Bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Phase III PIVOT IO 001 study design.

Nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, has demonstrated prolonged survival benefit in patients with advanced melanoma. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214), a first-in-class CD122-preferential IL-2 pathway agonist, provides sustained signaling through the IL-2ßγ receptor, which activates effector T and natural killer cells. In the Phase I/II PIVOT-02 trial, the combination of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. Here, we describe the design of and rationale for the Phase III, global, randomized, open-label PIVOT IO 001 trial comparing bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab with nivolumab alone in patients with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Primary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Key secondary end points include further investigation of safety/tolerability, previously assessed in the PIVOT-02 trial. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03635983 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Phase 1 safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor dinaciclib administered every three weeks in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Dinaciclib is a potent inhibitor of cell cycle and transcriptional cyclin-dependent kinases. This Phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of various dosing schedules of dinaciclib in advanced solid tumour patients and assessed pharmacodynamic and preliminary anti-tumour activity. METHODS: In part 1, patients were enrolled in escalating cohorts of 2-h infusions administered once every 3 weeks, utilising an accelerated titration design until a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was defined. In part 2, 8- and 24-h infusions were evaluated. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for all schedules. Pharmacodynamic effects were assessed with an ex vivo stimulated lymphocyte proliferation assay performed in whole blood.Effects of dinaciclib on retinoblastoma (Rb) phosphorylation and other CDK targets were evaluated in skin and tumour biopsies. In addition to tumour size, metabolic response was evaluated by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled to parts 1 and 2. The RP2Ds were 50, 7.4 and 10.4 mg m-2 as 2- 8- and 24-hour infusions, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicities included pancytopenia, neutropenic fever, elevated transaminases, hyperuricemia and hypotension. Pharmacokinetics demonstrated rapid distribution and a short plasma half-life. Dinaciclib suppressed proliferation of stimulated lymphocytes. In skin and tumour biopsies, dinaciclib reduced Rb phosphorylation at CDK2 phospho-sites and modulated expression of cyclin D1 and p53, suggestive of CDK9 inhibition. Although there were no RECIST responses, eight patients had prolonged stable disease and received between 6 and 30 cycles. Early metabolic responses occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Dinaciclib is tolerable at doses demonstrating target engagement in surrogate and tumour tissue.

Clinical trial of a farnesyltransferase inhibitor in children with Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome.

Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS) is an extremely rare, fatal, segmental premature aging syndrome caused by a mutation in LMNA that produces the farnesylated aberrant lamin A protein, progerin. This multisystem disorder causes failure to thrive and accelerated atherosclerosis leading to early death. Farnesyltransferase inhibitors have ameliorated disease phenotypes in preclinical studies. Twenty-five patients with HGPS received the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib for a minimum of 2 y. Primary outcome success was predefined as a 50% increase over pretherapy in estimated annual rate of weight gain, or change from pretherapy weight loss to statistically significant on-study weight gain. Nine patients experienced a ≥50% increase, six experienced a ≥50% decrease, and 10 remained stable with respect to rate of weight gain. Secondary outcomes included decreases in arterial pulse wave velocity and carotid artery echodensity and increases in skeletal rigidity and sensorineural hearing within patient subgroups. All patients improved in one or more of these outcomes. Results from this clinical treatment trial for children with HGPS provide preliminary evidence that lonafarnib may improve vascular stiffness, bone structure, and audiological status.

Pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar and its metabolite following oral administration in healthy Chinese and American subjects.

AIM: Vorapaxar is a proteaseactivated receptor (PAR)-1 antagonist being developed for the prevention and treatment of thrombotic vascular events. To evaluate race/ethnic differences between Caucasians and Chinese in the pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar and its active metabolite SCH 2046273 (M20) or in the metabolite/parent ratio, we conducted a cross-study comparison on pharmacokinetic data of vorapaxar and M20 obtained from two similarly designed studies: one in healthy Chinese subjects and the other in a healthy Western (United States, [U.S.]) population. METHODS: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 were characterized using open label, two treatment parallel group designs in men and women aged 18 - 45 years. Vorapaxar was administered orally as a single dose of 40 mg in Chinese subjects (n = 14) or 120 mg in U.S. subjects (n = 14), or 2.5 mg QD for 6 weeks in both studies (Chinese, n = 14; U.S., n = 23). RESULTS: Vorapaxar was rapidly absorbed in both Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar and M20 had similar elimination half-lives. The range of metabolite/parent ratios after single dose or daily administration was largely overlapped in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Steady state was attained by day 21 for vorapaxar and M20 in both race/ethnic groups. The accumulation ratios for vorapaxar and M20 during daily administration were similar in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar was well-tolerated in Chinese and U.S. subjects. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 and the metabolite/parent ratios in healthy Chinese were generally comparable to those in a healthy Western population.

