BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Bortezomib, an antineoplastic for the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma, undergoes metabolism through oxidative deboronation by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, primarily CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. Omeprazole, a proton-pump inhibitor, is primarily metabolized by and demonstrates high affinity for CYP2C19. This study investigated whether coadministration of omeprazole affected the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced cancer. The variability of bortezomib pharmacokinetics with CYP enzyme polymorphism was also investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, crossover, pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction study was conducted at seven institutions in the US and Europe between January 2005 and August 2006. Patients who had advanced solid tumours, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma, were aged >/=18 years, weighed >/=50 kg and had a life expectancy of >/=3 months were eligible. Patients received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 for two 21-day cycles, plus omeprazole 40 mg in the morning of days 6-10 and in the evening of day 8 in either cycle 1 (sequence 1) or cycle 2 (sequence 2). On day 21 of cycle 2, patients benefiting from therapy could continue to receive bortezomib for six additional cycles. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation were collected prior to and at various timepoints after bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2. Blood samples for pharmacogenomics were also collected. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by noncompartmental analysis of plasma concentration-time data for bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2, using WinNonlin version 4.0.1.a software. The pharmacodynamic profile was assessed using a whole-blood 20S proteasome inhibition assay. RESULTS:Twenty-seven patients (median age 64 years) were enrolled, 12 in sequence 1 and 15 in sequence 2, including eight and nine pharmacokinetic-evaluable patients, respectively. Bortezomib pharmacokinetic parameters were similar when bortezomib was administered alone or with omeprazole (maximum plasma concentration 120 vs 123 ng/mL; area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours 129 vs 135 ng . h/mL). The pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar (maximum effect 85.8% vs 93.7%; area under the percent inhibition-time curve over 72 hours 4052 vs 3910 % x h); the differences were not statistically significant. Pharmacogenomic analysis revealed no meaningful relationships between CYP enzyme polymorphisms and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters. Toxicities were generally similar between patients in sequence 1 and sequence 2, and between cycle 1 and cycle 2 in both treatment sequences. Among 26 evaluable patients, 13 (50%) were assessed as benefiting frombortezomib at the end of cycle 2 and continued to receive treatment. CONCLUSION: No impact on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib was seen with coadministration of omeprazole. Concomitant administration of bortezomib and omeprazole is unlikely to cause clinically significant drug-drug interactions and is unlikely to have an impact on the efficacy or safety of bortezomib.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Bortezomib, an antineoplastic for the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma, undergoes metabolism through oxidative deboronation by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, primarily CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. Omeprazole, a proton-pump inhibitor, is primarily metabolized by and demonstrates high affinity for CYP2C19. This study investigated whether coadministration of omeprazole affected the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced cancer. The variability of bortezomib pharmacokinetics with CYP enzyme polymorphism was also investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, crossover, pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction study was conducted at seven institutions in the US and Europe between January 2005 and August 2006. Patients who had advanced solid tumours, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or multiple myeloma, were aged >/=18 years, weighed >/=50 kg and had a life expectancy of >/=3 months were eligible. Patients received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 for two 21-day cycles, plus omeprazole 40 mg in the morning of days 6-10 and in the evening of day 8 in either cycle 1 (sequence 1) or cycle 2 (sequence 2). On day 21 of cycle 2, patients benefiting from therapy could continue to receive bortezomib for six additional cycles. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation were collected prior to and at various timepoints after bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2. Blood samples for pharmacogenomics were also collected. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by noncompartmental analysis of plasma concentration-time data for bortezomib administration on day 8 of cycles 1 and 2, using WinNonlin version 4.0.1.a software. The pharmacodynamic profile was assessed using a whole-blood 20S proteasome inhibition assay. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (median age 64 years) were enrolled, 12 in sequence 1 and 15 in sequence 2, including eight and nine pharmacokinetic-evaluable patients, respectively. Bortezomib pharmacokinetic parameters were similar when bortezomib was administered alone or with omeprazole (maximum plasma concentration 120 vs 123 ng/mL; area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours 129 vs 135 ng . h/mL). The pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar (maximum effect 85.8% vs 93.7%; area under the percent inhibition-time curve over 72 hours 4052 vs 3910 % x h); the differences were not statistically significant. Pharmacogenomic analysis revealed no meaningful relationships between CYP enzyme polymorphisms and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic parameters. Toxicities were generally similar between patients in sequence 1 and sequence 2, and between cycle 1 and cycle 2 in both treatment sequences. Among 26 evaluable patients, 13 (50%) were assessed as benefiting from bortezomib at the end of cycle 2 and continued to receive treatment. CONCLUSION: No impact on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profile of bortezomib was seen with coadministration of omeprazole. Concomitant administration of bortezomib and omeprazole is unlikely to cause clinically significant drug-drug interactions and is unlikely to have an impact on the efficacy or safety of bortezomib.
