An update on chemotherapy for osteosarcoma

Introduction: In the early seventies chemotherapy significantly improved survival in osteosarcoma. Since then minor innovations have occurred although recent years have offered insights of clinical and scientific relevance.Areas covered: This review focuses on the most recent results of phase 3 and 2 studies. Published data or presentations at International meetings are discussed. A specific section discusses recent insights from studies supporting the hypothesis of a possible personalized chemotherapy approach.Expert opinion: Osteosarcoma is a rare tumor and any effort should be made to improve the level of International collaboration. The MAP (methotrexate, doxorubicin and cisplatin) regimen has become the treatment of choice. Poor pathological response to primary chemotherapy is confirmed as a predictive factor of survival and, presently with the available drugs, it is not recommended to intensify or change post-operative treatment on the basis of pathological response to primary chemotherapy. The genomic complexity and the heterogeneity of osteosarcoma makes active and effective molecularly targeted therapies unlikely to be available in the near future. A relation between pharmacogenetic profile and chemotherapy toxicity and prognosis has been reported. The new frontier for clinical research in osteosarcoma is to optimize the use of the active drugs available by personalizing chemotherapy treatment.     

A review of potential pharmacogenetic effects on catecholamine responses

Considerably, variability in the clinical response to inotropic agents is observed and could be explained partially by the genetic variants, such as single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in genes encoding for enzymes implicated in catecholamines synthesis, metabolism, storage and release or in the signaling pathway. This review highlights the potential effect of pharmacogenetics studies in hemodynamic response and identified 11 SNPs that could be relevant to explain the high variability drug response for a same dose. Cardiovascular instability, such as hypotension, is one of the premature birth complications. The pharmacogenetics studies evaluating these SNP may be useful to better understand the clinical outcome, particularly in this population.     

Effects of aripiprazole on circadian prolactin secretion related to pharmacogenetics in healthy volunteers

Aripiprazole treatment in schizophrenic patients was previously associated with lower or normalized prolactin levels. Genetic variants in cytochrome P450 (CYP) (CYP2D6), dopamine receptor (DRD2, DRD3) and serotonin receptor (HTR2A, HTR2C) genes were previously associated with antipsychotic‐induced hyperprolactinaemia. Our aim was to evaluate whether aripiprazole affects prolactin secretion and its relationship with pharmacogenetics. Thirty‐one healthy volunteers receiving a 10‐mg single oral dose of aripiprazole were genotyped for 12 polymorphisms in CYP2D6, DRD2, DRD3, HTR2A and HTR2C genes by qPCR. Aripiprazole and dehydro‐aripiprazole plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC‐MS/MS. Prolactin concentrations of the 31 volunteers taking aripiprazole and 12 volunteers receiving ibuprofen were determined by ELISA. Prolactin concentrations after ibuprofen intake were considered as control, since it is known to cause no effect. Prolactin concentrations were slightly higher in the aripiprazole group compared to the ibuprofen group. All prolactin pharmacokinetic parameters were higher in females than in males. CYP2D6 poor and intermediate metabolizers had notably higher prolactin C_max and AUC_0‐12 than normal and ultrarapid metabolizers. The DRD3 rs6280 polymorphism affected prolactin levels: volunteers carrying Ser/Ser genotype had significantly lower prolactin levels than volunteers carrying the Gly allele. Furthermore, HTR2C rs3813929 C/C homozygotes had significantly lower prolactin levels than T allele carriers. Nevertheless, aripiprazole did increase prolactin levels compared to ibuprofen.     

