Purpose: To compare the pharmacokinetic variables of erlotinib in current smokers with nonsmokers after receiving a single oral 150 or 300 mg dose of erlotinib. Experimental Design: This was a single-center, open-label pharmacokinetic study in healthy male subjects. Subjects were enrolled into two treatment cohorts based on smoking status (current smokers and nonsmokers). The pharmacokinetic profile for erlotinib and its metabolite, OSI-420, was determined for each subject following each treatment. Results: Current smokers achieved significantly less erlotinib exposure following a single 150 or 300 mg dose than nonsmokers. Following the 150 mg dose, the geometric mean erlotinib AUC 0-1 in smokers was 2.8-fold lower than in nonsmokers and similar to that of nonsmokers at the 300 mg dose. C max in smokers was two-thirds of that in nonsmokers, and C 24h in smokers was 8.3-fold lower than in nonsmokers. The median C 24h of smokers at the 300 mg dose was slightly less than the C 24h of smokers at the 150 mg dose. The median C max was greater in smokers at the 300 mg dose than in nonsmokers at the 150 mg dose. Conclusion: This study confirms that the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib is different in current smokers and nonsmokers. The observation that AUC 0-1 and C 24h were significantly decreased in smokers compared with nonsmokers, and a smaller decrease in C max was observed, is consistent with increased metabolic clearance of erlotinib in current smokers.Although the recommendation to consider smoking status in clinical studies was made decades ago (1), the effect of smoking on pharmacokinetics has been studied for only a limited number of drugs (2 -5). Drugs for which patients' smoking status may have clinical significance include caffeine (6), chlordiazepoxide (7), chlorpromazine (8), diazepam (7), estradiol (9), flecainide (10, 11), haloperidol (12), heparin (13), imipramine (14), insulin (15), pentazocine (16), propoxyphene (7), propranolol (17), tacrine (4), and theophyline (18). Studies indicate that some of these drugs, including caffeine, imipramine, pentazocine, tacrine, and theophyline, are likely affected by induction of cytochrome P4501A enzymes.Erlotinib (TarcevaR, OSI Pharmaceuticals, Melville, NY; Roche, Basel, Switzerland; Genentech, South San Francisco, CA) is an orally active, potent selective inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase (19). It is indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non -small cell lung cancer after failure of at least one prior chemotherapy regimen and in combination with gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with local advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer. In the pivotal phase III non -small cell lung cancer trial, BR.21 (20), smoking history was the only factor with a significant and potentially clinically relevant interaction with treatment, indicating that erlotinib was more effective in never smokers than in current or former smokers. Further analyses have also shown that smoking hist...

The long half-life of erlotinib supports the current once-daily dosing regimen at 150 mg/d. Effects of covariates on erlotinib clearance and correlations with adverse event severity were provided to aid in the detection of a treatment-emergent effect.

A B S T R A C T PurposeCigarette smoking induces CYP1A1/1A2 and is hypothesized to alter erlotinib pharmacokinetics. This study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of erlotinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who smoke and compare the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib at the MTD in current smokers with 150 mg. Patients and MethodsCohorts of NSCLC patients currently smoking Ն 10 cigarettes per day for Ն 1 year received escalating doses of erlotinib for 14 days until dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). A separate cohort of patients was then randomly assigned to erlotinib at either MTD or 150 mg daily with pharmacokinetics assessed at day 14. Erlotinib was continued until progression or intolerable toxicity. ResultsFour dose levels were evaluated in 22 patients: 200, 250, 300, and 350 mg. DLT was observed in one of six patients at 300 mg (rash) and two of five patients at 350 mg (acneiform dermatitis and fatigue/decreased Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status). Thirty-five patients were randomly assigned to 150 mg or 300 mg. Common adverse events (all grades) were: skin toxicity (150 mg, 29%; 300 mg, 67%), diarrhea (150 mg, 18%; 300 mg, 50%), and fatigue (150 mg, 12%; 300 mg, 17%). Erlotinib exposure was dose-proportional within dose range tested. Median steady-state trough erlotinib plasma concentrations were 0.375 and 1.22 g/mL for 150 mg and 300 mg, respectively. ConclusionThe MTD of erlotinib in NSCLC patients who smoke was 300 mg. Steady-state trough plasma concentrations and incidence of rash and diarrhea in smokers at 300 mg were similar to those in former or never smokers receiving 150 mg in previous studies. The potential benefit of higher erlotinib doses in current smokers warrants further evaluation.