Authors: Robert Z Orlowski; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Beverly S Mitchell; Thomas C Shea; Albert S Baldwin; Stephanie Stahl; Julian Adams; Dixie-Lee Esseltine; Peter J Elliott; Christine S Pien; Roberto Guerciolini; Jessica K Anderson; Natalie D Depcik-Smith; Rita Bhagat; Mary Jo Lehman; Steven C Novick; Owen A O'Connor; Steven L Soignet Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S L MacLeod; S Nowell; J Massengill; A Jazieh; G McClure; J Plaxco; F F Kadlubar; N P Lan Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Teresa Pekol; J Scott Daniels; Jason Labutti; Ian Parsons; Darrell Nix; Elizabeth Baronas; Frank Hsieh; Liang-Shang Gan; Gerald Miwa Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2005-03-11 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Jason Labutti; Ian Parsons; Ron Huang; Gerald Miwa; Liang-Shang Gan; J Scott Daniels Journal: Chem Res Toxicol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Michael P Fanucchi; Frank V Fossella; Robert Belt; Ronald Natale; Panos Fidias; David P Carbone; Ramaswamy Govindan; Luis E Raez; Francisco Robert; Maria Ribeiro; Wallace Akerley; Karen Kelly; Steven A Limentani; Jeffrey Crawford; Hans-Joachim Reimers; Rita Axelrod; Oscar Kashala; Shihong Sheng; Joan H Schiller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wells A Messersmith; Sharyn D Baker; Lance Lassiter; Rana A Sullivan; Kimberly Dinh; Virna I Almuete; John J Wright; Ross C Donehower; Michael A Carducci; Deborah K Armstrong Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-02-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Shujun Liu; Lai-Chu Wu; Jiuxia Pang; Ramasamy Santhanam; Sebastian Schwind; Yue-Zhong Wu; Christopher J Hickey; Jianhua Yu; Heiko Becker; Kati Maharry; Michael D Radmacher; Chenglong Li; Susan P Whitman; Anjali Mishra; Nicole Stauffer; Anna M Eiring; Roger Briesewitz; Robert A Baiocchi; Kenneth K Chan; Peter Paschka; Michael A Caligiuri; John C Byrd; Carlo M Croce; Clara D Bloomfield; Danilo Perrotti; Ramiro Garzon; Guido Marcucci Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Patricia M LoRusso; Karthik Venkatakrishnan; Ramesh K Ramanathan; John Sarantopoulos; Daniel Mulkerin; Stephen I Shibata; Anne Hamilton; Afshin Dowlati; Sridhar Mani; Michelle A Rudek; Chris H Takimoto; Rachel Neuwirth; Dixie-Lee Esseltine; Percy Ivy Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andrzej Hellmann; Simon Rule; Jan Walewski; Ofer Shpilberg; Huaibao Feng; Helgi van de Velde; Hamina Patel; Donna M Skee; Suzette Girgis; Vernon J Louw Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Philippe Moreau; Ievgenii I Karamanesht; Natalia Domnikova; Maryna Y Kyselyova; Kateryna V Vilchevska; Vadim A Doronin; Alexander Schmidt; Cyrille Hulin; Xavier Leleu; Dixie-Lee Esseltine; Karthik Venkatakrishnan; Donna Skee; Huaibao Feng; Suzette Girgis; Andrew Cakana; Helgi van de Velde; William Deraedt; Thierry Facon Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.447