Effect of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Alectinib.

Alectinib is approved and recommended as the preferred first-line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alectinib was assessed with physiologically based PK modeling prospectively and in a clinical study. An open-label study (NCT02621047) investigated a single 300-mg dose of alectinib in moderate (n = 8) and severe (n = 8) hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh B/C), and healthy subjects (n = 12) matched for age, sex, and body weight. Physiologically based PK modeling was conducted prospectively to inform the clinical study design and support the use of a lower dose and extended PK sampling in the study. PK parameters were calculated for alectinib, its major similarly active metabolite, M4, and the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Unbound concentrations were assessed at 6 and 12 hours postdose. Administration of alectinib to subjects with hepatic impairment increased the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity of the combined exposure of alectinib and M4 to 136% (90% confidence interval [CI], 94.7-196) and 176% (90%CI 98.4-315), for moderate and severe hepatic impairment, respectively, relative to matched healthy subjects. Unbound concentrations for alectinib and M4 did not appear substantially different between hepatic-impaired and healthy subjects. Moderate hepatic impairment had only a modest, not clinically significant effect on alectinib exposure, while the higher exposure observed in severe hepatic impairment supports a dose adjustment in this population.

Effect of alectinib on cardiac electrophysiology: results from intensive electrocardiogram monitoring from the pivotal phase II NP28761 and NP28673 studies.

PURPOSE: Alectinib, a central nervous system (CNS)-active ALK inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer that has progressed following crizotinib treatment. Other ALK inhibitors have shown concentration-dependent QTc prolongation and treatment-related bradycardia. Therefore, this analysis evaluated alectinib safety in terms of electrophysiologic parameters. METHODS: Intensive triplicate centrally read electrocardiogram (ECG) and matched pharmacokinetic data were collected across two alectinib single-arm trials. Analysis of QTcF included central tendency analysis [mean changes from baseline with one-sided upper 95% confidence intervals (CIs)], categorical analyses, and relationship between change in QTcF and alectinib plasma concentrations. Alectinib effects on other ECG parameters (heart rate, PR interval and QRS duration) were also evaluated. RESULTS: Alectinib did not cause a clinically relevant change in QTcF. The maximum mean QTcF change from baseline was 5.3 ms observed pre-dose at week 2. The upper one-sided 95% CI was <10 ms at all time points. There was no relevant relationship between change in QTcF and alectinib plasma concentrations. Alectinib treatment resulted in a generally asymptomatic exposure-dependent decrease in mean heart rate of ~11 to 13 beats per minute at week 2. No clinically relevant effects were seen on other ECG parameters. Approximately 5% of patients reported cardiac adverse events of bradycardia or sinus bradycardia; however, these were all grade 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Alectinib does not prolong the QTc interval or cause changes in cardiac function to a clinically relevant extent, with the exception of a decrease in heart rate which was generally asymptomatic.

Subcutaneous Bioavailability of Taspoglutide at 3 Different Injection Sites in Healthy Overweight/Obese Subjects.

PURPOSE: Taspoglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist that has >90% homology with the endogenous GLP-1 while retaining equivalent potency. Once-weekly subcutaneous injections with taspoglutide demonstrated meaningful antihyperglycemic and weight loss effects in patients with type 2 diabetes. The present study was performed to compare the relative bioavailability of taspoglutide injected subcutaneously in the abdomen, upper arm, and thigh. METHODS: Healthy overweight/obese subjects were randomized in an open-label, 3-way crossover study. A single 20-mg dose of taspoglutide was injected subcutaneously on 3 occasions in the abdomen, upper arm, or thigh. Each injection was separated by a 12-week washout period. Blood was sampled up to 12 weeks for the pharmacokinetic evaluation of taspoglutide. FINDINGS: Sixty subjects were randomized into the study (mean age, 45.5 years; body weight, 97.6 kg; and body mass index, 31.4 kg/m(2)). AUClast values (geometric mean) for subcutaneous injections in the abdomen, upper arm, and thigh were 44.2, 61.2, and 50.0 ng·h/mL, respectively. The geometric mean ratio (relative bioavailability) for the upper arm versus the abdomen was 1.41 (90% CI: 1.22-1.62) and for the thigh versus the abdomen was 1.13 (90% CI: 0.98-1.31). Corresponding Cmax values for subcutaneous injections in the abdomen, upper arm, and thigh were 0.268, 0.382, and 0.341 ng/mL, respectively, and the geometric mean ratio for the upper arm versus the abdomen was 1.43 (90% CI: 1.24-1.64) and for the thigh versus the abdomen was 1.27 (90% CI: 1.10-1.46). Decreases in taspoglutide exposure were observed with each subsequent period. AUClast values (geometric mean across injections sites) for periods 1, 2, and 3 were 97.2, 42.6, and 31.5 ng·h/mL, respectively. The geometric mean ratio for period 2 versus 1 was 0.44 (90% CI: 0.38-0.50) and for period 3 versus 1 was 0.32 (90% CI: 0.27-0.37). Analysis of pharmacokinetic data after first injection only (period 1) showed comparable AUClast across the 3 injection sites and lower initial Cmax after injection into the abdomen compared with the other 2 injection sites. Overall, taspoglutide was well tolerated by most subjects in all 3 injection sites, with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting when injected in the abdomen. IMPLICATIONS: Regardless of a pronounced period effect, relative bioavailability of taspoglutide was different across injection sites, with the lowest exposure and incidence of nausea and vomiting seen after administration in the abdomen. In the absence of comparable bioavailability, taspoglutide was recommended to be injected into the abdomen.

Fasting triglycerides predict recurrent ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with statins.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are treated with statins, which reduce atherogenic triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. It is uncertain whether triglycerides predict risk after ACS on a background of statin treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the relationship of fasting triglyceride levels to outcomes after ACS in patients treated with statins. METHODS: Long-term and short-term relationships of triglycerides to risk after ACS were examined in the dal-OUTCOMES trial and atorvastatin arm of the MIRACL (Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Acute Cholesterol Lowering) trial, respectively. Analysis of dal-OUTCOMES included 15,817 patients (97% statin-treated) randomly assigned 4 to 12 weeks after ACS to treatment with dalcetrapib (a cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor) or placebo and followed for a median 31 months. Analysis of MIRACL included 1,501 patients treated with atorvastatin 80 mg daily beginning 1 to 4 days after ACS and followed for 16 weeks. Fasting triglycerides at initial random assignment were related to risk of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina in models adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, smoking, diabetes, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and body mass index. RESULTS: Fasting triglyceride levels were associated with both long-term and short-term risk after ACS. In dal-OUTCOMES, long-term risk increased across quintiles of baseline triglycerides (p<0.001). The hazard ratio in the highest/lowest quintile (>175/≤80 mg/dl) was 1.61 (95% confidence interval: 1.34 to 1.94). There was no interaction of triglycerides and treatment assignment on the primary outcome. In the atorvastatin group of MIRACL, short-term risk increased across tertiles of baseline triglycerides (p=0.03), with a hazard ratio of 1.50 [corrected] (95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 2.15) in highest/lowest tertiles (>195/≤135 mg/dl). The relationship of triglycerides to risk was independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS treated effectively with statins, fasting triglycerides predict long-term and short-term cardiovascular risk. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins may be an important additional target for therapy. (A Study of RO4607381 in Stable Coronary Heart Disease Patients With Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT00658515).

Effect of gastric pH on erlotinib pharmacokinetics in healthy individuals: omeprazole and ranitidine.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of coadministration of acid-reducing agents on the pharmacokinetic exposure of orally administered epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib, a drug that displays pH-dependent solubility. Two studies were conducted, the first with the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole and the second with the H2-receptor antagonist ranitidine. Twenty-four healthy male and female volunteers were enrolled in each study. Erlotinib was administered as a single oral 150 mg dose on day 1. After the washout a subsequent study period evaluated 150 mg erlotinib administered with the acid-reducing agent. Omeprazole (40 mg once daily) was given on days 11-14, concomitantly with erlotinib on day 15, and for two additional days (days 16-17). In the ranitidine study, on day 13, participants were randomized to either concomitant dosing (treatment B) or staggered administration (treatment C) of erlotinib and ranitidine and crossed over to the other treatment starting on day 27. For treatment B, ranitidine (300 mg once daily) was administered in the morning for 5 days, 2 h before erlotinib. For treatment C, ranitidine was administered as a divided dose (150 mg twice daily) for 5 days, with erlotinib given 10 h after the previous evening dose and 2 h before the next ranitidine morning dose. Plasma samples were obtained for determination of the concentrations of erlotinib and its metabolite OSI-420, following each erlotinib dose. All participants were monitored for safety and tolerability. The geometric mean ratios of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for erlotinib and AUC0-last and Cmax for OSI-420 were substantially decreased when erlotinib was dosed with omeprazole. The estimated mean ratio (90% confidence interval) for erlotinib was 0.54 (0.49-0.59) for AUC0-∞ and 0.39 (0.32-0.48) for Cmax. For OSI-420, the estimated mean ratio was 0.42 (0.37-0.48) for AUC0-last and 0.31 (0.24-0.41) for Cmax. AUC0-∞ and Cmax for erlotinib were substantially decreased by 33 and 54%, respectively, upon coadministration with ranitidine, but the decrease was only 15 and 17% when ranitidine and erlotinib were given staggered. Similar results were observed for the metabolite OSI-420. Erlotinib was generally well-tolerated alone or in combination with omeprazole or ranitidine. Erlotinib pharmacokinetic exposure was substantially reduced upon coadministration with omeprazole and ranitidine, but not when administered with a staggered dosing approach to ranitidine. Therefore, it is recommended that the concomitant use of erlotinib with proton pump inhibitors be avoided. If treatment with an H2-receptor antagonist such as ranitidine is required, erlotinib must be administered 10 h after the H2-receptor antagonist dosing and at least 2 h before the next dose of the H2-receptor antagonist.

