Correlation of immune fitness with response to teclistamab in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in MajesTEC-1.

Teclistamab, an off-the-shelf B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) × CD3 bispecific antibody that mediates T-cell activation and subsequent lysis of BCMA-expressing myeloma cells, is approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). As a T-cell redirection therapy, clinical outcomes with teclistamab may be influenced by patient immune fitness and tumor antigen expression. We correlated tumor characteristics and baseline immune profiles with clinical response and disease burden in patients with RRMM from the pivotal phase 1/2 MajesTEC-1 study, focusing on patients treated with 1.5 mg/kg of teclistamab (N = 165). Peripheral blood samples were collected at screening and bone marrow samples were collected at screening and cycle 3. Better clinical outcomes to teclistamab correlated with higher baseline total T-cell counts in the periphery. In addition, responders (partial response or better) had a lower proportion of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells, T cells expressing co-inhibitory receptors (CD38, PD-1, PD-1/TIM-3), and soluble BCMA, and a T-cell profile suggestive of a more cytolytic potential, compared with nonresponders. Neither frequency of baseline bone marrow BCMA expression nor BCMA receptor density were associated with clinical response to teclistamab. Improved progression-free survival was observed in patients with a lower frequency of T cells expressing exhaustion markers and immunosuppressive regulatory T cells. Overall, response to teclistamab was associated with baseline immune fitness; nonresponders had immune profiles suggestive of immune suppression and T-cell dysfunction. These findings illustrate the importance of the contribution of the immune landscape to T-cell redirection therapy response. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03145181/NCT04557098.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Exposure-Response with Teclistamab in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results From MajesTEC-1.

BACKGROUND: Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, is approved in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have previously received an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. OBJECTIVE: We report the population pharmacokinetics of teclistamab administered intravenously and subcutaneously (SC) and exposure-response relationships from the phase I/II, first-in-human, open-label, multicenter MajesTEC-1 study. METHODS: Phase I of MajesTEC-1 consisted of dose escalation and expansion at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D; 1.5 mg/kg SC weekly, preceded by step-up doses of 0.06 and 0.3 mg/kg); phase II investigated the efficacy of teclistamab RP2D in patients with RRMM. Population pharmacokinetics and the impact of covariates on teclistamab systemic exposure were assessed using a 2-compartment model with first-order absorption for SC and parallel time-independent and time-dependent elimination pathways. Exposure-response analyses were conducted, including overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the incidence of grade ≥ 3 anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and infection. RESULTS: In total, 4840 measurable serum concentration samples from 338 pharmacokinetics-evaluable patients who received teclistamab were analyzed. The typical population value of time-independent and time-dependent clearance were 0.449 L/day and 0.547 L/day, respectively. The time-dependent clearance decreased rapidly to < 10% after 8 weeks of teclistamab treatment. Patients who discontinue teclistamab after the 13th dose are expected to have a 50% reduction from Cmax in teclistamab concentration at a median (5th to 95th percentile) time of 15 days (7-33 days) after Tmax and a 97% reduction from Cmax in teclistamab concentration at a median time of 69 days (32-163 days) after Tmax. Body weight, multiple myeloma type (immunoglobulin G vs non-immunoglobulin G), and International Staging System (ISS) stage (II vs I and III vs I) were statistically significant covariates on teclistamab pharmacokinetics; however, these covariates had no clinically relevant effect on the efficacy of teclistamab at the RP2D. Across all doses, ORR approached a plateau at the concentration range associated with RP2D, and in patients who received the RP2D, a flat exposure-response curve was observed. No apparent relationship was observed between DoR, PFS, OS, and the incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events across the predicted exposure quartiles. CONCLUSION: Body weight, myeloma type, and ISS stage impacted systemic teclistamab exposure without any clinically relevant effect on efficacy. The exposure-response analyses for ORR showed a positive trend with increasing teclistamab systemic exposure, with a plateau at the RP2D, and there was no apparent exposure-response trend for safety or other efficacy endpoints. These analyses support the RP2D of teclistamab in patients with RRMM. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03145181 (phase I, 09 May 2017); NCT04557098 (phase II, 21 September 2020).

