Adverse events associated with encorafenib plus binimetinib in the COLUMBUS study: incidence, course and management.

BACKGROUND: Dual inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway with BRAF/MEK inhibitor (BRAFi/MEKi) therapy is a standard treatment for BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma and has historically been associated with grade III pyrexia or photosensitivity depending on the combination used. The objective of this study was to fully describe adverse events from the COLUMBUS study evaluating the most recent BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination encorafenib+binimetinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma were randomised to receive encorafenib 450 mg once daily plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, encorafenib 300 mg once daily or vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily. Adverse events that represent known effects of available BRAFi and/or MEKi were evaluated. RESULTS: The safety population included a total of 570 patients (encorafenib+binimetinib = 192; encorafenib = 192; vemurafenib = 186). Median duration of exposure was longer with encorafenib+binimetinib (51 weeks) than with encorafenib (31 weeks) or vemurafenib (27 weeks). Common BRAFi/MEKi toxicities with encorafenib+binimetinib were generally manageable, reversible and infrequently associated with discontinuation. Pyrexia was less frequent with encorafenib+binimetinib (18%) and encorafenib (16%) than with vemurafenib (30%) and occurred later in the course of therapy with encorafenib+binimetinib (median time to first onset: 85 days versus 2.5 days and 19 days, respectively). The incidence of photosensitivity was lower with encorafenib+binimetinib (5%) and encorafenib (4%) than with vemurafenib (30%). The incidence of serous retinopathy was higher with encorafenib+binimetinib (20%) than with encorafenib (2%) or vemurafenib (2%), but no patients discontinued encorafenib+binimetinib because of this event. CONCLUSION: Encorafenib+binimetinib is generally well tolerated and has a low discontinuation rate in patients with BRAFV600-mutant melanoma, with a distinct safety profile as compared with other anti-BRAF/MEK targeted therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01909453) and with EudraCT (number 2013-001176-38).

A quantitative framework and strategies for management and evaluation of metabolic drug-drug interactions in oncology drug development: new molecular entities as object drugs.

This article outlines general strategies for the management and evaluation of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) resulting from perturbation of clearance of investigational anticancer drug candidates by concomitantly administered agents in a drug development setting, with a focus on drug candidates that cannot be evaluated in first-in-human studies in healthy subjects. A risk level classification is proposed, based on quantitative integration of knowledge derived from preclinical drug-metabolism studies evaluating the projected percentage contribution [f(i)(%)] of individual molecular determinants (e.g. cytochrome P450 isoenzymes) to the overall human clearance of the investigational agent. The following classification is proposed with respect to susceptibility to DDIs with metabolic inhibitors: a projected maximum DDI expected to result in a ≤1.33-fold increase in exposure, representing a low level of risk; a projected maximum DDI expected to result in a >1.33-fold but <2-fold increase in exposure, representing a moderate level of risk; and a projected maximum DDI expected to result in a ≥2-fold increase in exposure, representing a potentially high level of risk. For DDIs with metabolic inducers, the following operational classification is proposed, based on the sum of the percentage contributions of enzymes that are inducible via a common mechanism to the overall clearance of the investigational drug: <<25%, representing a low level of risk; <50%, representing a moderate level of risk; and ≥50%, representing a potentially high level of risk. To ensure patient safety and to minimize bias in determination of the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), it is recommended that strong and moderate inhibitors and inducers of the major contributing enzyme are excluded in phase I dose-escalation studies of high-risk compounds, whereas exclusion of strong inhibitors and inducers of the contributing enzyme(s) is recommended as being sufficient for moderate-risk compounds. For drugs that will be investigated in diseases such as glioblastoma, where there may be relatively frequent use of enzyme-inducing antiepileptic agents (EIAEDs), a separate dose-escalation study in this subpopulation is recommended to define the RP2D. For compounds in the high-risk category, if genetic deficiencies in the activity of the major drug-metabolizing enzyme are known, it is recommended that poor metabolizers be studied separately to define the RP2D for this subpopulation. Whereas concomitant medication exclusion criteria that are utilized in the phase I dose-escalation studies will probably also need to be maintained for high-risk compounds in phase II studies unless the results of a clinical DDI study indicate the absence of a clinically relevant interaction, these exclusion criteria can potentially be relaxed beyond phase I for moderate-risk compounds, if supported by the nature of clinical toxicities and the understanding of the therapeutic index in phase I. Adequately designed clinical DDI studies will not only inform potential relaxation of concomitant medication exclusion criteria in later-phase studies but, importantly, will also inform the development of pharmacokinetically derived dose-modification guidelines for use in clinical practice when coupled with adequate safety monitoring, as illustrated in the prescribing guidance for many recently approved oncology therapeutics.