Antiemetic care for patients with breast cancer: focus on drug interactions and safety concerns

Use of Real-World Claims Data to Assess the Prevalence of Concomitant Medications to Inform Drug-Drug Interaction Risk in Target Patient Populations

A common issue in clinical drug development involves drug-drug interactions (DDI) that may lead to altered drug exposure and subsequent altered safety and efficacy of an investigational drug or concomitant medications (conmeds) in the target patient population. The drug development pipeline therefore involves DDI risk assessment of the investigational drug based on in vitro studies, in silico modeling, and clinical trials. Real-world data (RWD), particularly claims databases with reliable information on pharmacy dispensing, provide an opportunity to understand conmeds usage in the target indication in a real-world setting as one approach to assess potential DDI risk. We describe two cases of characterizing DDI-related conmeds usage with a large closed US-based claims database, IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus, and identified potential DDI risk for multiple sclerosis and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. For example, prevalent and chronic use of statins (atorvastatin and simvastatin), which are CYP3A4 substrates, were identified among both disease cases. Further examples, limitations, and future directions are also discussed. These insights can therefore help augment decision-making during clinical drug research and development.

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.

Antiemetic efficacy and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid for ABVD therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background

Antiemetic effects and safety of granisetron or palonosetron alone and in combination with a corticosteroid against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) therapy.

Methods

A total of 39 patients were eligible for this study. Before ABVD therapy, granisetron or palonosetron was intravenously administered with or without a corticosteroid (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) and aprepitant. The proportions of patients with complete control (CC) during the overall (0–120 h after the start of ABVD therapy), acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) phases were evaluated. CC was defined as no vomiting and no use of antiemetic rescue medication with only grade 0–1 nausea.

Results

Granisetron and palonosetron were administered in 21 and 18 patients, respectively. The CC rate during the acute, delayed and overall phases was not statistically different between the two groups. The CINV was completely controlled during overall phase in 58.3% of patients receiving granisetron or palonosetron in combination with a corticosteroid, whereas in 11.1% of those without co-treatment of a corticosteroid (P < 0.05). There were significantly higher frequencies of anorexia, leucopenia and neutropenia in the palonosetron group. There is a statistically significant difference in the frequency of febrile neutropenia between presence and absence of a corticosteroid (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

These findings suggested that a combination use of a corticosteroid with a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist was preferable for CINV control in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma receiving ABVD therapy, although the careful management of febrile neutropenia is required.

Trial registration

The study approval numbers in the institution; 24–12 and 24–359. Registered April 17, 2012 and June 21, 2012.

APF530 versus ondansetron, each in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting due to anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens: a post hoc subgroup analysis of the Phase III randomized MAGIC trial

BACKGROUND

APF530, a novel extended-release granisetron injection, was superior to ondansetron in a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen in preventing delayed-phase chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in the double-blind Phase III Modified Absorption of Granisetron In the prevention of CINV (MAGIC) trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This MAGIC post hoc analysis evaluated CINV prevention efficacy and safety of APF530 versus ondansetron, each with fosaprepitant and dexamethasone, in patient subgroup receiving an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen. Patients were randomized 1:1 to APF530 500 mg subcutaneously (granisetron 10 mg) or ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg intravenously (IV) (≤16 mg); stratification was by planned cisplatin ≥50 mg/m² (yes/no). Patients were to receive fosaprepitant 150 mg IV and dexamethasone 12 mg IV on day 1, then dexamethasone 8 mg orally once daily on day 2 and twice daily on days 3 and 4. Patients were mostly younger females (APF530 arm, mean age 54.1 years, female, 99.3%; ondansetron arm, 53.8 years, female 98.3%). The primary end point was delayed-phase (>24-120 hours) complete response (CR).

RESULTS

APF530 versus ondansetron regimens achieved numerically better CINV control in delayed and overall (0-120 hours) phases for CR, complete control, total response, rescue medication use, and proportion with no nausea. APF530 trends are consistent with the overall population, although not statistically superior given the underpowered AC subgroup analysis. The APF530 regimen in this population was generally well tolerated, with safety comparable to that of the overall population.

CONCLUSION

APF530 plus fosaprepitant and dexamethasone effectively prevented CINV among patients receiving AC-based HEC, a large subgroup in whom CINV control has traditionally been challenging.

Randomized phase III trial of APF530 versus palonosetron in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in a subset of patients with breast cancer receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy

Background

APF530 provides controlled, sustained-release granisetron for preventing acute (0–24 h) and delayed (24–120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). In a phase III trial, APF530 was noninferior to palonosetron in preventing acute CINV following single-dose moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and delayed CINV in MEC (MEC and HEC defined by Hesketh criteria). This exploratory subanalysis was conducted in the breast cancer subpopulation.