A phase 1 study of intravenous mitazalimab, a CD40 agonistic monoclonal antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Mitazalimab is an agonistic human monoclonal antibody targeting CD40, a target for anti-tumor immunotherapy. This phase 1, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of mitazalimab. Adults with advanced solid malignancies received mitazalimab intravenously once every-2-weeks. Dose-escalation was pursued with and without pre-infusion corticosteroids for mitigation of infusion-related reactions (IRRs). In all, 95 patients were enrolled in 7 cohorts (n = 50, 75-2000 µg/kg) with corticosteroids and in 5 cohorts (n = 45, 75-1200 µg/kg) without corticosteroids. Two patients experienced DLTs (transient Grade-3 headache; Grade-3 drug-induced liver injury [Hy's law]). The most frequently reported (≥ 25%) treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (44.2%), pyrexia (38.9%), pruritus (38.9%), chills (27.4%), and headache (26.3%). IRRs were reported in 51.6% of patients; pruritus (30.5%; with corticosteroids [36.0%], without corticosteroids [24.4%]) was the most frequent. Following the first infusions of 600 µg/kg and 2000 µg/kg, mitazalimab was rapidly cleared from the systemic circulation with mean terminal half-life of 11.9 and 24.1 h, respectively. Pharmacokinetics appeared to exhibit target-mediated drug disposition at the tested doses. Mitazalimab treatment induced higher levels of selected chemokines and transient reduction of B-cells, T-cells, and NK cells. One patient (renal cell carcinoma) displayed partial response lasting 5.6 months. Stable disease was reported by 35 (36.8%) patients, persisting for ≥ 6 months in 9 patients. Mitazalimab has a manageable safety profile with acceptable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Future clinical development will evaluate combination with existing treatment options. Trial registration NCT02829099 (ClinicalTrials.gov; July 7, 2016).

Talquetamab, a T-Cell-Redirecting GPRC5D Bispecific Antibody for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: G protein-coupled receptor, family C, group 5, member D (GPRC5D) is an orphan receptor expressed in malignant plasma cells. Talquetamab, a bispecific antibody against CD3 and GPRC5D, redirects T cells to mediate killing of GPRC5D-expressing myeloma cells. METHODS: In a phase 1 study, we evaluated talquetamab administered intravenously weekly or every other week (in doses from 0.5 to 180 µg per kilogram of body weight) or subcutaneously weekly, every other week, or monthly (5 to 1600 µg per kilogram) in patients who had heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma that had progressed with established therapies (a median of six previous lines of therapy) or who could not receive these therapies without unacceptable side effects. The primary end points - the frequency and type of dose-limiting toxic effects (study part 1 only), adverse events, and laboratory abnormalities - were assessed in order to select the recommended doses for a phase 2 study. RESULTS: At the data-cutoff date, 232 patients had received talquetamab (102 intravenously and 130 subcutaneously). At the two subcutaneous doses recommended for a phase 2 study (405 µg per kilogram weekly [30 patients] and 800 µg per kilogram every other week [44 patients]), common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (in 77% and 80% of the patients, respectively), skin-related events (in 67% and 70%), and dysgeusia (in 63% and 57%); all but one cytokine release syndrome event were of grade 1 or 2. One dose-limiting toxic effect of grade 3 rash was reported in a patient who had received talquetamab at the 800-µg dose level. At median follow-ups of 11.7 months (in patients who had received talquetamab at the 405-µg dose level) and 4.2 months (in those who had received it at the 800-µg dose level), the percentages of patients with a response were 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 51 to 85) and 64% (95% CI, 48 to 78), respectively. The median duration of response was 10.2 months and 7.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cytokine release syndrome, skin-related events, and dysgeusia were common with talquetamab treatment but were primarily low-grade. Talquetamab induced a substantial response among patients with heavily pretreated relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MonumenTAL-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03399799.).

