Population Pharmacokinetics of Sacituzumab Govitecan in Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Other Solid Tumors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an antibody with affinity for Trop-2 coupled to SN-38 via hydrolyzable linker. SG is approved for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who have received two or more prior chemotherapies (at least one in a metastatic setting) and for patients with pretreated hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In these analyses, the pharmacokinetics of SG, free SN-38, and total antibody (tAB) were characterized using data from 529 patients with mTNBC or other solid tumors across two large clinical trials (NCT01631552; ASCENT, NCT02574455). Three population pharmacokinetic models were constructed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling; clinically relevant covariates were evaluated to assess their impact on exposure. Models for SG and tAB were developed independently whereas free SN-38 was sequentially generated via a first-order release process from SG. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetics of the three analytes were each described by a two-compartment model with estimated body weight-based scaling exponents for clearance and volume. Typical parameter estimates for clearance and steady-state volume of distribution were 0.133 L/h and 3.68 L for SG and 0.0164 L/h and 4.26 L for tAB, respectively. Mild-to-moderate renal impairment, mild hepatic impairment, age, sex, baseline albumin level, tumor type, UGT1A1 genotype, or Trop-2 expression did not have a clinically relevant impact on exposure for any of the three analytes. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses support the approved SG dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg as intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles and did not identify a need for dose adjustment based on evaluated covariates or disease characteristics.

Pharmacokinetics of long-acting lenacapavir in participants with hepatic or renal impairment.

Lenacapavir is a novel, first-in-class, multistage inhibitor of HIV-1 capsid function approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals for heavily treatment-experienced people with HIV. Two Phase 1, open-label, parallel-group, single-dose studies assessed the pharmacokinetics (PK) of lenacapavir in participants with moderate hepatic impairment [Child-Pugh-Turcotte (CPT) Class B: score 7-9] or severe renal impairment [15 ≤ creatinine clearance (CLcr) ≤29 mL/min] to inform lenacapavir dosing in HIV-1-infected individuals with organ impairment. In both studies, a single oral dose of 300 mg lenacapavir was administered to participants with normal (n = 10) or impaired (n = 10) hepatic/renal function who were matched for age (±10 years), sex, and body mass index (±20%). Lenacapavir exposures [area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUCinf) and maximum concentration (Cmax)] were approximately 1.47- and 2.61-fold higher, respectively, in participants with moderate hepatic impairment compared to those with normal hepatic function, whereas lenacapavir AUCinf and Cmax were approximately 1.84- and 2.62-fold higher, respectively, in participants with severe renal impairment compared to those with normal renal function. Increased lenacapavir exposures with moderate hepatic or severe renal impairment were not considered clinically meaningful. Lenacapavir was considered generally safe and well tolerated in both studies. These results support the use of approved lenacapavir dosing regimen in patients with mild (CPT Class A: score 5-6) or moderate hepatic impairment as well as in patients with mild (60 ≤ CLcr ≤ 89 mL/min), moderate (30 ≤ CLcr ≤ 59 mL/min), and severe renal impairment.

A study of the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in virologically suppressed pregnant women with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy and confirm the dose of once-daily bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF; B/F/TAF) during pregnancy. DESIGN: An open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase 1b study (NCT03960645) was conducted in 33 virologically suppressed pregnant women with HIV-1. METHODS: Participants received B/F/TAF (50/200/25 mg) from the second or third trimester through ∼16 weeks postpartum. Steady-state maternal plasma pharmacokinetic samples were collected at the second and third trimesters and 6 and 12 weeks postpartum for BIC, FTC, and TAF. Neonates ( n  = 29) were followed from birth to 4-8 weeks with sparse washout pharmacokinetic sampling for BIC and TAF. The proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml at delivery (missing = excluded) was evaluated. RESULTS: Mean areas under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (AUC tau ) for BIC, FTC, and TAF were lower during pregnancy versus postpartum but were closer to AUC tau values for nonpregnant adults with HIV reported in other studies. Geometric least-squares mean ratios for BIC, FTC, and TAF AUC tau during pregnancy versus postpartum ranged from 41 to 45%, 64 to 69% and 57 to 78%, respectively. Mean BIC trough concentrations during pregnancy were more than 6.5-fold greater than the protein-adjusted 95% effective concentration. In neonates, the median BIC half-life was 43 h. Virologic suppression was maintained in all adult participants throughout the study, with no virologic failure or treatment-emergent resistance to HIV-1, no discontinuations because of adverse events, and no perinatal transmission. CONCLUSION: Exposures to BIC, FTC, and TAF were lower during pregnancy than postpartum. However, mean BIC trough concentrations were maintained at levels indicative of efficacious exposure, and FTC/TAF data were concordant with published literature in this population. Pharmacokinetic and safety data, combined with maintenance of robust virologic suppression, suggest that once-daily B/F/TAF without dose adjustment is appropriate during pregnancy.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of inhaled remdesivir in healthy participants.

