Training the next generation of pharmacometric modelers: a multisector perspective.

The current demand for pharmacometricians outmatches the supply provided by academic institutions and considerable investments are made to develop the competencies of these scientists on-the-job. Even with the observed increase in academic programs related to pharmacometrics, this need is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, as the demand and scope of pharmacometrics applications keep expanding. Further, the field of pharmacometrics is changing. The field largely started when Lewis Sheiner and Stuart Beal published their seminal papers on population pharmacokinetics in the late 1970's and early 1980's and has continued to grow in impact and use since its inception. Physiological-based pharmacokinetics and systems pharmacology have grown rapidly in scope and impact in the last decade and machine learning is just on the horizon. While all these methodologies are categorized as pharmacometrics, no one person can be an expert in everything. So how do you train future pharmacometricians? Leading experts in academia, industry, contract research organizations, clinical medicine, and regulatory gave their opinions on how to best train future pharmacometricians. Their opinions were collected and synthesized to create some general recommendations.

Latent variable indirect response modeling of clinical efficacy endpoints with combination therapy: application to guselkumab and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Accurate characterization of longitudinal exposure-response of clinical trial endpoints is important in optimizing dose and dosing regimens in drug development. Clinical endpoints are often categorical, for which much progress has been made recently in latent variable indirect response (IDR) modeling with single drugs. However, such applications have not yet been used for trials employing multiple drugs administered concurrently. This study aims to demonstrate that the latent variable IDR approach provides a convenient longitudinal exposure-response modeling framework to assess potential interaction effects of combination therapies. This is illustrated by an application to the exposure-response modeling of guselkumab, a monoclonal antibody in clinical development that blocks the interleukin-23p19 subunit, and golimumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to tumor necrosis factor-alpha. A Phase 2a study was conducted in 214 patients with moderate-to severe active ulcerative colitis for which longitudinal assessments of disease severity based on patient-reported measures of rectal bleeding, stool frequency, and symptomatic remission were evaluated as categorical endpoints, and fecal calprotectin as a continuous endpoint. The modeling results suggested independent pharmacodynamic guselkumab and golimumab effects on fecal calprotectin as a continuous endpoint, as well as interaction effects on the categorical endpoints that may be explained by an additional pathway of competitive interaction.

Optimization of clinical dosing schedule to manage neutropenia: learnings from semi-mechanistic modeling simulation approach.

Neutropenia is a common side-effect of oncology drugs. We aimed to study the impact of exposure and dosing schedule on neutropenia to guide selection of dosing schedules that minimize neutropenia potential while maintaining the desired minimum concentration (Cmin) required for target engagement. Dose, frequency and PK parameters were chosen for five hypothetical drugs of various half-lives to (1) achieve same exposure with continuous dosing and evaluate impact of 4 intermittent dosing schedules; and (2) achieve same nadir for continuous and intermittent dosing and evaluate impact on % time above Cmin, a surrogate assumed to indicate target engagement. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC) profiles were simulated using Friberg model, a widely used semi-mechanistic myelosuppression model, assuming drug concentration directly reduce the proliferation rate of stem cells and progenitor cells in proliferation compartment. The correlations between different PK measures and neutropenia metrics were explored. In (1), when the same daily dose was used, intermittent schedules offered better management of ANC nadir. The reduced average drug exposure with intermittent dosing led to lower% time above Cmin. In (2), when the dose was adjusted to achieve the same nadir, drugs with moderate half-life (8-48 h) showed similar % time above Cmin regardless of schedule, while continuous dosing was better for a short half-life (4 h). Area under the concentration curve (AUC) was highly correlated with neutropenia. In summary, continuous dosing, with the dose selected correctly, is most effective to maintain % time above Cmin while providing similar tolerability as intermittent dosing with a higher dose. But dose interruptions could be required to manage individual toxicities. Intermittent schedules, on the other hand, allow recovery of ANC, enabling more orderly schedules.

Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition, as compared with BRAF inhibition alone, delays the emergence of resistance and reduces toxic effects in patients who have melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 423 previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, response duration, and safety. A preplanned interim overall survival analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 8.8 months in the dabrafenib-only group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the dabrafenib-trametinib group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.99; P=0.03). The overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 51% in the dabrafenib-only group (P=0.002). At 6 months, the interim overall survival rate was 93% with dabrafenib-trametinib and 85% with dabrafenib alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94; P=0.02). However, a specified efficacy-stopping boundary (two-sided P=0.00028) was not crossed. Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups, although more dose modifications occurred in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. The rate of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was lower in the dabrafenib-trametinib group than in the dabrafenib-only group (2% vs. 9%), whereas pyrexia occurred in more patients (51% vs. 28%) and was more often severe (grade 3, 6% vs. 2%) in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01584648.).

Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to therapy with BRAF kinase inhibitors is associated with reactivation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. To address this problem, we conducted a phase 1 and 2 trial of combined treatment with dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, and trametinib, a selective MAPK kinase (MEK) inhibitor. METHODS: In this open-label study involving 247 patients with metastatic melanoma and BRAF V600 mutations, we evaluated the pharmacokinetic activity and safety of oral dabrafenib (75 or 150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (1, 1.5, or 2 mg daily) in 85 patients and then randomly assigned 162 patients to receive combination therapy with dabrafenib (150 mg) plus trametinib (1 or 2 mg) or dabrafenib monotherapy. The primary end points were the incidence of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, survival free of melanoma progression, and response. Secondary end points were overall survival and pharmacokinetic activity. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxic effects were infrequently observed in patients receiving combination therapy with 150 mg of dabrafenib and 2 mg of trametinib (combination 150/2). Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was seen in 7% of patients receiving combination 150/2 and in 19% receiving monotherapy (P=0.09), whereas pyrexia was more common in the combination 150/2 group than in the monotherapy group (71% vs. 26%). Median progression-free survival in the combination 150/2 group was 9.4 months, as compared with 5.8 months in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response with combination 150/2 therapy was 76%, as compared with 54% with monotherapy (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib and trametinib were safely combined at full monotherapy doses. The rate of pyrexia was increased with combination therapy, whereas the rate of proliferative skin lesions was nonsignificantly reduced. Progression-free survival was significantly improved. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01072175.).

Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population. METHODS: In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P<0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.).

Concomitant oral and intravenous pharmacokinetics of trametinib, a MEK inhibitor, in subjects with solid tumours.

AIMS: The aim of this phase 1, single centre, open label study in four patients with solid tumours was to determine the absolute bioavailability of a 2 mg oral dose of trametinib. Trametinib is an orally bioavailable, reversible and selective allosteric inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2 activation and kinase activity. METHODS: A microtracer study approach, in which a 5 µg radiolabelled i.v. microdose of trametinib was given concomitantly with an unlabelled 2 mg oral tablet formulation, was used to recover i.v. and oral pharmacokinetic parameters, simultaneously. RESULTS: The least-squares mean (90% confidence interval) absolute bioavailability of trametinib (2 mg tablet) was 72.3% (50.0%, 104.6%). Median tmax after oral administration was 1.5 h and the geometric mean terminal half-life was 11 days. The geometric mean clearance and volume of distribution after i.v. administration were 3.21 l h(-1) and 976 l, respectively, resulting in a terminal elimination half-life of 11 days. CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib absolute bioavailability was moderate to high, whereas first pass metabolism was low.

Artificial Intelligence: From Buzzword to Useful Tool in Clinical Pharmacology.

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical pharmacology and drug development is akin to the dawning of a new era. Previously dismissed as merely technological hype, these approaches have emerged as promising tools in different domains, including health care, demonstrating their potential to empower clinical pharmacology decision making, revolutionize the drug development landscape, and advance patient care. Although challenges remain, the remarkable progress already made signals that the leap from hype to reality is well underway, and AI promises to offer clinical pharmacology new tools and possibilities for optimizing patient care is gradually coming to fruition. This review dives into the burgeoning world of AI and machine learning (ML), showcasing different applications of AI in clinical pharmacology and the impact of successful AI/ML implementation on drug development and/or regulatory decisions. This review also highlights recommendations for areas of opportunity in clinical pharmacology, including data analysis (e.g., handling large data sets, screening to identify important covariates, and optimizing patient population) and efficiencies (e.g., automation, translation, literature curation, and training). Realizing the benefits of AI in drug development and understanding its value will lead to the successful integration of AI tools in our clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics armamentarium.