Translational Modeling Predicts Efficacious Therapeutic Dosing Range of Teclistamab for Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Teclistamab (JNJ-64007957), a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, displayed potent T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity of multiple myeloma cells in preclinical studies. OBJECTIVE: A first-in-human, Phase I, dose escalation study (MajesTEC-1) is evaluating teclistamab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To estimate the efficacious therapeutic dosing range of teclistamab, pharmacokinetic (PK) data following the first cycle doses in the low-dose cohorts in the Phase I study were modeled using a 2-compartment model and simulated to predict the doses that would have average and trough serum teclistamab concentrations in the expected therapeutic range (between EC50 and EC90 values from an ex vivo cytotoxicity assay). RESULTS: The doses predicted to have average serum concentrations between the EC50 and EC90 range were validated. In addition, simulations showed that weekly intravenous and subcutaneous doses of 0.70 mg/kg and 0.72 mg/kg, respectively, resulted in mean trough levels comparable to the maximum EC90. The most active doses in the Phase I study were weekly intravenous doses of 0.27 and 0.72 mg/kg and weekly subcutaneous doses of 0.72 and 1.5 mg/kg, with the weekly 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous doses selected as the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D). With active doses, exposure was maintained above the mean EC90. All patients who responded to the RP2D of teclistamab had exposure above the maximum EC90 in both serum and bone marrow on cycle 3, Day 1 of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that PK simulations of early clinical data together with ex vivo cytotoxicity estimates can inform the identification of a bispecific antibody's therapeutic range. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03145181, date of registration: May 9, 2017.

Teclistamab in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Teclistamab is a T-cell-redirecting bispecific antibody that targets both CD3 expressed on the surface of T cells and B-cell maturation antigen expressed on the surface of myeloma cells. In the phase 1 dose-defining portion of the study, teclistamab showed promising efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients who had relapsed or refractory myeloma after at least three therapy lines, including triple-class exposure to an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Patients received a weekly subcutaneous injection of teclistamab (at a dose of 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) after receiving step-up doses of 0.06 mg and 0.3 mg per kilogram. The primary end point was the overall response (partial response or better). RESULTS: Among 165 patients who received teclistamab, 77.6% had triple-class refractory disease (median, five previous therapy lines). With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, the overall response rate was 63.0%, with 65 patients (39.4%) having a complete response or better. A total of 44 patients (26.7%) were found to have no minimal residual disease (MRD); the MRD-negativity rate among the patients with a complete response or better was 46%. The median duration of response was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9 to not estimable). The median duration of progression-free survival was 11.3 months (95% CI, 8.8 to 17.1). Common adverse events included cytokine release syndrome (in 72.1% of the patients; grade 3, 0.6%; no grade 4), neutropenia (in 70.9%; grade 3 or 4, 64.2%), anemia (in 52.1%; grade 3 or 4, 37.0%), and thrombocytopenia (in 40.0%; grade 3 or 4, 21.2%). Infections were frequent (in 76.4%; grade 3 or 4, 44.8%). Neurotoxic events occurred in 24 patients (14.5%), including immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 5 patients (3.0%; all grade 1 or 2). CONCLUSIONS: Teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable response in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Cytopenias and infections were common; toxic effects that were consistent with T-cell redirection were mostly grade 1 or 2. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MajesTEC-1 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03145181 and NCT04557098.).

Safety and preliminary immunogenicity of JNJ-64041809, a live-attenuated, double-deleted Listeria monocytogenes-based immunotherapy, in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity of JNJ-64041809 (JNJ-809), a live-attenuated, double-deleted Listeria monocytogenes (LADD Lm)-based immunotherapy targeting 4 relevant prostate cancer antigens, was evaluated in a phase 1 study in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Men with progressive mCRPC who had received ≥2 prior approved therapies were enrolled. Primary study objectives were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of JNJ-809. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients received JNJ-809 (1 × 108 CFU (n = 6); 1 × 109 CFU (n = 20)). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported, and 1 × 109 CFU was selected as the RP2D. The most common adverse events (AEs) reported were chills (92%), pyrexia (81%), and fatigue (62%). The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were lymphopenia (27%) and hypertension (23%). Serious AEs were reported in 27% of patients including 1 patient with grade 3 intestinal obstruction. JNJ-809 transiently induced peripheral cytokines, including interferon-γ, interleukin-10, and tumor necrosis factor-α. Of the 7 patients evaluable for T cell responses at the 1 × 109 CFU dose, evidence of post-treatment antigenic responses were observed in 6 to the Listeria antigen listeriolysin O and in 5 to ≥1 of the 4 encoded tumor antigens. Best overall response was stable disease in 13/25 response-evaluable patients. The study was terminated early as data collected were considered sufficient to evaluate safety and immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: JNJ-809 has manageable safety consistent with other LADD Lm-based therapies. Limited antigen-specific immune responses were observed, which did not translate into objective clinical responses.

