Prevalence, Attributes, and Risk Factors of QT-Interval-Prolonging Drugs and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Introduction Cancer chemotherapy regimens include multiple classes of adjuvant drugs as supportive therapy. Because of the concurrent intake of other drugs (like antiemetics, antidepressants, analgesics, and antimicrobials), there is a heightened risk for possible QT interval prolongation. There is a dearth of evidence in the literature regarding the usage of QT-prolonging anticancer drugs and associated risk factors that have the propensity to prolong QT interval. The purpose was to explore the extent of the use of QT-interval-prolonging drugs and potential QT-prolonging drug-drug interactions (QT-DDIs) in cancer patients attending OPD in a tertiary-care hospital. Methods This was a hospital-based, cross-sectional, observational study. Risk stratification of QT-prolonging drugs for torsades de pointes (TdP) was done by the Arizona Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (AzCERT)/CredibleMeds-lists, and potential QT-DDIs were determined with four online DDI-checker-software. Results In 1331 cancer patients, the overall prevalence of potential QT-prolonging drug utilization was 97.3%. Ondansetron, pantoprazole, domperidone, and olanzapine were the most frequent QT-prolonging drugs in cancer patients. The top six antineoplastics with potential QT-prolonging and torsadogenic actions were capecitabine, oxaliplatin, imatinib, bortezomib, 5-fluorouracil, and bendamustine. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are imperative for cancer patients. Conclusion This study revealed a high prevalence of QT-prolonging drugs and QT-DDIs among cancer patients who are treated with anticancer and non-anticancer drugs. As a result, it's critical to take precautions, stay vigilant, and avoid QT-prolonging in clinical situations. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are needed for cancer patients.

Dietary strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A systematic review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most distressing cancer treatment side effects, affecting 20-70% of patients despite routine antiemetic prescription. Although dietary modifications are routinely recommended in clinical practice, there is lack of data synthesis to determine which dietary strategies for managing CINV are supported by quality evidence. This systematic review was conducted to examine the effect of dietary strategies on incidence and severity of CINV in adults compared with no intervention, usual care, or alternative strategies.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched from inception to 15th July 2021 for original research studies of interventional or observational design assessing dietary strategies for CINV. The quality of evidence was appraised, data were synthesized narratively, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment of the certainty of the evidence was applied.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, 10 (48%) interventional studies and 11 (52%) observational studies. Most interventional and observational studies had a high or neutral risk of bias (70% and 72%, respectively). Of the interventions studied, strongest evidence with highest certainty was found for the very large positive effect of CINV-specific education and support with a personalized meal plan from a dietician, implemented in person or in writing, for reducing the severity of nausea and overall CINV (effect size: very large; GRADE: high). A statistically significant very large positive effect of ginger tea consumption was also found on overall CINV severity; however, certainty in this effect was very low. Although confidence in the findings from observational studies was very low to low, a statistically significant positive association was also found between a moderate intake of alcohol and incidence of nausea, vomiting, or overall CINV as well as nausea severity; the Mediterranean diet and nausea incidence and severity; and adequate intake of energy, protein, fat, or carbohydrate and nausea or vomiting incidence.

CONCLUSION

Improved CINV was associated with CINV-specific nutrition education and support from health professionals. Non-restrictive dietary patterns that include adequate energy and macronutrient intakes, particularly protein, and include ginger, and Mediterranean diet concepts may benefit CINV; however, the confidence in the body of evidence to inform these conclusions is mostly very low to moderate. Future rigorous trials with adequate sample sizes, clearly defined dietary strategies, and valid outcome measures are warranted prior to dietary strategies being routinely prescribed alongside antiemetic regimens.