Demonstrating Bioequivalence for Two Dose Strengths of Niraparib and Abiraterone Acetate Dual-Action Tablets Versus Single Agents: Utility of Clinical Study Data Supplemented with Modeling and Simulation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The combination of niraparib and abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone is under investigation for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Regular-strength (RS) and lower-strength (LS) dual-action tablets (DATs), comprising niraparib 100 mg/AA 500 mg and niraparib 50 mg/AA 500 mg, respectively, were developed to reduce pill burden and improve patient experience. A bioequivalence (BE)/bioavailability (BA) study was conducted under modified fasting conditions in patients with mCRPC to support approval of the DATs. METHODS: This open-label randomized BA/BE study (NCT04577833) was conducted at 14 sites in the USA and Europe. The study had a sequential design, including a 21-day screening phase, a pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment phase comprising three periods [namely (1) single-dose with up to 1-week run-in, (2) daily dose on days 1-11, and (3) daily dose on days 12-22], an extension where both niraparib and AA as single-agent combination (SAC; reference) or AA alone was continued from day 23 until discontinuation, and a 30-day follow-up phase. Patients were randomly assigned in a parallel-group design (four-sequence randomization) to receive a single oral dose of niraparib 100 mg/AA 1000 mg as a LS-DAT or SAC in period 1, and patients continued as randomized into a two-way crossover design during periods 2 and 3 where they received niraparib 200 mg/AA 1000 mg once daily as a RS-DAT or SAC. The design was powered on the basis of crossover assessment of RS-DAT versus SAC. During repeated dosing (periods 2 and 3, and extension phase), all patients also received prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg twice daily. Plasma samples were collected for measurement of niraparib and abiraterone plasma concentrations. Statistical assessment of the RS-DAT and LS-DAT versus SAC was performed on log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters data from periods 2 and 3 (crossover) and from period 1 (parallel), respectively. Additional paired analyses and model-based bioequivalence assessments were conducted to evaluate the similarity between the LS-DAT and SAC. RESULTS: For the RS-DAT versus SAC, the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of geometric mean ratios (GMR) for maximum concentration at a steady state (Cmax,ss) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0-24 h at a steady state (AUC 0-24h,ss) were respectively 99.18-106.12% and 97.91-104.31% for niraparib and 87.59-106.69 and 86.91-100.23% for abiraterone. For the LS-DAT vs SAC, the 90% CI of GMR for AUC0-72h of niraparib was 80.31-101.12% in primary analysis, the 90% CI of GMR for Cmax,ss and AUC 0-24h,ss of abiraterone was 85.41-118.34% and 86.51-121.64% respectively, and 96.4% of simulated LS-DAT versus SAC BE trials met the BE criteria for both niraparib and abiraterone. CONCLUSIONS: The RS-DAT met BE criteria (range 80%-125%) versus SAC based on 90% CI of GMR for Cmax,ss and AUC 0-24h,ss. The LS-DAT was considered BE to SAC on the basis of the niraparib component meeting the BE criteria in the primary analysis for AUC 0-72h; abiraterone meeting the BE criteria in additional paired analyses based on Cmax,ss and AUC 0-24h,ss; and the percentage of simulated LS-DAT versus SAC BE trials meeting the BE criteria for both. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04577833.

Challenging the Norm: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Intravenous to Subcutaneous Bridging Strategies for Biologics.