Model-Informed Clinical Pharmacology Profile of a Novel Fixed-Dose Combination of Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Adult and Adolescent Patients with Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with nivolumab 480 mg plus relatlimab 160 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) every 4 weeks (Q4W) vs nivolumab alone in patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma in RELATIVITY-047. Additionally, RELATIVITY-020 (Part D) demonstrated a manageable safety profile and potential for durable response with nivolumab plus relatlimab in previously treated patients. Here we evaluate the clinical pharmacology profile (CPP) of nivolumab plus relatlimab to support the approved regimen for adult and adolescent patients with advanced melanoma and its continued clinical development in solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of relatlimab and nivolumab were assessed using data from RELATIVITY-047 and RELATIVITY-020. Patients with advanced solid tumors received relatlimab alone or nivolumab plus relatlimab as single-agent vials (SAV) or FDC. PK was characterized using a population PK (popPK) model. RESULTS: Relatlimab demonstrated nonlinear and time-varying PK. Nonlinearity in relatlimab PK represented ~31% of total CL of relatlimab 160 mg Q4W. Relatlimab PK was dose proportional at doses ≥160 mg Q4W. Geometric mean exposures were similar for SAV and FDC cohorts receiving equivalent dosing regimens. No dose adjustment was required for covariates. Incidence of relatlimab antidrug antibodies was <6% for nivolumab plus relatlimab and had no clinically meaningful impact. There was no PK-related drug interaction of nivolumab plus relatlimab. CONCLUSION: The CPP of relatlimab alone or in combination with nivolumab supports the approved dosing in advanced melanoma and the continued evaluation of nivolumab and relatlimab across other solid tumors.

A first-in-human, phase 1, dose-escalation study of dinaciclib, a novel cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, administered weekly in subjects with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Dinaciclib, a small-molecule, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, inhibits cell cycle progression and proliferation in various tumor cell lines in vitro. We conducted an open-label, dose-escalation study to determine the safety, tolerability, and bioactivity of dinaciclib in adults with advanced malignancies. METHODS: Dinaciclib was administered starting at a dose of 0.33 mg/m2, as a 2-hour intravenous infusion once weekly for 3 weeks (on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), to determine the maximum administered dose (MAD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), and safety and tolerability. Pharmacodynamics of dinaciclib were assessed using an ex vivo phytohemagglutinin lymphocyte stimulation assay and immunohistochemistry staining for retinoblastoma protein phosphorylation in skin biopsies. Evidence of antitumor activity was assessed by sequential computed tomography imaging after every 2 treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects with solid tumors were treated. The MAD was found to be 14 mg/m2 and the RP2D was determined to be 12 mg/m2; DLTs at the MAD included orthostatic hypotension and elevated uric acid. Forty-seven (98%) subjects reported adverse events (AEs) across all dose levels; the most common AEs were nausea, anemia, decreased appetite, and fatigue. Dinaciclib administered at the RP2D significantly inhibited lymphocyte proliferation, demonstrating a pharmacodynamic effect. Ten subjects treated at a variety of doses achieved prolonged stable disease for at least 4 treatment cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Dinaciclib administered every week for 3 weeks (on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) was generally safe and well tolerated. Initial bioactivity and observed disease stabilization support further evaluation of dinaciclib as a treatment option for patients with advanced solid malignancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00871663.

Bempegaldesleukin Plus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma: The Open-Label, Phase III PIVOT IO 001 Trial Results.

