Alternative dosing strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitors to improve cost-effectiveness: a special focus on nivolumab and pembrolizumab.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised cancer treatment by offering durable responses to many patients with solid and haematological cancers. The high prices and increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors put considerable strain on health-care budgets globally. This financial strain could jeopardise patients' access to these anti-cancer therapies. However, substantial evidence suggests that immune checkpoint inhibitors are being administered at doses that exceed the minimum dose required for maximum anti-tumour efficacy. Therefore, investigating and implementing the most cost-effective dosing strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitors are urgently necessary. This Personal View provides an overview of existing data on immune checkpoint inhibitor pharmacology and (novel) dosing strategies for anti-PD-1 therapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab, with a special focus on cost-effectiveness and saving potential. Furthermore, specific recommendations to guide health-care professionals are provided, through the process of prescribing, rounding, preparing, and administering nivolumab and pembrolizumab in the most practical and cost-effective way possible.

The added value of H2 antagonists in premedication regimens during paclitaxel treatment.

BACKGROUND: Ranitidine, a histamine 2 blocker, is the standard of care to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) caused by paclitaxel infusion. However, the added value of ranitidine in this premedication regimen is controversial. Therefore, we compared the incidence of HSRs during paclitaxel treatment between a standard regimen including ranitidine and a regimen without ranitidine. METHODS: This prospective, pre-post interventional, non-inferiority study compared the standard premedication regimen (N = 183) with dexamethasone, clemastine and ranitidine with a premedication regimen without ranitidine (N = 183). The primary outcome was the incidence of HSR grade ≥3. Non-inferiority was determined by checking whether the upper bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in HSR rates excluded the +6% non-inferiority margin. RESULTS: In both the pre-intervention (with ranitidine) and post-intervention (without ranitidine) group 183 patients were included. The incidence of HSR grade ≥3 was 4.4% (N = 8) in the pre-intervention group and 1.6% (N = 3) in the post-intervention group: difference -2.7% (90% CI: -6.2 to 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: As the upper boundary of the 90% CI does not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin of +6%, it can be concluded that a premedication regimen without ranitidine is non-inferior to a premedication regimen with ranitidine. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.trialregister.nl ; NL8173.

Clinical implications of food-drug interactions with small-molecule kinase inhibitors.

During the past two decades, small-molecule kinase inhibitors have proven to be valuable in the treatment of solid and haematological tumours. However, because of their oral administration, the intrapatient and interpatient exposure to small-molecule kinase inhibitors (SMKIs) is highly variable and is affected by many factors, such as concomitant use of food and herbs. Food-drug interactions are capable of altering the systemic bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of these drugs. The most important mechanisms underlying food-drug interactions are gastrointestinal drug absorption and hepatic metabolism through cytochrome P450 isoenzymes. As food-drug interactions can lead to therapy failure or severe toxicity, knowledge of these interactions is essential. This Review provides a comprehensive overview of published studies involving food-drug interactions and herb-drug interactions for all registered SMKIs up to Oct 1, 2019. We critically discuss US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines concerning food-drug interactions and offer clear recommendations for their management in clinical practice.

Influence of green tea consumption on endoxifen steady-state concentration in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients use additional herbs or supplements in combination with their anti-cancer therapy. Green tea-active ingredient epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG)-is one of the most commonly used dietary supplements among breast cancer patients. EGCG may alter the metabolism of tamoxifen. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of green tea supplements on the pharmacokinetics of endoxifen; the most relevant active metabolite of tamoxifen. METHODS: In this single-center, randomized cross-over trial, effects of green tea capsules on endoxifen levels were evaluated. Patients treated with tamoxifen for at least 3 months were eligible for this study. After inclusion, patients were consecutively treated with tamoxifen monotherapy for 28 days and in combination with green tea supplements (1 g twice daily; containing 300 mg EGCG) for 14 days (or vice versa). Blood samples were collected on the last day of monotherapy or combination therapy. Area under the curve (AUC0-24h), maximum concentration (Cmax) and minimum concentration (Ctrough) were obtained from individual plasma concentration-time curves. RESULTS: No difference was found in geometric mean endoxifen AUC0-24h in the period with green tea versus tamoxifen monotherapy (- 0.4%; 95% CI - 8.6 to 8.5%; p = 0.92). Furthermore, no differences in Cmax (- 2.8%; - 10.6 to 5.6%; p = 0.47) nor Ctrough (1.2%; - 7.3 to 10.5%; p = 0.77) were found. Moreover, no severe toxicity was reported during the whole study period. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between green tea supplements and tamoxifen. Therefore, the use of green tea by patients with tamoxifen does not have to be discouraged.

Reduction of immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in cholangiocarcinoma by ex vivo targeting immune checkpoint molecules.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cholangiocarcinoma is an aggressive hepatobiliary malignancy originating from biliary tract epithelium. Whether cholangiocarcinoma is responsive to immune checkpoint antibody therapy is unknown, and knowledge of its tumor immune microenvironment is limited. We aimed to characterize tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in cholangiocarcinoma and assess functional effects of targeting checkpoint molecules on TILs. METHODS: We isolated TILs from resected tumors of patients with cholangiocarcinoma and investigated their compositions compared with their counterparts in tumor-free liver (TFL) tissues and blood, by flow cytometry and immunohistochemistry. We measured expression of immune co-stimulatory and co-inhibitory molecules on TILs, and determined whether targeting these molecules improved ex vivo functions of TILs. RESULTS: Proportions of cytotoxic T cells and natural killer cells were decreased, whereas regulatory T cells were increased in tumors compared with TFL. While regulatory T cells accumulated in tumors, the majority of cytotoxic and helper T cells were sequestered at tumor margins, and natural killer cells were excluded from the tumors. The co-stimulatory receptor GITR and co-inhibitory receptors PD1 and CTLA4 were over-expressed on tumor-infiltrating T cells compared with T cells in TFL and blood. Antagonistic targeting of PD1 or CTLA4 or agonistic targeting of GITR enhanced effector molecule production and T cell proliferation in ex vivo stimulation of TILs derived from cholangiocarcinoma. The inter-individual variations in TIL responses to checkpoint treatments were correlated with differences in TIL immune phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased numbers of cytotoxic immune cells and increased numbers of suppressor T cells that over-express co-inhibitory receptors suggest that the tumor microenvironment in cholangiocarcinoma is immunosuppressive. Targeting GITR, PD1 or CTLA4 enhances effector functions of tumor-infiltrating T cells, indicating that these molecules are potential immunotherapeutic targets for patients with cholangiocarcinoma. LAY SUMMARY: The defense functions of immune cells are suppressed in cholangiocarcinoma tumors. Stimulating or blocking "immune checkpoint" molecules expressed on tumor-infiltrating T cells can enhance the defense functions of these cells. Therefore, these molecules may be promising targets for therapeutic stimulation of immune cells to eradicate the tumors and prevent cancer recurrence in patients with cholangiocarcinoma.

The Risk of QTc-Interval Prolongation in Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Tamoxifen in Combination with Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Antidepressants like the serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) are often used concomitantly with tamoxifen (e.g. for treatment of depression). This may lead to an additional prolongation of the QTc-interval, with an increased risk of cardiac side effects. Therefore we investigated whether there is a drug-drug interaction between tamoxifen and SRIs resulting in a prolonged QTc-interval. METHODS: Electrocardiograms (ECGs) of 100 patients were collected at steady state tamoxifen treatment, with or without concomitant SRI co-medication. QTc-interval was manually measured and calculated using the Fridericia formula. Primary outcome was difference in QTc-interval between tamoxifen monotherapy and tamoxifen concomitantly with an SRI. RESULTS: The mean QTc-interval was 12.4 ms longer when tamoxifen was given concomitantly with an SRI (95% CI:1.8-23.1 ms; P = 0.023). Prolongation of the QTc-interval was particularly pronounced for paroxetine (17.2 ms; 95%CI:1.4-33.0 ms; P = 0.04), escitalopram (12.5 ms; 95%CI:4.4-20.6 ms; P < 0.01) and citalopram (20.7 ms; 95%CI:0.7-40.7 ms; P = 0.047), where other agents like venlafaxine did not seem to prolong the QTc-interval. None of the patients had a QTc-interval of >500 ms. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of tamoxifen and SRIs resulted in a significantly higher mean QTc-interval, which was especially the case for paroxetine, escitalopram and citalopram. When concomitant administration with an SRI is warranted venlafaxine is preferred.

