Guo Yu1,2,3, Dan-Na Wu4, Yan Gong2, Guo-Fu Li5,6,7, Hong-Hao Zhou3. 1. Subei People's Hospital, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225001, China. 2. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. 3. Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410078, China. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Hainan General Hospital, Haikou, China. 5. Subei People's Hospital, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225001, China. guofu.g.li@gmail.com. 6. Department of Pharmaceutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, 1345 Center Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32610, USA. guofu.g.li@gmail.com. 7. Center for Drug Clinical Research, Shanghai University of Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, 201203, China. guofu.g.li@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The labeling information, authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), is expected to guide the method of drug administration with reference to meal intake, aiming at ensuring favorable safety profile and achieving optimal drug exposure. However, interactions between meals and a specific oral anticancer medication are complicated in that could be strongly affected by inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics, meal compositions, and the timing of drug administration with respect to meal intake, which could lead to conflicting meal recommendations between regulatory authorities. The primary objective of this article was to systemically identify the conflicting food recommendations for oral antineoplastic drugs and explore the potential risks associated with these conflicting recommendations to patient-centered care. METHODS: We revisited, compared, and analyzed systemically the publicly accessible regulatory documents of the orally administered, anticancer drugs from the FDA and the EMA. RESULTS: After revisiting the labeling information and other regulatory documents of 43 oral oncology agents authorized by FDA during 2010-2016 and by the EMA at the time of this analysis finalized (December 2017), conflicting or inconsistent meal recommendations between the EMA and FDA were identified in 14% (6 of 43) oral anticancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Conflicting food recommendations between regulatory authorities could have a large impact on anticancer treatment and patients' quality of life, leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. As the most important source of dosing instructions, the labeling information should be regularly recalibrated to provide consistent and informative instructions for drug intake in relation to meals, minimizing unintended interactions with meals and improving patient compliance and adherence. Further efforts on harmonizing food recommendations between regulatory agencies are highly warranted to assure optimal outcomes for individual patients. Moreover, meal-drug interaction studies should be conducted as early as possible to inform the dosing schedules of the subsequent phase 2 and phase 3 trials, thereby facilitating regulatory decision-making in regard to the method of drug administration.
PURPOSE: The labeling information, authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), is expected to guide the method of drug administration with reference to meal intake, aiming at ensuring favorable safety profile and achieving optimal drug exposure. However, interactions between meals and a specific oral anticancer medication are complicated in that could be strongly affected by inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics, meal compositions, and the timing of drug administration with respect to meal intake, which could lead to conflicting meal recommendations between regulatory authorities. The primary objective of this article was to systemically identify the conflicting food recommendations for oral antineoplastic drugs and explore the potential risks associated with these conflicting recommendations to patient-centered care. METHODS: We revisited, compared, and analyzed systemically the publicly accessible regulatory documents of the orally administered, anticancer drugs from the FDA and the EMA. RESULTS: After revisiting the labeling information and other regulatory documents of 43 oral oncology agents authorized by FDA during 2010-2016 and by the EMA at the time of this analysis finalized (December 2017), conflicting or inconsistent meal recommendations between the EMA and FDA were identified in 14% (6 of 43) oral anticancer drugs. CONCLUSION: Conflicting food recommendations between regulatory authorities could have a large impact on anticancer treatment and patients' quality of life, leading to suboptimal clinical outcomes. As the most important source of dosing instructions, the labeling information should be regularly recalibrated to provide consistent and informative instructions for drug intake in relation to meals, minimizing unintended interactions with meals and improving patient compliance and adherence. Further efforts on harmonizing food recommendations between regulatory agencies are highly warranted to assure optimal outcomes for individual patients. Moreover, meal-drug interaction studies should be conducted as early as possible to inform the dosing schedules of the subsequent phase 2 and phase 3 trials, thereby facilitating regulatory decision-making in regard to the method of drug administration.
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Geoffrey I Shapiro; Richard Frank; Uday B Dandamudi; Thomas Hengelage; Lily Zhao; Lucien Gazi; Maria Grazia Porro; Margaret M Woo; Lionel D Lewis Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Stephan Stilgenbauer; Barbara Eichhorst; Johannes Schetelig; Steven Coutre; John F Seymour; Talha Munir; Soham D Puvvada; Clemens-Martin Wendtner; Andrew W Roberts; Wojciech Jurczak; Stephen P Mulligan; Sebastian Böttcher; Mehrdad Mobasher; Ming Zhu; Monali Desai; Brenda Chyla; Maria Verdugo; Sari Heitner Enschede; Elisa Cerri; Rod Humerickhouse; Gary Gordon; Michael Hallek; William G Wierda Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kevin M Koch; Nandi J Reddy; Roger B Cohen; Nancy L Lewis; Bonnie Whitehead; Kathleen Mackay; Andrew Stead; Andrew P Beelen; Lionel D Lewis Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Silvy da Rocha Dias; Tomas Salmonson; Barbara van Zwieten-Boot; Bertil Jonsson; Serena Marchetti; Jan H M Schellens; Rosa Giuliani; Francesco Pignatti Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Robert Shumaker; Jagadeesh Aluri; Jean Fan; Gresel Martinez; Min Ren; Kun Chen Journal: Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.366
Authors: Peter N Morcos; Elena Guerini; Neil Parrott; Georgina Dall; Steven Blotner; Katrijn Bogman; Carolina Sturm; Bogdana Balas; Meret Martin-Facklam; Alex Phipps Journal: Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev Date: 2016-09-28