Clinical and Immunologic Responses to a B-Cell Epitope Vaccine in Patients with HER2/neu-Overexpressing Advanced Gastric Cancer-Results from Phase Ib Trial IMU.ACS.001.

PURPOSE: HER2/neu is overexpressed in up to 30% of gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (GEA) and linked to poor prognosis. Recombinant mAbs to treat HER2/neu-overexpressing cancers are effective with limitations, including resistance and toxicity. Therefore, we developed a therapeutic B-cell epitope vaccine (IMU-131/HER-Vaxx) consisting of three fused B-cell epitopes from the HER2/neu extracellular domain coupled to CRM197 and adjuvanted with Montanide. This phase Ib study aimed to evaluate the optimal/safe dose leading to immunogenicity and clinical responses (https//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02795988). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients with HER2/neu-overexpressing GEA were enrolled, and dose escalation (10, 30, 50 µg) was performed in three cohorts (C). Immunogenicity was evaluated by HER2-specific Abs and cellular responses, clinical responses by CT scans according to RECIST version 1.1. RESULTS: IMU-131 was safe without vaccine-related significant local/systemic reactions or serious adverse events. A total of 11 of 14 patients were evaluable for changes in tumor size and vaccine-specific immune responses. One patient showed complete, 5 partial responses, and 4 stable diseases as their best response. HER2-specific IgG levels were dose dependent. In contrast to patients in C1 and C2, all patients in C3 mounted substantial HER2-specific Ab levels. In addition, cellular vaccine responses, such as Th1-biased cytokine ratios and reduced regulatory T cell numbers, were generated. Progression-free survival was prolonged in C3, correlating with the vaccine-specific humoral and cellular responses. CONCLUSIONS: IMU-131 was well tolerated and safe. The induced HER2-specific Abs and cellular responses were dose dependent and correlated with clinical responses. The highest dose (50 µg) was recommended for further evaluation in a phase II trial, with chemotherapy + IMU-131 or chemotherapy alone, which is currently ongoing.

Effect of Food Intake and Body Position on the Pharmacokinetics of Swallowed APT-1011, a Fluticasone Orally Disintegrating Tablet, in Healthy Adult Volunteers.

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a common atopic disease of the esophagus. APT-1011 is an orally disintegrating tablet formulation of fluticasone propionate under development for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of APT-1011 under fed or fasted conditions in the morning (am) or at bedtime (hs) in the supine position. The study was a randomized, single-dose, 3-way, crossover design in healthy adult volunteers. In each study period participants received 2 3-mg orally disintegrating APT-1011 tablets. Serial plasma samples were collected before dosing and up to 72 hours after each dose. Twenty-two participants completed the study. The fluticasone propionate peak concentration (Cmax ) ranged from 5.97 to 200 pg/mL. Compared with am-fasted dosing, am-fed dosing was associated with a modestly higher Cmax (∼21%) but lower net exposure (area under the concentration-time curve ∼56% difference) and shorter time to reach Cmax (Tmax ) (Tmax fasted = 10 hours, fed = 5 hours). Dosing at hs resulted in an 18% and 32% decrease in Cmax relative to am-fasted and am-fed conditions, respectively. Dosing at hs led to an exposure that was higher than am-fed but lower than am-fasted dosing. Tmax with hs dosing (14 hours) was later than that with am dosing (Tmax fasted = 10 hours, fed = 5 hours). Adverse events were mild. There is low systemic exposure of fluticasone propionate with APT-1011. The rate of absorption was increased with a high-fat meal but decreased with hs dosing, suggesting the potential for longer dwell times in the esophagus.

Quantification of human serum insulin concentrations in clinical pharmacokinetic or bioequivalence studies: what defines the "best method"?

BACKGROUND: Historically, quantitative clinical diagnostic assays (QCDAs) have not been accepted for use in pharmacokinetic or bioequivalence studies because they do not fully comply with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation (e.g., full calibration curve not generated with each analytical run). Samples from a bioequivalence study were analysed for insulin and C-peptide concentrations with QCDAs and guidance-conforming radioimmunoassays (RIAs) and the results compared across and within assays. METHODS: Serum samples (n=1913) from study MKC-TI-142 were analysed first using the Roche E170 electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) for insulin concentration and the Immulite 2000 chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) for C-peptide, and then using the corresponding Millipore RIAs. RESULTS: The insulin assays were highly correlated: r2=0.92 excluding samples requiring dilution and R2=0.88 including all samples. There was increasing negative bias of the ECLIA compared with the RIA with increasing insulin, especially with samples that required dilution for the RIA. The ECLIA had significantly fewer below-quantifiable-limit samples, a larger dynamic analysis range without dilution, and tighter agreement within incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) as compared with the RIA. The C-peptide assays showed good agreement but the CLIA method produced ISR results that were in closer agreement with the original values. CONCLUSIONS: The science indicates that the QCDAs are appropriate for the quantification of serum insulin (ECLIA) and C-peptide (CLIA) concentrations in human pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence studies even though the calibration curve is not generated in each analytical run.