SOD2 genetic polymorphism (rs4880) has no impact on 6‐month response to antidepressant treatment and inflammatory biomarkers in depressed patients

Two thirds of patients suffering from a major depressive episode (MDE) do not reach a complete response with antidepressant drugs. This lack of response is due to several factors, including genetic determinants. Since major depressive disorder is associated with inflammatory and oxidative stress abnormalities, the metabolism of superoxide anions might be involved in non‐response to antidepressant drugs. Superoxide anions are metabolized by manganese‐dependent superoxide dismutase (SOD2) in the mitochondria. A functional genetic polymorphism (SOD2, rs4880), responsible of a 40% reduction in enzyme activity, is associated with anti‐inflammatory response of rosuvastatin. We investigated the association of ala‐allele of SOD2 rs4880 and both antidepressant efficacy and inflammatory parameters in patients treated for a MDE with antidepressant drugs. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score and levels of plasma CRP and inflammatory cytokines were assessed at baseline, one month (M1), 3 months (M3) and 6 months (M6) after antidepressant treatment. They were compared according to SOD2 genetic polymorphism. Of the 484 patients studied, 361 (74.6%) carried the ala‐allele (Ala group), 123 (25.4%) of them had Val/Val genotype (Val/Val group). No significant difference was observed between the Ala and Val/Val groups neither for baseline clinical characteristics, nor for HDRS scores, response/remission rates, plasma CRP and cytokine levels throughout the study. The rs4880 SOD2 genetic polymorphism was not associated with the clinical response and cytokines levels after antidepressant treatment. These data suggest that SOD2 is not a major genetic determinant of antidepressant response. Other genes of the oxidative stress pathways should be explored in further studies.     

Pharmacogenetics in Practice: Drug Management Amidst Rare Genomic Testing

Although personalized medicine is an ideal concept, there remains little training or discussion to its applicability for the primary care provider. Psychiatric, cardiac, gastrointestinal, and pain are common complaints/conditions seen in primary care, and treatment options have genomic implications. This article provides the experienced clinician with the background, clinical utility, and applicability of pharmacogenetics in medications commonly prescribed such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, beta blockers, clopidogrel, statins, proton pump inhibitors, and codeine. The dose adjustment or alternative treatment considerations based on a patient’s pharmacogenetic profile are discussed.     

Host Genome,Epigenome, and Oral Microbiome Interactions: Toward Personalized Periodontal Therapy

Periodontal diseases are multidimensional and complex. Bacterial content is the initiator, but disease progression depends on genetic and environmental parameters related to the host. Although bone loss magnitude is the common resulting outcome, the biologic process likely represents a unique inflammatory response characteristic to every individual. Therefore, it is obvious that practitioners must take into account the influence of these parameters and tailor a treatment accordingly. New, emerging deoxyribonucleotide‐based technologies allow integration of the biologic impact of the environment, and periodontists should be prepared to incorporate these technologies into their practice to advance personalized medicine. This commentary provides updated insights on the distinctiveness of inflammation per individual in terms of microbiome and genome specificity and cites some educational resources helpful for implementing individualized therapy.     

Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences in Pharmacogenomics Offered by US Pharmacy Programs

Objective. To characterize advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs) with a primary focus in pharmacogenomics at schools and colleges of pharmacy in the United States.Methods. This was a cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study of pharmacogenomics APPEs at US pharmacy schools. Directors of experiential education at 146 accredited schools of pharmacy were contacted by phone and asked if their school offered a pharmacogenomics APPE. The preceptors of pharmacogenomics APPEs identified by this phone screen were sent an email with a link to an online survey that asked about their APPE offerings.Results. Of the 142 schools of pharmacy that were successfully reached via phone, 40 (28%) offered an APPE with a primary focus in pharmacogenomics. Thirty unique APPEs with pharmacogenomics as a primary focus were identified. The total number of preceptors involved in the pharmacogenomics APPEs was 33: 19 (58%) faculty preceptors and 14 (42%) non-faculty preceptors. Twenty-three of the 30 pharmacogenomics APPEs completed the survey (77% response rate). The APPE sites were diverse and included academic medical centers, community health systems, pharmacogenomic testing laboratories, and schools of pharmacy. Each pharmacogenomics APPE accommodated an average of six students per year. The APPE activities varied across sites.Conclusion. Only a small number of US pharmacy schools offer an APPE with a primary focus in pharmacogenomics. These rotations are diverse in scope and precepted by faculty or non-faculty pharmacists. The Academy should pursue opportunities to increase experiential education in pharmacogenomics.