The Use of Microdosing for In vivo Phenotyping of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes: Where Do We Stand? A Narrative Review.

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes play a central role in the elimination of approximately 80% of all clinically used drugs. Differences in CYP enzyme activity between individuals can contribute to interindividual variability in exposure and, therefore, treatment outcome. In vivo CYP enzyme activity could be determined with phenotyping. Currently, (sub)therapeutic doses are used for in vivo phenotyping, which can lead to side effects. The use of microdoses (100 µg) for in vivo phenotyping for CYP enzymes could overcome the limitations associated with the use of (sub)therapeutic doses of substrates. The aim of this review is to provide a critical overview of the application of microdosing for in vivo phenotyping of CYP enzymes. A literature search was performed to find drug-drug interaction studies of CYP enzyme substrates that used microdoses of the respective substrates. A substrate was deemed sensitive to changes in CYP enzyme activity when the pharmacokinetics of the substrate significantly changed during inhibition and induction of the enzyme. On the basis of the currently available evidence, the use of microdosing for in vivo phenotyping for subtypes CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP2E1 is not recommended. Microdosing can be used for the in vivo phenotyping of CYP2C19 and CYP3A. The recommended microdose phenotyping test for CYP2C19 is measuring the omeprazole area-under-the-concentration-time curve over 24 h (AUC0-24) after administration of a single 100 µg dose. CYP3A activity could be best determined with a 0.1-75 µg dose of midazolam, and subsequently measuring AUC extrapolated to infinity (AUC∞) or clearance. Moreover, there are two metrics available for midazolam using a limited sampling strategy: AUC over 10 h (AUC0-10) and AUC from 2 to 4 h (AUC2-4).

Is Higher Docetaxel Clearance in Prostate Cancer Patients Explained by Higher CYP3A? An In Vivo Phenotyping Study with Midazolam.

Patients with prostate cancer (PCa) have a lower docetaxel exposure for both intravenous (1.8-fold) and oral administration (2.4-fold) than patients with other solid cancers, which could influence efficacy and toxicity. An altered metabolism by cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) due to castration status might explain the observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics. In this in vivo phenotyping, pharmacokinetic study, CYP3A activity defined by midazolam clearance (CL) was compared between patients with PCa and male patients with other solid tumors. All patients with solid tumors who did not use CYP3A-modulating drugs were eligible for participation. Patients received 2 mg midazolam orally and 1 mg midazolam intravenously on 2 consecutive days. Plasma concentrations were measured with a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Genotyping was performed for CYP3A4 and CYP3A5. Nine patients were included in each group. Oral midazolam CL was 1.26-fold higher in patients with PCa compared to patients with other solid tumors (geometric mean [coefficient of variation], 94.1 [33.5%] L/h vs 74.4 [39.1%] L/h, respectively; P = .08). Intravenous midazolam CL did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (P = .93). Moreover, the metabolic ratio of midazolam to 1'-hydroxy midazolam did not differ between the 2 groups for both oral administration (P = .67) and intravenous administration (P = .26). CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genotypes did not influence midazolam pharmacokinetics. The observed difference in docetaxel pharmacokinetics between both patient groups therefore appears to be explained neither by a difference in midazolam CL nor by a difference in metabolic conversion rate of midazolam.

Internet-Purchased Sodium Azide Used in a Fatal Suicide Attempt: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

There has been a significant increase in sodium azide intoxications since the 1980s. Intoxications caused by sodium azide are becoming increasingly prevalent in the Netherlands as a result of its promotion for the purpose of self-euthanasia. The mechanism of toxicity is not completely understood but is dose-dependent. The presented case describes a suicide by sodium azide of a young woman (26 years old) with a history of depression and suicide attempts. The decedent was found in the presence of prescription medicine, including temazepam, domperidone in combination with omeprazole, and the chemical preservative sodium azide. Quantitative toxicology screening of whole blood revealed the presence of 70 µg/L temazepam (toxic range > 1000 µg/L) and 28 mg/L sodium azide (fatal range: 2.6-262 mg/L). Whole blood qualitative analysis revealed the presence of temazepam, temazepam-glucuronide, olanzapine, n-desmethylolanzapine, and acetaminophen. In circles promoting sodium azide, it is recommended to use sodium azide in combination with medications targeting sodium azide's negative effects, such as analgesics, antiemetics, and anti-anxiety drugs. The medicines recovered at the body's location, as well as the results of the toxicology screens, were consistent with the recommendations of self-euthanasia using sodium azide.

Development of a Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Strategy for the Optimization of Vincristine Treatment in Pediatric Oncology Populations in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have reported ethnic differences in vincristine exposure and outcomes such as toxicity. This resulted in the hypothesis of subtherapeutic dosing in African children. To optimize individual treatment, a strategy to identify subtherapeutic exposure using therapeutic drug monitoring is essential. The aim of the current study was to develop a strategy for therapeutic drug monitoring of vincristine in African children to meet the following criteria: (1) identify patients with low vincristine exposure with sufficient sensitivity (>70%), (2) determine vincristine exposure with a limited sampling strategy design of 3 samples, and (3) allow all samples to be collected within 4 hours after administration. METHODS: An in silico simulation study was performed using a previously described population pharmacokinetic model and real-life demographic dataset of Kenyan and Malawian pediatric oncology patients. Two different therapeutic drug monitoring strategies were evaluated: (1) Bayesian approach and (2) pharmacometric nomogram. The sampling design was optimized using the constraints described above. Sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the influence of missing samples, erroneous sampling times, and different boundaries on the nomogram weight bands. RESULTS: With the Bayesian approach, 43.3% of the estimated individual exposure values had a prediction error of ≥20% owing to extremely high shrinkage. The Bayesian approach did not improve with alternative sampling designs within sampling constraints. However, the pharmacometric nomogram could identify patients with low vincristine exposure with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 75.1%, 76.4%, and 75.9%, respectively. The pharmacometric nomogram performed similarly for different weight bands. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacometric nomogram was able to identify patients with low vincristine exposure with high sensitivity, with 3 blood samples collected at 1, 1.5, and 4 hours after administration. Missing samples should be avoided, and the 3 scheduled samples should be collected within 15, 5, and 15 minutes of 1, 1.5, and 4 hours after administration, respectively.

A sensitive liquid chromatographic-mass spectrometry method for the quantification of vincristine in whole blood collected with volumetric absorptive microsampling.

Vincristine is a well-established cytotoxic drug. In paediatric populations blood collection via venipuncture is not always feasible. Volumetric absorptive microsampling (VAMS) is a less invasive method for blood collection. Furthermore, VAMS lacks the haematocrit effect on the recovery known with dried blood spots. Therefore, a liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry method was developed and validated for the quantification of vincristine in whole blood collected with VAMS devices. Sample preparation consisted of solid-liquid extraction with 0.2% formic acid in water and acetonitrile. The final extract was injected on a C18 column (2.0 ×50 mm, 5 µm). Gradient elution was used and quantification was accomplished with a triple quadruple mass spectrometer operating in the positive mode. The validated concentration range was from 1 to 50 ng/mL with an intra- and inter-accuracy and precision of ± 10.3% and ≤ 7.3%, respectively. This method was able to successfully quantify vincristine concentrations in whole blood collected with VAMS from paediatric oncology patients. Vincristine concentrations in whole blood were non-linearly associated with plasma concentrations, which could be described with a saturable binding equilibrium model.