Intravenous remdesivir (RDV) is US Food and Drug Administration-approved for hospitalized and nonhospitalized individuals with coronavirus disease 2019. RDV undergoes intracellular metabolic activation to form the active triphosphate, GS-443902, and other metabolites. Alternative administration routes, including localized pulmonary delivery, can lower systemic exposure and maximize exposure at the site of action. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of inhaled RDV in healthy adults. This phase Ia, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluated inhaled RDV in healthy participants randomized 4:1 to receive RDV or placebo as single doses (4 cohorts) or multiple once-daily doses (3 cohorts). Doses in cohorts 1-6 were administered as an aerosolized solution for inhalation through a sealed facemask; doses in cohort 7 were administered as an aerosolized solution for inhalation through a mouthpiece. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Seventy-two participants were enrolled (inhaled RDV, n = 58 and placebo, n = 14). Following single RDV doses, RDV, GS-704277, and GS-441524 plasma PK parameters indicated dose-proportional increases in area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) extrapolated to infinite time, AUC from time zero to last quantifiable concentration, and maximum observed concentration. Analyte plasma concentrations after multiple RDV doses were consistent with those for single-dose RDV. Analyte plasma exposures were lower when RDV was administered with a mouthpiece versus a sealed facemask. The most common adverse events included nausea, dizziness, and cough. Single- and multiple-dose inhaled RDV exhibited linear and dose-proportional plasma PK. Administration of RDV via inhalation was generally safe and well-tolerated.

Optimizing outcomes and managing adverse events in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer: a clinical pharmacology perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Bladder cancer (BC) is the sixth most common type of cancer with epithelial/urothelial and non-urothelial origins. Urothelial carcinoma (UC) involves neoplastic cells of epithelial origin and accounts for 90% of all BC cases. Current review aims to discuss the latest advances and challenges in the treatment of UC with an emphasis on clinical pharmacology considerations. AREAS COVERED: Data including clinical efficacy and safety outcomes as well as precautions reported in published clinical studies obtained from PubMed and package inserts were collected and summarized in the review. Recent decade saw the approval of multiple drugs for the treatment of BC in both adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting as well as for unresectable tumors. Checkpoint blockers (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and avelumab), antibody drug conjugates (enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan) and targeted therapies (erdafitinib) are now available in first-line (cisplatin-ineligible), second-line and third-line settings along with conventional platinum-based chemotherapy. While the survival outcomes have improved especially in refractory and unresponsive patients, the response rates are relatively low and patient safety needs further optimization. EXPERT OPINION: Additional studies on combination therapies, dose adjustments in special populations and impact of anti-drug antibodies on drug exposure are needed to further improve clinical outcomes.

Integrating real-world data to accelerate and guide drug development: A clinical pharmacology perspective.

Pharmaceutical products in the current accelerated drug development landscape can benefit from tools beyond data generated from randomized control trials. We have seen an abundance of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence, driven by the digitalization of healthcare systems and an increased awareness that has inspired a heightened interest in their potential use. Literature review suggest leveraging RWD as a promising tool to answer key questions in the areas of clinical pharmacology and translational science. RWD may increase our understanding regarding the impact of intrinsic (e.g., liver, renal impairment, or genetic polymorphisms) and extrinsic (e.g., food consumption or concomitant medications) factors on the clearance of administered drugs. Changes in clearance may lead to clinically relevant changes in drug exposure that may require clinical management strategies, such as change in dose or dosing regimen. RWD can be leveraged to potentially bridge the gaps among research, development, and clinical care. This paper highlights promising areas of how RWD have been used to complement clinical pharmacology throughout various phases of drug development; case examples will include dose/regimen extrapolation, dose adjustments for special populations (organ impairment, pediatrics, etc.), and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models to assess impact of prognostic factors on outcomes. In addition, this paper will also juxtapose limitations and promises of utilizing RWD to answer key scientific questions in drug development and articulate challenges posed by quality issues, data availability, and integration from various sources as well as the increased need for multidimensional-omics data that can better guide the development of personalized and predictive medicine.

