ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2010
A quantitative framework and strategies for management and evaluation of metabolic drug-drug interactions in oncology drug development: new molecular entities as object drugs.
Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Strong CYP3A Inhibition and Induction on the Pharmacokinetics of Ixazomib, an Oral Proteasome Inhibitor: Results of Drug-Drug Interaction Studies in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors or Lymphoma and a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analysis.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Trial
- Designing phase I oncology dose escalation using dose-exposure-toxicity models as a complementary approach to model-based dose-toxicity models.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022Article
- Effects of rifampin, itraconazole and esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of alisertib, an investigational aurora a kinase inhibitor in patients with advanced malignancies.Investigational new drugs · 2018Article
- Toward Optimum Benefit-Risk and Reduced Access Lag For Cancer Drugs in Asia: A Global Development Framework Guided by Clinical Pharmacology Principles.Clinical and translational science · 2016Review
- Network pharmacology strategies toward multi-target anticancer therapies: from computational models to experimental design principles.Current pharmaceutical design · 2014Review
- Drug-drug interaction potential of marketed oncology drugs: in vitro assessment of time-dependent cytochrome P450 inhibition, reactive metabolite formation and drug-drug interaction prediction.Pharmaceutical research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article outlines general strategies for the management and evaluation of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) resulting from perturbation of clearance of investigational anticancer drug candidates by concomitantly administered agents in a drug development setting, with a focus on drug candidates that cannot be evaluated in first-in-human studies in healthy subjects. A risk level classification is proposed, based on quantitative integration of knowledge derived from preclinical drug-metabolism studies evaluating the projected percentage contribution [f(i)(%)] of individual molecular determinants (e.g. cytochrome P450 isoenzymes) to the overall human clearance of the investigational agent. The following classification is proposed with respect to susceptibility to DDIs with metabolic inhibitors: a projected maximum DDI expected to result in a ≤1.33-fold increase in exposure, representing a low level of risk; a projected maximum DDI expected to result in a >1.33-fold but <2-fold increase in exposure, representing a moderate level of risk; and a projected maximum DDI expected to result in a ≥2-fold increase in exposure, representing a potentially high level of risk. For DDIs with metabolic inducers, the following operational classification is proposed, based on the sum of the percentage contributions of enzymes that are inducible via a common mechanism to the overall clearance of the investigational drug: <<25%, representing a low level of risk; <50%, representing a moderate level of risk; and ≥50%, representing a potentially high level of risk. To ensure patient safety and to minimize bias in determination of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), it is recommended that strong and moderate inhibitors and inducers of the major contributing enzyme are excluded in phase I dose-escalation studies of high-risk compounds, whereas exclusion of strong inhibitors and inducers of the contributing enzyme(s) is recommended as being sufficient for moderate-risk compounds. For drugs that will be investigated in diseases such as glioblastoma, where there may be relatively frequent use of enzyme-inducing antiepileptic agents (EIAEDs), a separate dose-escalation study in this subpopulation is recommended to define the RP2D. For compounds in the high-risk category, if genetic deficiencies in the activity of the major drug-metabolizing enzyme are known, it is recommended that poor metabolizers be studied separately to define the RP2D for this subpopulation. Whereas concomitant medication exclusion criteria that are utilized in the phase I dose-escalation studies will probably also need to be maintained for high-risk compounds in phase II studies unless the results of a clinical DDI study indicate the absence of a clinically relevant interaction, these exclusion criteria can potentially be relaxed beyond phase I for moderate-risk compounds, if supported by the nature of clinical toxicities and the understanding of the therapeutic index in phase I. Adequately designed clinical DDI studies will not only inform potential relaxation of concomitant medication exclusion criteria in later-phase studies but, importantly, will also inform the development of pharmacokinetically derived dose-modification guidelines for use in clinical practice when coupled with adequate safety monitoring, as illustrated in the prescribing guidance for many recently approved oncology therapeutics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.