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)

Pharmacokinetic boosting of olaparib:A randomised, cross-over study (PROACTIVE-study)

Background: Pharmacokinetic (PK) boosting is the intentional use of a drug-drug interaction to enhance systemic drug exposure. PK boosting of olaparib, a CYP3A-substrate, has the potential to reduce PK variability and financial burden. The aim of this study was to investigate equivalence of a boosted, reduced dose of olaparib compared to the non-boosted standard dose. Methods: This cross-over, multicentre trial compared olaparib 300 mg twice daily (BID) with olaparib 100 mg BID boosted with the strong CYP3A-inhibitor cobicistat 150 mg BID. Patients were randomised to the standard therapy followed by the boosted therapy, or vice versa. After seven days of each therapy, dense PK sampling was performed for noncompartmental PK analysis. Equivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the boosted versus standard therapy area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0–12 h) within no-effect boundaries. These boundaries were set at 0.57–1.25, based on previous pharmacokinetic studies with olaparib capsules and tablets. Results: Of 15 included patients, 12 were eligible for PK analysis. The GMR of the AUC0–12 h was 1.45 (90% CI 1.27–1.65). No grade ≥3 adverse events were reported during the study. Conclusions: Boosting a 100 mg BID olaparib dose with cobicistat increases olaparib exposure 1.45-fold, compared to the standard dose of 300 mg BID. Equivalence of the boosted olaparib was thus not established. Boosting remains a promising strategy to reduce the olaparib dose as cobicistat increases olaparib exposure Adequate tolerability of the boosted therapy with higher exposure should be established.</p

Support systems to guide clinical decision-making in precision oncology: The Cancer Core Europe Molecular Tumor Board Portal.

To the editor: the optimal management of cancer patients is increasingly dependent on individualized treatments guided by tumor sequencing data. As comprehensive genomic tests become routine in many disease settings and academic centers promote omics-guided clinical trial recruitment, accurate and scalable data interpretation represents a major challenge. The meticulous task of matching tumor alterations with approved or experimental therapies relies heavily on the expertise of each center

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

Pharmacokinetic boosting of olaparib: A randomised, cross-over study (PROACTIVE-study)

Background: Pharmacokinetic (PK) boosting is the intentional use of a drug-drug interaction to enhance systemic drug exposure. PK boosting of olaparib, a CYP3A-substrate, has the potential to reduce PK variability and financial burden. The aim of this study was to investigate equivalence of a boosted, reduced dose of olaparib compared to the non-boosted standard dose. Methods: This cross-over, multicentre trial compared olaparib 300 mg twice daily (BID) with olaparib 100 mg BID boosted with the strong CYP3A-inhibitor cobicistat 150 mg BID. Patients were randomised to the standard therapy followed by the boosted therapy, or vice versa. After seven days of each therapy, dense PK sampling was performed for noncompartmental PK analysis. Equivalence was defined as a 90% Confidence Interval (CI) of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the boosted versus standard therapy area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0–12 h) within no-effect boundaries. These boundaries were set at 0.57–1.25, based on previous pharmacokinetic studies with olaparib capsules and tablets. Results: Of 15 included patients, 12 were eligible for PK analysis. The GMR of the AUC0–12 h was 1.45 (90% CI 1.27–1.65). No grade ≥3 adverse events were reported during the study. Conclusions: Boosting a 100 mg BID olaparib dose with cobicistat increases olaparib exposure 1.45-fold, compared to the standard dose of 300 mg BID. Equivalence of the boosted olaparib was thus not established. Boosting remains a promising strategy to reduce the olaparib dose as cobicistat increases olaparib exposure Adequate tolerability of the boosted therapy with higher exposure should be established

Hyperglycaemia during treatment with everolimus

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is an orally administered anti-cancer drug that inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction route. Use of everolimus may be associated with insulin resistance, manifesting in impaired glucose tolerance or hyperglycaemia. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 74-year-old female patient with a locally recurrent breast cancer developed hyperglycaemia, which started 2 weeks after the initiation of treatment with everolimus 10 mg once daily. Metformin and insulin were administered to restore normoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: At the initiation of treatment with an mTOR inhibitor such as everolimus the treating physician should be aware of the occurrence of hyperglycaemia. Metformin is then the medicine of first choice