Methods

Patients were randomized to subcutaneous APF530 250 or 500 mg (granisetron 5 or 10 mg) or intravenous palonosetron 0.25 mg during cycle 1. Palonosetron patients were randomized to APF530 for cycles 2 to 4. The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR, no emesis or rescue medication) in cycle 1.

Results

Among breast cancer patients (n = 423 MEC, n = 185 HEC), > 70 % received anthracycline-containing regimens in each emetogenicity subgroup. There were no significant between-group differences in CRs in cycle 1 for acute (APF530 250 mg: MEC 71 %, HEC 77 %; 500 mg: MEC 73 %, HEC 73 %; palonosetron: MEC 68 %, HEC 66 %) and delayed (APF530 250 mg: MEC 46 %, HEC 58 %; 500 mg: MEC 48 %, HEC 63 %; palonosetron: MEC 52 %, HEC 52 %) CINV. There were no significant differences in within-cycle CRs between APF530 doses for acute and delayed CINV in MEC or HEC in cycles 2 to 4; CRs trended higher in later cycles, with no notable differences in adverse events between breast cancer and overall populations.

Conclusions

APF530 effectively prevented acute and delayed CINV over 4 chemotherapy cycles in breast cancer patients receiving MEC or HEC.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00343460 (June 22, 2006).

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.

Do drug interaction alerts between a chemotherapy order-entry system and an electronic medical record affect clinician behavior?

INTRODUCTION

We developed an enhancement to a chemotherapy order-entry system that alerted prescribers to potential drug interactions between patients' usual outpatient medications and those prescribed for onsite cancer treatment. This report summarizes the interactions and analyzes the impact of alerts on clinician behavior.

METHODS

We studied electronic orders created from November 2010 to December 2011 by oncology clinicians at two comprehensive cancer centers who shared a chemotherapy order-entry system and an ambulatory electronic medical record. The enhancement generated an alert if a new chemotherapy system order for an antineoplastic agent or supportive care medication interacted with an existing medication in the ambulatory record, and tracked prescribers' responses.

RESULTS

New chemotherapy system orders triggered 29,592 drug interaction alerts. New orders for antineoplastic agents accounted for 495 (32.6%) of 1518 high- and medium-severity alerts. Interactions with antibiotics accounted for the majority of these alerts. New chemotherapy system orders for antiemetics triggered 352 (23.2%) alerts and more than two-thirds were attributed to interactions with analgesic opioids. High- and medium-severity alerts changed prescriber behavior in 224 (14.8%) occurrences, including potentially fatal interactions between meperidine and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Clinicians who overrode alerts indicated that they would monitor the patient (54.6%), the patient already tolerated the combination (24.5%), and they would adjust the dose (15.1%).

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients are at risk of serious interactions between medications ordered for cancer care and those provided for general medical care. Organizations and order-entry applications should develop countermeasures to identify and prevent potentially serious drug interactions.

Effect of the Botanical Compound LCS101 on Chemotherapy-Induced Symptoms in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Case Series Report

The treatment of breast cancer invariably results in severe and often debilitating symptoms that can cause significant distress and severely impair daily function and quality-of-life (QOL). We treated a series of 20 female breast cancer patients with the botanical compound LCS101 as adjuvant to conventional chemotherapy. At the end of the treatment regimen, patients rated their symptoms. 70% reported that they had either no or mildly severe levels of fatigue; 60% none to mildly severe weakness; 85% none to mildly severe pain; 70% none to mildly severe nausea; and 80% none to mildly severe vomiting. Only 20% reported severe impairment of overall function, and only 40% severely impaired QOL. No toxic effects were attributed by patients to the LCS101 treatment, and 85% reported that they believed the botanical compound had helped reduce symptoms. The effects of LCS101 on clinical outcomes in breast cancer should be tested further using randomized controlled trials.

Current awareness: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety

In order to keep subscribers up‐to‐date with the latest developments in their field, John Wiley & Sons are providing a current awareness service in each issue of the journal. The bibliography contains newly published material in the field of pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Each bibliography is divided into 20 sections: 1 Reviews; 2 General; 3 Anti‐infective Agents; 4 Cardiovascular System Agents; 5 CNS Depressive Agents; 6 Non‐steroidal Anti‐inflammatory Agents; 7 CNS Agents; 8 Anti‐neoplastic Agents; 9 Haematological Agents; 10 Neuroregulator‐Blocking Agents; 11 Dermatological Agents; 12 Immunosuppressive Agents; 13 Autonomic Agents; 14 Respiratory System Agents; 15 Neuromuscular Agents; 16 Reproductive System Agents; 17 Gastrointestinal System Agents; 18 Anti‐inflammatory Agents ‐ Steroidal; 19 Teratogens/fetal exposure; 20 Others. Within each section, articles are listed in alphabetical order with respect to author. If, in the preceding period, no publications are located relevant to any one of these headings, that section will be omitted.