Prevalence of Potential Pharmacological Interactions in Patients Undergoing Systemic Chemotherapy in a Tertiary Hospital

Introduction: Pharmacological interactions are frequently observed in patients with chronic diseases, and their occurrence is proportional to the amount of medication used daily. Patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment commonly have comorbidities, which favor a greater prevalence of polypharmacy, increasing the risk of drug interactions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of drug interactions in patients undergoing intravenous chemotherapy treated at a hospital oncology service in southern Brazil. Methods: This was an observational study with a cross-sectional design that was carried out with the analysis of secondary data obtained through the review of medical records. The population assessed consisted of all cancer patients who received intravenous chemotherapy from October to December 2020. Results: Out of the 297 patients included in the study, 231 (77.8%) had at least 1 potential pharmacological interaction. In total, 1044 drug interactions were found that were classified according to severity, resulting in 18 (1.7%) contraindicated drug-drug interactions (DDI), 699 (67%) severe, 281 (26.9%) moderate, and 46 (4.4%) minor interactions. There was an association between polypharmacy and the prevalence of drug interactions. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that a large percentage of patients undergoing chemotherapy are susceptible to drug interactions. Thus, it is necessary that prescribers consider all drugs used by patients and, when possible, prescribe alternative drugs that have less potential for interaction in order to prevent drug interactions adverse effects and provide a better prognosis for patients.

Potential Drug Interactions Between Psychotropics and Intravenous Chemotherapeutics Used by Patients With Cancer

Introduction: Patients undergoing cancer treatment usually have comorbidities, and psychiatric disorders are commonly seen in these patients. For the treatment of these psychiatric disorders, the use of psychotropic drugs is common, turning these patients susceptible to untoward drug interactions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions (DDI) between chemotherapeutic and psychotropic agents in patients with cancer treated at an oncology service in southern Brazil. Methods: An observational epidemiological study with a cross-sectional census-type design was carried out between October and December 2020. The drug-drug interactions were identified through consultation and analysis of the Medscape Drug Interaction Check and Micromedex databases. The interactions were classified as major, when the interaction can be fatal and/or require medical intervention to avoid or minimize serious adverse effects and moderate, when the interaction can exacerbate the patient's condition and/or requires changes in therapy. Results: A total of 74 patients was included in the study among the 194 patients seen in the oncology service during the period studied. A total of 24 (32.4%) DDIs were found, 21 (87.5%) of which were classified as being of major risk and 3 (12.5%) as moderate risk. According to the mechanism of action, 19 (79.1%) were classified as pharmacodynamic interactions and 5 (20.9%) as pharmacokinetic interactions. Conclusion: It was shown that a considerable percentage of patients undergoing intravenous chemotherapy are at risk of pharmacological interaction with psychotropic drugs. Thus, it is essential that the oncologist considers all psychotropic drugs and other drugs used by patients in order to avoid drug-drug interactions.

A comprehensive evaluation of potentially significant drug-drug, drug-herb, and drug-food interactions among cancer patients receiving anticancer drugs

INTRODUCTION

During the cancer treatment path, cancer patients use numerous drugs, including anticancer, supportive, and other prescribed medications, along with herbs and certain products. This puts them at risk of significant drug interactions (DIs). This study describes DIs in cancer patients and their prevalence and predictors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was used to achieve the study objectives. The study was carried out in two centers in the northern West Bank, Palestine. The Lexicomp® Drug Interactions tool (Lexi-Comp, Hudson OH, USA) was applied to check the potential DIs. In addition, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to show the results and find the associations.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 327 patients. Most of the participants were older than 50 years (61.2%), female (68.5%), and had a solid tumor (74.6%). The total number of potential DIs was 1753, including 1510 drug-drug interactions (DDIs), 24 drug-herb interactions, and 219 drug-food interactions. Importantly, the prevalence of DDIs was 88.1%. In multivariate analysis, the number of potential DDIs significantly decreased with the duration of treatment (p = 0.007), while it increased with the number of comorbidities (p < 0.001) and the number of drugs used (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a high prevalence of DIs among cancer patients. This required health care providers to develop a comprehensive protocol to monitor and evaluate DIs by improving doctor-pharmacist communication and supporting the role of clinical pharmacists.

The Prevalence of Polypharmacy and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions among Iranian Cancer Patients: which Patients Were at Risk?

INTRODUCTION

Drug-Drug interactions (DDIs) are one of the considerable consequences of polypharmacy. Due to the influence of polypharmacy and drug interactions on cancer treatment and patients` health outcomes, the present study aimed to determine the prevalence of polypharmacy and potential DDIs among adult cancer patients in Kerman province, southeast of Iran.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 315 cancer patients who referred to Kerman city oncology clinics were assessed in 2018. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews and medical charts were reviewed. Polypharmacy was defined as the use of at least five drugs simultaneously. Potential DDIs were checked using the "Drugs.com" online database. A bivariable and a multivariable logistic regression were used to determine the associated factors of outcome variables, polypharmacy status and potential DDI in SPSS software version 23.

