Application of population physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling to optimize target expression and clearance mechanisms of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.

AIMS: To use population physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PopPBPK) modelling to optimize target expression, kinetics and clearance of HER1/2 directed therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Thus, to propose a general workflow of PopPBPK modelling and its application in clinical pharmacology. METHODS: Full PBPK model of pertuzumab (PTZ) was developed in patient population using Simcyp V21R1 incorporating mechanistic targeted-mediated drug disposition process by fitting known clinical PK and sparse receptor proteomics data to optimize target expression and kinetics of HER2 receptor. Trastuzumab (TTZ) PBPK modelling was used to validate the optimized HER2 target. Additionally, the simulator was also used to develop a full PBPK model for the HER1-directed mAb cetuximab (CTX) to assess the underlying targeted-mediated drug disposition-independent elimination mechanisms. RESULTS: HER2 final parameterisation coming from the PBPK modelling of PTZ was successfully cross validated through PBPK modelling of TTZ with average fold error (AFE), absolute AFE and percent prediction error values for area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of 1.13, 1.16 and 16, and 1.01, 1.07 and 7, respectively. CTX PBPK model performance was validated after the incorporation of an additional systemic clearance of 0.033 L/h as AFE and absolute AFE showed an acceptable predictive power of AUC and Cmax with percent prediction error of 13% for AUC and 10% for Cmax . CONCLUSIONS: Optimisation of both system and drug related parameters were performed through PBPK modelling to improve model performance of therapeutic mAbs (PTZ, TTZ and CTX). General workflow was proposed to develop and apply PopPBPK to support clinical development of mAbs targeting same receptor.

Quantitative determination of lurbinectedin, its unbound fraction and its metabolites in human plasma utilizing ultra-performance LC-MS/MS.

AIMS: Ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) methods to quantify total lurbinectedin, its plasma protein binding to derive the unbound fraction and its main metabolites 1',3'-dihydroxy-lurbinectedin (M4) and N-desmethyl-lurbinectedin (M6) in human plasma, were developed and validated. MATERIALS & METHODS: For lurbinectedin, sample extraction was performed using supported liquid extraction. For metabolites, liquid-liquid extraction with stable isotope-labeled analogue internal standards was used. Plasma protein binding was evaluated using rapid equilibrium dialysis. In vitro investigations at different plasma protein concentrations were carried out to estimate dissociation rate constants to albumin and alpha-1-acid glycoprotein (AAG). RESULTS: Calibration curves displayed good linearity over 0.1 to 50 ng/mL for lurbinectedin and 0.5 to 20 ng/mL for the metabolites. Methods were validated in accordance with established guidance. The inter-day precision and accuracy ranged from 5.1% to 10.7%, and from -5% to 6% (lurbinectedin in plasma); from 3.1% to 6.6%, and from 4% to 6% (lurbinectedin in plasma:PBS); from 4.5% to 12.9%, and from 4% to 9% (M4); and from 7.5% to 10.5%, and from 6% to 12% (M6). All methods displayed good linearity (r2 >0.99). Recovery was evaluated for lurbinectedin in plasma:PBS (66.4% to 86.6%), M4 (7.82% to 13.4%) and M6 (22.2% to 34.3%). The method for lurbinectedin in plasma has been applied in most clinical studies, while the plasma:PBS and metabolites methods were used to evaluate the impact of special conditions on lurbinectedin PK. Lurbinectedin plasma protein binding was 99.6% and highly affected by AAG concentration. CONCLUSIONS: These UPLC-MS/MS methods enable the rapid and sensitive quantification of lurbinectedin and its main metabolites in clinical samples.