PURPOSE: Despite marked advances in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the need for novel therapies remains. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG), a pegylated interleukin-2 (IL-2) cytokine prodrug, demonstrated efficacy in the phase II PIVOT-02 trial. PIVOT IO 001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03635983) is a phase III, randomized, open-label study that builds on the PIVOT-02 results in first-line melanoma. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BEMPEG plus nivolumab (NIVO) or NIVO monotherapy. Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory end points included additional efficacy measures, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics analyses. RESULTS: In 783 patients (n = 391, BEMPEG plus NIVO; n = 392, NIVO monotherapy), the median follow-up was 11.6 months in the intent-to-treat population. The ORR with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 27.7% versus 36.0% with NIVO (two-sided P = .0311). The median PFS with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 4.17 months (95% CI, 3.52 to 5.55) versus 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.14 to 7.82) with NIVO (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 97% CI, 0.88 to 1.35; P = .3988). The median OS was 29.67 months (95% CI, 22.14 to not reached [NR]) with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus 28.88 months (95% CI, 21.32 to NR) with NIVO (HR, 0.94; 99.929% CI, 0.59 to 1.48; P = .6361). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AE rates were higher with the combination (21.7% and 10.1%, respectively) versus NIVO (11.5% and 5.5%, respectively). BEMPEG PK exposure and absolute lymphocyte count changes after BEMPEG plus NIVO were comparable between PIVOT IO 001 and PIVOT-02. CONCLUSION: The PIVOT IO 001 study did not meet its primary end points of ORR, PFS, and OS. Increased toxicity was observed with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Pharmacokinetics of the novel PAR-1 antagonist vorapaxar in patients with hepatic impairment.

PURPOSE: To determine whether hepatic impairment has an effect on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vorapaxar or M20, its main pharmacologically active metabolite. METHODS: This was an open-label study in which a single 40-mg oral dose of vorapaxar was administered to patients with mild (n = 6), moderate (n = 6), and severe (n = 4) hepatic impairment and healthy controls (n = 16) matched for age, gender, weight, and height. Blood samples for vorapaxar and M20 assay were collected predose and at frequent intervals up to 8 weeks postdose. RESULTS: Plasma vorapaxar and M20 PK profiles were similar between patients with impaired liver function and healthy controls. Group mean values for vorapaxar C(max) and AUC(tf) were 206-279 ng/mL and 14,200-18,200 ng·h/mL, respectively, with the lowest values observed in patients with severe impairment. Vorapaxar median T(max) and mean t(1/2) values were 1.00-1.75 h and 298-366 h, respectively. There was no apparent correlation between vorapaxar or M20 exposure or t(1/2) values and disease severity. Vorapaxar was generally well tolerated; one serious adverse event (gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ruptured esophageal varices) was reported in a patient with severe hepatic impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic impairment had no clinically relevant effect on the PK of vorapaxar and M20. No dose or dosage adjustment of vorapaxar will be required in patients with mild to moderate hepatic impairment. Although systemic exposure to vorapaxar does not appear to increase in patients with severe hepatic impairment, administration of vorapaxar to such patients is not recommended given their bleeding diathesis.

Vorapaxar, an oral PAR-1 receptor antagonist, does not affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin.

PURPOSE: Vorapaxar is an orally active protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet aggregation. This open-label study assessed the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single-dose warfarin in the presence/absence of multiple-dose vorapaxar in 12 healthy men. METHODS: Subjects received two treatments separated by ≥ 7-day washout: Treatment A warfarin 25 mg (Day 1); Treatment B vorapaxar 2.5 mg/day on Days 1-6 and vorapaxar 40 mg coadministered with warfarin 25 mg (Day 7). R-warfarin, S-warfarin, and prothrombin time (PT) were assayed predose and up to 120 h postdose. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratio (GMR) as a percentage (warfarin + vorapaxar/warfarin) was calculated. The GMR (90 % CIs) estimates of C(max) were 105 (99, 111) and 105 (99, 112) for R- and S-warfarin, respectively. The GMR (90 % CIs) estimates of AUC(0-∞) were 108 (101, 116) and 105 (96, 115) for R- and S-warfarin, respectively. The GMR (95 % CIs) estimates of AUC(0-120 h) for PT and INR were 97 (95, 98) and 96 (94, 98), respectively. CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that vorapaxar has no meaningful effect on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of warfarin, suggesting that the coadministration of these two drugs or vorapaxar coadministered with other CYP2C9/CYP2C19 substrates is unlikely to cause a clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the novel PAR-1 antagonist vorapaxar in patients with end-stage renal disease.

