Clinical pharmacology considerations for the approval of belimumab for the treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis: A regulatory perspective.

On 16 December 2020, FDA approved Benlysta® (belimumab) for both the intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) administration routes for the treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis (LN) who are receiving standard therapy. This approval represents the first FDA approved treatment of patients with active LN.The approved IV dosing regimen (10 mg/kg dose Q2W for three doses, then 10 mg/kg Q4W thereafter) was based on a randomized double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial in adult patients with LN. For the approval of the SC dosing regimen (400 mg dose QW for four doses, then 200 mg QW thereafter), efficacy was supported solely by pharmacokinetics (PK) modeling and simulation which estimated a matched steady state average concentration and higher trough concentrations for the SC administration route, for bridging to the efficacy of IV belimumab in adults with LN. The safety and immunogenicity profile of the SC administration route has been assessed in the SLE studies.In a population PK analysis, higher proteinuria was associated with greater belimumab clearance and lower belimumab exposure. In an exposure response analysis, the efficacy of belimumab as evaluated by renal response was mainly driven by patients with lower proteinuria at baseline regardless of other baseline characteristics (e.g. baseline renal function, renal biopsy classification), induction therapies, or belimumab exposure levels (within 10 mg/kg dosing regimen), etc. However, post hoc analyses showed that belimumab had activity in LN patients with higher proteinuria at baseline. There is no adequate information to suggest that a higher dose would provide additional benefit for patients with lower exposure (e.g. higher proteinuria).

Drug Interaction Between Febuxostat and Thiopurine Antimetabolites: A Review of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and Medical Literature.

BACKGROUND: There is a known drug interaction (DI) between xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors and the thiopurine immunosuppressants, azathioprine (AZA) and mercaptopurine (6-MP). Xanthine oxidase inhibition increases concentrations of AZA and 6-MP active metabolites, possibly resulting in myelosuppression. When allopurinol is used with AZA or 6-MP, dose reduction of AZA or 6-MP is recommended. Febuxostat is a newer XO inhibitor approved for the treatment of gout. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical impact of the febuxostat-thiopurine DI. DESIGN AND SETTING: Case series derived from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and published medical literature. PATIENTS: Nineteen patients who received concomitant febuxostat and either AZA or 6-MP. MEASUREMENTS: Laboratory and clinical data. RESULTS: Nineteen cases reporting myelosuppressive events were identified in patients receiving febuxostat with AZA or 6-MP. Eighteen cases were treated with the combination of AZA and febuxostat. A median of 1.6 months elapsed from initiation of the drug combination until discovery of the event. Sixteen cases required hospitalization; 15 reported administration of blood products. Thirteen cases reported resolution of the event with discontinuation of both drugs, two reported discontinuation of the thiopurine only, and one reported discontinuation of febuxostat only. LIMITATIONS: Thiopurine monotherapy may cause myelosuppression. Complications of immunosuppression that may contribute to the real-world morbidity and mortality associated with the febuxostat-thiopurine DI were not examined. Finally, FAERS data are limited by the voluntary nature of reporting. CONCLUSION: Current febuxostat labeling contraindicates concomitant administration of febuxostat with either AZA or 6-MP. This case series demonstrates that the DI can result in clinically significant adverse events and is supportive of current febuxostat labeling.

Update on Therapeutic Protein-Drug Interaction: Information in Labeling.

This review evaluated the significance of therapeutic protein (TP)-drug interactions and the current practices for assessing the interaction potential. We reviewed US FDA labels of approved TPs with drug-drug interaction (DDI) assessment. TP-drug interactions have been evaluated from in vitro studies, animal studies, and/or clinical settings. Of the 150 FDA-approved TPs as of May 2019, 49 TP labels contained pharmacokinetic (PK)-related DDI information derived from at least one study method. Our review found that more than half of the clinical PK DDI evaluations showed no interaction, and no dose adjustment has been recommended for any of the rest TPs. The results and trends observed in this review may further enhance and inform risk-based approaches to evaluating the potential for TP-drug interactions.

Impact of pharmacometrics on drug approval and labeling decisions: a survey of 42 new drug applications.

The value of quantitative thinking in drug development and regulatory review is increasingly being appreciated. Modeling and simulation of data pertaining to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and disease progression is often referred to as the pharmacometrics analyses. The objective of the current report is to assess the role of pharmacometrics at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in making drug approval and labeling decisions. The New Drug Applications (NDAs) submitted between 2000 and 2004 to the Cardio-renal, Oncology, and Neuropharmacology drug products divisions were surveyed. For those NDA reviews that included a pharmacometrics consultation, the clinical pharmacology scientists ranked the impact on the regulatory decision(s). Of about a total of 244 NDAs, 42 included a pharmacometrics component. Review of NDAs involved independent, quantitative evaluation by FDA pharmacometricians, even when such analysis was not conducted by the sponsor. Pharmacometric analyses were pivotal in regulatory decision making in more than half of the 42 NDAs. Of the 14 reviews that were pivotal to approval related decisions, 5 identified the need for additional trials, whereas 6 reduced the burden of conducting additional trials. Collaboration among the FDA clinical pharmacology, medical, and statistical reviewers and effective communication with the sponsors was critical for the impact to occur. The survey and the case studies emphasize the need for early interaction between the FDA and sponsors to plan the development more efficiently by appreciating the regulatory expectations better.