Phase I study of lurbinectedin in combination with weekly paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Lurbinectedin and paclitaxel showed synergism in preclinical studies and have non-completely overlapping toxicity profiles. This phase I trial evaluated a combination of paclitaxel and lurbinectedin with/without bevacizumab in advanced tumors. This trial was divided into Group A, which evaluated weekly paclitaxel (60 or 80 mg) plus lurbinectedin (3.0-5.0 mg flat dose [FD] or 2.2 mg/m2) every 3 weeks in advanced solid tumors; and Group B, which evaluated bevacizumab (BEV, 15 mg/kg) added to the recommended dose (RD) defined in Group A in advanced epithelial ovarian or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 67 patients (A, n = 55; B, n = 12) were treated. The RD was paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on Day (D)1,D8 plus lurbinectedin 2.2 mg/m2 on D1. At this RD, myelotoxicity was reversible and manageable, and most non-hematological toxicities were mild/moderate. Adding BEV did not notably change tolerability. Twenty-five confirmed responses were observed: 20/51 evaluable patients in Group A (overall response rate [ORR] = 39% at all dose levels and at the RD), and 5/10 evaluable patients in Group B (ORR = 50%). Most responders had breast (n = 7/12 patients), small cell lung (SCLC) (n = 5/7), epithelial ovarian (n = 3/9) and endometrial cancer (n = 3/11) in Group A, and epithelial ovarian (n = 3/4) and NSCLC (n = 2/6) in Group B. Clinical benefit rate was 61% in Group A (58% at the RD), and 90% in Group B. No major pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions were observed. Paclitaxel/lurbinectedin and paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV are feasible combinations. Further development is warranted of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin in SCLC, breast, and endometrial cancer, and of paclitaxel/lurbinectedin/BEV in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Integrated exposure-response analysis of efficacy and safety of lurbinectedin to support the dose regimen in small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: These exposure-response (E-R) analyses integrated lurbinectedin effects on key efficacy and safety variables in relapsed SCLC to determine the adequacy of the dose regimen of 3.2 mg/m2 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks (q3wk). METHODS: Logistic models and Cox regression analyses were applied to correlate lurbinectedin exposure metrics (AUCtot and AUCu) with efficacy and safety endpoints: objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in SCLC patients (n = 99) treated in study B-005 with 3.2 mg/m2 q3wk, and incidence of grade 4 (G4) neutropenia and grade 3-4 (G ≥ 3) thrombocytopenia in a pool of cancer patients from single-agent phase I to III studies (n = 692) treated at a wide range of doses. A clinical utility index was used to assess the appropriateness of the selected dose. RESULTS: Effect of lurbinectedin AUCu on ORR best fitted to a sigmoid-maximal response (Emax) logistic model, where Emax was dependent on chemotherapy-free interval (CTFI). Cox regression analysis with OS found relationships with both CTFI and AUCu. An Emax logistic model for G4 neutropenia and a linear logistic model for G ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia, which retained platelets and albumin at baseline and body surface area, best fitted to AUCtot and AUCu. AUCu between approximately 1000 and 1700 ng·h/L provided the best benefit/risk ratio, and the dose of 3.2 mg/m2 provided median AUCu of 1400 ng·h/L, thus maximizing the proportion of patients within that lurbinectedin target exposure range. CONCLUSIONS: The relationships evidenced in this integrated E-R analysis support a favorable benefit-risk profile for lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 q3wk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02454972; registered May 27, 2015.

Population Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Covariate Analyses of Neutropenia and Thrombocytopenia in Patients With Solid Tumors Treated With Lurbinectedin.

Lurbinectedin is a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Reversible myelosuppression is its most relevant toxicity. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses were conducted to characterize the time course of absolute neutrophil count and platelet count recovery and to detect and quantify the effect of relevant covariates in patients with advanced solid tumors treated with lurbinectedin. Absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and lurbinectedin total plasma concentration were assessed in 244 patients treated with lurbinectedin with varied dosing schedules and doses. A reference extended semimechanistic pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of myelosuppression was used. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration was modeled as a dichotomous covariate, and platelet transfusions were included as a bolus dose into the last compartment of the model, representing the central circulation. Final models were suitable to describe the time course of absolute neutrophil count and platelet count recovery. A lurbinectedin dose of 3.2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks can be administered without primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. G-CSF followed by ≤2 dose reductions of 20%, if needed, gradually reduced grade 4 neutropenia from cycle 3 onward. BSA-based dosing reduced the incidence of grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia. One-week dose delays because of low absolute neutrophil count occurred in 3.5% of patients, thus supporting every-3-week administration. CYP3A inhibitors produced absolute 11.0% and 6.2% increases in grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, respectively. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia after lurbinectedin administration to cancer patients are noncumulative, reversible, short lasting, and clinically manageable with secondary prophylaxis of G-CSF or platelet transfusion and, if needed, dose reductions.

