aprepitant and Drug-Related-Side-Effects-and-Adverse-Reactions

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).. The literature was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of olanzapine for the prophylaxis of CINV using PubMed, Embase, Central, as well as clinicaltrials.gov for unpublished studies. The endpoints of the study were the number of patients who achieved a complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue) and no nausea in the acute, delayed and overall phases. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The included RCTs were analysed using RevMan 5.3 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.. Ten RCTs were identified for the meta-analysis. Compared with other antiemetic agents, olanzapine significantly improved the CR in the delayed and overall phases, but did not enhance the CR in the acute phase. For the control of CINV, olanzapine was better than and comparable with aprepitant in the acute phase and delayed phase, respectively. Compared with placebo, treatment with 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine exhibited similar efficacy in terms of the CR in the delayed and overall phases.. Olanzapine is an excellent alternative for the prophylaxis of CINV. Olanzapine 5 mg per day should be recommended as the initial dose because of equivalent efficacy to a 10 mg dose but a lower potential risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to explore the optimal combination of medicines.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Benzodiazepines; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Olanzapine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting

Aprepitant (Emend) is the first commercially available drug from a new class of agents, the neurokinin NK(1) receptor antagonists. Oral aprepitant, in combination with other agents, is indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults. In three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing aprepitant (125 mg day 1, 80mg once daily on days 2 and 3 or 2-5) plus standard therapy (intravenous ondansetron and oral dexamethasone) with standard therapy plus placebo, overall complete responses (primary endpoint, defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy) were seen in significantly more patients in the aprepitant arms (63-73% versus 43-52%, p < 0.01 for all comparisons). Complete responses and complete protection during the acute and delayed phase, and overall complete protection were also observed in significantly more patients in the aprepitant arms. The difference between treatment groups was more marked in the overall and delayed phases than in the acute phase. The antiemetic efficacy of aprepitant plus standard therapy in the prevention of CINV was maintained for up to six cycles of chemotherapy. Where assessed, more patients in the aprepitant plus standard therapy arms than the standard therapy plus placebo arms reported no impact of CINV on daily life, as assessed by the Functional Living Index-Emesis. Aprepitant is generally well tolerated. The most common adverse events in randomised trials were asthenia or fatigue. Other adverse events experienced by aprepitant recipients include anorexia, constipation, diarrhoea, nausea (after day 5 of the study) and hiccups. In addition to being a substrate for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, aprepitant is also a moderate inhibitor and inducer of this isoenzyme as well as an inducer of CYP2C9. Thus, aprepitant has the potential to interact with other agents metabolised by hepatic CYP isoenzymes. In one trial, there was a higher incidence of serious infection or febrile neutropenia in the aprepitant plus standard therapy arm than the standard therapy plus placebo arm; this was attributed to a pharmacokinetic interaction between aprepitant and dexamethasone. In subsequent trials, a modified dexamethasone regimen was used. In conclusion, when added to standard therapy (a serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid), aprepitant is effective and generally well tolerated in the prevention of CIN

Topics: Animals; Aprepitant; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Double-Blind Method; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Morpholines; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, Neurokinin-1; Vomiting

This paper reviews the clinical profile of aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist to be approved for use in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. When given to patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, aprepitant in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine type-3 (5HT(3)) receptor antagonist and a corticosteroid provides significantly improved protection from chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over that which has been previously achievable with current antiemetics.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Receptors, Neurokinin-1; Vomiting

More than 50% patients develop emesis during induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). The addition of aprepitant for emesis control in children receiving induction for AML have not been explored.. A single-institutional randomised, open-label trial (NCT02979548) was conducted where children between 5 and 18 years with the diagnosis of AML being planned for 3+7 induction regimen were included. All study participants received ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg) every 8 hours for 8 days starting 30 min prior to chemotherapy. Children belonging to aprepitant group additionally received aprepitant capsules (15-40 kg=days 1-3, 80 mg; >40 kg=day 1, 125 mg and days 2-3, 80 mg) starting from 1 hour prior to chemotherapy. The proportion of patients with complete response (CR) in chemotherapy induced vomiting (CIV) in acute phase (day 1-8), delayed phase (day 9-13), overall and initial 96 hours were recorded along with severity of vomiting and adverse effects.. Total 78 children were randomised (Aprepitant group: 37 and control group: 41). The proportion of patients with CR in CIV was significantly higher in Aprepitant group in acute phase (p=0.007), overall phase (p=0.007) and in initial 96 hours (p<0.001) but it was not different in delayed phase (p=0.07). The first episode of vomiting was also significantly delayed in aprepitant group (p=0.02). Adverse effect profile was similar in two groups.. Aprepitant significantly improves emesis control in children receiving induction therapy for AML, especially in acute phase and should be routinely incorporated as part of antiemetic prophylaxis.. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02979548).

Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Child; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Morpholines; Nausea; Vomiting

To assess the efficacy of oral NEPA (netupitant-palonosetron 300/0.50 mg) over multiple chemotherapy cycles.. Two randomized phase III studies evaluated a single dose of oral NEPA given on day 1 in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)-based (Study 1) or highly (HEC)/moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy (safety Study 2). Oral NEPA was compared with oral palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 1) or oral aprepitant 125 mg day 1, 80 mg days 2-3/palonosetron 0.50 mg (Study 2; no formal statistical comparisons). Oral dexamethasone was administered in all treatment groups. Complete response (CR; no emesis/no rescue medication), no emesis, and no significant nausea (NSN) rates during acute (0-24 h) and delayed (>24-120 h) phases of chemotherapy cycles 1-4 in each study were evaluated.. In Study 1, 1450 patients received 5969 chemotherapy cycles; in Study 2, 412 patients received 1961 chemotherapy cycles. In each study, ≥75% of patients completed 4 or more cycles. In Study 1, oral NEPA was superior to palonosetron in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in the acute and delayed phases of cycle 1, with higher rates of CR (all P < 0.05), no emesis (all P < 0.05), and NSN (delayed phase P < 0.05 cycles 1, 2, and 4) reported across 4 cycles. In Study 2, oral NEPA had numerically higher CR and NSN rates in the acute and delayed phases than aprepitant-palonosetron in MEC/HEC patients.. Oral NEPA was highly effective in preventing both acute and delayed CINV over multiple chemotherapy cycles of HEC, AC, and MEC regimens.. Study 1, NCT01339260; Study 2, NCT01376297.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Cyclophosphamide; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Isoquinolines; Male; Middle Aged; Palonosetron; Pyridines; Quinuclidines; Treatment Outcome

This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer receiving full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.. Patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic lung cancer who received full dose single-day cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized (1:1) to aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone, or placebo plus palonosetron and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response of nausea and vomiting in the first cycle. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with nausea and vomiting who received rescue antiemetic medication, the response of cross-over patients, and safety.. A total of 244 patients were randomized. There was no difference between the 2 groups regarding personal characteristics. The administration of aprepitant significantly improved the complete response for vomiting in the overall period (92.6% vs. 79.93%; P < .01), but not a nausea-free response (75.4% vs. 71.3%; P > .05) in the first cycle. The percentage of patients who received rescue antiemetic medication was decreased for the aprepitant group (14.8% vs. 37.1%; P < .001). Patients who did not use aprepitant and suffered with nausea and vomiting in cycle 1 were crossed over to the aprepitant group (N = 32), and the rate of nausea and vomiting in cycle 2 was decreased to 37.5% (P < .05) and 25% (P < .05), respectively. There were no drug-related adverse effects.. Aprepitant plus palonosetron and dexamethasone proved to be effective and well-tolerated in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of full-dose single-day cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Palonosetron; Vomiting

Oral aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is recommended in combination with other anti-emetic agents for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults, but its efficacy and safety in paediatric patients are unknown. We did this phase 3 trial to examine the safety and efficacy of such treatment in children.. In this final analysis of a phase 3, randomised, multicentre, double-blind study, patients aged 6 months to 17 years with a documented malignancy who were scheduled to receive either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomly assigned with an interactive voice response system to an age-based and weight-based blinded regimen of aprepitant (125 mg for ages 12-17 years; 3·0 mg/kg up to 125 mg for ages 6 months to <12 years) plus ondansetron on day 1, followed by aprepitant (80 mg for ages 12-17 years; 2·0 mg/kg up to 80 mg for ages 6 months to <12 years) on days 2 and 3, or placebo plus ondansetron on day 1 followed by placebo on days 2 and 3; addition of dexamethasone was allowed. Randomisation was stratified according to patient age, planned use of chemotherapy associated with very high risk of emetogenicity, and planned use of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic. Ondansetron was dosed per the product label for paediatric use or local standard of care. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved complete response (defined as no vomiting, no retching, and no use of rescue medication) during the 25-120 h (delayed phase) after initiation of emetogenic chemotherapy. Efficacy and safety analyses were done with all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01362530.. Between Sept 22, 2011, and Aug 16, 2013, 307 patients were randomly assigned at 49 sites in 24 countries to either the aprepitant group (155 patients) or to the control group (152 patients). Three patients in the aprepitant group and two in the control group did not receive study medication, and thus were excluded from analyses. 77 (51%) of 152 patients in the aprepitant group and 39 (26%) of 150 in the control group achieved a complete response in the delayed phase (p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (23 [15%] of 152 in the aprepitant group vs 21 [14%] of 150 in the control group), anaemia (14 [9%] vs 26 [17%]), and decreased neutrophil count (11 [7%] vs 17 [11%]). The most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (23 [15%] patients in the aprepitant group vs 22 [15%] in the control group).. Addition of aprepitant to ondansetron with or without dexamethasone is effective for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients being treated with moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.. Merck & Co., Inc.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aprepitant; Child; Child, Preschool; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Infant; Male; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Vomiting

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-dose fosaprepitant in combination with intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone.. Patients receiving chemotherapy including cisplatin (≥70 mg/m(2)) were eligible. A total of 347 patients (21% had received cisplatin with vomiting) were enrolled in this trial to receive the fosaprepitant regimen (fosaprepitant 150 mg, intravenous, on day 1 in combination with granisetron, 40 μg/kg, intravenous, on day 1 and dexamethasone, intravenous, on days 1-3) or the control regimen (placebo plus intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone). The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) over the entire treatment course (0-120 h).. The percentage of patients with a complete response was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group (64% versus 47%, P = 0.0015). The fosaprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen in both the acute (0-24 h postchemotherapy) phase (94% versus 81%, P = 0.0006) and the delayed (24-120 h postchemotherapy) phase (65% versus 49%, P = 0.0025).. Single-dose fosaprepitant used in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone was well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy, including high-dose cisplatin.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aprepitant; Cisplatin; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neoplasms; Vomiting

Complete protection from nausea/vomiting is currently achieved in a minority of patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC). Currently the use of 5-HT3-antagonists and dexamethasone (DEX) represents the standard of care. The role of the NK-1-antagonist aprepitant in HDC remains to be better defined. A total of 64 patients undergoing multiple days of HDC received granisetron, DEX plus aprepitant during chemotherapy. After the end of chemotherapy aprepitant plus DEX was given for a further 2 days. Primary end point was CR defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medication in the overall phase (day 1 until 5 days after end of chemotherapy). Acute/delayed and overall CR were achieved in 83%/70% and 63%, respectively. Acute and delayed nausea were observed in 20 and 38% of the patients. The tolerability of the aprepitant regimen over 4-5 days was comparable with the 3-day antiemetic regimen. In our study, aprepitant demonstrated good tolerability. Taking into account the methodological constraints of comparing our results with those from the available literature, the addition of aprepitant to the antiemetic treatment regimen may provide improved prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during HDC.

Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Carboplatin; Drug Combinations; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Etoposide; Female; Granisetron; Humans; Ifosfamide; Male; Melphalan; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Paclitaxel; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

The neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant, plus a 5HT3 antagonist and corticosteroid is well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults but has not been formally assessed in adolescents.. Patients age 11-19 years old receiving emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to aprepitant triple therapy (aprepitant [A] 125 mg p.o., dexamethasone [D] 8 mg p.o., and ondansetron [O] 0.15 mg/kg i.v. t.i.d. day 1; A 80 mg, D 4 mg, and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; A 80 mg and D 4 mg day 3; and D 4 mg day 4) or a control regimen (D 16 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 1; D 8 mg and O 0.15 mg/kg t.i.d. day 2; and D 8 mg days 3 and 4). The primary endpoint was the difference in drug-related adverse events during and for 14 days following treatment. Efficacy and aprepitant pharmacokinetics were assessed.. Baseline characteristics were similar between aprepitant (N = 28) and control (N = 18) groups. Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the aprepitant group (25% vs. 11.1%). Complete response (CR) rates were 35.7% for aprepitant triple therapy versus 5.6% for the control group. Mean plasma aprepitant AUC(0-24 hr) and C(max) on day 1 and mean trough concentrations on days 2 and 3 were consistently lower compared to historical data obtained from healthy adults; however, the differences were not clinically significant.. Aprepitant triple therapy was generally well tolerated; CR were greater with aprepitant, although not statistically significant. Pharmacokinetics suggest that the adult dosing regimen is appropriate for adolescents.