The transition from intravenous (i.v.) to subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of biologics is a critical strategy in drug development aimed at improving patient convenience, compliance, and therapeutic outcomes. Focusing on the increasing role of model-informed drug development (MIDD) in the acceleration of this transition, an in-depth overview of the essential clinical pharmacology, and regulatory considerations for successful i.v. to s.c. bridging for biologics after the i.v. formulation has been approved are presented. Considerations encompass multiple aspects beginning with adequate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (i.e., exposure-response) evaluations which play a vital role in establishing comparability between the i.v. and s.c. routes of administrations. Selected key recommendations and points to consider include: (i) PK characterization of the s.c. formulation, supported by the increasing preclinical understanding of the s.c. absorption, and robust PK study design and analyses in humans; (ii) a thorough characterization of the exposure-response profiles including important metrics of exposure for both efficacy and safety; (iii) comparability studies designed to meet regulatory considerations and support approval of the s.c. formulation, including noninferiority studies with PK and/or efficacy and safety as primary end points; and (iv) comprehensive safety package addressing assessments of immunogenicity and patients' safety profile with the new route of administration. Recommendations for successful bridging strategies are evolving and MIDD approaches have been used successfully to accelerate the transition to s.c. dosing, ultimately leading to improved patient experiences, adherence, and clinical outcomes.

Evaluating drug interaction potential from cytokine release syndrome using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model: A case study of teclistamab.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was associated with teclistamab treatment in the phase I/II MajesTEC-1 study. Cytokines, especially interleukin (IL)-6, are known suppressors of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes' activity. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model evaluated the impact of IL-6 serum levels on exposure of substrates of various CYP enzymes (1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 3A4, 3A5). Two IL-6 kinetics profiles were assessed, the mean IL-6 profile with a maximum concentration (Cmax) of IL-6 (21 pg/mL) and the IL-6 profile of the patient presenting the highest IL-6 Cmax (288 pg/mL) among patients receiving the recommended phase II dose of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1. For the mean IL-6 kinetics profile, teclistamab was predicted to result in a limited change in exposure of CYP substrates (area under the curve [AUC] mean ratio 0.87-1.20). For the maximum IL-6 kinetics profile, the impact on omeprazole, simvastatin, midazolam, and cyclosporine exposure was weak to moderate (mean AUC ratios 1.90-2.23), and minimal for caffeine and s-warfarin (mean AUC ratios 0.82-1.25). Maximum change in exposure for these substrates occurred 3-4 days after step-up dosing in cycle 1. These results suggest that after cycle 1, drug interaction from IL-6 effect has no meaningful impact on CYP activities, with minimal or moderate impact on CYP substrates. The highest risk of drug interaction is expected to occur during step-up dosing up to 7 days after the first treatment dose (1.5 mg/kg subcutaneously) and during and after CRS.

Teclistamab: Mechanism of action, clinical, and translational science.

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable despite improvements in treatment options. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is predominantly expressed in B-lineage cells and represents a promising new target for MM. Teclistamab (TECVAYLITM ) is the first T-cell redirecting bispecific antibody approved for patients with MM. Targeting both CD3 receptor complex on T cells and BCMA on myeloma cells, teclistamab leads to T-cell activation and subsequent lysis of BCMA+ cells. The recommended dose of teclistamab is 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous weekly after two step-up doses of 0.06 and 0.3 mg/kg, which was selected after review of safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic data. Exposure-response analyses of efficacy and safety data were also used to confirm the teclistamab dose. Teclistamab resulted in a high rate of deep and durable responses (63% overall response, 45.5% complete response or better, with 22 months median duration of response) in patients with triple-exposed relapsed/refractory MM. Common adverse reactions included cytokine release syndrome, hematologic abnormalities, and infections. Teclistamab is currently being investigated as monotherapy as well as combination therapy across different MM indications.

