PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetic variables of erlotinib in current smokers with nonsmokers after receiving a single oral 150 or 300 mg dose of erlotinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was a single-center, open-label pharmacokinetic study in healthy male subjects. Subjects were enrolled into two treatment cohorts based on smoking status (current smokers and nonsmokers). The pharmacokinetic profile for erlotinib and its metabolite, OSI-420, was determined for each subject following each treatment. RESULTS: Current smokers achieved significantly less erlotinib exposure following a single 150 or 300 mg dose than nonsmokers. Following the 150 mg dose, the geometric mean erlotinib AUC(0-infinity) in smokers was 2.8-fold lower than in nonsmokers and similar to that of nonsmokers at the 300 mg dose. C(max) in smokers was two-thirds of that in nonsmokers, and C(24h) in smokers was 8.3-fold lower than in nonsmokers. The median C(24h) of smokers at the 300 mg dose was slightly less than the C(24h) of smokers at the 150 mg dose. The median C(max) was greater in smokers at the 300 mg dose than in nonsmokers at the 150 mg dose. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib is different in current smokers and nonsmokers. The observation that AUC(0-infinity) and C(24h) were significantly decreased in smokers compared with nonsmokers, and a smaller decrease in C(max) was observed, is consistent with increased metabolic clearance of erlotinib in current smokers.
PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetic variables of erlotinib in current smokers with nonsmokers after receiving a single oral 150 or 300 mg dose of erlotinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was a single-center, open-label pharmacokinetic study in healthy male subjects. Subjects were enrolled into two treatment cohorts based on smoking status (current smokers and nonsmokers). The pharmacokinetic profile for erlotinib and its metabolite, OSI-420, was determined for each subject following each treatment. RESULTS: Current smokers achieved significantly less erlotinib exposure following a single 150 or 300 mg dose than nonsmokers. Following the 150 mg dose, the geometric mean erlotinib AUC(0-infinity) in smokers was 2.8-fold lower than in nonsmokers and similar to that of nonsmokers at the 300 mg dose. C(max) in smokers was two-thirds of that in nonsmokers, and C(24h) in smokers was 8.3-fold lower than in nonsmokers. The median C(24h) of smokers at the 300 mg dose was slightly less than the C(24h) of smokers at the 150 mg dose. The median C(max) was greater in smokers at the 300 mg dose than in nonsmokers at the 150 mg dose. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib is different in current smokers and nonsmokers. The observation that AUC(0-infinity) and C(24h) were significantly decreased in smokers compared with nonsmokers, and a smaller decrease in C(max) was observed, is consistent with increased metabolic clearance of erlotinib in current smokers.
Authors: Karen E Bullock; William P Petros; Islam Younis; Hope E Uronis; Michael A Morse; Gerard C Blobe; S Yousuf Zafar; Jon P Gockerman; Joanne J Lager; Roxanne Truax; Kellen L Meadows; Leigh A Howard; Margot M O'Neill; Gloria Broadwater; Herbert I Hurwitz; Johanna C Bendell Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Jay O Boyle; Zeynep H Gümüs; Ashutosh Kacker; Vishal L Choksi; Jennifer M Bocker; Xi Kathy Zhou; Rhonda K Yantiss; Duncan B Hughes; Baoheng Du; Benjamin L Judson; Kotha Subbaramaiah; Andrew J Dannenberg Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2010-02-23
Authors: Li Zhang; J Jack Lee; Hongli Tang; You-Hong Fan; Lianchun Xiao; Hening Ren; Jonathan Kurie; Rodolfo C Morice; Waun Ki Hong; Li Mao Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2008-03-31
Authors: Soon-Hyun Ahn; Hyun Jun Hong; Soon Young Kwon; Kee Hwan Kwon; Jong-Lyel Roh; Junsun Ryu; Jun Hee Park; Seung-Kuk Baek; Guk Haeng Lee; Sei Young Lee; Jin Choon Lee; Man Ki Chung; Young Hoon Joo; Yong Bae Ji; Jeong Hun Hah; Minsu Kwon; Young Min Park; Chang Myeon Song; Sung-Chan Shin; Chang Hwan Ryu; Doh Young Lee; Young Chan Lee; Jae Won Chang; Ha Min Jeong; Jae-Keun Cho; Wonjae Cha; Byung Joon Chun; Ik Joon Choi; Hyo Geun Choi; Kang Dae Lee Journal: Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.372
Authors: Alberto Broniscer; Suzanne J Baker; Clinton F Stewart; Thomas E Merchant; Fred H Laningham; Paula Schaiquevich; Mehmet Kocak; E Brannon Morris; Raelene Endersby; David W Ellison; Amar Gajjar Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ronald A Lubet; Eva Szabo; Kenneth K Iwata; Stanley C Gill; Chris Tucker; Ann Bode; Vernon E Steele; M Margaret Juliana; Holly L Nicastro; Clinton J Grubbs Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2013-03-26