Issues in the assessment of non-inferiority: perspectives drawn from case studies.

Superiority claims for improved efficacy are the backbone of clinical development of new therapies. However, not every new therapy in development allows for such a claim. Some therapies per se do not try to improve efficacy further but concentrate on important aspects in safety or convenience. Such improvements can be equally important to patients, and development strategies should be available for such compounds. A three-arm design with placebo, active control and experimental treatment may be viewed as the golden standard for such compounds; however, it may be difficult if not impossible to add a placebo arm in certain diseases. In such situations, non-inferiority designs are the only development option left. This paper will highlight some of the key issues with such designs in practice and will report experience from two studies from different therapeutic areas intended for regulatory submission.

A multicenter, randomized, open-label study to assess the steady-state pharmacokinetics of bevacizumab given with either XELOX or FOLFOX-4 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of bevacizumab (BV) at steady-state under two different dosing regimens, 7.5 mg/kg q3w and 5.0 mg/kg q2w, concomitantly with a combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) and FOLFOX-4 (oxaliplatin in combination with infusional 5-FU/LV), respectively, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either XELOX + BV or FOLFOX-4 + BV. Blood samples for steady-state PK of BV were collected on day 1 of cycle 5 (at the earliest) for XELOX + BV treatment and day 1 of cycle 7 (at the earliest) for FOLFOX-4 + BV treatment. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were enrolled, of which 37 were eligible for PK analyses. The primary PK parameter of BV, AUC(ss(per week)), was statistically similar between the two dosing regimens with the 90% confidence interval in the commonly used no-effect boundaries of 0.8 and 1.25. The V (ss) and CL did not differ between the two regimens; t (½) during the PK cycle was also similar for both arms at approximately 16 days. These results demonstrated no clinically relevant change in BV PK when co-administered with either XELOX or FOLFOX-4. BV in combination with XELOX and FOLFOX-4 was generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety signals and no deaths. Nine patients in the XELOX + BV arm and 15 patients in the FOLFOX-4 + BV arm experienced at least one SAE (most commonly gastrointestinal disorders) which led to dose modification in 7 and 2 patients, respectively, and to premature withdrawal in 9 and 5 patients, respectively. All 64 patients experienced at least one non-serious AE. Laboratory tests and vital signs were unremarkable. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant differences in overall steady-state exposure of BV occurred when BV was given 7.5 mg/kg q3w in combination with XELOX or 5.0 mg/kg q2w with FOLFOX-4 in patients with mCRC, and the pharmacokinetics of BV were very similar between the two regimens. No unexpected adverse events or deaths were identified.

Significant effect of capecitabine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Clinical cases of capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based chemotherapies potentiating the effects of coumarin derivatives have been reported. This study assessed the influence of capecitabine on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of warfarin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four patients with advanced/metastatic cancer completed the study, receiving a single oral dose of 20 mg warfarin before the start of standard capecitabine treatment (day 1), and again during the third cycle of capecitabine (day 61). PK parameters of warfarin and capecitabine and PD parameters of warfarin were assessed on days 1 and 61. RESULTS: During capecitabine treatment, the area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)) of S-warfarin increased by 57% (90% CI, 32% to 88%) with a 51% prolongation of the elimination half-life (t(1/2); 90% CI, 32% to 74%). Exposure to R-warfarin was not significantly affected. Plasma concentrations of capecitabine and its metabolites were not influenced by warfarin. During capecitabine treatment, the effect of warfarin on the baseline corrected AUC of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) increased by 2.8 times (90% CI, 1.33 to 5.70), with the maximum observed INR value almost doubling. Because of the administration of vitamin K to some patients with elevated INRs, these figures are likely to underestimate the true PD effect. Mean baseline factor VII levels dropped while on capecitabine therapy, potentially contributing to the observed PD interaction, though this effect did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: There is a significant pharmacokinetic interaction between capecitabine and S-warfarin, resulting in exaggerated anticoagulant activity. Patients receiving warfarin anticoagulant therapy concomitantly with capecitabine should have their INR closely monitored and warfarin doses adjusted accordingly.

Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin is the standard adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is an established alternative to bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated capecitabine in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 1987 patients with resected stage III colon cancer to receive either oral capecitabine (1004 patients) or bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen; 983 patients) over a period of 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was at least equivalence in disease-free survival; the primary safety end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects due to fluoropyrimidines. RESULTS: Disease-free survival in the capecitabine group was at least equivalent to that in the fluorouracil-plus-leucovorin group (in the intention-to-treat analysis, P<0.001 for the comparison of the upper limit of the hazard ratio with the noninferiority margin of 1.20). Capecitabine improved relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.04) and was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than fluorouracil plus leucovorin (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.