.25% and 80.24% respectively. The OR of being discharged with PPIs was 3.01(95% CI:2.17-4.18, p=0.000). The inappropriate indication most frequently seen at admission and at discharge was antiplatelet therapy. During hospitalisation it was prophylaxis for stress ulcer in patients at low risk. PPI prescription at admission remained at discharge in 75.90% of cases, 73.02% without an acceptable indication. Being >64 years old, taking >4 drugs, co-medication (NSAIDs, antiaggregation and anticoagulation), certain hospital departments and length of stay >15 days predicted 83.7% of prescriptions at discharge. Four relevant PPI-drug interactions were found, and 2 resulted in SADRs, thus the incidence per 1, 000 patients was 2.66 (Poisson 95% CI:0.62-7.23). CONCLUSIONS: There was a very high frequency of overuse of PPIs in inpatients and outpatients. Hospitalisation did not represent an opportunity for better prescription of PPIs.

Evaluation of the influence of sex and CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 polymorphisms in the disposition of citalopram.

We investigate the impact of sex and genotype on citalopram disposition in 35 healthy volunteers who received an oral dose of 20mg citalopram within a single-dose bioequivalence study. CYP2C19*2 and *3, and CYP2D6*4 mutations were determined by Real-Time PCR. The influence of sex and genotype was analyzed by a linear mixed model for repeated measures, including formulation, period, sequence, sex, CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 as fixed effects and subject nested sequence*sex*CYP2C19*CYP2D6 as the random one. Pharmacokinetic parameters were log-transformed and AUC(infinity) and C(max) adjusted to the administered dose/weight. The model yields a statistical significance in AUC(infinity) and CL/F for CYP2C19 and CYP2D6. Gender, formulation, sequence or period effects were not statistically significant. AUC(infinity) of CYP2C19*1/*2 and CYP2C19*2/*2 carriers is 44% and 118% higher than wild type, respectively; CYP2D6 volunteers carrying 1/4 have an AUC 23% higher than wild type. Our data also suggest that the influence of CYP2D6 on AUC(infinity) is very low when it is in association with CYP2C19*1/*1 while its influence is more apparent in association with CYP2C19*1/*2. In conclusion, we demonstrate the influence of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 in the disposition of citalopram, and we suggest that the influence of CYP2D6 is more probable in volunteers with at least one defective allele of CYP2C19.