PURPOSE: To determine whether impaired renal function alters the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vorapaxar or its ability to inhibit thrombin receptor agonist peptide (TRAP)-induced platelet aggregation. METHODS: This was an open-label study in which 8 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis and 7 matched (based on age, gender, weight, and height) healthy controls were administered a single 10-mg oral dose of vorapaxar. Blood samples for vorapaxar PK and pharmacodynamic analysis were collected predose and at frequent intervals up to 6 weeks postdose. RESULTS: Mean vorapaxar bioavailability (based on area under the curve of plasma vorapaxar concentration over time) was identical in the two subject groups; the ESRD/healthy geometric mean ratio (GMR, expressed in percent) was 98. Mean maximum observed plasma concentration (77.4-98.2 ng/mL) was numerically lower in patients with ESRD compared with matched controls (GMR=76; 90% confidence interval=48 to 118). Median time of maximum observed plasma concentration was 2 h in both subject groups. The observed means for elimination half-life were 186 and 231 h in the ESRD and control groups, respectively. Inhibition of platelet aggregation was similar in the two groups. Four out of 15 (27%) subjects reported adverse events, all of which were characterized by the investigator as mild and unrelated to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD had no clinically relevant effect on the PK profile of vorapaxar or its ability to inhibit TRAP-induced platelet aggregation.

A phase I multicenter study of continuous oral administration of lonafarnib (SCH 66336) and intravenous gemcitabine in patients with advanced cancer.

We conducted a phase I study to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and activity of lonafarnib plus gemcitabine. Subjects received oral lonafarnib twice daily and gemcitabine on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days; multiple dose levels were explored. Lonafarnib had no apparent effect on gemcitabine PK. Mean lonafarnib half-life ranged from 4 to 7 hr; median T(max) values ranged from 4 to 8 hr. Two patients had partial response; seven patients had stable disease at least 6 months. Oral lonafarnib at 150 mg a.m./100 mg p.m. plus gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m(2) is the maximum tolerated dose with acceptable safety and tolerability.

Assessment of potential pharmacokinetic interactions of ezetimibe/simvastatin and extended-release niacin tablets in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to lower plasma lipid levels sometimes require multiple agents with different mechanisms of action to achieve results specified by national treatment guidelines. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, three-period, multiple-dose crossover study that assessed the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction between extended-release niacin and ezetimibe/simvastatin and their major metabolites. Eighteen adults received three randomized treatments: (A) extended-release (ER) niacin 1000 mg/day for 2 days, followed by 2000 mg/day for 5 days; (B) ezetimibe/simvastatin 10 mg/20 mg/day; (C) coadministration of Treatments A and B. Treatments were given once a day after a low fat breakfast for a total of 7 days, with a 7-day inter-dose period. RESULTS: There were small (mean ≤35%) increases in drug exposure for all analytes after coadministration of ER niacin and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10 mg/20 mg. The least-square mean between treatment C(max) (maximum plasma concentration) ratios (×100) were 97, 98, and 109% for ezetimibe, simvastatin and niacin, respectively. The corresponding ratios for total ezetimibe, simvastatin acid, and nicotinuric acid were 99, 118, and 110%. The AUC((0-24)) (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h after dosing) ratios for ezetimibe, simvastatin, and niacin were 109, 120, and 122%, respectively, and the corresponding ratios for total ezetimibe, simvastatin acid, and nicotinuric acid were 126, 135 and 119%. CONCLUSION: There is a small pharmacokinetic drug interaction between ER niacin and ezetimibe/simvastatin and although this is not considered to be clinically significant, the concomitant use of these drugs should be appropriately monitored, especially during the niacin titration period.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Ipilimumab in Combination With Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of melanoma as monotherapy and for the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and colorectal cancer in combination with nivolumab. Ipilimumab time-varying clearance (CL) was assessed by a population pharmacokinetics (PPK) model developed using statistically significant covariates identified in a previous PPK analysis plus additional covariates. Data from 3,411 patients who received ipilimumab 0.3-10 mg/kg alone or in combination with nivolumab in 16 clinical trials were analyzed. Ipilimumab CL decreased over time; the change in CL was greater in patients treated with nivolumab combination than ipilimumab alone and in responders vs. nonresponders. Time-varying covariates including body weight, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and performance status were evaluated on change in ipilimumab CL. In addition, ipilimumab CL was similar across different tumor types, nivolumab dosing regimens, and lines of therapy. These data suggest an association of ipilimumab CL with disease severity.

