Midostaurin: development, dosage, and adverse events
Midostaurin was approved for treatment of
FLT3-TKD/-ITD
mut AML in the USA in 2017 and in the European Union in 2018 after the RATIFY trial proved that the addition of midostaurin to standard induction treatment significantly increased overall and event-free survival of patients with AML [
15].
According to the prescribing information, midostaurin should be administered from day 8 to 21 of each 21-day induction (7 + 3 cytarabine and anthracycline) and consolidation chemotherapy cycle in a dosage of 50 mg twice daily. In patients with complete remission (CR), continuous daily midostaurin intake is recommended for 1 year or until relapse and in case of allogeneic HSCT the drug is to be stopped 48 h prior to conditioning chemotherapy [
16]. Midostaurin is a substrate to CYP3A4, which converts the drug into further active metabolites, CPG6221 and CGP52421. All three substances were shown to inhere multi-kinase inhibition activity especially in clonal heterogenous AML [
17,
18]. The metabolites provide additional antileukemic activity by targeting peripheral blasts non-selectively [
19]. The described effects apparently add up for midostaurin effectiveness.
Midostaurin demonstrated a low toxicity profile in early clinical trials in solid tumor entities [
20]. The relatively safe profile paved the way for evaluation among other populations, including AML. Adverse events (AEs) are mostly low-grade gastrointestinal toxicities such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, but also QTc prolongation and interstitial lung disease can occur (Table
1) [
16,
21]. Early clinical trials also observed two fatal pulmonary AEs of unclear etiology despite thorough workup [
22]. In the extension of the trial, two more cases of severe pulmonary edema occurred. Affected patients had excessive midostaurin levels while being administered azole compounds. Thereafter, enrollment of patients receiving azoles was suspended and a clear chest X-ray was made an inclusion criterion. Subsequently, no other pulmonary AEs were observed [
23]. Strong interpatient variability of plasma concentrations was noted [
22].
Table 1
Selected adverse events of midostaurin and management [
16]
Nausea/vomiting | Administration with food Administration with antiemetic |
QTc prolongation | Electrocardiogram monitoring Maintain potassium and magnesium within normal limits |
Interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis Pleural effusion Pulmonary hemorrhage | Monitor closely for pulmonary symptoms Discontinue midostaurin in patients who develop symptoms of interstitial lung disease |
A retrospective sub-analysis of the RATIFY trial showed no significant increase in midostaurin- or midostaurin-metabolite-related AEs in patients receiving strong CYP3A4 inhibitors. These were defined as fluconazole, ciprofloxacin, voriconazole, and posaconazole with the latter being administered in less than 40% of patients, even during induction treatment. This exposure-safety-matched control analysis revealed earlier onset of first clinically noted adverse events (CNAE) in patients with higher midostaurin and CPG6221 exposure [
24]. Of note, a 1.44-fold increase in midostaurin exposure was observed in patients who had strong CYP3A4 inhibitors administered concomitantly compared to those who had not. CYP3A4 inducing medications, such as rifampin, showed even a 10-fold decrease of midostaurin levels, leading to the clear recommendation to avoid concomitant administration of such agents [
25]. Interestingly, administered daily doses of midostaurin varied broadly between early clinical trials with a maximum dose up to 225 mg [
23,
26].
Current Food and Drug Administration and European Commission package inserts on midostaurin underline the risk of pulmonary toxicity and recommend withdrawal of the drug upon observation of severe pulmonary events [
27,
28].
Posaconazole-based antifungal prophylaxis
Azole-based prophylaxis has proven effective in prevention of IFD in long-term neutropenic patients, allogeneic HSCT, or patients with GvHD and is strongly recommended by numerous international guidelines [
29‐
32]. In particular posaconazole was successfully investigated in AML patients during induction remission chemotherapy and reduced incidence of IFD from 8 to 2%, now being a worldwide life-saving standard in this population [
9]. Administration of posaconazole begins during the first days of administration of chemotherapy and ends upon recovery of neutropenia in a standard dosage of once daily 300 mg tablets [
33]. It has an enhanced spectrum of activity, also covering
Fusarium spp. and Zygomycetes [
34,
35]. Triazoles are inhibitors of the cytochrome p450 enzyme, especially CYP3A4, with posaconazole belonging to the group of strong inhibitors [
14]. The drug is available as oral tablet, oral suspension, and intravenous (i.v.) formulation of which the tablet and i.v. are proven to be safe and effective in risk populations [
11,
12].
Especially the tablet formulation of the drug inheres this effect being of more reliable pharmacokinetics than the oral suspension formulation. Its distinctly higher peroral bioavailability is associated with higher serum concentrations [
36].
Several factors influencing posaconazole exposure in patients with AML/MDS have been identified, among them concomitant use of proton-pump inhibitors, diarrhea or otherwise altered gastrointestinal function, high weight, and co-administration of chemotherapy [
37,
38]. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is advised by current guidelines to optimize exposure and clinical efficacy and for cases of clinical failure [
29,
30]. Other antifungals are frequently used for prophylaxis in different patient populations, some of them despite being proved inferior compared to posaconazole (Table
2) [
33,
39‐
42].
Table 2
Selected antifungals, CYP3A4 impact, and clinical considerations [
33,
39‐
42]
| Strong inhibition | QTc prolongation Oral solution associated with low absorption and plasma level variation, TDM recommended Hepatic toxicity |
| Moderate inhibition | QTc shortening Hepatic toxicity higher rate of breakthrough fungal infections when used for prophylaxis [ 80, 81] |
| Strong inhibition | QTc prolongation Vision changes Hepatic toxicity Hallucinations Long-term use associated with skin cancer |
| Minor substrate | Well tolerated Only available intravenously Limited efficacy against molds |
| Minor substrate | Well tolerated Only available intravenously Limited efficacy against molds |
Drug–drug interactions and therapeutic drug monitoring
Over the years, numerous orally available anti-neoplastic drugs have become available. However, the medical team is confronted with new challenges while treating patients with these agents, in particular with potential DDI linked to the high number of CYP3A4-metabolized drugs [
43,
44]. A retrospective study found potential DDI in 46% (total
n = 900) of patients treated with oral anti-neoplastic therapy, of which 16% were classified as severe defined as requiring further interventions or being of harmful nature [
45]. The high amount of suspected DDI underlines the clinical impact. It should alert clinicians not to indulge the promising results of novel anti-tumor therapies but also consider their side effects. DDI have constantly played a role in medical therapy also affecting hematology patients in the context of immunosuppressive agents, anti-infective drugs, and proton-pump inhibitors [
46,
47].
In the case of midostaurin and posaconazole, both drugs are indispensable in the specific clinical setting. Each has been shown to improve overall survival, and numbers needed to treat (NNT) to save a life are low at fifteen and fourteen, respectively [
9,
15,
48]. Inhibition of CYP3A4 increases midostaurin in vivo exposure. In pharmacological studies on healthy subjects receiving ketoconazole with concomitant midostaurin, a tenfold increase in area under the curve (AUC) and doubled plasma concentration (
Cmax) were observed [
25]. With midostaurin being the drug targeting the principal underlying disease and posaconazole considered part of supportive care, co-administration of triazoles with midostaurin could be discouraged. On the other side, it has been suggested to withhold midostaurin only during induction chemotherapy when risk for IFI is the highest [
49]. However, this strategy deprives patients of the survival benefit of midostaurin as assessed in the RATIFY trial. Currently, non-evidence-based practice has become routine in this specific case and is displayed in Table
3. Triazoles have been a clear-cut standard for antifungal prophylaxis in hematology, but recommendations and subsequently clinical practice seem to drift apart due to fear of DDI. Standardized approaches are missing, and the lack of clear guidance in this specific setting has been pointed out previously [
49]. This leads to a change in behavior of clinicians and leaves the decision of choice of antifungal agent to the treating team.
Table 3
Strategies for clinical use of antifungal prophylaxis in AML patients treated with midostaurin
1. Administration of recommended dosage of midostaurin as of package insert and standard dosage antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole. Monitor patient closely for AE(s). | - Antileukemic activity of midostaurin as assessed in clinical trials is assured | - Close monitoring of AEs (e.g., frequent ECG controls, clinical evaluation of pulmonary function) must be warranted [ 16] - Increased risk of midostaurin-related AE(s) is given | Moderately recommended This approach detects potential toxicity-related AE late |
2. Dose reduction of midostaurin to ~ 50% during induction treatment while posaconazole is administered. | - Risk of early onset of AEs and generally AEs is most likely omitted | - Antileukemic activity of midostaurin is not warranted as assessed in clinical trials - Midostaurin dosage increase must be guaranteed when posaconazole is stopped - Non-adherence to azole prophylaxis or altered pharmacokinetics lead to low midostaurin exposure | Marginally recommended This approach potentially restricts the therapeutic effect of midostaurin while not providing efficacy monitoring |
3. Switch antifungal prophylaxis to EC or other triazoles (Fluconazole, Itraconazole, Isavuconazole). | - EC do not exhibit a significant CYP3A4 inhibition - Isavuconazole shortens the QTc interval [ 78] - Isavuconazole: safe and effective [ 76] | - Limited power studies/transferred evidence of efficacy and safety for other antifungals from other patient populations available [ 64, 66, 68, 83] - Fluconazole/Itraconazole proved to be inferior in antifungal prophylaxis [ 9] - EC: administration only via i.v. route/minor penetration to central nervous system [ 71‐ 74] - Isavuconazole: not available for low resource settings/cost | Marginally recommended Other antifungal agents than posaconazole have been proven inferior or provide similar CYP3A4 effects |
4. Continue with recommended dosage of midostaurin and posaconazole as of package insert and measure drug levels via TDM of both drugs regularly. | - Determination of plasma/serum levels allows monitoring of prophylactic effectiveness of posaconazole and antileukemic activity of midostaurin [ 84] - Dose adaption according to measured level of midostaurin allows individualized dosage | - TDM method for determination of metabolites (CGP6221 and CGP52421) levels not yet available | Strongly recommended TDM allows close therapy monitoring and individualized dosing in the future. This strategy reflects the “Cologne approach”. |
To assess DDI, a rating and classification system has been developed [
50]. Midostaurin-posaconazole DDI were stratified in the third of five categories defined as “monitor therapy” with clinical impact being unclear, but not requiring major therapy alteration [
16,
44]. Additionally, several tools have been proposed including multidisciplinary interaction checks, computerized order entry systems, software-based guidance, clinical monitoring, and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) [
50]. TDM seems to be the most exact and efficient tool in order to assess optimal dosing of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window and DDI. TDM of posaconazole and other antifungals is already established and clinically indicated [
51]. In this setting, it should aim to determine a sufficient exposure of the drug. Subsequently, TDM of midostaurin is flattering to adapt and personalize dose depending on the individual inhibitory CYP effect by the antifungal. The large interpatient variability in a drug with a probably narrow therapeutic window like midostaurin supports the use of TDM [
52].
Individualization of dosage by means of TDM has been highly recommended in transplant patients on immunosuppressants with antifungals [
50]. TDM contributes to patient safety and optimal management with targeted agents in hematology and might be a new option for administration of midostaurin and posaconazole. The lack of a prospective sub-study, which specifically assesses interactions of antifungal prophylaxis and midostaurin by comparing drug levels, questions the reliability of retrospective data [
24]. Since the described CNAEs were not clearly defined, and potential AEs as pulmonary edema and QTc-prolongation can be life-threatening or even fatal, this topic requires urgent further evaluation. Given that future approval procedures for novel agents, especially in oncology, might require interaction studies, any study assessing potential DDI in detail as primary objective constitutes to a pioneer position. Additionally, the understanding of pharmacological mechanisms underlying the DDI of midostaurin and posaconazole has to be increased and shall be subject to further pharmacological investigations.