Effect of lurbinectedin on the QTc interval in patients with advanced solid tumors: an exposure-response analysis.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the effect of lurbinectedin, a highly selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, on the change from baseline in Fridericia's corrected QT interval (∆QTcF) and electrocardiography (ECG) morphological patterns, and lurbinectedin concentration-∆QTcF (C-∆QTcF) relationship, in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with QTcF ≤ 500 ms, QRS < 110 ms, PR < 200 ms, and normal cardiac conduction and function received lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m2 as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks. ECGs were collected in triplicate via 12-lead digital recorder in treatment cycle 1 and 2 and analyzed centrally. ECG collection time-matched blood samples were drawn to measure lurbinectedin plasma concentration. No effect on QTc interval was concluded if the upper bound (UB) of the least square (LS) mean two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CI) for ΔQTcF at each time point was < 20 ms. C-∆QTcF was explored using linear mixed-effects analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1707 ECGs were collected from 39 patients (females, 22; median age, 56 years). The largest UB of the 90% CI of ΔQTcF was 9.6 ms, thus lower than the more conservative 10 ms threshold established at the ICH E14 guideline for QT studies in healthy volunteers. C-∆QTcF was better fit by an effect compartment model, and the 90% CI of predicted ΔQTcF at Cmax was 7.81 ms, also below the 10 ms threshold of clinical concern. CONCLUSIONS: ECG parameters and C-ΔQTcF modelling in this prospective study indicate that lurbinectedin was not associated with a clinically relevant effect on cardiac repolarization.

Population-Pharmacokinetic and Covariate Analysis of Lurbinectedin (PM01183), a New RNA Polymerase II Inhibitor, in Pooled Phase I/II Trials in Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lurbinectedin is an inhibitor of RNA polymerase II currently under clinical development for intravenous administration as a single agent and in combination with other anti-tumor agents for the treatment of several tumor types. The objective of this work was to develop a population-pharmacokinetic model in this patient setting and to elucidate the main predictors to guide the late stages of development. METHODS: Data from 443 patients with solid and hematologic malignancies treated in six phase I and three phase II trials with lurbinectedin as a single agent or combined with other agents were included in the analysis. The potential influence of demographic, co-treatment, and laboratory characteristics on lurbinectedin pharmacokinetics was evaluated. RESULTS: The final population-pharmacokinetic model was an open three-compartment model with linear distribution and linear elimination from the central compartment. Population estimates for total plasma clearance, and apparent volume at steady state were 11.2 L/h and 438 L, respectively. Inter-individual variability was moderate for all parameters, ranging from 20.9 to 51.2%. High α-1-acid glycoprotein and C-reactive protein, and low albumin reduced clearance by 28, 20, and 20%, respectively. Co-administration of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors reduced clearance by 30%. Combinations with other anti-tumor agents did not modify the pharmacokinetics of lurbinectedin significantly. CONCLUSION: The population-pharmacokinetic model indicated neither a dose nor time dependency, and no clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic differences were found when co-administered with other anticancer agents. A chronic inflammation pattern characterized by decreased albumin and increased C-reactive protein and α-1-acid glycoprotein levels led to high lurbinectedin exposure. Co-administration of cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors increased lurbinectedin exposure.

Phase I study of lurbinectedin, a synthetic tetrahydroisoquinoline that inhibits activated transcription, induces DNA single- and double-strand breaks, on a weekly × 2 every-3-week schedule.

