Submit Your Article CMED MEACR meeting
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 557
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 13-16

Adverse drug reaction profile of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus conventional doxorubicin: An observational study


1 Department of Radiotherapy, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Radiotherapy, Medical College Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Department of Radiotherapy, College of Medicine and SG Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
4 Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, ? Kolkata, West Bengal, India
5 Department of Anaesthesiology, R. G. Kar Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Date of Web Publication9-Jan-2015

Correspondence Address:
Aloke Ghosh Dastidar
Department of Radiotherapy, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, 8/2, Dharmatala Road, Kolkata - 700 042, West Bengal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-0513.149025

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background : Potential life-threatening cardiac toxicities limit the lifetime dose of doxorubicin. The pegylation of the molecule protects the drug from detection by methoxypolyethylene glycol resulting increase of circulation time. Encapsulation of doxorubicin inside a pegylated liposome alters bioavailability, biodistribution and thus its biological activity significantly. We conducted an intensive monitoring of the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) profile of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in comparison with conventional doxorubicin in a tertiary care cancer center. Materials and Methods : ADR data were collected from 30 patients receiving PLD and 30 age-matched controls receiving conventional doxorubicin in this longitudinal observational study. Severity was graded as per US National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAEs). For the evaluation of acute and chronic toxicities, we adopted the basic scale from CTCAE version 4 of the National Cancer Institute. Results : The median disease duration was greater in PLD arm. Totally, 357 ADRs were noted with PLD and 375 with conventional doxorubicin. Of these, 75 (21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.69-28.33%) in the PLD group and 60 (16.26%, 95% CI: 9.74-22.78%) in the conventional doxorubicin group were of grade 3/4 severity. Common events included myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, stomatitis, palmer-planter erythrodysesthesia, alopecia with PLD and myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, stomatitis, alopecia, and cardio-toxicities with conventional doxorubicin. For hematological toxicities, there was no statistical significant difference between two arms. Furthermore, gastrointestinal toxicities (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, anorexia and stomatitis) were same for both arms. Among the skin toxicities palmar-plantar-erythrodysesthesia grade 2 toxicity was found in 60% patients receiving liposomal doxorubicin (P = 0.046). In cardio-toxicities, left ventricular ejection dysfunction found in 60% patients of conventional doxorubicin arm (P - 0.038). Conclusions: This observational study suggests that PLD has a better tolerability with less ventricular dysfunction but increased yet manageable palmar-plantar-erythrodysesthesia. This needs confirmation through further interventional study.

Keywords: Adverse drug reactions, doxorubicin, observational study, pegylated liposomal


How to cite this article:
Dastidar AG, Gupta A, Chakraborty A, Hazra A, Basu A. Adverse drug reaction profile of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus conventional doxorubicin: An observational study. Clin Cancer Investig J 2015;4:13-6

How to cite this URL:
Dastidar AG, Gupta A, Chakraborty A, Hazra A, Basu A. Adverse drug reaction profile of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus conventional doxorubicin: An observational study. Clin Cancer Investig J [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Oct 17];4:13-6. Available from: http://www.ccij-online.org/text.asp?2015/4/1/13/149025


  Introduction Top


Doxorubicin, an anthracycline is used for both carcinomas and sarcomas. It intercalates into DNA resulting in inhibition of DNA synthesis through DNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Formation of cytotoxic oxygen free radicals results in single- and double-stranded DNA breaks with subsequent inhibition of DNA synthesis and function. The usual dose in combination therapy is 45-60 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks. [1]

With a lifetime dose of 550 mg/m 2 , the use of doxorubicin is limited by its cardiac toxicities. [2],[3] The other common toxicities include myelosuppression; [1] leukopenia more common than thrombocytopenia or anemia; Cardiac toxicities [2] ranges from arrhythmias, pericarditis, and/or myocarditis which are usually transient and mostly asymptomatic and not dose-related. Chronic form results in a dose-dependent dilated cardiomyopathy associated with congestive heart failure; skin changes include hyperpigmentation of nails, skin rash, urticaria, and hypersensitivity to sunlight. Radiation recall skin reaction can occur at prior sites of irradiation.

