Effect of lapatinib on oral digoxin absorption in patients

The potential for an interaction between lapatinib and absorption of the P-glycoprotein (ABCB1) substrate digoxin at a therapeutic dose in breast cancer patients was characterized. Seventeen women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer received a single oral 0.5-mg dose of digoxin on days 1 and 9 and oral lapatinib 1500 mg once daily on days 2 through 9. Digoxin pharmacokinetic parameters were determined on day 1 (digoxin administration alone) and on day 9 (coadministration of lapatinib and digoxin), and parameters were compared to determine the effects of lapatinib on digoxin absorption. Concomitant medications that could affect ABCB1 were accounted for. Lapatinib 1500 mg/day increased digoxin absorption approximately 80%, implicating lapatinib inhibition of intestinal ABCB1-mediated efflux. In summary, coadministration of lapatinib with narrow therapeutic index drugs that are substrates of ABCB1 should be undertaken with caution and dose adjustment should be considered

Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300

Background: There currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC. Patients and methods: Patients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–1.4]; P= 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4–2.2); P> 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm. Conclusions: Treatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623