Iniparib administered weekly or twice-weekly in combination with gemcitabine/carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a phase II randomized open-label study with pharmacokinetics.

PURPOSE: Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a phenotypic breast cancer subgroup with a very poor prognosis, despite standard treatments. Combined twice-weekly iniparib and gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC+tw-iniparib) showed benefit over gemcitabine/carboplatin in a randomized phase II trial, and a phase III was initiated comparing these regimens. The present phase II study was initiated to compare GC+tw-iniparib with a more practical once-weekly schedule (GC+w-iniparib) in TNBC. METHODS: Metastatic TNBC patients were randomized to receive iniparib weekly (11.2 mg/kg on days 1 and 8) or twice-weekly (5.6 mg/kg on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve 2 on days 1 and 8), every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Pharmacokinetics of iniparib and its two metabolites were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were randomized, 82 GC+w-iniparib and 81 GC+tw-iniparib. Demographic and baseline characteristics were well balanced. ORR was 34.1% (95% CI 23.9-44.4%) vs. 29.6% (95% CI 19.7-39.6%) and median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI 4.2-5.7) vs. 4.3 months (95% CI 3.0-5.8) for GC+w-iniparib and GC+tw-iniparib, respectively. Safety was similar across treatment arms in terms of event severity and type. Iniparib plasma concentrations and exposure were two-fold higher with w-iniparib compared to tw-iniparib. Iniparib and its metabolites were cleared rapidly with a terminal half-life of < 1 h, without accumulation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a doubled maximum concentration with weekly iniparib, no detectable differences in safety or efficacy were observed between the weekly and twice-weekly administration schedules in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01045304.

Pharmacokinetics of M100240 and MDL 100,173, a dual angiotensin-converting enzyme/neutral endopeptidase inhibitor, in healthy young and elderly volunteers.

M100240 is an acetate thioester of MDL 100,173-a dual angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)/neutral endopeptidase (NEP) inhibitor-in phase II development. The pharmacokinetics of M100240 and MDL 100,173 were compared in young and elderly subjects. Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from 12 young (ages 18-45 years, 10 male, 2 female) and 12 elderly (ages 65-85 years, 7 male, 5 female) healthy subjects in a parallel-group, open-label study. Following an overnight fast, subjects received a single 25-mg oral dose of M100240. Serial plasma concentrations of M100240 and MDL 100,173 were determined using a validated liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated with noncompartmental methods. Single-dose treatment with M100240 was well tolerated in both groups of subjects, with no clinically significant changes in vital signs, ECG recordings, or laboratory safety parameters. M100240 was rapidly absorbed and converted to MDL 100,173, with M100240 concentrations no longer detectable at 3 to 4 hours postdose in both groups. The pharmacokinetics of the pharmacologically active MDL 100,173 were similar for both groups. Although maximum concentrations of M100240 were generally higher in elderly versus young subjects (C(max) 0.48 ng/mL vs. 0.17 ng/mL), systemic availability of M100240 was quite low and variable with plasma, and this apparent difference in parent drug exposure is unlikely to have important clinical implications. No age-related differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of MDL 100,173 (C(max) 8.16 vs. 9.62 ng/mL, t(max) 1.25 vs. 1.5 h, AUC((0-last)) 81.6 vs. 72.2 ng x h/mL) were observed between young and elderly subjects, respectively. In conclusion, there are no age-related differences in the pharmacokinetics of MDL 100,173 between young and elderly subjects.

Use of dried blood spots in drug development: pharmacokinetic considerations.

Dried blood spots are increasingly being used in drug development. This commentary considers the pharmacokinetic issues that arise and compares these with those attached to plasma, the mainstay matrix. A common implicit use of these matrices is as a surrogate for plasma water, and to this extent, the critical assumption made is constancy in fraction unbound for plasma and, additionally for blood, constancy of hematocrit and blood cell affinity of compound. Often, these assumptions are reasonable and either matrix suffices, but not always. Then the value of one over the other matrix depends on the magnitude of the blood-to-plasma concentration ratio of drug, its clearance, and the cause of the deviation from constancy. Additional considerations are the kinetics of distribution within blood and those arising when the objective is assessment or comparison of bioavailability. Most of these issues can be explored and addressed in vitro prior to the main drug development program.

Impact of various factors on radioactivity distribution in different DBS papers.

BACKGROUND: Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling could potentially become the preferred blood collection technique in toxicological and clinical studies. Autoradiography was performed to study compound distribution within a dbs under different conditions using five papers, 31ETF, Grade 226, 903(®), FTA(®) and FTA(®) Elute. RESULTS: The results showed an uneven distribution in all papers with common distribution patterns regardless of compounds: decreased concentrations along the edge, the volcano effect in the middle and the speckle pattern in the center. Treated papers were more readily influenced by environmental factors. CONCLUSION: Autoradiography enables visualization of a compound's distribution and can guide bioanalytical assay development by allowing convenient evaluation of factors, such as choice of paper, spotting volume, punch size, punch location, temperature and humidity.