Evolution of preclinical characterization and insights into clinical pharmacology of checkpoint inhibitors approved for cancer immunotherapy.

Cancer immunotherapy has significantly advanced the treatment paradigm in oncology, with approvals of immuno-oncology agents for over 16 indications, many of them first line. Checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are recognized as an essential backbone for a successful anticancer therapy regimen. This review focuses on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory approvals of major CPIs and the evolution of translational advances since their first approval close to a decade ago. In addition, critical preclinical and clinical pharmacology considerations, an overview of the pharmacokinetic and dose/regimen aspects, and a discussion of the future of CPI translational and clinical pharmacology as combination therapy becomes a mainstay of industrial immunotherapy development and in clinical practice are also discussed.

Real-world data prognostic model of overall survival in patients with advanced NSCLC receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors as second-line monotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The objective of this retrospective, observational, noninterventional cohort study was to investigate prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and to develop a novel prognostic model. METHODS: A total of 4049 patients with aNSCLC diagnosed between January 2011 and February 2020 who received atezolizumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab as second-line monotherapy were selected from a real-world deidentified database to build the cohort. Patients could not have received first-line treatment with clinical study drug(s) nor immune checkpoint inhibitors including anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 therapies. RESULTS: Patients had a median age of 69 years; 45% were female, 75% White, 70% had stage IV at initial diagnosis, and 70% had nonsquamous histology. A Cox proportional hazards model with lasso regularization was used to build a prognostic model for OS using 18 baseline demographic and clinical factors based on the real-world data cohort. The risk-increasing prognostic factors were abnormally low albumin and chloride levels, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score ≥ 2, and abnormally high levels of alkaline phosphatase and white blood cells. The risk-decreasing prognostic factors were PD-L1 positivity, longer time from advanced diagnosis to start of first-line therapy, and higher systolic blood pressure. The performance of the model was validated using data from the OAK trial, and the c-index for the OAK trial validation cohort was 0.65 and 0.67 for the real-world data cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Based on baseline demographic and clinical factors from a real-world setting, this prognostic model was developed to discriminate the risk of death in patients with aNSCLC treated with checkpoint inhibitors as second-line monotherapy, and it performed well in the real-world data and clinical trial cohorts.

Evaluation of atezolizumab immunogenicity: Clinical pharmacology (part 1).

Baseline patient characteristics and prognostic factors are important considerations in oncology when evaluating the impact of immunogenicity on pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy. Here, we assessed the impact of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) on the PK of the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody). We evaluated data from ≈ 4500 patients from 12 clinical trials across different tumor types, treatment settings, and dosing regimens. In our dataset, ~ 30% of patients (range, 13-54%) developed treatment-emergent ADA, and in vitro neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were seen in ~ 50% of ADA-positive (+) patients. Pooled time course data showed a trend toward lower atezolizumab exposure in ADA+ patients, which was more pronounced in ADA+/NAb+ patients. However, the atezolizumab concentration distributions overlapped, and drug concentrations exceeded 6 µg/ml, the target concentration required for receptor saturation, in greater than 95% of patients. Patients had sufficient exposure regardless of ADA status. The dose selected to allow for dosing over effects from ADA resulted in a flat exposure-response relationship. Analysis of study results by ADA titer showed that exposure and overall survival were not affected in a clinically meaningful way. High tumor burden, low albumin, and high CRP at baseline showed the greatest association with ADA development but not with subsequent NAb development. These imbalanced factors at baseline can confound analysis of ADA impact. ADA increases atezolizumab clearance minimally (9%), and its impact on exposure based on the totality of the clinical pharmacology assessment does not appear to be clinically meaningful.