Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin Transl Sci ; 17(3): e13730, 2024 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38411318

ABSTRACT

Like other monoclonal antibodies, immune checkpoint inhibitors may be immunogenic in some patients, potentially affecting pharmacokinetics (PKs) and clinical outcomes. In post hoc analyses, we characterized antidrug antibody (ADA) development with avelumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (first-line [1L; N = 116] and second-line or later [≥2L; N = 88] cohorts) or with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 (1L maintenance [N = 350]) and JAVELIN Solid Tumor (≥2L [N = 249]) trials. Treatment-emergent ADAs developed in a numerically higher proportion of patients with aUC (1L maintenance, 19.1%; ≥2L, 18.1%) versus mMCC (1L, 8.2%; ≥2L, 8.9%); incidences within tumor types were similar by line of therapy. In PK analyses, numerically lower avelumab trough concentration and higher baseline clearance were observed in treatment-emergent ADA+ versus ADA- subgroups; however, differences were not clinically relevant. Numerical differences in overall survival, progression-free survival, or objective response rate by ADA status were observed; however, no clinically meaningful trends were identified. Proportions of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; any grade or grade 3/4), serious TEAEs, TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation, or infusion-related reactions were similar, with overlapping 80% confidence intervals between ADA subgroups. Efficacy and safety observations were similar in subgroups defined by early development of ADA+ status during treatment. In conclusion, no meaningful differences in PKs, efficacy, and safety were observed between subgroups of avelumab-treated patients with different ADA status. Overall, these data suggest that ADAs are not relevant for treatment decisions with avelumab.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Merkel Cell , Carcinoma, Transitional Cell , Skin Neoplasms , Urinary Bladder Neoplasms , Humans , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , Carcinoma, Merkel Cell/drug therapy , Carcinoma, Merkel Cell/pathology , Carcinoma, Transitional Cell/drug therapy , Skin Neoplasms/drug therapy , Skin Neoplasms/pathology , Clinical Trials as Topic
2.
Clin Pharmacol Ther ; 108(6): 1156-1170, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32557643

ABSTRACT

Recent data from immuno-oncology clinical studies have shown the exposure-response (E-R) relationship for therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) was often confounded by various factors due to the complex interplay of patient characteristics, disease, drug exposure, clearance, and treatment response and presented challenges in characterization and interpretation of E-R analysis. To tackle the challenges, exposure relationships for therapeutic mAbs in immuno-oncology and oncology are reviewed, and a general framework for an integrative understanding of E-R relationship is proposed. In this framework, baseline factors, drug exposure, and treatment response are envisioned to form an interconnected triangle, driving the E-R relationship and underlying three components that compose the apparent relationship: exposure-driven E-R, baseline-driven E-R, and response-driven E-R. Various strategies in data analysis and study design to decouple those components and mitigate the confounding effect are reviewed for their merits and limitations, and a potential roadmap for selection of these strategies is proposed. Specifically, exposure metrics based on a single-dose pharmacokinetic model can be used to mitigate response-driven E-R, while multivariable analysis and/or case control analysis of data obtained from multiple dose levels in a randomized study may be used to account for the baseline-driven E-R. In this context, the importance of collecting data from multiple dose levels, the role of prognostic factors and predictive factors, the potential utility of clearance at baseline and its change over time, and future directions are discussed.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal/administration & dosage , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal/adverse effects , Antibodies, Monoclonal/pharmacokinetics , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological/pharmacokinetics , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Development , Drug Dosage Calculations , Drug Monitoring , Humans , Models, Biological
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL