An exposure-response analysis of ponesimod clinical efficacy in a randomized phase III study in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.

The efficacy of ponesimod and teriflunomide for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) was compared in a randomized phase III trial. This study explores the exposure-response (E-R) relationships of efficacy end points (annualized relapse rate [ARR] and combined unique active lesions [CUALs]) of ponesimod observed in this trial. The E-R relationships were described using nonlinear mixed effects models for count data. The effect of baseline covariates (demography and prognostic factors) was also explored. Ponesimod 20 mg reduced ARR (primary end point) by 30.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.8% to 46.4%) and the number of CUALs by 56% (95% CI: 46% to 64%) between baseline and week 108 compared to teriflunomide 14 mg. The E-R analyses indicated a significant relationship between ARR and CUAL. In turn, CUAL was significantly related to ponesimod systemic exposure. Based on these relationships, the predicted reduction of ARR was relatively flat in the range of ponesimod systemic exposure achieved with the 20 mg clinical dose: the expected ARR decrease ranged from 28% (95% CI: 11% to 42%) at the 5th percentile of ponesimod exposure to 34% (95% CI: 19% to 47%) at the 95th percentile. No significant baseline covariates affected the ponesimod effects and, consequently, dosage adjustments are not warranted by these analyses. Although significant relationships were found between ARR and CUAL and between ponesimod exposure and CUAL, these analyses were supportive of the use of a flat 20 mg maintenance dose for ponesimod in adult patients with MS.

Nicotine Population Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Smokers After Intravenous, Oral, Buccal and Transdermal Administration.

BACKGROUND: In 4 decades, numerous nicotine replacement therapy products have been developed. Population pharmacokinetic models can support exposure-response modeling and inform nicotine replacement therapy product development, but only limited model-based cross-study population pharmacokinetic analyses for nicotine replacement therapy products have been published. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to assess the population pharmacokinetics of nicotine across intravenous, oral, transdermal and oromucosal (mouth spray, chewing gum, lozenge and inhaler) routes and formulations in healthy smoking subjects. METHODS: Data on 930 unique subjects (46,016 observations) from 29 single- and repeated-dose studies with multiple formulations across intravenous, oral, transdermal and oromucosal routes of administration were included. Data from intravenous and extravascular routes of administration were modelled separately for run efficiency reasons. For developing extravascular models, clearance and disposition parameters and their inter-individual variabilities were fixed to the estimates for intravenously delivered nicotine. Detectable pre-dose nicotine concentrations were modelled as a hypothetical nicotine bolus into the central compartment at the start of wash-out. Modelling repeated-dose oral and buccal administrations required a time-dependent increase in clearance or decrease in bioavailability to describe the data adequately. RESULTS: Disposition of intravenous nicotine was best described by a three-compartment model with initial and terminal half-lives of 7 min and 4.5 h, respectively, and the absorption of single oral doses was best described with a first-order absorption rate constant of 1.55 h-1. The data of buccal formulations were modelled with parallel oromucosal absorption and gastrointestinal absorption of a part of the dose that is swallowed. For transdermal nicotine, parallel zero- and first-order release from the patch and a transit-compartment absorption model best described the data. Key pharmacokinetic parameters were reliably estimated, with typical values for clearance (67 L/h for a 70-kg subject), volume of distribution (4.3 L/kg), oral bioavailability (40%) and transdermal bioavailability (76%) within expected ranges. The estimated fraction of the dose swallowed for buccal formulations ranged from 55% (gum) to 69% (lozenge). CONCLUSIONS: Robust population pharmacokinetic models were developed for five nicotine replacement therapy product types and for intravenous and oral nicotine. These population pharmacokinetic models are used in exposure-response analyses and simulation-based nicotine replacement therapy product design.

Population pharmacokinetics meta-analysis of recombinant human erythropoietin in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to develop a population pharmacokinetic model to describe the pharmacokinetics of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) in healthy subjects, after intravenous and subcutaneous administration over a wide dose range, and to examine the influence of demographic characteristics and other covariates on the pharmacokinetic parameters of rHuEPO. METHODS: Erythropoietin serum concentration data were available from 16 studies comprising 49 healthy subjects who received rHuEPO intravenous doses from 10 to 300 IU/kg, 427 healthy subjects who received rHuEPO subcutaneous doses from 1 to 2400 IU/kg, and 57 healthy subjects who received placebo and where endogenous erythropoietin concentrations were measured. Different pharmacokinetic models were fitted to the dataset using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling software (NONMEM, Version V, Level 1). Several patient covariates were tested in order to quantify the effect on rHuEPO pharmacokinetic parameters. Model evaluation was examined using a posterior predictive check. RESULTS: Erythropoietin showed a diurnal baseline variation of +/-20%, described with a dual cosine model. Disposition was described with a two-compartment model with a small volume of distribution (6L) and parallel linear and nonlinear clearance. Total clearance varied between 0.3 and 0.9 L/h over the concentration range studied. A dual absorption model was used to characterise the rHuEPO absorption from the subcutaneous formulation and consisted of a faster pathway described as a sequential zero- and first-order absorption process and a parallel slower pathway characterised as a zero-order process. The bioavailability of subcutaneous rHuEPO increased from 30% at low doses to 71% at the highest dose of 160 kIU and was described using a hyperbolic model. The most important covariate effects were a decrease in the first-order absorption rate constant (k(a)) with increasing age, an increase in subcutaneous bioavailability with increasing baseline haemoglobin, and a decrease in bioavailability with increasing bodyweight. A posterior predictive check showed no systematic deviation of the simulated data from the observed values. CONCLUSION: The population pharmacokinetic model developed is suitable to describe the pharmacokinetic behaviour of rHuEPO after intravenous and subcutaneous administration in healthy subjects, over a wide dose range.

Dopamine D2 occupancy as a biomarker for antipsychotics: quantifying the relationship with efficacy and extrapyramidal symptoms.

For currently available antipsychotic drugs, blockade of dopamine D(2) receptors is a critical component for achieving antipsychotic efficacy, but it is also a driving factor in the development of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). To inform the clinical development of asenapine, generic mathematical models have been developed for predicting antipsychotic efficacy and EPS tolerability based on D(2) receptor occupancy. Clinical data on pharmacokinetics, D(2) receptor occupancy, efficacy, and EPS for several antipsychotics were collected from the public domain. Asenapine data were obtained from in-house trials. D(2) receptor occupancy data were restricted to published positron emission tomography studies that included blood sampling for pharmacokinetics. Clinical efficacy data were restricted to group mean endpoint data from short-term placebo-controlled trials, whereas EPS evaluation also included some non-placebo-controlled trials. A generally applicable model connecting antipsychotic dose, pharmacokinetics, D(2) receptor occupancy, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) response, and effect on Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) was then developed. The empirical models describing the D(2)-PANSS and D(2)-SAS relationships were used successfully to aid dose selection for asenapine phase II and III trials. A broader use can be envisaged as a dose selection tool for new antipsychotics with D(2) antagonist properties in the treatment of schizophrenia.