[Alpha-blockers or hexanic extract of Serenoa repens for 6 months: sub-analysis of the PERSAT study]. / Alpha-bloquants ou extrait hexanique de Serenoa repens pendant 6 mois : sous-analyse de l'étude PERSAT.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this sub-analysis of the PERSAT study was to evaluate the efficacy of hexanic extract of S. Repens (HESr) and alpha-blockers (AB), at 6 months in patients with moderate to severe LUTS/BPH. METHODS: The PERSAT observational study was conducted in France by general practitioners on patients with BPH with an IPSS≥12 score. The primary endpoint was the percentage of responders (decrease in total IPSS score ≥ 3) at 6 months. Improvement in quality of life (IPSS-QoL) as well as patient satisfaction were also measured. RESULTS: Of the 759 patients in the study, 324 treated with HESr and 309 with AB were reviewed at 6 months, with no change in treatment during follow-up. Characteristics at inclusion were globally similar with a mean IPSS of 18.2±4.9. The response rates at 6 months (IPSS-total decrease ≥ 3) were 93.7% and 94.8% for patients treated with HESr and AB, with a mean decrease in IPSS score of 10.1±5.6 points, which reached 13.6 and 14.8 points respectively, in severe patients (IPSS>19), without major difference between groups. More than 95% of HESr or AB patients reported a significant overall improvement in their LUTS/BPH. The most frequently reported adverse events with AB were ejaculation disorders (4.9%) and hypotension (4.2%) and with HESr digestive disorders (1.5%). CONCLUSION: This sub-analysis of the PERSAT cohort reported the clinical efficacy of HESr and AB as a first-line treatment in the management of moderate or severe LUTS/BPH patients.

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic modeling of abexinostat-induced thrombocytopenia across different patient populations: application for the determination of the maximum tolerated doses in both lymphoma and solid tumour patients.

BACKGROUND: In the clinical development of oncology drugs, the recommended dose is usually determined using a 3 + 3 dose-escalation study design. However, this phase I design does not always adequately describe dose-toxicity relationships. METHODS: 125 patients, with either solid tumours or lymphoma, were included in the study and 1217 platelet counts were available over three treatment cycles. The data was used to build a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model using a sequential modeling approach. Model-derived Recommended Doses (MDRD) of abexinostat (a Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor) were determined from simulations of different administration schedules, and the higher bound for the probability of reaching these MDRD with a 3 + 3 design were obtained. RESULTS: The PKPD model developed adequately described platelet kinetics in both patient populations with the inclusion of two platelet baseline counts and a disease progression component for patients with lymphoma. Simulation results demonstrated that abexinostat administration during the first 4 days of each week in a 3-week cycle led to a higher MDRD compared to the other administration schedules tested, with a maximum probability of 40 % of reaching these MDRDs using a 3 + 3 design. CONCLUSIONS: The PKPD model was able to predict thrombocytopenia following abexinostat administration in both patient populations. A model-based approach to determine the recommended dose in phase I trials is preferable due to the imprecision of the 3 + 3 design.

Application of hematological toxicity modeling in clinical development of abexinostat (S-78454, PCI-24781), a new histone deacetylase inhibitor.

PURPOSE: A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model was developed to describe the thrombocytopenia (dose-limiting toxicity) of abexinostat, a new histone deacetylase inhibitor. An optimal administration schedule of the drug was determined using a simulation-based approach. METHODS: Early PK and PK/PD data were analysed using a sequential population modeling approach (NONMEM 7), allowing for the description of a PK profile and platelet-count decrease after abexinostat administration with various administration schedules. Simulations of platelet count with several administration schedules over 3-week treatment cycles (ASC) and over a day (ASD) were computed to define the optimal schedule that limits the depth of thrombocytopenia. RESULTS: An intermediate PK/PD model accurately described the data. The administration of abexinostat during the first 4 days of each week in a 3-week cycle resulted in fewer adverse events (with no influence of ASD on platelet count profiles), and corresponded to the optimal treatment schedule. This administration schedule was clinically evaluated in a phase I clinical trial and allowed for the definition of a new maximum tolerated dose (MTD), leading to a nearly 30% higher dose-intensity than that of another previously tested schedule. Lastly, a final model was built using all of the available data. CONCLUSIONS: The final model, characterizing the dose-effect and the dose-toxicity relationships, provides a useful modeling tool for clinical drug development.

