A phase 1, open-label, drug-drug interaction study of rucaparib with rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at evaluating the effect of rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors and the safety of rucaparib with and without coadministration of rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. METHODS: Patients received single doses of oral rosuvastatin 20 mg (Arm A) or oral contraceptives ethinylestradiol 30 µg + levonorgestrel 150 µg (Arm B) on days 1 and 19 and continuous doses of rucaparib 600 mg BID from day 5 to 23. Serial blood samples were collected with and without rucaparib for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (n = 18 each arm) were enrolled and received at least 1 dose of study drug. In the drug-drug interaction analysis (n = 15 each arm), the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of maximum concentration (Cmax) with and without rucaparib was 1.29 for rosuvastatin, 1.09 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.19 for levonorgestrel. GMR of area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to last quantifiable measurement (AUC0-last) was 1.34 for rosuvastatin, 1.43 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.56 for levonorgestrel. There was no increase in frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) when rucaparib was given with either of the probe drugs. In both arms, most TEAEs were mild in severity and considered unrelated to study treatment. CONCLUSION: Rucaparib 600 mg BID weakly increased the plasma exposure to rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Rucaparib safety profile when coadministered with rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives was consistent with that of rucaparib monotherapy. Dose adjustments of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives are not necessary when coadministered with rucaparib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03954366; Date of registration May 17, 2019.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of rucaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors and hepatic impairment.

PURPOSE: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib is approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; however, limited data are available on its use in patients with hepatic dysfunction. This study investigated whether hepatic impairment affects the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of rucaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with normal hepatic function or moderate hepatic impairment according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria were enrolled and received a single oral dose of rucaparib 600 mg. Concentrations of rucaparib and its metabolite M324 in plasma and urine were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between hepatic function groups, and safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled (n = 8 per group). Rucaparib maximum concentration (Cmax) was similar, while the area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf) was mildly higher in the moderate hepatic impairment group than in the normal control group (geometric mean ratio, 1.446 [90% CI 0.668-3.131]); similar trends were observed for M324. Eight (50%) patients experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 2 had normal hepatic function and 6 had moderate hepatic impairment. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate hepatic impairment showed mildly increased AUC0-inf for rucaparib compared to patients with normal hepatic function. Although more patients with moderate hepatic impairment experienced TEAEs, only 2 TEAEs were considered treatment related. These results suggest no starting dose adjustment is necessary for patients with moderate hepatic impairment; however, close safety monitoring is warranted.

The pharmacokinetics of pamiparib in the presence of a strong CYP3A inhibitor (itraconazole) and strong CYP3A inducer (rifampin) in patients with solid tumors: an open-label, parallel-group phase 1 study.

PURPOSE: Pamiparib is an investigational, selective, oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1/2 (PARP1/2) inhibitor that has demonstrated PARP-DNA complex trapping and CNS penetration in preclinical models, as well as preliminary anti-tumor activity in early-phase clinical studies. We investigated whether the single-dose pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of pamiparib is altered by coadministration of a strong CYP3A inducer (rifampin) or a strong CYP3A inhibitor (itraconazole) in patients with solid tumors. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 1 study, adults with advanced solid tumors received either oral pamiparib 60 mg (days 1 and 10) and once-daily oral rifampin 600 mg (days 3-11) or oral pamiparib 20 mg (days 1 and 7) and once-daily oral itraconazole 200 mg (days 3-8). Primary endpoints included pamiparib maximum observed concentration (Cmax), and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-tlast) and infinity (AUC0-inf). Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Rifampin coadministration did not affect pamiparib Cmax (geometric least-squares [GLS] mean ratio 0.94; 90% confidence interval 0.83-1.06), but reduced its AUC0-tlast (0.62 [0.54-0.70]) and AUC0-inf (0.57 [0.48-0.69]). Itraconazole coadministration did not affect pamiparib Cmax (1.05 [0.95-1.15]), AUC0-tlast (0.99 [0.91-1.09]), or AUC0-inf (0.99 [0.90-1.09]). There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Pamiparib plasma exposure was reduced 38-43% with rifampin coadministration but was unaffected by itraconazole coadministration. Pamiparib dose modifications are not considered necessary when coadministered with CYP3A inhibitors. Clinical safety and efficacy data will be used with these results to recommend dose modifications when pamiparib is coadministered with CYP3A inducers.