Demonstrating Bioequivalence for Two Dose Strengths of Niraparib and Abiraterone Acetate Dual-Action Tablets Versus Single Agents: Utility of Clinical Study Data Supplemented with Modeling and Simulation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The combination of niraparib and abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone is under investigation for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Regular-strength (RS) and lower-strength (LS) dual-action tablets (DATs), comprising niraparib 100 mg/AA 500 mg and niraparib 50 mg/AA 500 mg, respectively, were developed to reduce pill burden and improve patient experience. A bioequivalence (BE)/bioavailability (BA) study was conducted under modified fasting conditions in patients with mCRPC to support approval of the DATs. METHODS: This open-label randomized BA/BE study (NCT04577833) was conducted at 14 sites in the USA and Europe. The study had a sequential design, including a 21-day screening phase, a pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment phase comprising three periods [namely (1) single-dose with up to 1-week run-in, (2) daily dose on days 1-11, and (3) daily dose on days 12-22], an extension where both niraparib and AA as single-agent combination (SAC; reference) or AA alone was continued from day 23 until discontinuation, and a 30-day follow-up phase. Patients were randomly assigned in a parallel-group design (four-sequence randomization) to receive a single oral dose of niraparib 100 mg/AA 1000 mg as a LS-DAT or SAC in period 1, and patients continued as randomized into a two-way crossover design during periods 2 and 3 where they received niraparib 200 mg/AA 1000 mg once daily as a RS-DAT or SAC. The design was powered on the basis of crossover assessment of RS-DAT versus SAC. During repeated dosing (periods 2 and 3, and extension phase), all patients also received prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg twice daily. Plasma samples were collected for measurement of niraparib and abiraterone plasma concentrations. Statistical assessment of the RS-DAT and LS-DAT versus SAC was performed on log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters data from periods 2 and 3 (crossover) and from period 1 (parallel), respectively. Additional paired analyses and model-based bioequivalence assessments were conducted to evaluate the similarity between the LS-DAT and SAC. RESULTS: For the RS-DAT versus SAC, the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of geometric mean ratios (GMR) for maximum concentration at a steady state (Cmax,ss) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0-24 h at a steady state (AUC 0-24h,ss) were respectively 99.18-106.12% and 97.91-104.31% for niraparib and 87.59-106.69 and 86.91-100.23% for abiraterone. For the LS-DAT vs SAC, the 90% CI of GMR for AUC0-72h of niraparib was 80.31-101.12% in primary analysis, the 90% CI of GMR for Cmax,ss and AUC 0-24h,ss of abiraterone was 85.41-118.34% and 86.51-121.64% respectively, and 96.4% of simulated LS-DAT versus SAC BE trials met the BE criteria for both niraparib and abiraterone. CONCLUSIONS: The RS-DAT met BE criteria (range 80%-125%) versus SAC based on 90% CI of GMR for Cmax,ss and AUC 0-24h,ss. The LS-DAT was considered BE to SAC on the basis of the niraparib component meeting the BE criteria in the primary analysis for AUC 0-72h; abiraterone meeting the BE criteria in additional paired analyses based on Cmax,ss and AUC 0-24h,ss; and the percentage of simulated LS-DAT versus SAC BE trials meeting the BE criteria for both. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04577833.

Rare oncology therapeutics: review of clinical pharmacology package of drug approvals (2019-2023) by US FDA, best practices and recommendations.