Teclistamab, a B-cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MajesTEC-1): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for novel therapies for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, and B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is a validated target. Teclistamab is a bispecific antibody that binds BCMA and CD3 to redirect T cells to multiple myeloma cells. The aim of the MajesTEC-1 study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of teclistamab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: This open-label, single-arm, phase 1 study enrolled patients with multiple myeloma who were relapsed, refractory, or intolerant to established therapies. Teclistamab was administered intravenously (range 0·3-19·2 µg/kg [once every 2 weeks] or 19·2-720 µg/kg [once per week]) or subcutaneously (range 80-3000 µg/kg [once per week]) in different cohorts, with step-up dosing for 38·4 µg/kg or higher doses. The primary objectives were to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (part one) and characterise teclistamab safety and tolerability at the recommended phase 2 dose (part two). Safety was assessed in all patients treated with at least one dose of teclistamab. Efficacy was analysed in response-evaluable patients (ie, patients who received at least one dose of teclistamab and had at least one post-baseline response evaluation). This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03145181. FINDINGS: Between June 8, 2017, and March 29, 2021, 219 patients were screened for study inclusion, and 157 patients (median six previous therapy lines) were enrolled and received at least one dose of teclistamab (intravenous n=84; subcutaneous n=73). 40 patients were administered the recommended phase 2 dose, identified as once per week subcutaneous administration of teclistamab at 1500 µg/kg, after 60 µg/kg and 300 µg/kg step-up doses (median follow-up 6·1 months, IQR 3·6-8·2). There were no dose-limiting toxicities at the recommended phase 2 dose in part one. In the 40 patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were cytokine release syndrome in 28 (70%; all grade 1 or 2 events) and neutropenia in 26 (65%) patients (grade 3 or 4 in 16 [40%]). The overall response rate in response-evaluable patients treated at the recommended phase 2 dose (n=40) was 65% (95% CI 48-79); 58% achieved a very good partial response or better. At the recommended phase 2 dose, the median duration of response was not reached. 22 (85%) of 26 responders were alive and continuing treatment after 7·1 months' median follow-up (IQR 5·1-9·1). At the recommended phase 2 dose, teclistamab exposure was maintained above target exposure levels, and consistent T-cell activation was reported. INTERPRETATION: Teclistamab is a novel treatment approach for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. At the recommended phase 2 dose, teclistamab showed promising efficacy, with durable responses that deepened over time, and was well tolerated, supporting further clinical development. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Evaluation of JNJ-26489112 in patients with photosensitive epilepsy: a placebo-controlled, exploratory study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the activity of JNJ-26489112 in patients with photosensitive epilepsy and determine the doses that result in reduction or complete suppression of the intermittent photic stimulation (IPS) induced photoparoxysmal-EEG response (PPR). METHODS: In this multicenter, single-blind, within subject, placebo-controlled, sequential dose, exploratory study, 12 adult patients (3 men; 9 women) with idiopathic photosensitive epilepsy, with and without concomitant antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy, underwent standardized IPS under three eye conditions (open, during closure, and closed) for up to 12h after receiving a single oral dose of placebo on day 1, JNJ-26489112 on day 2, and a second dose of placebo on day 3. Based on review of the blinded EEG data, the standardized photosensitive range (SPR) (i.e., upper and lower frequencies of the IPS-induced PPR), was calculated for each eye condition at each time point. A positive response was defined as a reduction of the SPR in ≥3 out of 4 consecutive time points in ≥1 eye condition on either day 2 or 3 compared with baseline (day 1) while complete suppression was defined as disappearance of an IPS-induced PPR (i.e., SPR=0). For the first four patients (Cohort 1), JNJ-26489112 dose was 1000 mg, and the dose was escalated to a maximum of 3000 mg in subsequent cohorts. Blood and plasma samples were collected for pharmacokinetic evaluations along with measurements of concurrent AED concentrations. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The majority of patients showed a positive response on day 2 following JNJ-26489112 administration: 3/4 patients (1000 mg dose), 3/4 patients (2000 mg dose), and 2/3 patients (3000 mg). There was an apparent dose-dependent effect observed in patients who exhibited complete suppression of the SPR: 0/4 patients (1000 mg dose), 1/4 patient (2000 mg dose), and 2/3 patients (3000 mg dose). The median tmax of JNJ-26489112 (range: 3.73-5.04 h) in plasma was similar across all 3 dose groups and plasma exposure of JNJ-26489112 increased proportionally with dose; approximate mean Cmax of 16, 28, and 42 µg/mL for the 1000-, 2000-, and 3000 mg cohorts, respectively. Concentrations of other AEDs did not appear to be affected by co-administration of JNJ-26489112. JNJ-26489112 was generally well-tolerated with the most frequent adverse events (>10%) reported being mild headache, dizziness, and nausea. CONCLUSION: Single oral doses of JNJ-26489112 were well-tolerated and the pharmacodynamic effects appeared to be dose-related in patients with idiopathic, photosensitive epilepsy.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and covariate analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN-1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥18 (MMY-3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1-3 (MMY-3021) or ≥1 (CAN-1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. RESULTS: Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUC(last)): 155 vs. 151 ng·h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0.992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUC(last): 195 vs. 241 ng·h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (C(max)) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to C(max) (t(max)) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (E(max)) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect-time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %·h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %·h in CAN-1004. Time to E(max) was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established.