To overcome this toxicity profile of doxorubicin, development of liposomal nanoparticle technology to deliver the drug directly to the tumors was established. The drug is protected from chemical and enzymatic degradation, with reduced plasma protein binding, and decreased uptake in normal tissues. It penetrates tumor tissue into which doxorubicin is released. Liposomes are microscopic vesicles composed of the phospholipid bilayer that are capable of encapsulating active drugs. [4] The pegylated liposomes of doxorubicin (PLD) are formulated with surface-bound methoxypolyethylene glycol to protect liposomes from detection by the mononuclear phagocytic system increasing blood circulation time altering bioavailability, biodistribution, and thus its biological activity significantly. [5]

We undertook a longitudinal observational study to compare the adverse drug reaction (ADR) profile of PLD vis-a-vis conventional doxorubicin.


  Materials and methods Top


We included females with ovarian cancer and breast cancer, judged to be suitable for doxorubicin or PLD, given as single or combination regimens with different drugs in the study if they had not received doxorubicin earlier. Patients with significant impairment of liver, kidney, heart, or other vital organs and those with a history of substance abuse were excluded. Each patient enrolled in the PLD arm, an age-matched (within ± 5 years) subject fulfilling the selection criteria was enrolled in conventional doxorubicin arm.

Patients of ovarian cancer and breast cancer of all stages were eligible for inclusion in the study with the intention of administrating at least 4 cycles of either of the drugs and maximum of 6 cycles. Patients in the PLD group received either this drug as monotherapy (n = 9), or as combination therapy with carboplatin (AUC 5) intravenously (IV) on day 1 (n = 3), or with cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m 2 IV on day 1 (n = 18). PLD was infused at a dose of 50 mg/m 2 IV over 1 h whereas conventional doxorubicin was administered within 3-10 min to minimize the risk of thrombosis or perivenous extravasations.

All patients underwent baseline echocardiography and an electrocardiogram (ECG), liver function tests, and complete hemogram prior to starting of chemotherapy cycle. Patients with a baseline echocardiography of <50% ejection fraction were not included in the study. All patients underwent complete blood count at 2 weeks postchemotherapy on days 14 or 15 to estimate the nadir followed by repeat blood counts prior to chemotherapy. For cardiac toxicity, ECG was done whenever the patient was symptomatic and prior to each cycle. Echocardiography was repeated when the patient was symptomatic or after 3 cycles and at the end of therapy. Intervention was made whenever if required.

For each patient, the ADR profile was noted through detailed history, clinical examination, and scanning source documents (e.g. bed head tickets and laboratory test reports) and the data noted on predesigned case report forms. For the evaluation of acute and chronic toxicities, we adopted the basic scale from National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event version 4 (CTCAE 4.0). [6] ADR causality was assessed by the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center standardized case causality assessment criteria. [7]

Adverse drug reaction profiles have been summarized as percentages. Baseline demographic and disease profile were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric numerical data and Fisher's exact test for categorical data. The incidence of individual reactions was compared by Fisher's exact test. The correlation study of drug dose with cardiac toxicity was analyzed by Pearson correlation test.


  Results Top


The PLD arm had six diabetic and three hypertensive subjects, while the conventional doxorubicin arm included three and six such patients, respectively. These co-morbidities were well-controlled, and subjects continued their regular medicines (insulin, oral hypoglycemic, anti-hypertensives) throughout the duration of chemotherapy.

A baseline demographic and disease-related profile (age, sex, weight, number of chemotherapy drugs per cycle, and the number of follow-up visits) was comparable between the two groups, except for a significantly longer (P < 0.05) disease duration in PLD group compared to conventional doxorubicin group [Table 1].
Table 1: Baseline demographic and disease profile of study subjects

Click here to view


Every patient experienced one or more ADRs. A total of 357 reactions was noted with liposomal doxorubicin arm and 375 with conventional doxorubicin arm. The median number of ADRs per patient was 11.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 9) with PLD, versus 12 (IQR 8) with conventional doxorubicin. These differences were not statistically significant.

Myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, stomatitis, palmer-planter erythrodysesthesia, alopecia were most frequently encountered (incidence ≥5%) ADRs with PLD, whereas myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, stomatitis, alopecia, and cardio-toxicities were the most common ADRs with conventional doxorubicin [Table 2]. Twelve cases of diarrhea (grade 2 or 3) were noted in the liposomal doxorubicin group; no such event was encountered with conventional doxorubicin. For hematological toxicities, there is no statistical significant difference between two arms. Furthermore, gastrointestinal toxicities (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, anorexia, and stomatitis) are same for both arms. Among the skin toxicities, palmar-plantar-erythrodysesthesia grade 2 toxicity was found in 60% patients receiving liposomal doxorubicin (P - 0.046). Among the cardio-toxicities, left ventricular ejection dysfunction found in 60% patients of conventional doxorubicin arm (P - 0.038)
Table 2: Spectrum of ADRs of PLD versus conventional doxorubicin

Click here to view


A total of 75 events (21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.69-28.33%) in the PLD group and 60 events (16.26%, 95% CI: 9.74-22.78%) in the conventional doxorubicin group were considered "severe" [Table 2].

For the 12 patients who received PLD monotherapy, the ADRs having either "certain" or "probable/likely" association included anemia (grades 2 and 3), nausea (grade 1), vomiting (grade 2), stomatitis (grade 2), palmer-planter erythrodysesthesia (grades 1 and 2), alopecia (grade 1).


  Discussion Top


Doxorubicin is one of the most commonly used anticancer drugs. Its antitumor efficacy is primarily attributed to direct interactions with DNA or DNA topoisomerase. Mechanisms of action are: (a) Inhibits DNA and RNA synthesis by intercalating between base pairs of the DNA/RNA strand preventing the replication of rapidly-growing cancer cells; (b) inhibits topoiosomerase II enzyme, preventing the relaxing of supercoiled DNA and thus blocking DNA transcription and replication; and (c) creates iron-mediated free oxygen radicals that damage the DNA and cell membranes. [8]

Myelosuppression and cardiotoxicity are major dose-limiting toxicities of doxorubicin. Acute doxorubicin cardiotoxicity is reversible, and clinical signs include tachycardia, hypotension, ECG changes, and arrhythmias. Acute toxicity develops during or within days of infusion, the incidence of which has been significantly reduced by slowing infusion rates. Chronic cardiotoxicity peaks at 1-3 months, but can occur even years after therapy.

Nanoparticles in the form of liposomes, dendrimers, and buckyballs came in the field of medicine for improvement of therapeutic index. Liposomes are vesicles with a membrane composed of phospholipid and cholesterol bilayer, usually with an aqueous solution at core, have been used for delivering a wide variety of therapeutics and imaging agents, including small-molecule drugs, gene therapies, and antisense oligonucleotides. [9],[10] Because of their ability to sequester DNA or drugs that would not normally enter the intercellular compartment the target drugs encased in a liposome can be delivered to cells through diffusion, as well as receptor-mediated events.

Conventional liposomes are removed from circulation by the reticuloendothelial cells within a few minutes to hours, subsequent to the acquisition of opsonins from plasma. [11],[12] For this short circulation half-life, the use of conventional liposome has limited clinical applications. PLDs are able to inhibit opsonization of the liposomes by plasma proteins. [13],[14] Prolonged circulation of liposomes leads to better therapeutic efficacy of liposomal anthracyclines, related to increased accumulation of drug-loaded liposomes in tumor tissue. [15],[16] The usual doses of liposomal doxorubicin doses range from 20 to 60 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks IV. Clinical trials have shown low cardiac toxicity of this drug without any considerable loss of efficacy. [17],[18],[19]

Reactions encountered in the conventional doxorubicin arm (mostly in combination with cyclophosphamide or cisplatin or carboplatin) match the known ADR profile of such combinations. Cardio-toxicities were more common with conventional doxorubicin. Nausea, vomiting, anorexia, alopecia were also more common with conventional doxorubicin.