Population pharmacokinetics of peritoneal, plasma ultrafiltrated and protein-bound oxaliplatin concentrations in patients with disseminated peritoneal cancer after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion of oxaliplatin following cytoreductive surgery: correlation between oxaliplatin exposure and thrombocytopenia.

PURPOSE: First, to evaluate the peritoneal (IP), plasma ultrafiltrated (UF) and protein-bound (B) pharmacokinetics (PK) of oxaliplatin after intraperitoneal hyperthermic chemoperfusion (HIPEC) following cytoreductive surgery. Second, to evaluate the relationship between oxaliplatin exposure and observed toxicity. METHODS: IP, UF, and B concentrations from 75 patients treated by 30-min oxaliplatin-based HIPEC procedures were analysed according to a pharmacokinetic modelling approach using NONMEM. Oxaliplatin was administered in a 5 % dextrose solution (2 L/m(2)) at 360 (n = 58) or 460 mg/m(2) (n = 17). The most frequently observed toxicities were related to the peritoneal, systemic exposures and to the parameters corresponding to the oxaliplatin absorption from peritoneal cavity into plasma. RESULTS: IP (n = 536), UF (n = 669) and B (n = 661) concentrations were simultaneously described according to a five-compartment PK model with irreversible nonlinear binding from UF to B according to a Michaelis-Menten equation. The mean (±SD) maximum fraction of dose absorbed and elimination half-life from the peritoneum was 53.7 % (±8.5) and 0.49 h (±0.1), respectively. The mean (±SD) ratio AUC(IP)/AUC(UF) was 5.3 (±2) confirming the pharmacokinetic advantage of the procedure. Haemoperitoneum (22.7 %), neuropathy (18.7 %), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (13.3 %) were the most frequently reported toxicities. AUC(UF) accounts for approximately 12 % of the variation in the maximum percentage of platelet decrease (r = 0.35, p = 0.002). Thrombocytopenia was correlated with higher AUCUF, partly dependent on the extent and rate of oxaliplatin absorption. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a common dose administered, variability in peritoneal and systemic oxaliplatin exposures are observed, leading to differences in haematological toxicity between patients.

Unexpected high levels of vorinostat when combined with vinorelbine in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was a multi-centre, dose-escalation trial in patients with advanced cancers. Primary objective was to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat, a competitive inhibitor of histone deacetylase (HDAC), in combination with vinorelbine. Secondary aims were to determine (1) corresponding pharmacokinetics, (2) safety of this regimen, and (3) impact of UGT1A1 and 2B17 polymorphisms on vorinostat pharmacokinetics. METHODS: Starting dose of once daily oral vorinostat was 200 mg for 7 days every 21 days in combination with a 20-min intraveinous weekly infusion of vinorelbine 25 mg/m2, starting 4 hours after the first vorinostat dose. During cycle 1, blood samples were collected at day 1 for vorinostat and at days 1 and 8 for vinorelbine for pharmacokinetic evaluation. RESULTS: Seven patients were included. Most of adverse events observed were mild (grades 0-2) and reversible after treatment discontinuation (hemotological toxicity, asthenia, diarrhea, dyspnea, fever, hyperglycemia and nausea). Two patients had a dose limiting toxicity at the first dose level that consisted of grade 3 hyperglycemia and vinorelbine administration was delayed. The first dose-level was considered as the MDT and therefore dose escalation was stopped. Mean vorinostat plasma AUC was higher than reported previously at a similar dose when used as single agent or in combination with other cytotoxics. There was no obvious vinorelbine-vorinostat interaction nor any correlation with UGT1A1 or 2B17 polymorphisms. CONCLUSION: MDT of the combination was 200 mg oral vorinostat for 7 days in combination with 25 mg/m2 weekly vinorelbine. Severity of hyperglycemia was most likely related to unexpected high vorinostat exposures.