A cost analysis of upfront DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine therapy including capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil can result in severe treatment-related toxicity in up to 30% of patients. Toxicity is often related to reduced activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the main metabolic fluoropyrimidine enzyme, primarily caused by genetic DPYD polymorphisms. In a large prospective study, it was concluded that upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation is able to improve safety of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy. In our current analysis, we evaluated whether this strategy is cost saving. METHODS: A cost-minimisation analysis from a health-care payer perspective was performed as part of the prospective clinical trial (NCT02324452) in which patients prior to start of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy were screened for the DPYD variants DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A and received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T, c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A, c.1679T>G). Data on treatment, toxicity, hospitalisation and other toxicity-related interventions were collected. The model compared prospective screening for these DPYD variants with no DPYD screening. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Expected total costs of the screening strategy were €2599 per patient compared with €2650 for non-screening, resulting in a net cost saving of €51 per patient. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity and one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the screening strategy was very likely to be cost saving or worst case cost-neutral. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation, improving patient safety, is cost saving or cost-neutral but is not expected to yield additional costs. These results endorse implementing DPYD screening before start of fluoropyrimidine treatment as standard of care.

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation of fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with cancer: a prospective safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine treatment can result in severe toxicity in up to 30% of patients and is often the result of reduced activity of the key metabolic enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), mostly caused by genetic variants in the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). We assessed the effect of prospective screening for the four most relevant DPYD variants (DPYD*2A [rs3918290, c.1905+1G>A, IVS14+1G>A], c.2846A>T [rs67376798, D949V], c.1679T>G [rs55886062, DPYD*13, I560S], and c.1236G>A [rs56038477, E412E, in haplotype B3]) on patient safety and subsequent DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in daily clinical care. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, safety analysis in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands, the study population consisted of adult patients (≥18 years) with cancer who were intended to start on a fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy (capecitabine or fluorouracil as single agent or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents or radiotherapy). Patients with all tumour types for which fluoropyrimidine-based therapy was considered in their best interest were eligible. We did prospective genotyping for DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A. Heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T and c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G), and DPYD wild-type patients were treated according to the current standard of care. The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of severe (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 grade ≥3) overall fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity across the entire treatment duration. We compared toxicity incidence between DPYD variant allele carriers and DPYD wild-type patients on an intention-to-treat basis, and relative risks (RRs) for severe toxicity were compared between the current study and a historical cohort of DPYD variant allele carriers treated with full dose fluoropyrimidine-based therapy (derived from a previously published meta-analysis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02324452, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, we enrolled 1181 patients. 78 patients were considered non-evaluable, because they were retrospectively identified as not meeting inclusion criteria, did not start fluoropyrimidine-based treatment, or were homozygous or compound heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers. Of 1103 evaluable patients, 85 (8%) were heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, and 1018 (92%) were DPYD wild-type patients. Overall, fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers (33 [39%] of 85 patients) than in wild-type patients (231 [23%] of 1018 patients; p=0·0013). The RR for severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was 1·31 (95% CI 0·63-2·73) for genotype-guided dosing compared with 2·87 (2·14-3·86) in the historical cohort for DPYD*2A carriers, no toxicity compared with 4·30 (2·10-8·80) in c.1679T>G carriers, 2·00 (1·19-3·34) compared with 3·11 (2·25-4·28) for c.2846A>T carriers, and 1·69 (1·18-2·42) compared with 1·72 (1·22-2·42) for c.1236G>A carriers. INTERPRETATION: Prospective DPYD genotyping was feasible in routine clinical practice, and DPYD genotype-based dose reductions improved patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment. For DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G carriers, a 50% initial dose reduction was adequate. For c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T carriers, a larger dose reduction of 50% (instead of 25%) requires investigation. Since fluoropyrimidines are among the most commonly used anticancer agents, these findings suggest that implementation of DPYD genotype-guided individualised dosing should be a new standard of care. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Influence of the Acidic Beverage Cola on the Absorption of Erlotinib in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib depends on stomach pH for its bioavailability. When erlotinib is taken concurrently with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), stomach pH increases, which results in a clinically relevant decrease of erlotinib bioavailability. We hypothesized that this drug-drug interaction is reversed by taking erlotinib with the acidic beverage cola. The effects of cola on erlotinib bioavailability in patients not treated with a PPI were also studied. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, cross-over, pharmacokinetic study in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, we studied intrapatient differences in absorption (area under the plasma concentration time curve [AUC0-12h]) after a 7-day period of concomitant treatment with erlotinib, with or without esomeprazole, with either cola or water. At the 7th and 14th day, patients were hospitalized for 1 day for pharmacokinetic sampling. RESULTS: Twenty-eight evaluable patients were included in the analysis. In patients treated with erlotinib and esomeprazole with cola, the mean AUC0-12h increased 39% (range, -12% to 136%; P = .004), whereas in patients not treated with the PPI, the mean AUC0-12h was only slightly higher (9%; range, -10% to +30%; P = .03) after erlotinib intake with cola. CONCLUSION: Cola intake led to a clinically relevant and statistically significant increase in the bioavailability of erlotinib during esomeprazole treatment. In patients not treated with the PPI, the effects of cola were marginal. These findings can be used to optimize the management of drug-drug interactions between PPIs and erlotinib.