Drug-drug interactions with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors: a clinical perspective.

In the past decade, many tyrosine-kinase inhibitors have been introduced in oncology and haemato-oncology. Because this new class of drugs is extensively used, serious drug-drug interactions are an increasing risk. In this Review, we give a comprehensive overview of known or suspected drug-drug interactions between tyrosine-kinase inhibitors and other drugs. We discuss all haemato-oncological and oncological tyrosine-kinase inhibitors that had been approved by Aug 1, 2013, by the US Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency. Various clinically relevant drug interactions with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors have been identified. Most interactions concern altered bioavailability due to altered stomach pH, metabolism by cytochrome P450 isoenzymes, and prolongation of the QTc interval. To guarantee the safe use of tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, a drugs review for each patient is needed. This Review provides specific recommendations to guide haemato-oncologists, oncologists, and clinical pharmacists, through the process of managing drug-drug interactions during treatment with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in daily clinical practice.

Effect of Switching the Histamine-1 Receptor Antagonist Clemastine to Cetirizine in Paclitaxel Premedication Regimens: The H1-Switch Study.

PURPOSE: Premedication, including a histamine-1 receptor (H1) antagonist, is recommended to all patients treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the scientific basis for this premedication is not robust, which provides opportunities for optimization. Substitution of intravenously administered first-generation H1 antagonist for orally administered second-generation H1 antagonist could reduce side effects, and improve efficiency and sustainability. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of substituting intravenous clemastine for oral cetirizine as prophylaxis for paclitaxel-induced HSRs. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, noninferiority study compares a historic cohort receiving a premedication regimen with intravenous clemastine to a prospective cohort receiving oral cetirizine. Primary end point of the study is HSR grade ≥3. The difference in incidence was calculated together with the 90% CI. We determined that the two-sided 90% CI of HSR grade ≥3 incidence in the oral cetirizine cohort should not be more than 4% higher (ie, the noninferiority margin) compared with the intravenous clemastine cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in the oral cetirizine cohort (June 2022 and May 2023) and 183 in the intravenous clemastine cohort. HSR grade ≥3 incidence was 1.6% (n = 3) in the intravenous clemastine cohort and 0.5% (n = 1) in the oral cetirizine cohort, resulting in a difference of -1.2% (90% CI, -3.4 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: Premedication containing oral cetirizine is as safe as premedication containing intravenous clemastine in preventing paclitaxel-induced HSR grade ≥3. These findings could contribute to optimization of care for patients and improve efficiency and sustainability.

Real-world overall survival after alternative dosing for pembrolizumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A nationwide retrospective cohort study with a non-inferiority primary objective.

BACKGROUND: High and increasing expenses on pembrolizumab ask for more cost-effective and sustainable treatment strategies to improve affordability of healthcare. Therefore, a part of the Dutch hospitals implemented an alternative, partially lower, weight-based dosing protocol for pembrolizumab. This provided the unique opportunity to compare the overall survival (OS) of the alternative pembrolizumab dosing protocol to standard dosing using a nationwide registry in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study with a non-inferiority primary objective. Forty hospitals in the Dutch Medication Audit and Dutch Lung Cancer Audit treated 1966 patients with NSCLC with first line pembrolizumab (mono- or combination therapy) between Jan 1st 2021, and Mar 31st, 2023. Alternative weight-based pembrolizumab dosing (100/150/200 mg Q3W or 200/300/400 mg Q6W) was administered to 604 patients, and 1362 patients received standard pembrolizumab dosing (200 mg Q3W or 400 mg Q6W). A Cox proportional hazard model with selected covariates was used to compare the OS between alternative and standard dosing protocols. The non-inferiority margin was set at a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2 for OS. Non-inferiority is established by showing that the upper limit of the 95 % confidence interval (CI) of the HR of OS is smaller or equal to 1.2. RESULTS: Distribution of age (66.7 years +/-9.4), sex (45 % female) and treatment combinations were similar for both groups, comorbidity score was higher in the standard group. Median daily dose in the alternative dosing group was 22 % lower compared to the standard dosing group, 7.14 mg/day (interquartile range (IQR):5.48-8.04 mg/day) vs. 9.15 mg/day (IQR:8.33-9.52 mg/day), respectively. Alternative dosing was non-inferior to standard dosing regarding overall survival (adjusted HR 0.83, 95 %CI:0.69-1.003). CONCLUSION: This large, retrospective real-world analysis supports the hypothesis that the alternative, partially lower pembrolizumab dosing protocol in NSCLC maintains treatment effectiveness while reducing treatment costs.

