PURPOSE: Plitidepsin is an antineoplasic currently in clinical evaluation in a phase III trial in multiple myeloma (ADMYRE). Presently, the hydrophobic drug plitidepsin is formulated using Cremophor®, an adjuvant associated with unwanted hypersensitivity reactions. In search of alternatives, we developed and tested two nanoparticle-based formulations of plitidepsin, aiming to modify/improve drug biodistribution and efficacy. METHODS: Using nanoprecipitation, plitidepsin was loaded in polymer nanoparticles made of amphiphilic block copolymers (i.e. PEG-b-PBLG or PTMC-b-PGA). The pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and therapeutic efficacy was assessed using a xenograft renal cancer mouse model (MRI-H-121 xenograft) upon administration of the different plitidepsin formulations at maximum tolerated multiple doses (0.20 and 0.25 mg/kg for Cremophor® and copolymer formulations, respectively). RESULTS: High plitidepsin loading efficiencies were obtained for both copolymer formulations. Considering pharmacokinetics, PEG-b-PBLG formulation showed lower plasma clearance, associated with higher AUC and Cmax than Cremophor® or PTMC-b-PGA formulations. Additionally, the PEG-b-PBLG formulation presented lower liver and kidney accumulation compared with the other two formulations, associated with an equivalent tumor distribution. Regarding the anticancer activity, all formulations elicited similar efficacy profiles, as compared to the Cremophor® formulation, successfully reducing tumor growth rate. CONCLUSIONS: Although the nanoparticle formulations present equivalent anticancer activity, compared to the Cremophor® formulation, they show improved biodistribution profiles, presenting novel tools for future plitidepsin-based therapies.
PURPOSE: Plitidepsin is an antineoplasic currently in clinical evaluation in a phase III trial in multiple myeloma (ADMYRE). Presently, the hydrophobic drug plitidepsin is formulated using Cremophor®, an adjuvant associated with unwanted hypersensitivity reactions. In search of alternatives, we developed and tested two nanoparticle-based formulations of plitidepsin, aiming to modify/improve drug biodistribution and efficacy. METHODS: Using nanoprecipitation, plitidepsin was loaded in polymer nanoparticles made of amphiphilic blockcopolymers (i.e. PEG-b-PBLG or PTMC-b-PGA). The pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and therapeutic efficacy was assessed using a xenograft renal cancermouse model (MRI-H-121 xenograft) upon administration of the different plitidepsin formulations at maximum tolerated multiple doses (0.20 and 0.25 mg/kg for Cremophor® and copolymer formulations, respectively). RESULTS: High plitidepsin loading efficiencies were obtained for both copolymer formulations. Considering pharmacokinetics, PEG-b-PBLG formulation showed lower plasma clearance, associated with higher AUC and Cmax than Cremophor® or PTMC-b-PGA formulations. Additionally, the PEG-b-PBLG formulation presented lower liver and kidney accumulation compared with the other two formulations, associated with an equivalent tumor distribution. Regarding the anticancer activity, all formulations elicited similar efficacy profiles, as compared to the Cremophor® formulation, successfully reducing tumor growth rate. CONCLUSIONS: Although the nanoparticle formulations present equivalent anticancer activity, compared to the Cremophor® formulation, they show improved biodistribution profiles, presenting novel tools for future plitidepsin-based therapies.
Authors: Ann M Straight; Kevin Oakley; Russell Moores; Andrew J Bauer; Aneeta Patel; R Michael Tuttle; J Jimeno; Gary L Francis Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2005-11-05 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: J A Maroun; K Belanger; L Seymour; S Matthews; J Roach; J Dionne; D Soulieres; D Stewart; R Goel; D Charpentier; G Goss; E Tomiak; J Yau; J Jimeno; G Chiritescu Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Tim Eisen; Nick Thatcher; Serge Leyvraz; Wilson H Miller; Felix Couture; Paul Lorigan; François Lüthi; David Small; Adnan Tanovic; Mary O'Brien Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2008-08-09 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Teresa Gonzalo; Giovanna Lollo; Marcos Garcia-Fuentes; Dolores Torres; Juan Correa; Ricardo Riguera; Eduardo Fernandez-Megia; Pilar Calvo; Pablo Avilés; Maria José Guillén; Maria José Alonso Journal: J Control Release Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Miguel A Izquierdo; Angela Bowman; Margarita García; Duncan Jodrell; Marisa Martinez; Beatriz Pardo; Javier Gómez; José A López-Martin; José Jimeno; José R Germá; John F Smyth Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: R B Weiss; R C Donehower; P H Wiernik; T Ohnuma; R J Gralla; D L Trump; J R Baker; D A Van Echo; D D Von Hoff; B Leyland-Jones Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1990-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L van Andel; S Fudio; H Rosing; S Munt; B Miguel-Lillo; I González; M M Tibben; N de Vries; A H M de Vries Schultink; J H M Schellens; J H Beijnen Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Sara Alonso-Álvarez; Emilia Pardal; Diego Sánchez-Nieto; Miguel Navarro; Maria Dolores Caballero; Maria Victoria Mateos; Alejandro Martín Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 4.162
Authors: Jordi Minnema; Sven Even F Borgos; Neill Liptrott; Rob Vandebriel; Christiaan Delmaar Journal: Drug Deliv Transl Res Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 5.671