Background Lurbinectedin administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks induces neutropenia, with the nadir usually occurring during the second week. This phase I study evaluated an alternative lurbinectedin dosing schedule consisting of a 1-h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Patients and methods Twenty-one patients with advanced cancer received lurbinectedin using a standard cohort dose escalation design. Results Three dose levels of 3, 4, and 5 mg of lurbinectedin were explored. The recommended phase II dose was 5 mg, with 3 of 13 patients having dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), although grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 50% of patients. Other frequent toxicities were mild to moderate nausea and vomiting, fatigue, decreased appetite, stomatitis and asymptomatic creatinine and transaminase increases. No objective responses occurred, but prolonged stable disease was observed in 7 patients, including 3 with soft tissue sarcoma. Conclusion The recommended phase II dose of lurbinectedin is 5 mg, administered as a 1-h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. These data support further testing of this dose and schedule, particularly in soft tissue sarcoma.

Phase I study of carboplatin in combination with PM00104 (Zalypsis®) in patients with advanced solid tumors.

This phase I trial determined the recommended dose for phase II trials (RD) of carboplatin 1-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by PM00104 1-h i.v. infusion on Day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wk) in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. A toxicity-guided, dose-escalation design was used. Patients were stratified and divided into heavily (n = 6) or mildly pretreated (n = 14) groups. Transient grade 4 thrombocytopenia (in one heavily and three mildly pretreated patients) was the only dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) observed. Carboplatin AUC3-PM00104 2.0 mg/m(2) was the RD in both groups. At this RD, the carboplatin AUC was equal to ~60 % the target AUC used in other combinations, and the PM00104 dose intensity was 56-67 % of the value achieved at the RD for single-agent PM00104 given as 1-h infusion q3wk. Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1/2. They mainly consisted of gastrointestinal and general symptoms, such as fatigue, anorexia, mucosal inflammation or nausea. Transient neutropenia (50 % of patients) and thrombocytopenia (33-38 %) were the most common severe hematological abnormalities; their incidence was higher than with single-agent PM00104. No pharmacokinetic drug-drug alterations occurred. Partial response was found in one patient with triple negative breast cancer pretreated with paclitaxel/bevacizumab. Three patients with colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, and tumor of unknown origin had disease stabilization for ≥3 months. In conclusion, no optimal dose was reached due to overlapping myelosuppression despite stratification according to prior treatment. Therefore, this carboplatin plus PM00104 combination was not selected for further clinical research.

Phase II clinical trial of PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)) in urothelial carcinoma patients progressing after first-line platinum-based regimen.

PURPOSE: This exploratory phase II clinical trial evaluated the antitumor activity, safety profile and pharmacokinetics of PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)) 3 mg/m(2) 1 h every 3-week intravenous infusion in patients with advanced and/or metastatic urothelial carcinoma progressing after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: The primary efficacy end point was the disease control rate (DCR), defined as the percentage of patients with confirmed objective response or progression-free at 3 months, according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. RESULTS: In a first stage (n = 19 patients evaluable for efficacy), only one patient achieved DCR (stable disease as best response and progression-free survival of 3.1 months). According to the 2-stage design used, the primary efficacy objective was unmet, and therefore, the trial was finalized without opening the second stage. The most common adverse events related to PM00104 were fatigue, anorexia, nausea, troponin I increase and neutropenia, which were transient and manageable with dose modifications or administration delays. Mean PK results (Cmax = 48.57 µg/l and area under the curve (AUC) = 154.97 h µg/l) were similar to those observed in a previous phase I trial evaluating the same dose and schedule. Few troponin I concentrations were higher than 0.10 ng/ml, and none of them were related to parameters of PM00104 exposure such as AUC or Cmax. CONCLUSIONS: No recommendation is given for further evaluation of PM00104 as single-agent treatment of patients with pretreated advanced and/or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. No new safety signals were observed.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of trabectedin and cisplatin given every three weeks in patients with advanced solid tumors.