RESULTS

Of 315 cancer patients, 191 patients (60.6%; 95% CI:54.9, 66) used at least five drugs during chemotherapy courses. The prevalence of potential DDIs was 59.6% (n = 140, 95% CI: 53.6-66.0. Experience co-morbid diseases (OR:6.60; 95%CI: 3.82, 11.42; P-value ≤0.0001), and positive metastatic status (OR:2.80; 95%CI: 1.62, 4.82; P-value ≤0.0001) could predict the polypharmacy during chemotherapy courses. Patients who suffered gastrointestinal cancers (OR:5.55; 95%CI: 2.26, 13.62; P-value ≤0.0001) and the number of prescribed or Over The Counter (OTC) drugs (OR:1.29; 95%CI: 1.12, 1.48; P-value <0.0001) predicted the occurrence of potential DDIs among cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the high prevalence of polypharmacy and potential drug interactions among Iranian cancer patients during chemotherapy courses, it is advisable for physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to be vigilant to improve prescribing patterns. In addition, with intensive monitoring, alternative treatment strategies can be replaced.

New drugs and pharmacological interactions in real life

A high number of new drugs have entered clinical development and many of them have recently been approved for patients with lymphoid malignancies. The availability of new drugs offers additional treatment options, but it also requires particular attention for the emergence of adverse events. In addition, new drugs may also have interactions with other drugs, which could further increase the risk of toxicities or result in decreased efficacy. Here we review potential drug interactions for nonchemotherapy new drugs approved for patients with lymphoid malignancies.

Medication errors in hematology-oncology ward by consultation: The role of the clinical pharmacologist

Background

The aim was to describe, evaluate and document the prevention of medication errors by clinical pharmacologist consultations in patients with cancer.

Methods

We assessed the effect of clinical pharmacologist consultation by the acceptance of interventions recommended due to dosage, frequency, duration of therapy errors and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). All medication errors detected by clinical pharmacologist were reported in the format of medical consultation. A documentation template was designed to collect the patient's data (sex, age, and diagnosis), prescriptions written, and drug-specific recommendations. For the descriptive analysis of medication errors, the unit of analysis was the number and percentage of errors.

Results

A total of 296 patients included in this study with a median age of 48.67±19.76 years of which 47.30% were females. 936 prescribing errors were detected and recommended for their correction. The specialist physicians accepted 897 of prescribed errors. DDIs that were detected in 66.22% of patients, were the most errors in this group of errors (47%). Improper dose (17.41%) wrong frequency (16.67%) and drug-food interaction (10.26%) were after that.

Conclusion

Pharmacological consultation in the hematology-oncology ward revealed many medication errors. The trust of physicians in the views of the clinical pharmacologist led to a large part of these errors being accepted and resolved.

Development of the phenylpyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidine-based, insulin-like growth factor receptor/Src/AXL-targeting small molecule kinase inhibitor

Rationale: The type I insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-1R) signaling pathway plays key roles in the development and progression of numerous types of human cancers, and Src and AXL have been found to confer resistance to anti-IGF-1R therapies. Hence, co-targeting Src and AXL may be an effective strategy to overcome resistance to anti-IGF-1R therapies. However, pharmacologic targeting of these three kinases may result in enhanced toxicity. Therefore, the development of novel multitarget anticancer drugs that block IGF-1R, Src, and AXL is urgently needed.

Methods: We synthesized a series of phenylpyrazolo[3,4-d]pyrimidine (PP)-based compounds, wherein the PP module was conjugated with 2,4-bis-arylamino-1,3-pyrimidines (I2) via a copper(I)-catalyzed alkyne-azide cycloaddition reaction. To develop IGF-1R/Src/AXL-targeting small molecule kinase inhibitors, we selected LL6 as an active compound and evaluated its antitumor and antimetastatic effects in vitro and in vivo using the MTT assay, colony formation assays, migration assay, flow cytometric analysis, a tumor xenograft model, the Kras^G12D/+-driven spontaneous lung tumorigenesis model, and a spontaneous metastasis model using Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) allografts. We also determined the toxicity of LL6 in vitro and in vivo.