The OCT2/MATE1 Interaction Between Trifluridine, Metformin and Cimetidine: A Crossover Pharmacokinetic Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Trifluridine/tipiracil, registered for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric and colorectal cancer, is a substrate and inhibitor for the organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and the multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1), which raises the potential for drug-drug interactions with other OCT2/MATE1 modulators. Therefore, we prospectively examined the effect of an OCT2/MATE1 inhibitor (cimetidine) and substrate (metformin) on the pharmacokinetics of trifluridine. METHODS: In this three-phase crossover study, patients with metastatic colorectal or gastric cancer were sequentially treated with trifluridine/tipiracil alone (phase A), trifluridine/tipiracil concomitant with metformin (phase B) and trifluridine/tipiracil concomitant with cimetidine (phase C). The primary endpoint was the relative difference in exposure of trifluridine assessed by the area under the curve from timepoint zero to infinity. A > 30% change in exposure was considered clinically relevant. A p-value of < 0.025 was considered significant because of a Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were included in the analysis. Metformin did not significantly alter the exposure to trifluridine (- 12.6%; 97.5% confidence interval - 25.0, 1.8; p = 0.045). Cimetidine did alter the exposure to trifluridine significantly (+ 18.0%; 97.5% confidence interval 4.5, 33.3; p = 0.004), but this increase did not meet our threshold for clinical relevance. Metformin trough concentrations were not influenced by trifluridine/tipiracil. CONCLUSIONS: Our result suggests that the OCT2/MATE1 modulators cimetidine and metformin can be co-administered with trifluridine/tipiracil without clinically relevant effects on drug exposure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL8067 (registered 04-10-2019).

Combatting the rising costs of cancer drugs; interventions from a university hospital's perspective.

Rapid increase in cost continues to have negative impact on patients' accessibility to life-changing anticancer medications. Moreover, the rising cost does not equate to similar increase in medication effectiveness. We recognise our responsibility as a university hospital to tackle this imbalance and strive to provide high quality, sustainable, affordable and accessible care. An active approach in cost containment of expensive and innovative cancer drugs was adopted in our organisation to safeguard accessibility and improve quality of life for patients. In this article, we described four inverventions: 1) identify right patient and minimise overtreatment, 2) in-house medicine production for selected indications, 3) minimise medicine spillages and 4) effective procurement strategies. We call on other hospitals to take action and, favourably, to collaborate on a European level. Together, we will safeguard the current and future care of our patients.

Evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for drug-drug interactions with anticancer drugs; A practical and universal tool for management.

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with anticancer drugs are common and can significantly affect efficacy and toxicity of treatment. Therefore, a Dutch Multidisciplinary Expert group is assessing the clinical significance of DDIs in oncology and provides recommendations for the management of these DDIs. We present an overview of methodology and outcome of an evidence- and consensus-based assessment of DDIs between anticancer drugs and non-anticancer drugs. A literature search was performed through PubMed and EMA and FDA assessment reports, to identify potential DDI's involving anticancer drugs. For each potential DDI a concept report for risk analysis and practical advice for management was created. Subsequently, this risk analysis and the corresponding advice were assessed and weighed. A total of 290 potential DDIs have been identified in the literature thus far. Of these 290 potential DDIs, the Expert Group has identified 94 (32%) DDIs as clinically relevant, with a need for an automated alert and a suggested intervention. Furthermore, 110 DDIs have been identified as clinically not relevant. For 86 potential DDIs evidence supporting a relevant DDI was insufficient and in these cases neither an alert nor advice regarding a suggested intervention were formulated. A transparent risk analysis is presented for identification of clinically relevant DDIs with anticancer drugs. Integration of DDI guidelines into the national electronic prescribing system is essential to achieve optimal efficacy and minimal toxicity in patients receiving anticancer therapy. A clear overview of clinically relevant DDIs with anticancer therapy provides clinicians with a structured, evidence-based and consensus-built tool for anticancer therapy surveillance.

