No abstract

An increasing number of cancer patients are using complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) in combination with their conventional chemotherapeutic treatment. Considering the narrow therapeutic window of oncolytic drugs, this CAM use increases the risk of clinically relevant herb-anticancer drug interactions. Such a relevant interaction is that of St. John's wort with the anticancer drugs irinotecan and imatinib. It is, however, estimated that CAM-anticancer drug interactions are responsible for substantially more unexpected toxicities of chemotherapeutic drugs and possible undertreatment seen in cancer patients.Induction of drug-metabolizing enzymes and ATP-binding cassette drug transporters can be one of the mechanisms behind CAM-anticancer drug interactions. Induction will often lead to therapeutic failure because of lower plasma levels of the anticancer drugs, and will easily go unrecognized in cancer treatment, where therapeutic failure is common.Recently identified nuclear receptors, such as the pregnane X receptor, the constitutive androstane receptor, and the vitamin D-binding receptor, play an important role in the induction of metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters. This knowledge has already been an aid in the identification of some CAM probably capable of causing interactions with anticancer drugs: kavakava, vitamin E, quercetin, ginseng, garlic, β-carotene, and echinacea. Evidently, more research is necessary to prevent therapeutic failure and toxicity in cancer patients and to establish guidelines for CAM use. The Oncologist 2006;11:742-752 Learning ObjectivesAfter completing this course, the reader will be able to:1. Describe the possible pharmacokinetic interactions between complementary alternative medicines and oncolytic drugs and the clinical consequences thereof.2. Define the role of the nuclear receptors PXR, CAR, and VDR in herb-drug interactions.3. Discuss methods to measure induction of drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters.Access and take the CME test online and receive 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit

There is wide variability in the response of individuals to standard doses of drug therapy. This is an important problem in clinical practice, where it can lead to therapeutic failures or adverse drug reactions. Polymorphisms in genes coding for metabolising enzymes and drug transporters can affect drug efficacy and toxicity. Pharmacogenetics aims to identify individuals predisposed to a high risk of toxicity and low response from standard doses of anti-cancer drugs. This review focuses on the clinical significance of polymorphisms in drug-metabolising enzymes (cytochrome P450 [CYP] 2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase [UGT] 1A1, glutathione S-transferase, sulfotransferase [SULT] 1A1, N-acetyltransferase [NAT], thiopurine methyltransferase [TPMT]) and drug transporters (P-glycoprotein [multidrug resistance 1], multidrug resistance protein 2 [MRP2], breast cancer resistance protein [BCRP]) in influencing efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy. The most important example to demonstrate the influence of pharmacogenetics on anti-cancer therapy is TPMT. A decreased activity of TPMT, caused by genetic polymorphisms in the TPMT gene, causes severe toxicity with mercaptopurine. Dosage reduction is necessary for patients with heterozygous or homozygous mutation in this gene. Other polymorphisms showing the influence of pharmacogenetics in the chemotherapeutic treatment of cancer are discussed, such as UGT1A1*28. This polymorphism is associated with an increase in toxicity with irinotecan. Also, polymorphisms in the DPYD gene show a relation with fluorouracil-related toxicity; however, in most cases no clear association has been found for polymorphisms in drug-metabolising enzymes and drug transporters, and pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of anti-cancer drugs. The studies discussed evaluate different regimens and tumour types and show that polymorphisms can have different, sometimes even contradictory, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects in different tumours in response to different drugs. The clinical application of pharmacogenetics in cancer treatment will therefore require more detailed information of the different polymorphisms in drug-metabolising enzymes and drug transporters. Larger studies, in different ethnic populations, and extended with haplotype and linkage disequilibrium analysis, will be necessary for each anti-cancer drug separately.

No abstract

PurposeThe development of multidrug resistance (MDR) is one of the major limitations in the treatment of cancer. Induction of P-glycoprotein (Pgp) has been regarded as one of the main mechanisms underlying anticancer drug-induced MDR. Since the induction of Pgp is (in part) regulated by the pregnane X receptor (PXR), the ability of several widely used anticancer drugs to activate PXR-mediated Pgp induction was investigated.MethodsA Pgp-reporter gene assay was employed to determine the ability of a panel of widely used anticancer drugs to induce Pgp. To further assess whether PXR could be involved in the induction of Pgp by anticancer drugs, Pgp protein expression after treatment with the anticancer drugs was determined in both wild-type and PXR-knocked down LS180 cells. Furthermore, the effect of the anticancer drugs on the intracellular accumulation of the Pgp-probes rhodamine 123 and doxorubicin was determined.ResultsOur study showed that vincristine, tamoxifen, vinblastine, docetaxel, cyclophosphamide, flutamide, ifosfamide and paclitaxel activate PXR-mediated Pgp induction, and were additionally shown to affect the intracellular accumulation of the Pgp probe rhodamine 123. Moreover, PXR activation was also shown to reduce the cytotoxic activity of the Pgp substrate doxorubicin in colon cancer cells.ConclusionOur results indicate that several anticancer drugs can activate PXR-mediated induction of Pgp and affect the accumulation of Pgp substrates.

Implementation of competency-based pharmacy education (CBPE) is a time-consuming, complicated process, which requires agreement on the tasks of a pharmacist, commitment, institutional stability, and a goal-directed developmental perspective of all stakeholders involved. In this article the main steps in the development of a fully-developed competency-based pharmacy curriculum (bachelor, master) are described and tips are given for a successful implementation. After the choice for entering into CBPE is made and a competency framework is adopted (step 1), intended learning outcomes are defined (step 2), followed by analyzing the required developmental trajectory (step 3) and the selection of appropriate assessment methods (step 4). Designing the teaching-learning environment involves the selection of learning activities, student experiences, and instructional methods (step 5). Finally, an iterative process of evaluation and adjustment of individual courses, and the curriculum as a whole, is entered (step 6). Successful implementation of CBPE requires a system of effective quality management and continuous professional development as a teacher. In this article suggestions for the organization of CBPE and references to more detailed literature are given, hoping to facilitate the implementation of CBPE.

No abstract

No abstract