Effect of cytochrome P450 3A4 inducers on the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profiles of bortezomib in patients with multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bortezomib, an antineoplastic agent with proteasome inhibitory activity, is extensively metabolized by the hepatic microsomal cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. Drugs that affect these enzymes may therefore have an impact on the pharmacological profile of bortezomib. This study evaluated the effects of co-administration of a potent CYP3A4 inducer (rifampicin [rifampin]) and a weak CYP3A4 inducer (dexamethasone) on the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profiles of bortezomib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma received intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, administered on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle, for 3 cycles. In stage 1, patients were randomized (1 : 1) to receive bortezomib alone or in combination with oral rifampicin 600 mg once daily on days 4-10 during cycle 3 only. If the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of bortezomib was reduced by ≥30% during rifampicin co-administration, then stage 2 was initiated, in which patients received bortezomib with dexamethasone 40 mg once daily on days 1-4 and days 9-12 during cycle 3 only. Blood samples were collected on days 11 through 14 of cycles 2 and 3 before and after bortezomib administration, at prespecified time points, for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (proteasome inhibition) assessments. RESULTS: Twelve patients in the bortezomib-alone arm, six patients in the bortezomib plus rifampicin arm and seven patients in the bortezomib plus dexamethasone arm were included in the pharmacokinetics-evaluable set. Rifampicin reduced the mean AUC from 0 to 72 hours (AUC(72h)) of bortezomib by approximately 45% (223 ng · h/mL in cycle 2 vs 123 ng · h/mL in cycle 3), while dexamethasone had no effect (mean AUC(72h): 179 ng · h/mL in cycle 2 vs 170 ng · h/mL in cycle 3). Proteasome inhibition parameters in peripheral blood were unaffected by rifampicin or dexamethasone. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment arms and consistent with previous experience of bortezomib. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, co-administration of rifampicin decreased the exposure to bortezomib but did not affect the proteasome inhibition or safety profiles; co-administration of dexamethasone did not affect the exposure to bortezomib, proteasome inhibition or safety profiles. Concomitant administration of bortezomib with strong CYP3A4 inducers such as rifampicin is not recommended, as it may result in a reduction of the clinical effect, whereas concomitant administration of weak CYP3A4 inducers such as dexamethasone does not affect the pharmacological profile of bortezomib.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of bortezomib in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous injection is the standard administration route of bortezomib; however, subcutaneous administration is an important alternative. We compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib at the approved 1·3 mg/m(2) dose and twice per week schedule in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma. METHODS: This randomised, phase 3 study was undertaken at 53 centres in ten countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. Patients aged 18 years and older with relapsed multiple myeloma after one to three previous lines of therapy were randomly assigned to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of bortezomib 1·3 mg/m(2), on days 1, 4, 8, and 11, by subcutaneous injection or intravenous infusion. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by number of previous lines and disease stage. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in terms of overall response rate (ORR) after four cycles in all patients with a diagnosis of measurable, secretory multiple myeloma who received one or more dose of drug (response-evaluable population). Non-inferiority was defined as retaining 60% of the intravenous treatment effect. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00722566, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: 222 patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous (n=148) or intravenous (n=74) bortezomib. The response-evaluable population consisted of 145 patients in the subcutaneous group and 73 in the intravenous group. Patients received a median of eight cycles (range one to ten) in both groups. ORR after four cycles was 42% in both groups (61 patients in subcutaneous group and 31 in intravenous group; ORR difference -0·4%, 95% CI -14·3 to 13·5), showing non-inferiority (p=0·002). After a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·9-16·8) in the subcutaneous group and 12·0 months (8·1-15·6) in the intravenous group, there were no significant differences in time to progression (median 10·4 months, 95% CI 8·5-11·7, vs 9·4 months, 7·6-10·6; p=0·387) and 1-year overall survival (72·6%, 95% CI 63·1-80·0, vs 76·7%, 64·1-85·4; p=0·504) with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 84 (57%) patients in the subcutaneous group versus 52 (70%) in the intravenous group; the most common were thrombocytopenia (19 [13%] vs 14 [19%]), neutropenia (26 [18%] vs 13 [18%]), and anaemia (18 [12%] vs six [8%]). Peripheral neuropathy of any grade (56 [38%] vs 39 [53%]; p=0·044), grade 2 or worse (35 [24%] vs 30 [41%]; p=0·012), and grade 3 or worse (nine [6%] vs 12 [16%]; p=0·026) was significantly less common with subcutaneous than with intravenous administration. Subcutaneous administration was locally well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Subcutaneous bortezomib offers non-inferior efficacy to standard intravenous administration, with an improved safety profile. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, and Millennium Pharmaceuticals.