Topics: Adolescent; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Area Under Curve; Child; Dexamethasone; Double-Blind Method; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Metabolic Clearance Rate; Morpholines; Nausea; Neutropenia; Ondansetron; Placebos; Treatment Outcome; Vomiting; Young Adult

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with standard antiemetics has been more difficult to achieve in female patients. Data from two phase III trials of the NK1 antagonist aprepitant were assessed for potential effect of gender on treatment response.. 1,044 patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m2) were randomly assigned to control regimen [ondansetron (O) 32 mg i.v. and dexamethasone (D) 20 mg p.o. on day 1; D 8 mg twice daily on days 2-4] or aprepitant (A) regimen (A 125 mg p.o. plus O 32 mg and D 12 mg on day 1; A 80 mg and D 8 mg once daily on days 2-3; and D 8 mg on day 4). The primary endpoint was overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy over days 1-5). Data were analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Between-treatment comparisons for each gender were made using logistic regression.. Women comprised 42 and 43% of the aprepitant and control groups, respectively. In the control group, 41% of women had overall complete response compared with 53% of men. In the aprepitant group, 66% of women had overall complete response compared with 69% of men.. The addition of aprepitant may negate the adverse prognostic effect of female gender on the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Male; Morpholines; Nausea; Placebos; Receptors, Serotonin, 5-HT3; Sex Factors; United States; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the scariest chemotherapy-induced adverse effects. We evaluated the adherence to the 2017 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the latest guideline recommendations, for the management of acute CINV at our institute.. During a 6-months cross-sectional study on outpatient's cancer patients, we collected data from the prescription documents during temporary hospitalization and compared the results with ASCO guideline recommendations.. The most prescribed prophylactic regimens for the management of CINV were combination of aprepitant, granisetron, and dexamethasone and metoclopramide (51.8%). Regarding prescription compatibility in our center with ASCO guideline recommnedations, selection of different regimens for prophylaxis of acute CINV in our institute was compliant in 0 %, 22%, 4%, and 40% of high, moderate, low, and minimal emetogenic potential of chemotherapy regimen groupss, respectively.. Although our hospital is a referral and university-affiliated center, adherence to the ASCO guideline recommendations for prophylaxis of CINV was poor.

Topics: Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Aprepitant; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Granisetron; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Nausea; Neoplasms; Prognosis; Vomiting

Fosaprepitant, an intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, contains polysorbate 80, which is associated with infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs) and hypersensitivity systemic reactions (HSRs). This study investigated ISAEs/HSRs following fosaprepitant with anthracycline-containing chemotherapy.. This retrospective chart review noted ISAEs/HSRs following the anthracycline doxorubicin+cyclophosphamide and a three-drug fosaprepitant regimen, via peripheral line.. 35/127 patients (28%) developed ISAEs/HSRs with chemotherapy and antiemetic therapy: 32 developed 137 individual ISAEs, primarily erythema, pain and catheter-site swelling; 16 developed 50 individual HSRs, primarily edema/swelling, erythema or dermatitis (no anaphylaxis).. Fosaprepitant is associated with a significant ISAE/HSR rate following anthracycline-containing chemotherapy via peripheral line. Polysorbate 80-free intravenous neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist may provide a safer chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prophylaxis option.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Aged; Anthracyclines; Antiemetics; Aprepitant; Cyclophosphamide; Doxorubicin; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Polysorbates; Vomiting

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) may occur during the acute (0-24 h) or delayed (25-120 h) phase following chemotherapy administration. The addition of a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist to antiemetic regimens containing a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone has resulted in improved CINV prophylaxis. Due to numerous adverse events and hypersensitivity reactions associated with fosaprepitant, a commonly used neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, there remains an unmet need for better-tolerated formulations. HTX-019, the US FDA-approved polysorbate 80- and synthetic surfactant-free aprepitant injectable emulsion, is bioequivalent to and better tolerated (fewer treatment-emergent adverse events) than fosaprepitant. HTX-019 represents a valuable alternative to fosaprepitant for CINV prophylaxis.