Hyperglykemie bij gebruik van everolimus

BACKGROUND: Everolimus is an orally administered anti-cancer drug that inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signal transduction route. Use of everolimus may be associated with insulin resistance, manifesting in impaired glucose tolerance or hyperglycaemia. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 74-year-old female patient with a locally recurrent breast cancer developed hyperglycaemia, which started 2 weeks after the initiation of treatment with everolimus 10 mg once daily. Metformin and insulin were administered to restore normoglycaemia. CONCLUSION: At the initiation of treatment with an mTOR inhibitor such as everolimus the treating physician should be aware of the occurrence of hyperglycaemia. Metformin is then the medicine of first choice

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualization to improve patient safety of fluoropyrimidine therapy : call for a drug label update

The fluoropyrimidine anticancer drugs, especially 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine, are frequently prescribed for several types of cancer, including breast, colorectal, head and neck and gastric cancer. In the current drug labels of 5-FU and capecitabine in the European Union and the United States, no adaptive dosing strategies are incorporated for polymorphic metabolism of 5-FU. Although treatment with fluoropyrimidines is generally well tolerated, a major clinical limitation is that a proportion of the treated population experiences severe, sometimes life-threatening, fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. This toxicity is strongly affected by interindividual variability in activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the main metabolic enzyme for inactivation of fluoropyrimidines, with an estimated 3%-8% of the population being partially DPD deficient. A reduced functional or abrogated DPD enzyme is often caused by genetic polymorphisms in DPYD, the gene encoding for DPD, and heterozygous carriers of such DPYD polymorphisms have a partial DPD deficiency. When these partially DPD deficient patients are treated with a full dose of fluoropyrimidines, they are generally exposed to toxic levels of 5-FU and its metabolites, and the risk of developing severe treatment-related toxicity is therefore significantly increased.Currently, functional and clinical validity is well established for four DPYD variants (DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A), as those variants have retrospectively and in a large population study prospectively been shown to be associated with increased risk of fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. Patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment can be significantly improved by pre-emptive screening for DPYD genotype variants and dose reductions in heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, thereby normalizing 5-FU exposure. Based on the critical appraisal of currently available data, adjusting the labels of capecitabine and 5-FU by including recommendations on pre-emptive screening for DPYD variants and DPYD genotype-guided dose adjustments should be the new standard of care

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualization to improve patient safety of fluoropyrimidine therapy : call for a drug label update

The fluoropyrimidine anticancer drugs, especially 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine, are frequently prescribed for several types of cancer, including breast, colorectal, head and neck and gastric cancer. In the current drug labels of 5-FU and capecitabine in the European Union and the United States, no adaptive dosing strategies are incorporated for polymorphic metabolism of 5-FU. Although treatment with fluoropyrimidines is generally well tolerated, a major clinical limitation is that a proportion of the treated population experiences severe, sometimes life-threatening, fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity. This toxicity is strongly affected by interindividual variability in activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), the main metabolic enzyme for inactivation of fluoropyrimidines, with an estimated 3%-8% of the population being partially DPD deficient. A reduced functional or abrogated DPD enzyme is often caused by genetic polymorphisms in DPYD, the gene encoding for DPD, and heterozygous carriers of such DPYD polymorphisms have a partial DPD deficiency. When these partially DPD deficient patients are treated with a full dose of fluoropyrimidines, they are generally exposed to toxic levels of 5-FU and its metabolites, and the risk of developing severe treatment-related toxicity is therefore significantly increased.Currently, functional and clinical validity is well established for four DPYD variants (DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A), as those variants have retrospectively and in a large population study prospectively been shown to be associated with increased risk of fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. Patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment can be significantly improved by pre-emptive screening for DPYD genotype variants and dose reductions in heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, thereby normalizing 5-FU exposure. Based on the critical appraisal of currently available data, adjusting the labels of capecitabine and 5-FU by including recommendations on pre-emptive screening for DPYD variants and DPYD genotype-guided dose adjustments should be the new standard of care