Mechanisms, Management and Prevention of Pemetrexed-Related Toxicity.

Pemetrexed is a cytostatic antifolate drug and a cornerstone in the treatment of lung cancer. Although generally well tolerated, a substantial part of the patient population experiences dose-limiting or even treatment-limiting toxicities. These include mucositis, skin problems, fatigue, renal toxicity, and neutropenia. Several studies confirmed that pemetrexed pharmacokinetics can serve as a prognostic factor for the development of toxicity, especially for neutropenia. Preventing and managing toxicity of pemetrexed can help to ensure durable treatment. Several evidence-based strategies are already implemented in clinical care. With the introduction of standard vitamin supplementation and dexamethasone, the incidence of hematological toxicity and skin reactions substantially decreased. In the case of high risk for toxicity, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor can be used to prevent severe hematological toxicity. Moreover, high-dose folinic acid can resolve severe pemetrexed-induced toxicity. There are several experimental options to prevent or manage pemetrexed-related toxicity, such as the use of standard folinic acid, hemodialysis, antidotes such as thymidine, hypoxanthine, and glucarpidase, and the use of therapeutic drug monitoring. These strategies still need clinical evaluation before implementation, but could enable treatment with pemetrexed for patients who are at risk for toxicity, such as in renal impairment.

Toxicity of pemetrexed during renal impairment explained-Implications for safe treatment.

Pemetrexed is an important component of first line treatment in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. However, a limitation is the contraindication in patients with renal impairment due to hematological toxicity. Currently, it is unknown how to safely dose pemetrexed in these patients. The aim of our study was to elucidate the relationship between pemetrexed exposure and toxicity to support the development of a safe dosing regimen in patients with renal impairment. A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis was performed based on phase II study results in three patients with renal dysfunction, supplemented with data from 106 patients in early clinical studies. Findings were externally validated with data of different pemetrexed dosing regimens. Alternative dosing regimens were evaluated using the developed model. We found that pemetrexed toxicity was driven by the time above a toxicity threshold concentration. The threshold for vitamin-supplemented patients was 0.110 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.092-0.146 mg/mL). It was observed that in patients with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]: <45 mL/min) the approved dose of 500 mg/m2 would yield a high probability of severe neutropenia in the range of 51.0% to 92.6%. A pemetrexed dose of 20 mg for patients (eGFR: 20 mL/min) is shown to be neutropenic-equivalent to the approved dose in patients with adequate renal function (eGFR: 90 mL/min), but would result in an approximately 13-fold lower area under the concentration-time curve. The pemetrexed exposure-toxicity relationship is explained by a toxicity threshold and substantially different from previously thought. Without prophylaxis for toxicity, it is unlikely that a therapeutic dose can be safely administered to patients with renal impairment.

Drug level testing as a strategy to determine eligibility for drug resistance testing after failure of ART: a retrospective analysis of South African adult patients on second-line ART.

INTRODUCTION: When protease inhibitor (PI)-based second-line ART fails, guidelines recommend drug resistance testing and individualized third-line treatment. However, PI-resistant viral strains are rare and drug resistance testing is costly. We investigated whether less costly PI-exposure testing can be used to select those patients who would benefit most from drug resistance testing. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of South African adults living with HIV experiencing failure of ritonavir-boosted-lopinavir (LPV/r)-based second-line ART for whom drug resistance testing results were available. We included patients who received plasma-based drug resistance testing at a central South African reference laboratory in 2017 and patients who received dried blood spots (DBS)-based drug resistance testing at a rural South African clinic between 2009 and 2017. PI-exposure testing was performed on remnant plasma or DBS using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LCMS). Additionally, a low-cost immunoassay was used on plasma. Population genotypic drug resistance testing of the pol region was performed on plasma and DBS using standard clinical protocols. RESULTS: Samples from 544 patients (494 plasma samples and 50 DBS) were included. Median age was 41.0 years (IQR: 33.3 to 48.5) and 58.6% were women. Median HIV-RNA load was 4.9 log10 copies/mL (4.3 to 5.4). Prevalence of resistance to the NRTI-backbone was 70.6% (349/494) in plasma samples and 56.0% (28/50) in DBS. Major PI-resistance mutations conferring high-level resistance to LPV/r were observed in 26.7% (132/494) of plasma samples and 12% (6/50) of DBS. PI-exposure testing revealed undetectable LPV levels in 47.0% (232/494) of plasma samples and in 60.0% (30/50) of DBS. In pooled analysis of plasma and DBS samples, detectable LPV levels had a sensitivity of 90% (84% to 94%) and a negative predictive failure of 95% (91% to 97%) for the presence of major LPV/r resistance. CONCLUSIONS: PI-exposure testing revealed non-adherence in half of patients experiencing failure on second-line ART and accurately predicted the presence or absence of clinically relevant PI resistance. PI-exposure testing constitutes a novel screening strategy in patients with virological failure of ART that can differentiate between different underlying causes of therapy failure and may allow for more effective use of limited resources available for drug resistance testing.

Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy with oxaliplatin for peritoneal carcinomatosis: a clinical pharmacological perspective on a surgical procedure.

Cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has become the standard of care in the treatment of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin. The use of oxaliplatin for HIPEC has gained popularity. Although the HIPEC procedure is adopted throughout the world, major differences exist between treatment protocols regarding the carrier solution, perfusate volume, use of an open or closed technique, duration of the perfusion and application of additional flushing. These differences can influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxaliplatin and might thereby have an impact on the efficacy and/or safety of the treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the clinical importance of oxaliplatin pharmacology when performing HIPEC surgery. This review adds new insights into the complex field of the pharmacology of HIPEC and highlights an important worldwide problem: the lack of standardization of the HIPEC procedure.