Topics: Aprepitant; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Induction Chemotherapy; Morpholines; Nausea; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Polysorbates; Receptors, Neurokinin-1; Vomiting

The bile salt export pump (BSEP) is expressed at the canalicular domain of hepatocytes, where it serves as the primary route of elimination for monovalent bile acids (BAs) into the bile canaliculi. The most compelling evidence linking dysfunction in BA transport with liver injury in humans is found with carriers of mutations that render BSEP nonfunctional. Based on mounting evidence, there appears to be a strong association between drug-induced BSEP interference and liver injury in humans; however, causality has not been established. For this reason, drug-induced BSEP interference is best considered a susceptibility factor for liver injury as other host- or drug-related properties may contribute to the development of hepatotoxicity. To better understand the association between BSEP interference and liver injury in humans, over 600 marketed or withdrawn drugs were evaluated in BSEP expressing membrane vesicles. The example of a compound that failed during phase 1 human trials is also described, AMG 009. AMG 009 showed evidence of liver injury in humans that was not predicted by preclinical safety studies, and BSEP inhibition was implicated. For 109 of the drugs with some effect on in vitro BSEP function, clinical use, associations with hepatotoxicity, pharmacokinetic data, and other information were annotated. A steady state concentration (C(ss)) for each of these annotated drugs was estimated, and a ratio between this value and measured IC₅₀ potency values were calculated in an attempt to relate exposure to in vitro potencies. When factoring for exposure, 95% of the annotated compounds with a C(ss)/BSEP IC₅₀ ratio ≥ 0.1 were associated with some form of liver injury. We then investigated the relationship between clinical evidence of liver injury and effects to multidrug resistance-associated proteins (MRPs) believed to play a role in BA homeostasis. The effect of 600+ drugs on MRP2, MRP3, and MRP4 function was also evaluated in membrane vesicle assays. Drugs with a C(ss)/BSEP IC₅₀ ratio ≥ 0.1 and a C(ss)/MRP IC₅₀ ratio ≥ 0.1 had almost a 100% correlation with some evidence of liver injury in humans. These data suggest that integration of exposure data, and knowledge of an effect to not only BSEP but also one or more of the MRPs, is a useful tool for informing the potential for liver injury due to altered BA transport.

Topics: Animals; ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B; ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 11; ATP-Binding Cassette Transporters; Biological Transport; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Cluster Analysis; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Liver; Male; Multidrug Resistance-Associated Proteins; Pharmacokinetics; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley; Recombinant Proteins; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Toxicity Tests

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a significant concern in drug development due to the poor concordance between preclinical and clinical findings of liver toxicity. We hypothesized that the DILI types (hepatotoxic side effects) seen in the clinic can be translated into the development of predictive in silico models for use in the drug discovery phase. We identified 13 hepatotoxic side effects with high accuracy for classifying marketed drugs for their DILI potential. We then developed in silico predictive models for each of these 13 side effects, which were further combined to construct a DILI prediction system (DILIps). The DILIps yielded 60-70% prediction accuracy for three independent validation sets. To enhance the confidence for identification of drugs that cause severe DILI in humans, the "Rule of Three" was developed in DILIps by using a consensus strategy based on 13 models. This gave high positive predictive value (91%) when applied to an external dataset containing 206 drugs from three independent literature datasets. Using the DILIps, we screened all the drugs in DrugBank and investigated their DILI potential in terms of protein targets and therapeutic categories through network modeling. We demonstrated that two therapeutic categories, anti-infectives for systemic use and musculoskeletal system drugs, were enriched for DILI, which is consistent with current knowledge. We also identified protein targets and pathways that are related to drugs that cause DILI by using pathway analysis and co-occurrence text mining. While marketed drugs were the focus of this study, the DILIps has a potential as an evaluation tool to screen and prioritize new drug candidates or chemicals, such as environmental chemicals, to avoid those that might cause liver toxicity. We expect that the methodology can be also applied to other drug safety endpoints, such as renal or cardiovascular toxicity.

Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Databases, Factual; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Liver; Models, Biological; Predictive Value of Tests

Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antiemetics; Antineoplastic Agents; Aprepitant; Boronic Acids; Bortezomib; Drug Approval; Drug Interactions; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Fluorobenzenes; Glucans; Glucose; Glucosylceramidase; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Icodextrin; Immunosuppressive Agents; Isoquinolines; Morpholines; Nurse's Role; Omalizumab; Palonosetron; Patient Education as Topic; Pyrazines; Pyrimidines; Quinazolines; Quinuclidines; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Sulfonamides