Influence of esomeprazole on the bioavailability of afatinib: A pharmacokinetic cross-over study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Afatinib is an oral small-molecule kinase inhibitor (SMKI) approved for treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) driver mutation. Although oral administration is convenient, most SMKIs experience pH-dependent solubility. A drug-drug interaction between afatinib and proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) has, however, never been studied in humans. Hence, we performed a randomized, three-period cross-over study. Afatinib (30 mg or 40 mg) was administered without PPI (period A), concomitantly with esomeprazole (period B) and three hours after esomeprazole intake (period C). Primary objective was the area under the curve (AUC0-24 h) comparing period A to period B and period A to period C. Secondary objectives were other pharmacokinetic parameters and toxicity. Linear mixed effect modelling was performed for differences in AUC0-24 h and Cmax between periods A and B and periods A and C. In 18 evaluable NSCLC patients, concomitant use of 40 mg esomeprazole decreased the steady-state afatinib AUC0-24 h with 10.2% (95% CI -29.2 to +14.0%; p = 0.564) compared to afatinib administration without PPI. Esomeprazole intake three hours prior to afatinib did not significantly influence afatinib AUC0-24 h (-0.6%; 95% CI -14.9 to +16.1%; p = 1.0). No differences in toxicity were observed. To conclude, esomeprazole did not change the exposure to afatinib in patients with NSCLC. Since there is no clinically relevant drug-drug interaction, esomeprazole can safely be co-administered with afatinib. This is important for clinical practice, because other EGFR-SMKIs (e.g. erlotinib and gefitinib) do experience clinically relevant drug-drug interactions with acid-suppressive agents.

Combining Sorafenib and Immunosuppression in Liver Transplant Recipients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation occurs in approximately 20% of patients. Most of these patients use immunosuppressant drugs. Meanwhile, patients with HCC recurrence are frequently treated with the small molecule kinase inhibitor (SMKI) sorafenib. However, sorafenib and many immunosuppressants are substrates of the same enzymatic pathways (e.g., CYP3A4), which may potentially result in altered SMKI or immunosuppressant plasma levels. Therefore, we investigated changes in drug exposure of both sorafenib and immunosuppressants over time in four patients with systemic immunosuppressant and sorafenib treatment after HCC recurrence. In this study, sorafenib exposure declined over time during combined treatment with immunosuppressants, while two patients also experienced declining tacrolimus plasma levels. Importantly, patients were unable to increase the sorafenib dose higher than 200 mg b.i.d. without experiencing significant toxicity. We recommend to treat patients using both sorafenib and immunosuppressants with a sorafenib starting dose of 200 mg b.i.d.

Influence of Cow's Milk and Esomeprazole on the Absorption of Erlotinib: A Randomized, Crossover Pharmacokinetic Study in Lung Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Erlotinib's gastrointestinal solubility and absorption are decreased by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Since erlotinib is a lipophilic drug, we hypothesized that concomitant intake with the fatty beverage milk may be a feasible way to increase erlotinib uptake. We performed a two-period, randomized, crossover study to investigate the influence of cow's milk with 3.9% fat on the exposure of erlotinib with and without the PPI esomeprazole in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The effect of esomeprazole was studied in an additional intrapatient comparison. METHOD: Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 7 and 14 during 24 consecutive hours. During the 7 days prior to pharmacokinetic sampling, erlotinib was taken daily with 250 mL of either water or milk. In the PPI arm, esomeprazole (40 mg once daily 3 h prior to erlotinib) was taken for 3 days. RESULTS: Erlotinib area under the curve from time zero to 24 h (AUC24) did not significantly change when administered with milk, compared with water, in both non-PPI users (n = 14; - 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12 to 8%; p = 0.57) and patients who used esomeprazole (n = 15; 0%; 95% CI - 15 to 17%; p = 0.95). Esomeprazole decreased erlotinib AUC24 by 47% (n = 9; 95% CI - 57 to - 34%; p < 0.001) and Cmax by 56% (95% CI - 64 to - 46%; p < 0.001). No differences in toxicities were observed between milk and water. CONCLUSION: Milk with 3.9% fat has no effect on the exposure to erlotinib in NSCLC patients, independent of PPI use. The combination with milk is safe and well tolerated. Concomitant esomeprazole treatment strongly decreased both erlotinib AUC24 and Cmax and should be avoided if possible.

