Is there truly an increase in risk of cardiovascular and hematological adverse events with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors?

Cardiotoxicity of Selected Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most frequent malignant neoplasms of the kidney. The therapeutic options available for the treatment of advanced or metastatic RCC include vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted molecules, for example, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Various VEGFR-TKIs proved to be effective in the treatment of patients with solid tumours. The combination of two drugs may prove most beneficial in the treatment of metastatic RCC; however, it also enhances the risk of toxicity compared to monotherapy. Specific VEGFR-TKIs (e.g., sunitinib, sorafenib or pazopanib) may increase the rate of cardiotoxicity in metastatic settings. VEGF inhibitors modulate multiple signalling pathways; thus, the identification of the mechanism underlying cardiotoxicity appears challenging. VEGF signalling is vital for the maintenance of cardiomyocyte homeostasis and cardiac function; therefore, its inhibition can be responsible for the reported adverse effects. Disturbed growth factor signalling pathways may be associated with endothelial dysfunction, impaired revascularization, the development of dilated cardiomyopathy, cardiac hypertrophies and altered peripheral vascular load. Patients at high cardiovascular risk at baseline could benefit from clinical follow-up in the first 2-4 weeks after the introduction of targeted molecular therapy; however, there is no consensus concerning the surveillance strategy.

Risk of Thromboembolic Events and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Following Antivascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy has been a standard treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the risk of thromboembolic events and cardiovascular events associated with this therapy remains controversial. We assessed whether anti-VEGF therapy increases the risk of thromboembolic events or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with colorectal cancer based on real-world evidence. This retrospective cohort study was designed using linked 2009-2016 nationwide databases, including the Taiwan Cancer Registry, the National Health Insurance Research Database, and Taiwan's National Death Index. In total, 189,708 patients newly diagnosed as having advanced colorectal cancer from 2009 to 2016 were identified and categorized into the anti-VEGF and comparator groups through age, sex, clinical stage, and diagnosis date (within 180 days) matching. Propensity score matching was further performed to balance the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to create the cumulative incidence curves of thromboembolic events and MACEs, and log-rank tests were used to compare the differences in Kaplan-Meier curves. Competing hazard ratios (HRs) for thromboembolic events and MACEs were estimated using the Fine-Gray method when considering the competing event of death. Statistical analysis was performed using two-tailed tests with a significance level of 0.05. In total, 4635 patients were included in both the anti-VEGF group and comparator group. The risk of thromboembolic events and MACEs did not differ significantly between the two groups. After propensity score matching, the adjusted HR for MACEs or thromboembolic events was 1.040, which for MACEs was 0.989, and that for thromboembolic events was 1.028. The competing HR for MACEs or thromboembolic events was 0.921, which for MACEs, was 0.862, and that for thromboembolic events was 0.908. In conclusion, patients with advanced colorectal cancer who received anti-VEGF therapy did not exhibit significantly higher risks of thromboembolic events and MACEs than those without anti-VEGF therapy. Our study provides real-world evidence regarding the safety of anti-VEGF therapy in Asian patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Real-world safety profiles of pirfenidone and nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patients

INTRODUCTION

While pirfenidone and nintedanib have greatly influenced the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), both drugs have significant early adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and almost nothing is known of their rare and delayed ADRs. We collected and analyzed pirfenidone- or nintedanib-related ADRs identified in a French rare lung disease center, recorded their profiles and identified potential safety signals.

METHODS

We analyzed the medical records of IPF patients treated with pirfenidone or nintedanib between January, 2011 and January, 2020 at the Rennes University Hospital to estimate the incidence of serious and non-serious ADRs cases due to each drug and the incidence of ADRs involving the cardiovascular, hepatobiliary, gastro-intestinal, dermatological, and metabolic/nutritional systems.

RESULTS

The 176 patients included 115 (65%) initially treated with pirfenidone and 61 (35%) given nintedanib. ADRs occurred in 78.3% of those given pirfenidone and in 70.5% of those given nintedanib. The incidence of first serious ADRs cases was about 33 per 100 person-years (100 PY) for both drugs; first non-serious pirfenidone ADRs cases were 102 per 100 PY and 130 per 100 PY for nintedanib. The incidence involving each organ system were quite similar, except for the gastro-intestinal and skin disorders. Cardiovascular disorders occurred in about 10 cases per 100 PY in both pirfenidone and nintedanib patients.

DISCUSSION

Most ADRs were consistent with the expected antifibrotic drug safety profiles. As arterial and venous thromboembolic events are rare, it is important to assess the risk associated with using antifibrotics by a dedicated pharmacoepidemiological study.

Comparative evaluation of cardiovascular risks among nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs in patients with solid tumors: a Bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

The present meta-analysis study was performed to identify the potential cardiotoxicity risks when using Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) as anticancer drugs in patients with solid tumors.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials. We have included 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) associated with nine VEGFR-TKIs Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs used to treat patients with solid tumors. To evaluate the trials’ risk of bias, Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was assessed. A direct comparison was assessed by RevMan5.3 software, calculating the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was tested by the I² statistic and Chi-square test for P value. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 15.0 and GeMTC 0.14.3 software, calculated OR along with corresponding 95% credible interval (CrI). The model’s convergence was evaluated by the potential scale reduced factor (PSRF). Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons was assessed by the “node-splitting” method.

Results

In this network meta-analysis, a total of 20,027 patients from 45 randomized controlled trials and associated with nine FDA-approved VEGFR-TKIs (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, nintedanib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib), were enrolled. Findings indicated that lenvatinib had the most significant probability of provoking all grades cardiovascular incident and hypertension, followed by vandetanib, cabozantinib, axitinib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, regorafenib and nintedanib. The nine agent’s severe cardiovascular and severe hypertension risk was probably similar. The ranking probability of cardiac toxicity shows that vandetanib ranked most likely to have the highest risk for cardiotoxicity among all the VEGFR-TKIs reviewed, followed by pazopanib, axitinib, sorafenib, sunitinib. In contrast, regorafenib and nintedanib did not exhibit an increased risk of cardiac damage.

Conclusions

The association between the nine VEGFR-TKIs with potential cardiotoxicity occurrence was reviewed. Both the regorafenib and nintedanib did not display detectable signs of cardiotoxic damage. In contrast, lenvatinib and vandetanib are ranked to have the most severe cardiotoxicity side impacts. These results may provide information for clinical practice guidelines, implementing strategies in selecting the adequate VEGFR-TKIs, and understanding the cardiovascular toxicity inflicted by the VEGFR-TKIs.

PROSPERO identifier

CRD 42,020,167,307.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00432-021-03521-w.