Two-way pharmacokinetic interaction studies between saxagliptin and cytochrome P450 substrates or inhibitors: simvastatin, diltiazem extended-release, and ketoconazole.

BACKGROUND: Many medicines, including several cholesterol-lowering agents (eg, lovastatin, simvastatin), antihypertensives (eg, diltiazem, nifedipine, verapamil), and antifungals (eg, ketoconazole) are metabolized by and/or inhibit the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 metabolic pathway. These types of medicines are commonly coprescribed to treat comorbidities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the potential for drug-drug interactions of these medicines with new medicines for T2DM must be carefully evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of CYP3A4 substrates or inhibitors, simvastatin (substrate), diltiazem (moderate inhibitor), and ketoconazole (strong inhibitor) on the pharmacokinetics and safety of saxagliptin, a CYP3A4/5 substrate; and the effects of saxagliptin on these agents in three separate studies. METHODS: Healthy subjects were administered saxagliptin 10 mg or 100 mg. Simvastatin, diltiazem extended-release, and ketoconazole doses of 40 mg once daily, 360 mg once daily, and 200 mg twice daily, respectively, were used to determine two-way pharmacokinetic interactions. RESULTS: Coadministration of simvastatin, diltiazem extended-release, or ketoconazole increased mean area under the concentration-time curve values (AUC) of saxagliptin by 12%, 109%, and 145%, respectively, versus saxagliptin alone. Mean exposure (AUC) of the CYP3A4-generated active metabolite of saxagliptin, 5-hydroxy saxagliptin, decreased with coadministration of simvastatin, diltiazem, and ketoconazole by 2%, 34%, and 88%, respectively. All adverse events were considered mild or moderate in all three studies; there were no serious adverse events or deaths. CONCLUSION: Saxagliptin, when coadministered with simvastatin, diltiazem extended-release, or ketoconazole, was safe and generally well tolerated in healthy subjects. Clinically meaningful interactions of saxagliptin with simvastatin and diltiazem extended-release are not expected. The dose of saxagliptin does not need to be adjusted when coadministered with a substrate or moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4. A limitation to the lowest clinical dose of saxagliptin (2.5 mg) is proposed when it is coadministered with a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor such as ketoconazole.

