Influence of Food With Different Fat Concentrations on Alectinib Exposure: A Randomized Crossover Pharmacokinetic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Alectinib is the keystone treatment in advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An exposure-response threshold of 435 ng/mL has recently been established, albeit 37% of patients do not reach this threshold. Alectinib is orally administered, and absorption is largely influenced by food. Hence, further investigation into this relationship is needed to optimize its bioavailability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized 3-period crossover clinical study in ALK+ NSCLC, alectinib exposure was compared among patients with different diets. Every 7 days, the first alectinib dose was taken with either a continental breakfast, 250-g of low-fat yogurt, or a self-chosen lunch, and the second dose was taken with a self-chosen dinner. Sampling for alectinib exposure (Ctrough) was performed at day 8, just prior to alectinib intake, and the relative difference in Ctrough was compared. RESULTS: In 20 evaluable patients, the mean Ctrough was 14% (95% CI, -23% to -5%; P=.009) and 20% (95% CI, -25% to -14%; P<.001) lower when taken with low-fat yogurt compared with a continental breakfast and a self-chosen lunch, respectively. Administration with a self-chosen lunch did not change exposure compared with a continental breakfast (+7%; 95% CI, -2% to +17%; P=.243). In the low-fat yogurt period, 35% of patients did not reach the threshold versus 5% with the other meals (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians should be warned for a detrimental food-drug interaction when alectinib is taken with low-fat yogurt, because it results in a clinically relevant lower alectinib exposure. Intake with a self-chosen lunch did not change drug exposure and could be a safe and patient-friendly alternative.

Cardiac Toxicity of Alectinib in Patients With ALK+ Lung Cancer: Outcomes of Cardio-Oncology Follow-Up.

Background: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) translocations in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (3% to 7%) predict for response to ALK-inhibitors (eg, alectinib, first line), resulting in a 5-year survival rate of ∼60% and median progression-free survival of 34.8 months. Although the overall toxicity rate of alectinib is acceptable, unexplained adverse events, including edema and bradycardia, may indicate potential cardiac toxicity. Objectives: This study's aim was to investigate the cardiotoxicity profile and exposure-toxicity relationship of alectinib. Methods: Between April 2020 and September 2021, 53 patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer treated with alectinib were included. Patients starting with alectinib after April 2020 underwent a cardiac work-up at start, at 6 months and at 1 year at the cardio-oncology outpatients' clinic. Patients already receiving alectinib >6 months underwent 1 cardiac evaluation. Bradycardia, edema, and severe alectinib toxicity (grade ≥3 and grade ≥2 adverse events leading to dose modifications) data were collected. Alectinib steady-state trough concentrations were used for exposure-toxicity analyses. Results: Left ventricular ejection fraction remained stable in all patients who underwent an on-treatment cardiac evaluation (n = 34; median 62%; IQR: 58%-64%). Twenty-two patients (42%) developed alectinib-related bradycardia (6 symptomatic bradycardia). One patient underwent a pacemaker implantation for severe symptomatic bradycardia. Severe toxicity was significantly associated with a 35% higher alectinib mean Ctrough (728 vs 539 ng/mL, SD = 83 ng/mL; 1-sided P = 0.015). Conclusions: No patients showed signs of a diminished left ventricular ejection fraction. Alectinib caused more bradycardia than previously reported (42%) with some instances of severe symptomatic bradycardia. Patients with severe toxicity generally had an elevated exposure above the therapeutic threshold.

Design and statistics of pharmacokinetic drug-drug, herb-drug, and food-drug interaction studies in oncology patients.

Polypharmacy is becoming increasingly prevalent in society. Patients with polypharmacy are at greater risk for drug-drug interactions, which can influence the efficacy of treatment. Especially, in oncology this is a concern since neoplasms are increasing prevalent with age, as well as polypharmacy is. Besides drug-drug interactions, also herb-drug and food-drug interactions could be present. Knowledge of these interactions is of great importance for safe and effective anti-cancer treatment, because the therapeutic window of most of these oncologic drugs are small. To study pharmacokinetic interaction effects, a cross-over pharmacokinetic study is a widely used, efficient and scientifically robust design. Yet, several aspects need to be considered when carrying out an interaction study. This includes the knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of a cross-over design. Furthermore, determination of the end point and research question of interest, calculation of the required sample size, analysis of the generated data with a robust statistical plan and consideration of the logtransformation for some pharmacokinetic parameters are important aspects to consider. Even though some guidelines exist regarding these key issues, no clear overview exists. In this article an overview of these aspects is provided and their effect is discussed.

Improving the tolerability of osimertinib by identifying its toxic limit.

Background: Osimertinib is the cornerstone in the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nonetheless, ±25% of patients experience severe treatment-related toxicities. Currently, it is impossible to identify patients at risk of severe toxicity beforehand. Therefore, we aimed to study the relationship between osimertinib exposure and severe toxicity and to identify a safe toxic limit for a preventive dose reduction. Methods: In this real-life prospective cohort study, patients with NSCLC treated with osimertinib were followed for severe toxicity (grade ⩾3 toxicity, dose reduction or discontinuation, hospital admission, or treatment termination). Blood for pharmacokinetic analyses was withdrawn during every out-patient visit. Primary endpoint was the correlation between osimertinib clearance (exposure) and severe toxicity. Secondary endpoint was the exposure-efficacy relationship, defined as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: In total, 819 samples from 159 patients were included in the analysis. Multivariate competing risk analysis showed osimertinib clearance (c.q. exposure) to be significantly correlated with severe toxicity (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.99). An relative operating characteristic curve showed the optimal toxic limit to be 259 ng/mL osimertinib. A 50% dose reduction in the high-exposure group, that is 25.8% of the total cohort, would reduce the risk of severe toxicity by 53%. Osimertinib exposure was not associated with PFS nor OS. Conclusion: Osimertinib exposure is highly correlated with the occurrence of severe toxicity. To optimize tolerability, patients above the toxic limit concentration of 259 ng/mL could benefit from a preventive dose reduction, without fear for diminished effectiveness.