Potential drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among ambulatory cancer patients: a prevalence study using an advanced screening method.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacotherapeutic treatment of patients with cancer is generally associated with multiple side-effects. Drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions between anti-cancer drugs or interactions with medication to treat comorbidity can reinforce or intensify side-effects.The aim of the present study is to gain more insight into the prevalence of drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions among patients being treated in the outpatient day care departments for oncology and hematological illnesses. For the first time the prevalence of drug interactions with OTC-drugs in cancer patients will be studied. Possible risk factors for the occurrence of these drug-related problems will also be studied. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter cross-sectional observational study of the epidemiology of drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions is performed among all oncology and hemato-oncology patients treated with systemic anti-cancer drugs at the oncology and hematology outpatient day care department of the VU University medical center and the Zaans Medical Center. DISCUSSION: In this article the prevalence of potential drug interactions in outpatient day-care patients treated with anti-cancer agents is studied using a novel more extensive screening method. If this study shows a high prevalence of drug interactions clinical pharmacists and oncologists must collaborate to develop a pharmaceutical screening programme, including an automated electronic warning system, to support drug prescribing for ambulatory cancer patient. This programme could minimize the occurrence of drug related problems such as drug interactions and duplicate prescriptions, thereby increasing quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered, number NTR2238.

Influence of Probenecid on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Sorafenib.

Prior studies have demonstrated an organic anion transporter 6 (OAT6)-mediated accumulation of sorafenib in keratinocytes. The OAT6 inhibitor probenecid decreases sorafenib uptake in skin and might, therefore, decrease sorafenib-induced cutaneous adverse events. Here, the influence of probenecid on sorafenib pharmacokinetics and toxicity was investigated. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed in 16 patients on steady-state sorafenib treatment at days 1 and 15 of the study. Patients received sorafenib (200-800 mg daily) in combination with probenecid (500 mg two times daily (b.i.d.)) on days 2-15. This study was designed to determine bioequivalence with geometric mean Area under the curve from zero to twelve hours (AUC0-12 h) as primary endpoint. During concomitant probenecid, sorafenib plasma AUC0-12 h decreased by 27% (90% CI: -38% to -14%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, peak and trough levels of sorafenib, as well as sorafenib concentrations in skin, decreased to a similar extent in the presence of probenecid. The metabolic ratio of sorafenib-glucuronide to parent drug increased (+29%) in the presence of probenecid. A decrease in systemic sorafenib concentrations during probenecid administration seems to have influenced cutaneous concentrations. Since sorafenib-glucuronide concentrations increased compared with sorafenib and sorafenib-N-oxide, probenecid may have interrupted enterohepatic circulation of sorafenib by inhibition of the organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OATP1B1). Sorafenib treatment with probenecid is, therefore, not bioequivalent to sorafenib monotherapy. A clear effect of probenecid on sorafenib toxicity could not be identified in this study.

Clinically relevant drug interactions with multikinase inhibitors: a review.

Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), including the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), have rapidly become an established factor in daily (hemato)-oncology practice. Although the oral route of administration offers improved flexibility and convenience for the patient, challenges arise in the use of MKIs. As MKIs are prescribed extensively, patients are at increased risk for (severe) drug-drug interactions (DDIs). As a result of these DDIs, plasma pharmacokinetics of MKIs may vary significantly, thereby leading to high interpatient variability and subsequent risk for increased toxicity or a diminished therapeutic outcome. Most clinically relevant DDIs with MKIs concern altered absorption and metabolism. The absorption of MKIs may be decreased by concomitant use of gastric acid-suppressive agents (e.g. proton pump inhibitors) as many kinase inhibitors show pH-dependent solubility. In addition, DDIs concerning drug (uptake and efflux) transporters may be of significant clinical relevance during MKI therapy. Furthermore, since many MKIs are substrates for cytochrome P450 isoenzymes (CYPs), induction or inhibition with strong CYP inhibitors or inducers may lead to significant alterations in MKI exposure. In conclusion, DDIs are of major concern during MKI therapy and need to be monitored closely in clinical practice. Based on the current knowledge and available literature, practical recommendations for management of these DDIs in clinical practice are presented in this review.