Results: LL6 induced apoptosis and suppressed viability and colony-forming capacities of various non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines and their sublines with drug resistance. LL6 also suppressed the migration of NSCLC cells at nontoxic doses. Administration of LL6 in mice significantly suppressed the growth of NSCLC xenograft tumors and metastasis of LLC allograft tumors with outstanding toxicity profiles. Furthermore, the multiplicity, volume, and load of lung tumors in Kras^G12D/+ transgenic mice were substantially reduced by the LL6 treatment.

Conclusions: Our results show the potential of LL6 as a novel IGF-1R/Src/AXL-targeting small molecule kinase inhibitor, providing a new avenue for anticancer therapies.

Prevalence, severity, and nature of risk factors associated with drug-drug interactions in geriatric patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: A prospective study in a tertiary care teaching hospital

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy increases hazard of drug-drug interactions(DDIs), hospitalization, treatment toxicity, and mortality in elderly individuals with cancer. The present study explores and analyzes prevalence and severity of DDIs in geriatric cancer patients subjected to anticancer chemotherapy, their mechanisms, stratification of severity, and correlation between DDI risk and number of medications taken.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study conducted between January-July 2019 at the Medical Oncology/Hematology and Radiation-Oncology Departments, All India Institute of Medical Sciences(AIIMS) Rishikesh. The study included a convenience sampling of 126 geriatric cancer patients.

RESULTS

126 patients were enrolled in present study. DDIs were identified in 97.6% of elderly cancer patients, and 88.9% had at least one DDI with antineoplastic medications. Highest number of DDIs involving antineoplastic medications in any given patient was 12. DDIs involving medications used for treatment of non-cancerous diseases were observed in 83.3% of patients; highest number of interactions identified in any given patient was 15. Out of 473 interactions, 237(50.1%) DDIs were attributable to pharmacodynamic mechanisms of action. 126(27%) of DDIs involved pharmacokinetic mechanisms and 110(23.6%) involved unknown mechanisms. In this present study, total number of DDIs could be positively correlated with total number of medications and number of health problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Geriatric cancer patients are at high risk of DDIs ascribable to polypharmacy. Physicians may utilize online DDI checking softwares to alert themselves, characterize potential DDIs, and modify medications judiciously. An integrative and algorithmic approach with inclusion of geriatricians, oncologists, cardiologists, general practitioners, and clinical pharmacologists/ pharmacists is imperative to optimize drug therapy.

[Evaluation of drug interactions in patients treated for a lung or digestive cancer]

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients are particularly at risk for drug interactions. However, in oncology, this risk has not been studied in depth in France. The main objective of this study was to describe the proportion of drug interactions in patients with lung or digestive cancer.

METHODS

The drug prescriptions of 93 patients were analyzed from may 27th, 2019 to July 07th, 2019 using two software programs (Thériaque™ and DDI Predictor™) in oncology patients hospitalized in our comprehensive cancer center.

RESULTS

Of the 88 patients included in the study, 544 drug interactions were identified, in 66 patients (75.0%, 95% CI: 64.6-83.6). For 20/88 patients (22.7% CI: 14.5-32.9) a non-recommended combination or a theoretical contraindication was reported. Etoposide was the anticancer molecule most involved in combinations that are contraindicated or not recommended. No combinations defined as not recommended or contraindicated were observed in any of the 49 patients treated with chemotherapy during their hospitalization. The most common toxicities were alertness and metabolic disorders, including hyperkalemia. The use of three or more drugs was a risk factor for drug interactions (83 vs. 23%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Drug interactions remain a major concern in cancer hospitalized patients. It is important to continue and strengthen the collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in order to better prevent their occurrence.

