Koen G. A. M. Hussaarts

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation occurs in approximately 20% of patients. Most of these patients use immunosuppressant drugs. Meanwhile, patients with HCC recurrence are frequently treated with the small molecule kinase inhibitor (SMKI) sorafenib. However, sorafenib and many immunosuppressants are substrates of the same enzymatic pathways (e.g., CYP3A4), which may potentially result in altered SMKI or immunosuppressant plasma levels. Therefore, we investigated changes in drug exposure of both sorafenib and immunosuppressants over time in four patients with systemic immunosuppressant and sorafenib treatment after HCC recurrence. In this study, sorafenib exposure declined over time during combined treatment with immunosuppressants, while two patients also experienced declining tacrolimus plasma levels. Importantly, patients were unable to increase the sorafenib dose higher than 200 mg b.i.d. without experiencing significant toxicity. We recommend to treat patients using both sorafenib and immunosuppressants with a sorafenib starting dose of 200 mg b.i.d.

Prior studies have demonstrated an organic anion transporter 6 (OAT6)-mediated accumulation of sorafenib in keratinocytes. The OAT6 inhibitor probenecid decreases sorafenib uptake in skin and might, therefore, decrease sorafenib-induced cutaneous adverse events. Here, the influence of probenecid on sorafenib pharmacokinetics and toxicity was investigated. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed in 16 patients on steady-state sorafenib treatment at days 1 and 15 of the study. Patients received sorafenib (200–800 mg daily) in combination with probenecid (500 mg two times daily (b.i.d.)) on days 2–15. This study was designed to determine bioequivalence with geometric mean Area under the curve from zero to twelve hours (AUC_{0–12 h}) as primary endpoint. During concomitant probenecid, sorafenib plasma AUC_{0–12 h} decreased by 27% (90% CI: −38% to −14%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, peak and trough levels of sorafenib, as well as sorafenib concentrations in skin, decreased to a similar extent in the presence of probenecid. The metabolic ratio of sorafenib-glucuronide to parent drug increased (+29%) in the presence of probenecid. A decrease in systemic sorafenib concentrations during probenecid administration seems to have influenced cutaneous concentrations. Since sorafenib-glucuronide concentrations increased compared with sorafenib and sorafenib-N-oxide, probenecid may have interrupted enterohepatic circulation of sorafenib by inhibition of the organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OATP1B1). Sorafenib treatment with probenecid is, therefore, not bioequivalent to sorafenib monotherapy. A clear effect of probenecid on sorafenib toxicity could not be identified in this study.

Purpose: Antidepressants like the serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) are often used concomitantly with tamoxifen (e.g. for treatment of depression). This may lead to an additional prolongation of the QTc-interval, with an increased risk of cardiac side effects. Therefore we investigated whether there is a drug-drug interaction between tamoxifen and SRIs resulting in a prolonged QTc-interval. Methods: Electrocardiograms (ECGs) of 100 patients were collected at steady state tamoxifen treatment, with or without concomitant SRI co-medication. QTc-interval was manually measured and calculated using the Fridericia formula. Primary outcome was difference in QTc-interval between tamoxifen monotherapy and tamoxifen concomitantly with an SRI. Results: The mean QTc-interval was 12.4 ms longer when tamoxifen was given concomitantly with an SRI (95% CI:1.8–23.1 ms; P = 0.023). Prolongation of the QTc-interval was particularly pronounced for paroxetine (17.2 ms; 95%CI:1.4–33.0 ms; P = 0.04), escitalopram (12.5 ms; 95%CI:4.4–20.6 ms; P < 0.01) and citalopram (20.7 ms; 95%CI:0.7–40.7 ms; P = 0.047), where other agents like venlafaxine did not seem to prolong the QTc-interval. None of the patients had a QTc-interval of >500 ms. Conclusions: Concomitant use of tamoxifen and SRIs resulted in a significantly higher mean QTc-interval, which was especially the case for paroxetine, escitalopram and citalopram. When concomitant administration with an SRI is warranted venlafaxine is preferred.

Tamoxifen is a prodrug that is primarily metabolized into the pharmacologically active metabolite endoxifen and eventually into inactive metabolites. The herb curcumin may increase endoxifen exposure by affecting phase II metabolism. We compared endoxifen and tamoxifen exposure in breast cancer patients with or without curcumin, and with addition of the bio-enhancer piperine. Tamoxifen (20–30mg per day (q.d.)) was either given alone, or combined with curcumin (1200 mg three times daily (t.i.d.)) +/− piperine (10 mg t.i.d.). The primary endpoint of this study was the difference in geometric means for the area under the curve (AUC) of endoxifen. Genotyping was performed to determine CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 phenotypes. The endoxifen AUC_0–24h decreased with 7.7% (95%CI: −15.4 to 0.7%; p = 0.07) with curcumin and 12.4% (95%CI: −21.9 to −1.9%; p = 0.02) with curcumin and piperine, compared to tamoxifen alone. Tamoxifen AUC_0–24h showed similar results. For patients with an extensive CYP2D6 metabolism phenotype (EM), effects were more pronounced than for intermediate CYP2D6 metabolizers (IMs). In conclusion, the exposure to tamoxifen and endoxifen was significantly decreased by concomitant use of curcumin (+/− piperine). Therefore, co-treatment with curcumin could lower endoxifen concentrations below the threshold for efficacy (potentially 20–40% of the patients), especially in EM patients.

Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), including the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), have rapidly become an established factor in daily (hemato)-oncology practice. Although the oral route of administration offers improved flexibility and convenience for the patient, challenges arise in the use of MKIs. As MKIs are prescribed extensively, patients are at increased risk for (severe) drug–drug interactions (DDIs). As a result of these DDIs, plasma pharmacokinetics of MKIs may vary significantly, thereby leading to high interpatient variability and subsequent risk for increased toxicity or a diminished therapeutic outcome. Most clinically relevant DDIs with MKIs concern altered absorption and metabolism. The absorption of MKIs may be decreased by concomitant use of gastric acid-suppressive agents (e.g. proton pump inhibitors) as many kinase inhibitors show pH-dependent solubility. In addition, DDIs concerning drug (uptake and efflux) transporters may be of significant clinical relevance during MKI therapy. Furthermore, since many MKIs are substrates for cytochrome P450 isoenzymes (CYPs), induction or inhibition with strong CYP inhibitors or inducers may lead to significant alterations in MKI exposure. In conclusion, DDIs are of major concern during MKI therapy and need to be monitored closely in clinical practice. Based on the current knowledge and available literature, practical recommendations for management of these DDIs in clinical practice are presented in this review.

To the Editor With interest, we read the report by Chu and colleagues investigating the association of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with capecitabine efficacy