Clinical Pharmacology of the Antibody-Drug Conjugate Enfortumab Vedotin in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma and Other Malignant Solid Tumors.

Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate comprised of a human monoclonal antibody directed to Nectin-4 and monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a microtubule-disrupting agent. The objectives of this review are to summarize the clinical pharmacology of enfortumab vedotin monotherapy and demonstrate that the appropriate dose has been selected for clinical use. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of enfortumab vedotin (antibody-drug conjugate and total antibody) and free MMAE were evaluated in five clinical trials of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (n = 748). Intravenous enfortumab vedotin 0.5-1.25 mg/kg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle showed linear, dose-proportional PK. No significant differences in exposure or safety of enfortumab vedotin and free MMAE were observed in mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment versus normal renal function. Patients with mildly impaired versus normal hepatic function had a 37% increase in area under the concentration-time curve (0-28 days), a 31% increase in maximum concentration of free MMAE, and a similar adverse event profile. No clinically significant PK differences were observed based on race/ethnicity with weight-based dosing, and no clinically meaningful QT prolongation was observed. Concomitant use with dual P-glycoprotein and strong cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitors may increase MMAE exposure and the risk of adverse events. Approximately 3% of patients developed antitherapeutic antibodies against enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg. These findings support enfortumab vedotin 1.25 mg/kg monotherapy on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. No dose adjustments are required for patients with renal impairment or mild hepatic impairment, or by race/ethnicity.

Prospective approaches to gene therapy computational modeling - spotlight on viral gene therapy.

Clinical studies have found there still exists a lack of gene therapy dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy data that causes gene therapy dose selection to remain elusive. Model informed drug development (MIDD) has become a standard tool implemented throughout the discovery, development, and approval of pharmaceutical therapies, and has the potential to inform dose-toxicity and dose-efficacy relationships to support gene therapy dose selection. Despite this potential, MIDD approaches for gene therapy remain immature and require standardization to be useful for gene therapy clinical programs. With the goal to advance MIDD approaches for gene therapy, in this review we first provide an overview of gene therapy types and how they differ from a bioanalytical, formulation, route of administration, and regulatory standpoint. With this biological and regulatory background, we propose how MIDD can be advanced for AAV-based gene therapies by utilizing physiological based pharmacokinetic modeling and quantitative systems pharmacology to holistically inform AAV and target protein dynamics following dosing. We discuss how this proposed model, allowing for in-depth exploration of AAV pharmacology, could be the key the field needs to treat these unmet disease populations.

A phase 1 randomized, placebo-controlled study to investigate potential interactions between ASP8062, a positive allosteric modulator of the GABAB receptor, and morphine in recreational opioid users.

BACKGROUND: Recent increases in opioid use and subsequent opioid use disorder are a major public health crisis in the United States. AIMS: This phase 1 randomized, placebo-controlled study investigated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of ASP8062, a γ-aminobutyric acid B receptor-positive allosteric modulator, with and without administration of morphine in participants who used opioids recreationally. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to daily dosing with ASP8062 25 mg or placebo on days 1-10. On day 10, all participants received morphine as a single oral dose of 45 mg; assessments were performed on days 11-16. The primary end point was safety, evaluated as the nature, frequency, and severity of adverse events, and end-tidal CO2 levels. PK end points were a secondary outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants (aged 21-54 years) received ASP8062 (n = 16) or placebo (n = 8). There were no deaths or serious adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation during the study. Most adverse events were mild, with numerically lower absolute number of adverse events reported with ASP8062 plus morphine versus placebo plus morphine. ASP8062 plus morphine did not increase respiratory depression, potential drug abuse- or withdrawal-related adverse events. There were no significant PK interactions. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1 study, we did not observe any unexpected safety signals or notable PK interactions with concomitant morphine administration. These data suggest a potentially low risk for an increase in drug abuse- or withdrawal-related adverse events or respiratory distress in participants exposed to ASP8062 and morphine.

A phase 1b study to investigate the potential interactions between ASP8062 and buprenorphine/naloxone in patients with opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for therapeutics with greater efficacy and tolerability for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). ASP8062 is a novel compound with positive allosteric modulator activity on the γ-aminobutyric acid type B receptor under development for use with standard-of-care treatment for patients with OUD. AIMS: To investigate the safety, tolerability, interaction potential, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of ASP8062 in combination with buprenorphine/naloxone (B/N; Suboxone®). METHODS: In this phase 1, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled study, patients with OUD began B/N (titrated to 16/4 mg/day) treatment upon enrollment (induction, Days 1-4; maintenance, Days 5-18; downward titration, Days 19-26; and discharge, Day 27). On Day 12, patients received a single dose of ASP8062 60 mg or placebo with B/N and underwent safety and PK assessments. Primary endpoints included frequency and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, respiratory depression, and suicidal ideation. Secondary endpoints investigated the impact of ASP8062 on B/N PK. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were randomized and completed the study (ASP8062, n = 12; placebo, n = 6). With this sample size typical for phase 1 drug-drug interaction studies, ASP8062 was well tolerated; most TEAEs were mild in severity, and none led to treatment withdrawal. ASP8062 did not enhance substance use-related TEAEs, respiratory depression, or suicidal ideation and did not have a clinically significant impact on the PK of B/N. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 1 study, ASP8062 was safe, well tolerated, and did not enhance respiratory suppression induced by buprenorphine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04447287.

Effect of enzalutamide on PK of P-gp and BCRP substrates in cancer patients: CYP450 induction may not always predict overall effect on transporters.

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) is an important consideration for clinical decision making in prostate cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of digoxin (P-glycoprotein [P-gp] probe substrate) and rosuvastatin (breast cancer resistance protein [BCRP] probe substrate) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This was a phase I, open-label, fixed-sequence, crossover study (NCT04094519). Eligible men with mCRPC received a single dose of transporter probe cocktail containing 0.25 mg digoxin and 10 mg rosuvastatin plus enzalutamide placebo-to-match on day 1. On day 8, patients started 160 mg enzalutamide once daily through day 71. On day 64, patients also received a single dose of the cocktail. The primary end points were digoxin and rosuvastatin plasma maximum concentration (Cmax ), area under the concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to the last measurable concentration (AUClast ), and AUC from the time of dosing extrapolated to time infinity (AUCinf ). Secondary end points were enzalutamide and N-desmethyl enzalutamide (metabolite) plasma Cmax , AUC during a dosing interval, where tau is the length of the dosing interval (AUCtau ), and concentration immediately prior to dosing at multiple dosing (Ctrough ). When administered with enzalutamide, there was a 17% increase in Cmax , 29% increase in AUClast , and 33% increase in AUCinf of plasma digoxin compared to digoxin alone, indicating that enzalutamide is a "mild" inhibitor of P-gp. No PK interaction was observed between enzalutamide and rosuvastatin (BCRP probe substrate). The PK of enzalutamide and N-desmethyl enzalutamide were in agreement with previously reported data. The potential for transporter-mediated DDI between enzalutamide and digoxin and rosuvastatin is low in men with prostate cancer. Therefore, concomitant administration of enzalutamide with medications that are substrates for P-gp and BCRP does not require dose adjustment in this patient population.

A phase 1 study to assess potential interaction between ASP8062 and alcohol in healthy adult subjects.

BACKGROUND: ASP8062 is a novel orally active GABAB receptor positive allosteric modulator in clinical development for the treatment of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and opioid use disorder (OUD). AIMS: This study assessed the potential pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interaction between ASP8062 and alcohol under single-dose conditions in healthy adults. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover phase 1 study was conducted in which 20 subjects were randomly assigned to four treatment sequences (ASP8062 + alcohol; ASP8062 + placebo alcohol; placebo + alcohol; placebo + placebo alcohol) each consisting of four treatment periods, separated by washout periods of at least 14 days. An analysis of variance was used to assess pharmacokinetic interaction and a mixed-effects analysis of covariance was used to assess pharmacodynamic interaction. RESULTS/OUTCOMES: After administration of alcohol, a mild to minimal increase in plasma exposure (AUCinf and Cmax) of ASP8062 was observed, but tmax and t½ for ASP8062 remained unchanged after administration of alcohol. In contrast, ASP8062 did not affect the AUClast and Cmax of ethanol. No clinically relevant differences in cognition measurements were observed with ASP8062 compared with placebo, but there were expected impairments in psychomotor and executive function with alcohol alone. ASP8062 in combination with alcohol resulted in worse scores in cognition measurements than alcohol alone, but this potentiation was not consistent. ASP8062 administered alone was safe and well-tolerated and safety findings in subjects administered alcohol alone were not augmented when ASP8062 was administered in combination with alcohol. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: The data support further clinical studies investigating ASP8062 in patients with AUD.

Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Isavuconazole Administered as Isavuconazonium Sulfate Intravenous Solution via Nasogastric Tube or Orally in Healthy Subjects.

For critically ill patients with invasive fungal infections, a nasogastric (NG) tube can be an alternative route for administration of isavuconazonium sulfate (ISAVUSULF). This was a randomized, open-label, 2-period, 2-sequence single-dose crossover study comparing single doses of 372 mg ISAVUSULF intravenous (i.v.) solution via NG tube (test formulation) to 372-mg ISAVUSULF capsules for oral administration (reference formulation) in healthy male and female subjects. A single dose of ISAVUSULF was administered under fasting conditions on day 1 of each period, with a washout of 30 days between periods. Pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were collected predose through day 21. Standard safety and tolerability assessments were conducted in each period. The analysis of variance estimate of the study population demonstrates that the isavuconazole i.v. NG tube administration geometric least-squares (LS) mean values of the observed maximum concentration (Cmax), area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) to the last measurable concentration (AUClast), AUC to time infinity (AUCinf), and AUC from start of dosing to 72 h (AUC72) were 105.3%, 97.6%, 99.3%, and 97.8%, respectively, of the corresponding oral-administration values. The geometric LS mean ratio and 90% confidence intervals for the PK parameters were completely contained within the prespecified limits of 80% to 125%. There were no deaths or serious adverse events that led to the withdrawal of treatment during the study. The study met its primary endpoint of bioequivalence between the two routes of administration. Both routes of administration were well tolerated.