| Literature DB >> 35631455 |
Jessica Cusato1, Alice Palermiti1, Alessandra Manca1, Jacopo Mula1, Miriam Antonucci2, Amedeo De Nicolò1, Sarah Allegra3, Silvia De Francia3, Francesco Chiara3, Giovanni Di Perri4, Francesco Giuseppe De Rosa5, Andrea Calcagno4, Antonio D'Avolio1.
Abstract
Vitamin D (VD) seems to influence drug clearance and outcome. Antifungal drugs (AFU) are the most used azoles in clinical practice. In the literature, no data are available concerning VD's impact on AFU therapy. The aim of this study was to analyze if VD pathway-related polymorphisms may influence voriconazole (VRC), itraconazole (ITC), and posaconazole (PSC) drug concentrations in order to identify patients with the highest probability of response and toxicity. Allelic discrimination was performed through real-time PCR, whereas drug concentrations were through liquid chromatography. A total of 636 samples of AFU-treated patients were included in the analysis. Concerning VRC, concentrations higher than the 1000 ng/mL efficacy cut-off value were predicted by Caucasian ethnicity, CYP24A1 3999, and CYP27B1 + 2838 polymorphisms, whereas levels higher than the 5000 ng/mL toxicity value by Caucasian, female sex, e.v. administration, and GC 1296. Considering PSC, concentrations higher than the 700 ng/mL efficacy cut-off value were predicted by VDR Cdx2, CYP27B1 - 1260, and GC 1296. Finally, for ITC, VDR BsmI was the only predictor of drug exposure higher than the 500 ng/mL efficacy cut-off value, whereas female sex, CYP27B1 - 1260, and VDR TaqI remained in the final regression model related to concentrations higher than the 1000 ng/mL toxicity-associated cut-off value. This is the first study reporting the influence of VD pathway-related gene SNPs on AFU exposures, efficacy, and toxicity.Entities:
Keywords: CYP24A1; CYP27B1; GC; VDR; azoles; genetics; pharmacokinetics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35631455 PMCID: PMC9147809 DOI: 10.3390/ph15050630
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8247
Characteristics of subjects involved in the study.
| Voriconazole | Posaconazole | Itraconazole | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 357 | 136 | 143 |
|
| 300 (84%) | 125 (91.9%) | 84 (58.7%) |
|
| 235 (66.2%) | 66 (48.5%) | 87 (56.9%) |
|
| 42.51 ± 25.01 | 46.70 ± 19.92 | 8.78 ± 4.70 |
|
| 21.98 ± 5.29 | 24.50 ± 4.52 | 17.13 ± 5.22 |
|
| 200 BID 184(54.6%) | 200 TID 67 (51.5%) | 50 BID 27 (21.8%) |
|
| Oral 192 (53.9%) | Oral: 134 (98.5%) | Oral: 137 (95.8%) |
|
| 8 (2.2%) | 0 | 0 |
|
| 4 (1.1%) | 0 | 0 |
|
| 53 (14.9%) | 11 (8.1%) | 8 (5.6%) |
|
| 13 (3.7%) | 8 (5.9%) | 5 (3.5%) |
|
| 0.85 ± 0.67 | 0.76 ± 0.39 | 0.48 ± 0.47 |
Figure 1Influence of CYP24A1 3999 T > C SNP on voriconazole exposure (p = 0.007). Outliers are represented by little circles, and extreme outliers are represented by little stars.