There are many challenges with rare diseases drug development and rare oncology indications are not different. To understand the regulatory landscape as it relates to application of clinical pharmacology principles in rare oncology product development, we reviewed publicly available information of 39 approvals by US FDA between January 2019 and March 2023. The objective was to understand the expected clinical pharmacology studies and knowledge base in such approvals. Model informed drug development (MIDD) applications were also reviewed, as such approaches are expected to play a critical role in filling clinical pharmacology gaps in rare oncology, where number of clinical trials and size of these trials will perhaps continue to be small. The findings highlighted how clinical pharmacology contributed to the evidence of effectiveness, dose optimization and elucidation of intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting drug's behavior. Clinical pharmacology studies were often integrated with modeling in many of the NDAs/BLAs. Of the post marketing requirements (PMR) received, 18% were for dose optimization, 49% for DDI, 8% for QTc, 49% for specific population, and 5% for food effect. Two post marketing commitments (PMC) were issued for immunogenicity of the 11 biologics submissions. 15% (6 of 39) of the submissions used maximum tolerated dose (MTD) to advance their molecule into Phase 2 studies. Of them 3 approvals received PMR for dose optimization. 3 + 3 was the most prevalent Phase 1 design with use in 74% of the New Drug Applications (NDA)/Biologic License Applications (BLA) reviewed. Rest used innovative approaches such as BLRM, BOIN or mTPi, with BLRM being the most common. Seamless clinical pharmacology and MIDD approaches are paramount for rare oncology drug development.

First-in-human, open-label, phase 1/2 study of the monoclonal antibody programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor cetrelimab (JNJ-63723283) in patients with advanced cancers.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary efficacy of cetrelimab (JNJ-63723283), a monoclonal antibody programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, in patients with advanced/refractory solid tumors in the phase 1/2 LUC1001 study. METHODS: In phase 1, patients with advanced solid tumors received intravenous cetrelimab 80, 240, 460, or 800 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or 480 mg Q4W. In phase 2, patients with melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/DNA mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer (CRC) received cetrelimab 240 mg Q2W. Response was assessed Q8W until Week 24 and Q12W thereafter. RESULTS: In phase 1, 58 patients received cetrelimab. Two dose-limiting toxicities were reported and two recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) were defined (240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W). After a first dose, mean maximum serum concentrations (Cmax) ranged from 24.7 to 227.0 µg/mL; median time to Cmax ranged from 2.0 to 3.2 h. Pharmacodynamic effect was maintained throughout the dosing period across doses. In phase 2, 146 patients received cetrelimab 240 mg Q2W. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 53.9% of patients. Immune-related AEs (any grade) occurred in 35.3% of patients (grade ≥ 3 in 6.9%). Overall response rate was 18.6% across tumor types, 34.3% in NSCLC, 52.6% in programmed death ligand 1-high (≥ 50% by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC, 28.0% in melanoma, and 23.8% in centrally confirmed MSI-H CRC. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D for cetrelimab was established. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characteristics, safety profile, and clinical activity of cetrelimab in immune-sensitive advanced cancers were consistent with known PD-1 inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT02908906 at ClinicalTrials.gov, September 21, 2016; EudraCT 2016-002,017-22 at clinicaltrialsregister.eu, Jan 11, 2017.

Niraparib with androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety and pharmacokinetic results from a phase 1b study (BEDIVERE).

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics and determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of niraparib with apalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: BEDIVERE was a multicenter, open-label, phase 1b study of niraparib 200 or 300 mg/day with apalutamide 240 mg or AAP (abiraterone acetate 1000 mg; prednisone 10 mg). Patients with mCRPC were previously treated with ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapy, including ≥ 1 androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled (niraparib-apalutamide, 6; niraparib-AAP, 27). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported when combinations included niraparib 200 mg; five patients receiving niraparib 300 mg experienced DLTs [niraparib-apalutamide, 2/3 patients (66.7%); niraparib-AAP, 3/8 patients (37.5%)]. Although data are limited, niraparib exposures were lower when given with apalutamide compared with historical niraparib monotherapy exposures in patients with solid tumors. Because of the higher incidence of DLTs, the niraparib-apalutamide combination and niraparib 300 mg combination with AAP were not further evaluated. Niraparib 200 mg was selected as the RP2D with AAP. Of 19 patients receiving niraparib 200 mg with AAP, 12 (63.2%) had grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, the most common being thrombocytopenia (26.3%) and hypertension (21.1%). Five patients (26.3%) had adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the choice of niraparib 200 mg as the RP2D with AAP. The niraparib-AAP combination was tolerable in patients with mCRPC, with no new safety signals. An ongoing phase 3 study is further assessing this combination in patients with mCRPC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NO: NCT02924766 (ClinicalTrials.gov).