Comparison of docetaxel pharmacokinetics between castration-resistant and hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Recently, docetaxel treatment of metastatic prostate cancer patients shifted towards the hormone-sensitive stage of the disease. There are contradictive reports on differences in toxicity of docetaxel in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Possible differences in toxicity might be attributed to different pharmacokinetics (PK) in the two patient populations. METHODS: Patients with mCRPC or mHSPC and a standard indication for docetaxel treatment were included in the study. All patients had suppressed serum testosterone levels (≤ 0.5 ng/mL or 1.73 nmol/L). Venous blood samples were obtained at the first docetaxel treatment, until 48 h after infusion. Plasma concentrations of docetaxel, unbound docetaxel and docetaxel metabolites were measured using validated liquid chromatography coupled tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assays and compared between the two groups. Moreover, serum levels of docetaxel transporting α1-acid glycoprotein were measured and docetaxel toxicity recorded. RESULTS: A total of ten mCRPC and nine mHSPC patients were included in the study. The two cohorts differed in the number of prior treatments and opiate use, which were higher for mCRPC patients. The docetaxel PK was not different between mCRPC and mHSPC patients, with areas under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC0-48) 1710 [coefficient of variation (CV) 28.4%] and 1486 (CV 25.2%) ng/mL*h (p = 0.27), respectively. Also, the PK profile of unbound docetaxel, M1/M3, M2 and M4 metabolites were similar in both groups. Docetaxel doses were reduced in 50% of the mCRPC patients and 11% of the mHSPC patients. CONCLUSION: The PK profile of docetaxel was similar in mCPRC and mHSPC patients. Therefore, possible differences in toxicity between mCRPC and mHSPC patients cannot be explained by differences in docetaxel PK in our study population. These results suggest that treatment adaptations are not recommended in the new population of patients with mHSPC.

Pharmacokinetics of docetaxel and ritonavir after oral administration of ModraDoc006/r in patients with prostate cancer versus patients with other advanced solid tumours.

PURPOSE: ModraDoc006 is a novel oral formulation of docetaxel. The clearance of intravenous docetaxel is higher in medically castrated prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours. Oral docetaxel requires co-administration ritonavir (r), which might further impact the pharmacokinetics (PK). We now compare the PK of docetaxel and ritonavir between patients with Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer (HSPC), metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) and other metastatic solid tumours, treated on the same dose and weekly schedule of ModraDoc006/r. METHODS: The docetaxel and ritonavir PK were compared between four patient groups from three clinical phase I trials, including eight male and eight female patients with different types of solid tumours (study 1), seven patients with HSPC (study 2) and five patients with mCRPC (study 3). All patients were treated with ModraDoc006 30 mg and ritonavir 100 mg in the morning, followed by ModraDoc006 20 mg and ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100). For comparative purposes, the PK of six mCRPC patients that received 30-20/200-100 in study 3 were also evaluated. RESULTS: The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was significantly lower for both docetaxel and ritonavir in the prostate cancer patients as compared to the patients with other types of solid tumours treated at ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100. The docetaxel area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) was significantly different at this dose, with a mean AUC0-48 of 1359 ± 374 ng/mL*h (N = 8) in female patients and 894 ± 223 ng/mL*h (N = 8) in male patients with different solid tumours (study 1), 321 ± 81 (N = 7) in HSPC (study 2) and 367 ± 182 ng/mL*h (N = 5) in mCRPC (study 3). A similar pattern was observed for ritonavir. ModraDoc006/r 30-20/200-100 in six mCRPC patients led to a comparable ritonavir exposure as compared to the patients at 30-20/100-100 in study 1 and increased the docetaxel AUC0-48 to 1266 ± 473 ng/mL*h (N = 6). CONCLUSION: The exposure to docetaxel and ritonavir was significantly lower in prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours, treated on ModraDoc006/r 30-20/100-100. An increase of the ritonavir dose increased the docetaxel exposure in mCRPC patients. Therefore, a different RP2D of ModraDoc006/r is pursued in castrated prostate cancer patients as compared to patients with other types of solid tumours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study 1: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01173913, date of registration August 2, 2010. Study 2: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03066154, date of registration February 28, 2017. Study 3: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03136640, date of registration May 2, 2017.