The aim of this phase I study was to identify a feasible dose and schedule for the combination of cisplatin and trabectedin. The regimen evaluated consisted of cisplatin at a fixed dose of 75 mg/m(2) 1-hour intravenous (i.v.) infusion followed by escalating doses of trabectedin 3-hour i.v. infusion, both administered on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3wks). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), grade 4 neutropenia longer than 7 days duration and grade 3 vomiting despite standard antiemetic therapy, occurred at the starting dose of trabectedin (0.75 mg/m(2)). The immediately lower dose (trabectedin 0.60 mg/m(2)) was evaluated in a total of 8 patients; no DLTs occurred and this was declared the recommended dose (RD). The safety profile of the combination at this dose and schedule was consistent with the known side effects of each agent alone: nausea, fatigue, transient transaminase elevations and neutropenia. No new or unexpected adverse reactions were observed. Two partial responses were reported at the RD in patients with pretreated ovarian cancer. Comparison with population pharmacokinetic data suggests a PK interaction between trabectedin and cisplatin leading to increased plasma exposure of trabectedin in the first 48 h, lower platinum clearance and longer half-life. In conclusion, although the trabectedin dose achieved with this combination was low (50 % of single-agent when given q3wks), this day 1 q3wks trabectedin plus cisplatin combination showed a feasible administration, a tolerable safety profile and some antitumor activity.

Experience with trabectedin in an advanced sarcoma patient on peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal failure.

BACKGROUND: We wanted to evaluate the impact of peritoneal dialysis on trabectedin therapy in terms of side effects, response and levels in the blood and dialysate of a patient on peritoneal dialysis for end-stage renal failure caused by previous ifosfamide therapy. This has not yet been reported in the medical literature. METHODS: We measured the levels of trabectedin in the blood and peritoneal dialysate at different time points before and after the administration of a 3rd cycle of trabectedin (1.5 mg/m(2) over 24 h). Toxicity from the treatment was recorded and the response status was evaluated on a CT scan after the 3rd and 6th cycles. RESULTS: Serum creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault formula) was 8.31 ml/min. The patient had a World Health Organization performance status score of '0' and did not suffer any significant side effects except for grade 2 anaemia. There was no difference in the plasma level of trabectedin just before and after a 3-hour session of peritoneal dialysis. The amount of trabectedin in the peritoneal dialysates was undetectable (limit of quantification: 25.9 pg/ml). The patient achieved stable disease after 3 cycles, and progressive disease was observed after 6 cycles on CT scan. CONCLUSION: Our patient did not suffer undue side effects from trabectedin, and peritoneal dialysis did not appear to have an impact on the clearance of the drug.

Phase I study of PM00104 (Zalypsis®) administered as a 1-hour weekly infusion resting every fourth week in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PM00104 (Zalypsis®) is a new synthetic alkaloid with potent cytotoxic activity against tumor cell lines. This phase I clinical trial determined the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) for phase II trials of PM00104 administered as a 1-hour intravenous (i.v.) infusion weekly for three consecutive weeks resting every fourth week (d1,8,15 q4wk). Forty-nine patients with advanced solid malignancies received PM00104 following a toxicity-guided, accelerated, dose-escalation design. Doses evaluated ranged from 0.07 to 3.0 mg/m(2). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) appeared at the highest doses tested and comprised grade 3 diarrhea and grade 4 lipase increase at 2.0 mg/m(2); grade 1 thrombocytopenia and grade 2 neutropenia with two infusion omissions, grade 3 fatigue and grade 4 febrile neutropenia at 2.5 mg/m(2); and grade 3/4 fatigue, grade 4 neutropenia lasting >5 days and grade 4 thrombocytopenia at 3.0 mg/m(2). RD was established at 2.0 mg/m(2). PM00104-related adverse events at the RD were mostly grade 1/2, with fatigue, nausea and vomiting as the most common. Transient and manageable myelosuppression and transaminase increases were also reported. Main pharmacokinetic parameters increased linearly with dose. Disease stabilization lasting ≥ 3 months was found in 4 patients with cervical carcinoma, colorectal adenocarcinoma, lachrymal adenoid carcinoma, and bladder carcinoma (n=1 each). In conclusion, PM00104 2.0 mg/m(2) 1-hour, d1,8,15 q4wk showed a positive risk-benefit ratio, which has supported its further evaluation in three ongoing phase II clinical trials.

Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of neutropenia in cancer patients receiving PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)) is a novel marine-derived compound that has shown antineoplastic activity against a number of human tumour cell lines. Myelosuppression was found to be a PM00104 dose-limiting toxicity during phase I studies. The objective of this study was to characterize the time course of neutropenia after intravenous PM00104 administration in cancer patients. METHODS: Absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) and pharmacokinetic data from 144 patients receiving PM00104 doses ranging from 0.053 to 5 mg/m(2) were used to estimate the system-related (baseline ANC [Circ(0)], mean transit time [MTT], feedback on proliferation [γ] and maturation [δ]) and drug-specific (first-order elimination rate constant from effect compartment [k(e0)] [α and ß]) parameters of a modified Friberg's model. The concentrations in the effect compartment (C(e)) were assumed to reduce the proliferation rate of the progenitor cells according to the function [Formula: see text] Model evaluation and simulations were undertaken to evaluate the effect of dose intensity, dose density and the intravenous infusion duration on severe neutropenia incidence. RESULTS: The typical values (between-subject variability [%]) of the Circ(0), MTT, γ, δ, k(e0), α and ß were estimated to be 5.66 × 10(9) cells/L (13 %), 149 h (29 %), 0.136, 0.191, 0.00639 h(-1) (32 %), 0.332 L/µg (24 %) and 1.47, respectively. Age, bodyweight, sex, serum albumin, total protein, liver metastases, number of previous chemotherapy lines and performance status were not associated with model parameters. The model evaluation evidenced an accurate prediction of the neutropenia grade 3 and/or 4 incidence. Simulations indicated that PM00104 dose and dosing interval, but not infusion duration, were the main determinants of the neutropenia severity and duration. CONCLUSIONS: The time course of neutropenia following PM00104 was well characterized by the model developed. The model-predicted time course of the ANCs and its variability confirmed that neutropenia is reversible, of short duration and non-cumulative.

A comprehensive safety analysis confirms rhabdomyolysis as an uncommon adverse reaction in patients treated with trabectedin.

PURPOSE: This analysis determined the incidence of serious rhabdomyolysis events reported during trabectedin treatment since the first phase I clinical trial in April 1996 up to September 2010. METHODS: Search was done in the Yondelis(®) Pharmacovigilance and Clinical Trials databases using a list of terms according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA, v. 13.1), followed by a medical review of all cases retrieved. Total estimated sample was 10,841 patients: 2,789 from clinical trials; 3,926 from compassionate use programs; and 4,126 treated in the marketplace. Two groups were identified: (1) rhabdomyolysis and (2) clinically relevant creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increases without acute renal failure (ARF). Descriptive analysis included demographic, clinical/laboratory data, and contributing/confounding factors. Potential predictive factors were evaluated by multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis. Possible changes of pharmacokinetics (PK) in patients with rhabdomyolysis were explored using a population PK model. RESULTS: The global incidence of rhabdomyolysis was 0.7%, and most cases occurred in Cycle 2 of treatment. The incidence of fatal cases was 0.3%. None of the variables evaluated to detect potential risk factors of rhabdomyolysis were predictive. Additionally, CPK increases (without ARF) were detected in 0.4% of patients as an incidental finding with good prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Rhabdomyolysis is an uncommon event during trabectedin treatment. Multivariate analyses did not show any potential factor that could be predictive or represent a significantly higher risk of developing rhabdomyolysis. Nevertheless, close patient monitoring and adherence to drug administration guidelines may help to limit the incidence of this event.

A new mathematical approach for the estimation of the AUC and its variability under different experimental designs in preclinical studies.

The aim of the present work was to develop a new mathematical method for estimating the area under the curve (AUC) and its variability that could be applied in different preclinical experimental designs and amenable to be implemented in standard calculation worksheets. In order to assess the usefulness of the new approach, different experimental scenarios were studied and the results were compared with those obtained with commonly used software: WinNonlin® and Phoenix WinNonlin®. The results do not show statistical differences among the AUC values obtained by both procedures, but the new method appears to be a better estimator of the AUC standard error, measured as the coverage of 95% confidence interval. In this way, the new proposed method demonstrates to be as useful as WinNonlin® software when it was applicable.