Nivolumab Clearance Is Stationary in Patients With Resected Melanoma on Adjuvant Therapy: Implications of Disease Status on Time-Varying Clearance.

Nivolumab clearance (CL) in patients with advanced melanoma (MEL) decreases over the treatment duration, with change in CL associated with improved disease status, measured by reduced tumor burden. Here, we characterize the pharmacokinetics of nivolumab administered as adjuvant therapy for patients with MEL (AdjMEL) whose tumors were removed by surgical resection. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using data from 1,773 patients with AdjMEL, MEL, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors who received nivolumab over a dose range of 0.1-20 mg/kg every 2 weeks. In patients with AdjMEL, the geometric mean nivolumab CL of 6.0 mL/hour was 40% lower at baseline and did not vary with time and 20% lower at steady state compared with patients with MEL. Lower nivolumab CL in patients with AdjMEL and absence of time dependence support the hypothesis that changes in nivolumab CL in the metastatic setting are associated with disease status after treatment.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Malignancies.

Nivolumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits programmed cell death-1 activation. To assess covariate effects on nivolumab clearance (CL), a population pharmacokinetics model was developed using data from 6,468 patients with colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or small cell lung cancer who received nivolumab as monotherapy or in combination with ipilimumab or chemotherapy across 25 clinical studies. Nivolumab CL was similar across the tumor types examined; CL was higher for ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (by 17%) and 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (by 29%) vs. nivolumab monotherapy. Nivolumab CL over time was partially explained by time-varying covariates. A greater decrease in nivolumab time-varying CL was associated with increased albumin and body weight and a responder status. Our findings support the observed association between nivolumab CL and disease severity.

Phase I study of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To establish the maximum tolerated dose of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor lonafarnib (Sarasar, Schering-Plough Corp., Kenilworth, NJ) in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors. Tolerability, pharmacokinetics, safety, and dose-limiting toxicity were characterized. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were enrolled from January 2000 to May 2001. Lonafarnib was administered continuously orally twice daily at doses of 100, 125, and 150 mg in combination with paclitaxel at doses of 40, 60, or 80 mg/m(2) i.v. over 1 h weekly in 28-day cycles in a phase I design. Plasma samples for determinations of lonafarnib and paclitaxel concentrations were collected at selected time points. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. The maximum tolerated dose (the dose level below where dose-limiting toxicity occurred and the recommended phase II dose) was lonafarnib 125 mg/m(2) twice daily and paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) weekly. Dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia with or without fever, which occurred in two of three patients treated at the lonafarnib 150 mg twice daily dose level. Diarrhea was a common side effect of lonafarnib but usually was mild to moderate in severity and could be controlled with standard medication without lonafarnib dose adjustment. Other reported adverse events included nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and taste changes. These adverse events were neither more frequent nor more severe than would be expected with paclitaxel alone. There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions between weekly paclitaxel and continuous twice-daily lonafarnib. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended dose of lonafarnib for phase II trials is 125 mg orally twice daily when combined with weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2). The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia.

No Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction Between Prasugrel and Vorapaxar Following Multiple-Dose Administration in Healthy Volunteers.