Paclitaxel, Imatinib and 5-Fluorouracil Increase the Unbound Fraction of Flucloxacillin In Vitro

Flucloxacillin (FLU), an isoxazolyl penicillin, is widely used for the treatment of different bacterial infections in intensive care units (ICU). Being highly bound to plasma proteins, FLU is prone to drug-drug interactions (DDI) when administered concurrently with other drugs. As FLU is binding to both Sudlow’s site I and site II of human serum albumin (HSA), competitive and allosteric interactions with other drugs, highly bound to the same sites, seem conceivable. Knowledge about interaction(s) of FLU with the widely used anticancer agents paclitaxel (PAC), imatinib (IMA), and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU is scarce. The effects of the selected anticancer agents on the unbound fraction of FLU were evaluated in pooled plasma as well as in HSA and α-1-acid glycoprotein (AGP) samples, the second major drug carrier in plasma. FLU levels in spiked samples were analyzed by LC-MS/MS after ultrafiltration. Significant increase in FLU unbound fraction was observed when in combination with PAC and IMA and to a lesser extent with 5-FU. Furthermore, significant binding of FLU to AGP was observed. Collectively, this is the first study showing the binding of FLU to AGP as well as demonstrating a significant DDI between PAC/IMA/5-FU and FLU.

Drug-drug interactions in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy and the impact of an expert team intervention

Background Several studies have examined the drug-drug interaction patterns in different patient populations and treatment settings; however, there is a need, particularly in the field of oncology and radiotherapy, for evaluating methods targeted towards preventing potential drug-drug interactions. One of the measures proposed is identifying potential interactions using computer programs and their evaluation by pharmacologists or clinical pharmacists, thereby providing clinically relevant information to the treating physician regarding the required prescription changes. Objective To determine the prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in patients receiving chemoradiotherapy and assess the usefulness of expert team recommendations in minimizing interactions. Setting Patients admitted to the radiotherapy and oncology ward of a tertiary care teaching hospital in Karnataka, India. Method We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study of prescriptions written for patients receiving chemoradiotherapy. Prescriptions containing two or more drugs, at least one of the drugs being an anticancer drug, were analyzed. They were screened for potential drug-drug interactions using the Lexicomp® drug interaction software. The interactions were classified as X, drug combination to be avoided; D, modification of therapy to be considered; and C, therapy to be monitored, as per the Lexicomp criteria. Main outcome measure The number of drug-drug interactions detected that were accepted by the treating radio-oncologist as requiring prescription change before and after the prescription review by an expert team. Results Two hundred twenty-three prescriptions were screened for the presence of drug-drug interactions; 106 prescriptions (47.53%) containing 620 drugs and 211 drug-drug interactions were identified. Of the 211 interactions identified, 6.64% (14/211), 18.48% (39/211), and 74.88% (158/211) drug-drug interactions belonged to category X, D, and C, respectively. Twenty-seven (50.94%) of the 53 category X and D interactions identified were accepted the oncologist as requiring a change in the prescription; an additional 13 (24.53%) interactions were identified as significant by the expert team, and 11 (84.62%) of these were accepted by the oncologist. Conclusion A system of alerting the treating physician to a potential drug-drug interaction leads to avoidance of prescription of the interacting drug combination, and the assistance by an expert team adds significantly to avoidance of clinically relevant drug interactions.

Systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) for lung cancer and its potential for interactions with other medicines

Background

Systemic anticancer therapy, comprising chemotherapy agents alongside targeted therapies and immunotherapy, is clinically indicated for late-stage lung cancer. It is delivered in regimens often containing multiple anticancer agents as well as supportive care medicines to reduce side effects, raising potential for polypharmacy and therefore the possibility of drug–drug interactions with medicines taken for comorbidities. A pharmacy-led process commonly performed to assist safe prescribing in secondary care is medicines reconciliation; its benefit in minimising interactions involving systemic anticancer therapy medicines has not been assessed previously.

Objectives

The objectives were to characterise the potential drug–drug interactions between systemic anticancer therapy medicines for lung cancer and other medicines and to evaluate the rate of medicines reconciliation being performed and the extent of documentation of potential interactions (clinical audit).

Methodology

This retrospective case series study involved recording the medicines being taken by lung cancer patients undergoing systemic anticancer therapy elicited in consultations at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, United Kingdom. Potential interactions were identified and characterised in terms of severity using the British National Formulary and other sources. Patient consultation records were also searched for documentation of medicines reconciliation and acknowledgement of potential drug–drug interactions.

