Lauren A Marcath1, Colin M Finley2, Siu Fun Wong3, Daniel L Hertz4. 1. Department of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, 99203, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, 428 Church St., Room 3054 College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1065, USA. 3. Chapman University School of Pharmacy, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. 4. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, 428 Church St., Room 3054 College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1065, USA. DLHertz@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI), which can increase treatment toxicity or decrease efficacy. It is especially important to thoroughly screen DDI in oncology clinical trial subjects to ensure trial subject safety and data accuracy. This study determined the prevalence of potential DDI involving oral anti-cancer trial agents in subjects enrolled in two SWOG clinical trials. METHODS: Completed SWOG clinical trials of commercially available agents with possible DDI that had complete concomitant medication information available at enrollment were included. Screening for DDI was conducted through three methods: protocol-guided screening, Lexicomp® screening, and pharmacist determination of clinical relevance. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: SWOG trials S0711 (dasatinib, n = 83) and S0528 (everolimus/lapatinib, n = 84) were included. Subjects received an average of 6.6 medications (standard deviation = 4.9, range 0-29) at enrollment. Based on the clinical trial protocols, at enrollment 18.6% (31/167) of subjects had a DDI and 12.0% (20/167) had a DDI that violated a protocol exclusion criterion. According to Lexicomp®, 28.7% of subjects (48/167) had a DDI classified as moderate or worse, whereas pharmacist review indicated that 7.2% of subjects (12/167) had a clinically relevant interaction. The majority of clinically relevant DDI identified were due to the coadministration of acid suppression therapies with dasatinib (83.3%, 10/12). CONCLUSIONS: The high DDI prevalence in subjects enrolled on SWOG clinical trials, including a high prevalence that violate trial exclusion criteria, support the need for improved processes for DDI screening to ensure trial subject safety and trial data accuracy.
BACKGROUND:Patients with cancer are at increased risk of drug-drug interactions (DDI), which can increase treatment toxicity or decrease efficacy. It is especially important to thoroughly screen DDI in oncology clinical trial subjects to ensure trial subject safety and data accuracy. This study determined the prevalence of potential DDI involving oral anti-cancer trial agents in subjects enrolled in two SWOG clinical trials. METHODS: Completed SWOG clinical trials of commercially available agents with possible DDI that had complete concomitant medication information available at enrollment were included. Screening for DDI was conducted through three methods: protocol-guided screening, Lexicomp® screening, and pharmacist determination of clinical relevance. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: SWOG trials S0711 (dasatinib, n = 83) and S0528 (everolimus/lapatinib, n = 84) were included. Subjects received an average of 6.6 medications (standard deviation = 4.9, range 0-29) at enrollment. Based on the clinical trial protocols, at enrollment 18.6% (31/167) of subjects had a DDI and 12.0% (20/167) had a DDI that violated a protocol exclusion criterion. According to Lexicomp®, 28.7% of subjects (48/167) had a DDI classified as moderate or worse, whereas pharmacist review indicated that 7.2% of subjects (12/167) had a clinically relevant interaction. The majority of clinically relevant DDI identified were due to the coadministration of acid suppression therapies with dasatinib (83.3%, 10/12). CONCLUSIONS: The high DDI prevalence in subjects enrolled on SWOG clinical trials, including a high prevalence that violate trial exclusion criteria, support the need for improved processes for DDI screening to ensure trial subject safety and trial data accuracy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Oncology clinical trial drug interaction
Authors: Olivier Mir; Nathan Touati; Michela Lia; Saskia Litière; Axel Le Cesne; Stefan Sleijfer; Jean-Yves Blay; Michael Leahy; Robin Young; Ron H J Mathijssen; Nielka P Van Erp; Hans Gelderblom; Winette T Van der Graaf; Alessandro Gronchi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kari B Wisinski; Colby A Cantu; Jens Eickhoff; Kurt Osterby; Amye J Tevaarwerk; Jennifer Heideman; Glenn Liu; George Wilding; Susan Johnston; Jill M Kolesar Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Manvi Sharma; Holly M Holmes; Hemalkumar B Mehta; Hua Chen; Rajender R Aparasu; Ya-Chen T Shih; Sharon H Giordano; Michael L Johnson Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lauren A Marcath; Jingyue Xi; Emily K Hoylman; Kelley M Kidwell; Shawna L Kraft; Daniel L Hertz Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Richard H Parrish; Heather Monk Bodenstab; Dustin Carneal; Ryan M Cassity; William E Dager; Sara J Hyland; Jenna K Lovely; Alyssa Pollock; Tracy M Sparkes; Siu-Fun Wong Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.964