Vorapaxar is a first-in-class antagonist of the protease-activated receptor-1, the primary thrombin receptor on human platelets, which mediates the downstream effects of thrombin in hemostasis and thrombosis. Prasugrel is a platelet inhibitor that acts as a P2Y12 receptor antagonist through an active metabolite, R-138727. This study investigated the interaction of these 2 platelet antagonists when coadministered. This was a randomized, open-label, multiple-dose study in 54 healthy volunteers consisting of a fixed-sequence crossover and a parallel group design. In sequence 1, 36 subjects received prasugrel 60 mg on day 1 and then prasugrel 10 mg once daily on days 2 to 7, followed by vorapaxar 40 mg and prasugrel 10 mg on day 8 and then vorapaxar 2.5 mg and prasugrel 10 mg orally once daily on days 9 to 28. In sequence 2, 18 subjects received vorapaxar 40 mg on day 1 and then vorapaxar 2.5 mg once daily on days 2 to 21. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for AUCτ and Cmax of coadministration/monotherapy for vorapaxar (0.93 ng·h/mL[0.85-1.02 ng·h/mL] and 0.95 ng/mL [0.86-1.05 ng/mL]) and R-138727 (0.91 ng·h/mL [0.85- 0.99 ng·h/mL] and 1.02 ng/mL [0.89-1.17 ng/mL]) were within prespecified bounds, demonstrating the absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between vorapaxar and prasugrel. There was no specific safety or tolerability risk associated with multiple-dose coadministration of vorapaxar and prasugrel. In conclusion, in this study in healthy volunteers, there was no pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between vorapaxar and prasugrel. Multiple-dose coadministration of the 2 drugs was generally well tolerated.

Evaluation of Immunogenicity of Nivolumab Monotherapy and Its Clinical Relevance in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor that blocks interactions between PD-1 and its ligands on tumor cells to prevent T-cell exhaustion in patients with cancer. It has demonstrated efficacy in multiple tumor types, including melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. This analysis assessed the immunogenicity of nivolumab and its impact on pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy in patients with solid tumors enrolled in 6 clinical studies. The incidence and prevalence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were determined by validated electrochemiluminescence assays in samples collected during nivolumab treatment and up to 100 days after the last dose. Confirmed positive samples from the 6 studies were also tested for presence of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Among 1086 nivolumab-treated patients, 138 patients (12.7%) were ADA positive (relative to baseline), only 3 (0.3%) of whom were persistently positive for ADA, and 9 (0.8%) were NAb positive at 1 time point. The presence of ADAs was not associated with hypersensitivity, infusion reactions, or loss of efficacy and had minimal impact on nivolumab clearance. Additionally, the presence of NAbs was not associated with loss of efficacy. In conclusion, immunogenicity of nivolumab is not clinically meaningful.

Effects of ezetimibe on cyclosporine pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects.

This single-center, open-label, 2-period crossover study investigated the effects of multiple-dose ezetimibe (EZE) on a single dose of cyclosporine (CyA). Healthy subjects received 2 treatments in random order with a 14-day washout: (1) CyA 100 mg alone and (2) EZE 20 mg for 7 days with CyA 100 mg coadministered on day 7; EZE 20 mg alone was administered on day 8. AUC(0-last) and Cmax geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) for ([CyA + EZE]/CyA alone) were 1.15 (1.07, 1.25) and 1.10 (0.97, 1.26), respectively. Tmax (approximately 1.3 hours) was similar with and without EZE (P >.200). Mean CyA exposure slightly increased (approximately 15%) with multiple-dose EZE 20 mg; however, this value was contained within (0.80, 1.25). The implications for chronic EZE dosing within the usual clinical paradigm of chronic CyA dosing have not been established; caution is recommended when using these agents concomitantly. CyA concentrations should be monitored in patients receiving EZE and CyA.

Interaction of single-dose ezetimibe and steady-state cyclosporine in renal transplant patients.

This open-label, single-period study evaluated the single-dose pharmacokinetics of ezetimibe (EZE) 10 mg in the setting of steady-state cyclosporine (CyA) dosing in renal transplant patients. A single 10-mg dose of EZE was coadministered with the morning dose of CyA (75-150 mg twice a day). Total EZE (sum of unconjugated, parent EZE and EZE-glucuronide; EZE-total) AUC(0-last) and Cmax were compared to values derived from a prespecified database of healthy volunteers. Geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) for (EZE + CyA)/EZE alone for EZE-total AUC((0-last)) and Cmax were 3.41 (2.55, 4.56) and 3.91 (3.13, 4.89), respectively. Compared to healthy controls, EZE-total AUC((0-last)) was 3.4-fold higher in transplant patients receiving CyA; similar exposure levels were seen in a prior multiple-dose study in which EZE 50 mg was administered to healthy volunteers without dose-related toxicity. Because the long-term safety implications of both higher EZE exposures and undetermined effect on CyA are not yet understood, the clinical significance of this interaction is unknown.