Population pharmacokinetics of PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)) in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of PM00104 (Zalypsis(®)) in cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 135 patients included in four phase I clinical trials who receive intravenous PM00104 at doses ranging from 53 to 5,000 µg/m(2) and administered as 1-, 3-, or 24-h infusion every 3 weeks or as 1-h infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, or 1-h infusion daily during 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks were included in the analysis. Pharmacokinetic data were analyzed with non-linear mixed effect model using NONMEM VI software. The effect of selected patient covariates on PM00104 pharmacokinetics was investigated. Model evaluation was performed using predictive checks and non-parametric bootstrap. RESULTS: An open four-compartment catenary linear model with first-order elimination was developed to best describe the data. Plasma clearance and its between-subject variability was 43.7 L/h (34%). Volume of distribution at steady state was 822 L (117%). Within the range of covariates studied, age, sex, body size variables, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase, creatinine clearance, albumin, total protein, hemoglobin, performance status, liver metastases, dose-limiting toxicity, and stable disease for 3 months were not statistically related to PM00104 pharmacokinetic parameters. Bootstrap and posterior predictive check evidenced the model was deemed appropriate to describe the time course of PM00104 plasma concentrations in cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of phase I pharmacokinetic data demonstrated PM00104 linear elimination from plasma, dose proportionality up to 5,000 µg/m(2), and time-independent pharmacokinetics. No clinically relevant covariates were identified as predictors of PM00104 pharmacokinetics.

Pharmacokinetics of trabectedin on hemodialysis: an application for the management of cancer patients with end-stage renal disease.

PURPOSE: The pharmacokinetics of trabectedin has never been reported in patients with impaired renal function or in patients on hemodialysis. METHODS: We examined trabectedin PK in a patient on hemodialysis, starting trabectedin therapy at a standard dose for recurrence of a retroperitoneal myxoid liposarcoma that had occurred under immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplant. RESULTS: As compared with a population with normal renal function, the study patient presented a higher C (max) and AUC, with lower clearance, terminal half-life, and volume of distribution. The low dialysis clearance, accounting for a minor part of the total body clearance and the absence of detectable trabectedin in the dialysate samples, suggests that hemodialysis does not efficiently clear trabectedin. Trabectedin tolerance was good. CONCLUSIONS: This case reports for the first time the feasibility of trabectedin therapy in a hemodialyzed patient. Given the rising incidence of cancer in patients with end-stage renal disease, it is crucial to provide data that improve the management of anticancer drugs in dialyzed patients.

Computer simulations for bioequivalence trials: selection of analyte in BCS drugs with first-pass metabolism and two metabolic pathways.

The objective of this work is to use a computer simulation approach to define the most sensitive analyte for in vivo bioequivalence studies of all types of Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) drugs undergoing first-pass hepatic metabolism with two metabolic pathways. A semi-physiological model was developed in NONMEM VI to simulate bioequivalence trials. Four BCS classes (from Class I to IV) of drugs, with three possible saturation scenarios (non-saturation, saturation and saturation of only the major route of metabolism), two (high or low) dose schemes, and six types of pharmaceutical quality for the drug products were simulated. The number of investigated scenarios was 144 (4 × 3 × 2 × 6). The parent drug is the most sensitive analyte for bioequivalence trials in all the studied scenarios. Metabolite data does not show sensitivity to detect differences in pharmaceutical quality or it gives the same information as the parent compound. An interesting point to notice is the case of class I drugs administered at a high dose when the principal metabolic route is saturated and the secondary one is not saturated. In this case a substantial reduction in dissolution rate (as it could occur in the case of a prolonged release formulation developed as a line extension of an immediate release formulation) leads to a considerable increase in the AUC of the major metabolite whose formation is saturated supporting the need to require pharmacokinetic and clinical data for new prolonged release medicinal products.