Population pharmacodynamic parameter estimation from sparse sampling: effect of sigmoidicity on parameter estimates.

The objective of this stimulation study was to evaluate effect of simoidicity of the concentration-effect (C-E) relationship on the efficiency of population parameter estimation from sparse sampling and is a continuation of previous work that addressed the effect of sample size and number of samples on parameters estimation from sparse sampling for drugs with C-E relationship characterized by high sigmoidicity (gamma > 5). The findings are based on observed C-E relationships for two drugs, octreotide and remifentanil, characterized by simple E (max) and sigmoid E (max) models (gamma = ~2.5), respectively. For each model, C-E profiles (100 replicates of 100 subjects each) were simulated for several sampling designs, with four or five samples/individual randomly obtained from within sampling windows based on EC(50)-normalized plasma drug concentrations, PD parameters based on observed population mean values, and inter-individual and residual variability of 30% and 25%, respectively. The C-E profiles were fitted using non-linear mixed effect modeling with the first-order conditional estimation method; variability parameters were described by an exponential error model. The results showed that, for the sigmoid E (max) model, designs with four or five samples reliably estimated the PD parameters (EC(50), E (max), E (0), and gamma), whereas the five-sample design, with two samples in the 2-3 E (max) region, provided in addition more reliable estimates of inter-individual variability; increasing the information content of the EC(50) region was not critical as long as this region was covered by a single sample in the 0.5-1.5 EC(50) window. For the simple E (max) model, because of the shallower profile, enriching the EC(50) region was more important. The impact of enrichment of appropriate regions for the two models can be explained based on the shape (sigmoidicity) of the concentration-effect relationships, with shallower C-E profiles requiring data enrichment in the EC(50) region and steeper curves less so; in both cases, the E (max) region needs to be adequately delineated, however. The results provide a general framework for population parameter estimation from sparse sampling in clinical trials when the underlying C-E profiles have different degrees of sigmoidicity.

Pharmacodynamic parameter estimation: population size versus number of samples.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of population size, number of samples per individual, and level of interindividual variability (IIV) on the accuracy and precision of pharmacodynamic (PD) parameter estimates. Response data were simulated from concentration input data for an inhibitory sigmoid drug efficacy (E(max)) model using Nonlinear Mixed Effect Modeling, version 5 (NONMEM). Seven designs were investigated using different concentration sampling windows ranging from 0 to 3 EC(50) (EC(50) is the drug concentration at 50% of the E(max)) units. The response data were used to estimate the PD and variability parameters in NONMEM. The accuracy and precision of parameter estimates after 100 replications were assessed using the mean and SD of percent prediction error, respectively. Four samples per individual were sufficient to provide accurate and precise estimate of almost all of the PD and variability parameters, with 100 individuals and IIV of 30%. Reduction of sample size resulted in imprecise estimates of the variability parameters; however, the PD parameter estimates were still precise. At 45% IIV, designs with 5 samples per individual behaved better than those designs with 4 samples per individual. For a moderately variable drug with a high Hill coefficient, sampling from the 0.1 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 2.5, and 2.5 to 3 EC(50) window is sufficient to estimate the parameters reliably in a PD study.