In addition to the small sample size and limited ethnic and geographic coverage, our study had another limitation of being observational pharmaco-vigilance study. Causality assessment was hampered by the fact that most patients were on combination therapy and the toxicities of doxorubicin overlapped with those of the other drugs used to a substantial extent.


  Conclusions Top


This observational study suggests that PLD has a better tolerance with less ventricular dysfunction but increased yet manageable palmar-plantar-erythrodysesthesia. A larger randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm the trends shown by this observational study.

 
  References Top

1.
Edward CH, De Vita VT Jr. Physicians′Cancer Chemotherapy Drug Manual. 2012.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Singal PK, Iliskovic N. Doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 1998;339:900-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Von Hoff DD, Layard MW, Basa P, Davis HL Jr, Von Hoff AL, Rozencweig M, et al. Risk factors for doxorubicin-induced congestive heart failure. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:710-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
www.journalonko.de/newsview.php (Journal Onkologie online vom 22.1.2008).Essex Pharma. Caelyx Fachinformation. SP Europe: Essex Pharma; 2007.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Waterhouse DN, Tardi PG, Mayer LD, Bally MB. A comparison of liposomal formulations of doxorubicin with drug administered in free form: Changing toxicity profiles. Drug Saf 2001;24:903-20.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0 Published: May 28, 2009 (v4.02: Sept. 15, 2009) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
The use of the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment. Uppsala: The Uppsala Monitoring Centre; Available from: http:/www.who-umc. Org/graphics/24734.pdf. [Last accessed date 2014 July 01]  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
van Dalen EC, Caron HN, Dickinson HO, Kremer LC. Cardioprotective interventions for cancer patients receiving anthracyclines. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011:CD003917.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Jhaveri MS, Rait AS, Chung KN, Trepel JB, Chang EH. Antisense oligonucleotides targeted to the human alpha folate receptor inhibit breast cancer cell growth and sensitize the cells to doxorubicin treatment. Mol Cancer Ther 2004;3:1505-12.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Yu W, Pirollo KF, Rait A, Yu B, Xiang LM, Huang WQ, et al. A sterically stabilized immunolipoplex for systemic administration of a therapeutic gene. Gene Ther 2004;11:1434-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Cowens JW, Creaven PJ, Greco WR, Brenner DE, Tung Y, Ostro M, et al. Initial clinical (phase I) trial of TLC D-99 (doxorubicin encapsulated in liposomes). Cancer Res 1993;53:2796-802.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Allen TM. Long-circulating (sterically stabilized) liposomes for targeted drug delivery. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1994;15:215-20.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Allen TM, Chonn A. Large unilamellar liposomes with low uptake into the reticuloendothelial system. FEBS Lett 1987;223:42-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Gabizon A, Papahadjopoulos D. Liposome formulations with prolonged circulation time in blood and enhanced uptake by tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1988;85:6949-53.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Mayer LD, Tai LC, Ko DS, Masin D, Ginsberg RS, Cullis PR, et al. Influence of vesicle size, lipid composition, and drug-to-lipid ratio on the biological activity of liposomal doxorubicin in mice. Cancer Res 1989;49:5922-30.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Gabizon AA. Selective tumor localization and improved therapeutic index of anthracyclines encapsulated in long-circulating liposomes. Cancer Res 1992;52:891-6.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Al-Batran SE, Güntner M, Pauligk C, Scholz M, Chen R, Beiss B, et al. Anthracycline rechallenge using pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A pooled analysis using individual data from four prospective trials. Br J Cancer 2010;103:1518-23.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Huober J, Fett W, Nusch A, Neise M, Schmidt M, Wischnik A, et al. A multicentric observational trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for metastatic breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2010;10:2.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Fiegl M, Mlineritsch B, Hubalek M, Bartsch R, Pluschnig U, Steger GG. Single-agent pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: results of an Austrian observational trial. BMC Cancer 2011;11:373.  Back to cited text no. 19
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1901    
    Printed44    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded69    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal