QT time prolongation
Adverse drug events
|Upper respiratory infection|
|Taste sense altered|
Variants ✨For the computationally intensive evaluation of the variants, please choose the paid standard subscription.
Explanations of the substances for patients
We have no additional warnings for the combination of lopinavir and vandetanib. Please also consult the relevant specialist information.
The reported changes in exposure correspond to the changes in the plasma concentration-time curve [ AUC ]. We did not detect any change in exposure to lopinavir. We currently cannot estimate the influence of vandetanib. We did not detect any change in exposure to vandetanib. We currently cannot estimate the influence of lopinavir.
The pharmacokinetic parameters of the average population are used as the starting point for calculating the individual changes in exposure due to the interactions.
The bioavailability of lopinavir is unknown. Protein binding [ Pb ] is not known. The metabolism mainly takes place via CYP3A4 and the active transport takes place in particular via PGP.
The bioavailability of vandetanib is unknown. The terminal half-life [ t12 ] is rather long at 456 hours and constant plasma levels [ Css ] are only reached after more than 1824 hours. The protein binding [ Pb ] is moderately strong at 93%. The metabolism mainly takes place via CYP3A4 and the active transport takes place partly via BCRP and PGP.
|Serotonergic Effects a||0||Ø||Ø|
Rating: According to our knowledge, neither lopinavir nor vandetanib increase serotonergic activity.
|Kiesel & Durán b||0||Ø||Ø|
Rating: According to our knowledge, neither lopinavir nor vandetanib increase anticholinergic activity.
QT time prolongation
Rating: In combination, lopinavir and vandetanib can potentially trigger ventricular arrhythmias of the torsades de pointes type.
General adverse effects
|Side effects||∑ frequency||lop||van|
|Upper respiratory infection||23.0 %||n.a.||23.0|
|Taste sense altered||8.0 %||n.a.||8.0|
|Cerebrovascular accident||1.3 %||n.a.||1.3|
|Abdominal pain||1.0 %||n.a.||+|
|Loss of appetite||1.0 %||n.a.||+|
Heart failure: vandetanib
Stevens johnson syndrome: vandetanib
Toxic epidermal necrolysis: vandetanib
Interstitial lung disease: vandetanib
Based on your answers and scientific information, we assess the individual risk of undesirable side effects. These recommendations are intended to advise professionals and are not a substitute for consultation with a doctor. In the restricted test version (alpha), the risk of all substances has not yet been conclusively assessed.
Abstract: On the basis of a single clinical trial in first-line treatment, the atazanavir and ritonavir combination appears to be no more effective than the fixed-dose combination of lopinavir and ritonavir. The adverse effect profiles were slightly different, but atazanavir carries a troubling risk of torsades de pointes.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Drug-induced torsades de pointes (TdP) is a complex regulatory and clinical problem due to the rarity of this sometimes fatal adverse event. In this context, the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) is an important source of information, which can be applied to the analysis of TdP liability of marketed drugs. OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the risk of antimicrobial-induced TdP by detecting alert signals in the AERS, on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative analyses. METHODS: Reports of TdP from January 2004 through December 2008 were retrieved from the public version of the AERS. The absolute number of cases and reporting odds ratio as a measure of disproportionality were evaluated for each antimicrobial drug (quantitative approach). A list of drugs with suspected TdP liability (provided by the Arizona Centre of Education and Research on Therapeutics [CERT]) was used as a reference to define signals. In a further analysis, to refine signal detection, we identified TdP cases without co-medications listed by Arizona CERT (qualitative approach). RESULTS: Over the 5-year period, 374 reports of TdP were retrieved: 28 antibacterials, 8 antifungals, 1 antileprosy and 26 antivirals were involved. Antimicrobials more frequently reported were levofloxacin (55) and moxifloxacin (37) among the antibacterials, fluconazole (47) and voriconazole (17) among the antifungals, and lamivudine (8) and nelfinavir (6) among the antivirals. A significant disproportionality was observed for 17 compounds, including several macrolides, fluoroquinolones, linezolid, triazole antifungals, caspofungin, indinavir and nelfinavir. With the qualitative approach, we identified the following additional drugs or fixed dose combinations, characterized by at least two TdP cases without co-medications listed by Arizona CERT: ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam, cotrimoxazole, metronidazole, ribavirin, lamivudine and lopinavir/ritonavir. DISCUSSION: Disproportionality for macrolides, fluoroquinolones and most of the azole antifungals should be viewed as 'expected' according to Arizona CERT list. By contrast, signals were generated by linezolid, caspofungin, posaconazole, indinavir and nelfinavir. Drugs detected only by the qualitative approach should be further investigated by increasing the sensitivity of the method, e.g. by searching also for the TdP surrogate marker, prolongation of the QT interval. CONCLUSIONS: The freely available version of the FDA AERS database represents an important source to detect signals of TdP. In particular, our analysis generated five signals among antimicrobials for which further investigations and active surveillance are warranted. These signals should be considered in evaluating the benefit-risk profile of these drugs.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Vandetanib is a multikinase inhibitor that is under assessment for the treatment of various cancers. QTc interval prolongation is one of the major adverse effects of this drug, but the reported incidence varies substantially among clinical trials. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain a better understanding in the risk of QTc interval prolongation among cancer patients administered vandetanib. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Eligible studies were phase II and III prospective clinical trials that involved cancer patients who were prescribed vandetanib 300 mg/d and that included data on QTc interval prolongation. The overall incidence and risk of QTc interval prolongation were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. Nine trials with 2,188 patients were included for the meta-analysis. The overall incidence of all-grade and high-grade QTc interval prolongation was 16.4% (95% CI, 8.1-30.4%) and 3.7% (8.1-30.4%), respectively, among non-thyroid cancer patients, and 18.0% (10.7-28.6%) and 12.0% (4.5-28.0%), respectively, among thyroid cancer patients. Patients with thyroid cancer who had longer treatment duration also had a higher incidence of high-grade events, with a relative risk of 3.24 (1.57-6.71), than patients who had non-thyroid cancer. Vandetanib was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-grade QTc interval prolongation with overall Peto odds ratios of 7.26 (4.36-12.09) and 5.70 (3.09-10.53) among patients with non-thyroid cancer and thyroid cancer, respectively, compared to the controls. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment with vandetanib is associated with a significant increase in the overall incidence and risk of QTc interval prolongation. Different cancer types and treatment durations may affect the risk of developing high-grade QTc interval prolongation.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Multi-targeted vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are known to cause cardiac toxicity, but the relative risk (RR) of QTc interval prolongation and serious arrhythmias associated with them are not reported. METHODS: We conducted a trial-level meta-analysis of randomised phase II and III trials comparing arms with and without a US Food and Drug Administration-approved VEGFR TKI (sunitinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, axitinib, vandetanib, cabozantinib, ponatinib and regorafenib). A total of 6548 patients from 18 trials were selected. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the summary incidence, RR and 95% CIs. RESULTS: The RR for all-grade and high-grade QTc prolongation for the TKI vs no TKI arms was 8.66 (95% CI 4.92-15.2, P<0.001) and 2.69 (95% CI 1.33-5.44, P=0.006), respectively, with most of the events being asymptomatic QTc prolongation. Respectively, 4.4% and 0.83% of patients exposed to VEGFR TKI had all-grade and high-grade QTc prolongation. On subgroup analysis, only sunitinib and vandetanib were associated with a statistically significant risk of QTc prolongation, with higher doses of vandetanib associated with a greater risk. The rate of serious arrhythmias including torsades de pointes did not seem to be higher with high-grade QTc prolongation. The risk of QTc prolongation was independent of the duration of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date, we show that VEGFR TKI can be associated with QTc prolongation. Although most cases were of low clinical significance, it is unclear whether the same applies to patients treated off clinical trials.
Abstract: No Abstract available
Abstract: Transporters in proximal renal tubules contribute to the disposition of numerous drugs. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms of tubular secretion have been progressively elucidated during the past decades. Organic anions tend to be secreted by the transport proteins OAT1, OAT3 and OATP4C1 on the basolateral side of tubular cells, and multidrug resistance protein (MRP) 2, MRP4, OATP1A2 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) on the apical side. Organic cations are secreted by organic cation transporter (OCT) 2 on the basolateral side, and multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) proteins MATE1, MATE2/2-K, P-glycoprotein, organic cation and carnitine transporter (OCTN) 1 and OCTN2 on the apical side. Significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may affect any of these transporters, altering the clearance and, consequently, the efficacy and/or toxicity of substrate drugs. Interactions at the level of basolateral transporters typically decrease the clearance of the victim drug, causing higher systemic exposure. Interactions at the apical level can also lower drug clearance, but may be associated with higher renal toxicity, due to intracellular accumulation. Whereas the importance of glomerular filtration in drug disposition is largely appreciated among clinicians, DDIs involving renal transporters are less well recognized. This review summarizes current knowledge on the roles, quantitative importance and clinical relevance of these transporters in drug therapy. It proposes an approach based on substrate-inhibitor associations for predicting potential tubular-based DDIs and preventing their adverse consequences. We provide a comprehensive list of known drug interactions with renally-expressed transporters. While many of these interactions have limited clinical consequences, some involving high-risk drugs (e.g. methotrexate) definitely deserve the attention of prescribers.