Linear regression analysis: factors able to predict voriconazole plasma concentrations over efficacy cut-off limits (>1000 ng/mL) and toxicity cut-off limits (>5000 ng/mL). Bold characters represent statistically significant values.
| Voriconazole Plasma Concentration > 1000 ng/mL | Voriconazole Plasma Concentration > 5000 ng/mL | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
| aOR (95% IC) | aOR (95% IC) | aOR (95% IC) | aOR (95% IC) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.519 | 1.197 [0.693; 2.066] | ||||
|
| 0.270 | 1.37 [0.78; 2.41] | 0.750 | 0.902 [0.651; 1.743] | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.407 | 0.62 [0.21; 1.90] | ||||||
|
| 0.642 | 0.879 [0.511–1.513] | ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.644 | 0.89 [0.53; 1.47] | 0.957 | 1.016 [0.562; 1.838] | ||||
|
| 0.898 | 1.04 [0.56; 1.95] | 0.819 | 0.819 [0.474; 1.415] | ||||
|
| 0.451 | 1.31 [0.65; 2.60] | 0.335 | 0.659 [0.283; 1.536] | ||||
|
| 0.553 | 1.18 [0.68; 2.07] | 0.406 | 1.295 [0.704; 2.380] | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.513 | 1.189 [0.697; 2.063] | ||
|
| 0.601 | 0.82 [0.39; 1.74] | 0.247 | 1.612 [0.718; 3.618] | ||||
|
| 0.352 | 0.70 [0.42;1.36] |
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 0.615 | 1.13 [0.71; 1.81] |
|
|
|
| ||
Figure 2CYP27B1 + 2838 T > C ((A), p = 0.038) and CYP27B1 − 1260 G > T ((B), p = 0.004) SNPs influence on posaconazole exposure. Outliers are represented by little circles, and extreme outliers are represented by little stars.
Logistic regression analysis with predictors of posaconazole plasma concentrations over the efficacy cut-off limits (>700 ng/mL). Bold characters represent statistically significant values. Bold characters represent statistically significant values. NC: not statistically comparable since one group is missing.
| Posaconazole Plasma Concentrations > 700 ng/mL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| aOR (95% IC) | aOR (95% IC) | |||
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 0.577 | 0.806 [0.378; 1.720] | ||
|
| 0.794 | 1.106 [0.519; 2.354] | ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 0.750 | 1.130 [0.533; 2.398] | ||
|
| NC | NC | ||
|
| 0.550 | 0.697 [0.214; 2.271] | ||
|
| 0.966 | 0.983 [0.439; 2.201] | ||
|
| 0.281 | 1.765 [0.629; 4.959] | ||
|
| 0.350 | 0.673 [0.294; 1.542] | ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NC | NC | ||
Figure 3Influence of VDR Cdx2 A > G SNP on posaconazole exposure.
Figure 4Influence of VDR BsmI A>G SNP on ITC exposure. p = 0.002.
Logistic regression analysis: factors able to predict itraconazole plasma concentrations over efficacy cut-off limits (>500 ng/mL) (A) and toxicity cut-off limits (>1000 ng/mL) (B). Bold characters represent statistically significant values. NC: not statistically comparable since one group is missing.
| Itraconazole Plasma Concentrations > 500 ng/mL (A) | Itraconazole Plasma Concentrations > 1000 ng/mL (B) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
| aOR (95% IC) | aOR (95% IC) | aOR (95% IC) | aOR (95% IC) | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 0.322 | 1.424 [0.708; 2.866] | ||||||
|
| 0.848 | 1.099 [0.419; 4.179] | ||||||
|
| 0.820 | 0.865 [2.217; 3.023] | 0.561 | 0.536 [0.065; 4.394] | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.873 | 0.946 [0.476; 1.880] | 0.519 | 0.732 [0.284; 1.888] | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.263 | 0.675 [0.339; 1.334] |
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 0.487 | 1.359 [0.572; 3.231] | 0.691 | 0.767 [0.207; 2.839] | ||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.296 | 0.502 [0.138; 1.826] | ||||||
|
|
|
| 0.947 | 1.036 [0.369; 2.908] | ||||
|
| NC | |||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.984 | 1.796 [0.349; 9.240] | 0.847 | 1.242 [0.137; 11.221] | ||||
Figure 5Diagram of patients enrolment considering inclusion and exclusion criteria.