Results

Twenty-three patients were included in this study. Eighty-eight potential drug–drug interactions were identified across 21 patients, 39% (34/88) of which involved the supportive care medicine dexamethasone. 3.0% of consultations included a documented medicines reconciliation, and 15.9% of potential interactions were documented in the notes, with no correlation between the two. Potentially serious interactions were significantly more likely to be documented (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Many potential drug–drug interactions involving anticancer agents and supportive care medicines exist; particular attention should be paid to dexamethasone. Documentation of interactions and medicines reconciliation occur much less often than expected, suggesting there is scope for implementing methods of safe prescribing to prevent adverse drug effects.

Anti-CCR4 Monoclonal Antibody Mogamulizumab Followed by the GDP (Gemcitabine, Dexamethasone and Cisplatin) Regimen in Primary Refractory Angioimmunoblastic T-Cell Lymphoma

There are few effective options for salvage therapy in elderly patients with relapsed or refractory angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL). The anti-CCR4 antibody mogamulizumab works via antibody-dependent cytotoxic activity, reduces regulatory T cells, and evokes antitumor immunity in cancer patients. We report a 78-year-old patient with refractory AITL receiving a new immunochemotherapy consisting of sequential mogamulizumab administration followed by the GDP (gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin) regimen. A favorable consolidative effect of the GDP regimen could be observed in the patient who had partial remission after administration of mogamulizumab monotherapy. The regimen showed an acceptable toxicity profile without serious autoimmunity and an expected treatment response for the elderly patient with primary refractory AITL. This clinical case is the first report of salvage chemotherapy including mogamulizumab for primary refractory AITL described in the literature.

Concomitant drugs with low risks of drug-drug interactions for use in oncology clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may occur with investigational drugs and affect patient safety, trial outcomes, and drug development. A list of preferred drugs with minimal risks of DDIs for treatment of symptoms or comorbidities frequently encountered by cancer patients would be helpful.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature to assess DDIs reported for the main drugs available for treatment of symptoms/comorbidities frequently encountered by cancer patients. Reviews and relevant original articles cited were retrieved and analyzed, and the following data were collected and double-checked: pharmacological properties; effects, if any, of drugs on CYP enzymes, membrane transporters, and QT interval; and involvement in significant DDIs.

RESULTS

A list of preferred drugs with minimal risks of DDIs was compiled.

CONCLUSION

Acknowledging for heterogeneity in data sources, prevention of unexpected DDIs during clinical trials may be improved by using this list of preferred drugs for the management of study patient's symptoms.

Peptide carrier-mediated non-covalent delivery of unmodified cisplatin, methotrexate and other agents via intravenous route to the brain

BACKGROUND

Rapid pre-clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents against brain cancers and other neurological disorders remains largely unattained due to the presence of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which limits transport of most therapeutic compounds to the brain. A synthetic peptide carrier, K16ApoE, was previously developed that enabled transport of target proteins to the brain by mimicking a ligand-receptor system. The peptide carrier was found to generate transient BBB permeability, which was utilized for non-covalent delivery of cisplatin, methotrexate and other compounds to the brain.

APPROACH

Brain delivery of the chemotherapeutics and other agents was achieved either by injecting the carrier peptide and the drugs separately or as a mixture, to the femoral vein. A modification of the method comprised injection of K16ApoE pre-mixed with cetuximab, followed by injection of a 'small-molecule' drug.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Seven-of-seven different small molecules were successfully delivered to the brain via K16ApoE. Depending on the method, brain uptake with K16ApoE was 0.72-1.1% for cisplatin and 0.58-0.92% for methotrexate (34-50-fold and 54-92 fold greater for cisplatin and methotrexate, respectively, with K16ApoE than without). Visually intense brain-uptake of Evans Blue, Light Green SF and Crocein scarlet was also achieved. Direct intracranial injection of EB show locally restricted distribution of the dye in the brain, whereas K16ApoE-mediated intravenous injection of EB resulted in the distribution of the dye throughout the brain. Experiments with insulin suggest that ligand-receptor signaling intrinsic to the BBB provides a natural means for passive transport of some molecules across the BBB.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results suggest that the carrier peptide can non-covalently transport various chemotherapeutic agents to the brain. Thus, the method offers an avenue for pre-clinical evaluation of various small and large therapeutic molecules against brain tumors and other neurological disorders.