Dabrafenib in patients with melanoma, untreated brain metastases, and other solid tumours: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: Dabrafenib is an inhibitor of BRAF kinase that is selective for mutant BRAF. We aimed to assess its safety and tolerability and to establish a recommended phase 2 dose in patients with incurable solid tumours, especially those with melanoma and untreated, asymptomatic brain metastases. METHODS: We undertook a phase 1 trial between May 27, 2009, and March 20, 2012, at eight study centres in Australia and the USA. Eligible patients had incurable solid tumours, were 18 years or older, and had adequate organ function. BRAF mutations were mandatory for inclusion later in the study because of an absence of activity in patients with wild-type BRAF. We used an accelerated dose titration method, with the first dose cohort receiving 12 mg dabrafenib daily in a 21-day cycle. Once doses had been established, we expanded the cohorts to include up to 20 patients. On the basis of initial data, we chose a recommended phase 2 dose. Efficacy at the recommended phase 2 dose was studied in patients with BRAF-mutant tumours, including those with non-Val600Glu mutations, in three cohorts: metastatic melanoma, melanoma with untreated brain metastases, and non-melanoma solid tumours. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00880321. FINDINGS: We enrolled 184 patients, of whom 156 had metastatic melanoma. The most common treatment-related adverse events of grade 2 or worse were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (20 patients, 11%), fatigue (14, 8%), and pyrexia (11, 6%). Dose reductions were necessary in 13 (7%) patients. No deaths or discontinuations resulted from adverse events, and 140 (76%) patients had no treatment-related adverse events worse than grade 2. Doses were increased to 300 mg twice daily, with no maximum tolerated dose recorded. On the basis of safety, pharmacokinetic, and response data, we selected a recommended phase 2 dose of 150 mg twice daily. At the recommended phase 2 dose in 36 patients with Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma, responses were reported in 25 (69%, 95% CI 51·9-83·7) and confirmed responses in 18 (50%, 32·9-67·1). 21 (78%, 57·7-91·4) of 27 patients with Val600Glu BRAF-mutant melanoma responded and 15 (56%, 35·3-74·5) had a confirmed response. In Val600 BRAF-mutant melanoma, responses were durable, with 17 patients (47%) on treatment for more than 6 months. Responses were recorded in patients with non-Val600Glu BRAF mutations. In patients with melanoma and untreated brain metastases, nine of ten patients had reductions in size of brain lesions. In 28 patients with BRAF-mutant non-melanoma solid tumours, apparent antitumour activity was noted in a gastrointestinal stromal tumour, papillary thyroid cancers, non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and colorectal cancer. INTERPRETATION: Dabrafenib is safe in patients with solid tumours, and an active inhibitor of Val600-mutant BRAF with responses noted in patients with melanoma, brain metastases, and other solid tumours. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Metabolism and disposition of oral dabrafenib in cancer patients: proposed participation of aryl nitrogen in carbon-carbon bond cleavage via decarboxylation following enzymatic oxidation.

A phase I study was conducted to assess the metabolism and excretion of [(14)C]dabrafenib (GSK2118436; N-{3-[5-(2-amino-4-pyrimidinyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3-thiazol-4-yl]-2-fluorophenyl}-2,6-difluorobenzene sulfonamide, methanesulfonate salt), a BRAF inhibitor, in four patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive tumors after a single oral dose of 95 mg (80 µCi). Assessments included the following: 1) plasma concentrations of dabrafenib and metabolites using validated ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography--tandem mass spectrometry methods, 2) plasma and blood radioactivity, 3) urinary and fecal radioactivity, and 4) metabolite profiling. Results showed the mean total recovery of radioactivity was 93.8%, with the majority recovered in feces (71.1% of administered dose). Urinary excretion accounted for 22.7% of the dose, with no detection of parent drug in urine. Dabrafenib is metabolized primarily via oxidation of the t-butyl group to form hydroxy-dabrafenib. Hydroxy-dabrafenib undergoes further oxidation to carboxy-dabrafenib, which subsequently converts to desmethyl-dabrafenib via a pH-dependent decarboxylation. The half-lives for carboxy- and desmethyl-dabrafenib were longer than for parent and hydroxy-dabrafenib (18-20 vs. 5-6 hours). Based on area under the plasma concentration-time curve, dabrafenib, hydroxy-, carboxy-, and desmethyl-dabrafenib accounted for 11%, 8%, 54%, and 3% of the plasma radioactivity, respectively. These results demonstrate that the major route of elimination of dabrafenib is via oxidative metabolism (48% of the dose) and biliary excretion. Based on our understanding of the decarboxylation of carboxy-dabrafenib, a low pH-driven, nonenzymatic mechanism involving participation of the aryl nitrogen is proposed to allow prediction of metabolic oxidation and decarboxylation of drugs containing an aryl nitrogen positioned α to an alkyl (ethyl or t-butyl) side chain.

Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling for bispecific antibodies: challenges and opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: Unlike conventional antibodies, bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) are engineered antibody- or antibody fragment-based molecules that can simultaneously recognize two different epitopes or antigens. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of bsAbs being developed across therapeutic areas. Development of bsAbs presents unique challenges and mechanism-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modeling has served as a powerful tool to optimize their development and realize their clinical utility. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the guiding principles and case examples of how fit-for-purpose, mechanism-based PK/PD models have been applied to answer questions commonly encountered in bsAb development are presented. Such models characterize the key pharmacological elements of bsAbs, and they can be utilized for model-informed drug development. We also include the discussion of challenges, knowledge gaps and future direction for such models. EXPERT OPINION: Mechanistic PK/PD modeling is a powerful tool to support the development of bsAbs. These models can be extrapolated to predict treatment outcomes based on mechanisms of action (MoA) and clinical observations to form positive learn-and-confirm cycles during drug development, due to their abilities to differentiate system- and drug-specific parameters. Meanwhile, the models should keep being adapted according to novel drug design and MoA, providing continuous opportunities for model-informed drug development.

Development of Therapeutic Proteins for a New Subcutaneous Route of Administration After the Establishment of Intravenous Dosages: A Systematic Review.

Therapeutic proteins may first be developed as intravenous (i.v.) therapies with new subcutaneous (s.c.) dosage forms being subsequently developed to provide an alternative route of administration. As of August 2022, there have been 9 therapeutic proteins which were developed as a new s.c. dosage form after the approval of the corresponding i.v. product. This article provides a systematic review of prior experiences in the i.v. to s.c. switch development programs. We describe what types of clinical studies were conducted to support the i.v. to s.c. switch for these nine therapeutic proteins. Publicly available scientific advice from health authorities is summarized, particularly regarding recommendations on overall development strategy, dose selection, immunogenicity assessment, and indication extrapolation. The clinical data from these i.v. to s.c. development programs demonstrate that: (1) when switching from i.v. dosing to s.c. dosing, trough drug concentration (Ctrough ) from s.c. dosing should not be inferior to i.v. dosing with average drug concentration (Cavg ; equivalent to AUC, area under the curve after correcting for dosing intervals between i.v. and s.c. administration) being matched or non-inferior to i.v. dosing; and (2) with appropriate s.c. dose regimens, treatment with s.c. therapeutic proteins can generally achieve similar efficacy and safety as the corresponding i.v. products, suggesting that the much higher maximum concentration (Cmax ) after i.v. infusion as compared with that from s.c. injection is often not relevant to the treatment effect.

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).

Population pharmacokinetics of metronidazole evaluated using scavenged samples from preterm infants.

Pharmacokinetic (PK) studies in preterm infants are rarely conducted due to the research challenges posed by this population. To overcome these challenges, minimal-risk methods such as scavenged sampling can be used to evaluate the PK of commonly used drugs in this population. We evaluated the population PK of metronidazole using targeted sparse sampling and scavenged samples from infants that were ≤ 32 weeks of gestational age at birth and <120 postnatal days. A 5-center study was performed. A population PK model using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling (NONMEM) was developed. Covariate effects were evaluated based on estimated precision and clinical significance. Using the individual Bayesian PK estimates from the final population PK model and the dosing regimen used for each subject, the proportion of subjects achieving the therapeutic target of trough concentrations >8 mg/liter was calculated. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to evaluate the adequacy of different dosing recommendations per gestational age group. Thirty-two preterm infants were enrolled: the median (range) gestational age at birth was 27 (22 to 32) weeks, postnatal age was 41 (0 to 97) days, postmenstrual age (PMA) was 32 (24 to 43) weeks, and weight was 1,495 (678 to 3,850) g. The final PK data set contained 116 samples; 104/116 (90%) were scavenged from discarded clinical specimens. Metronidazole population PK was best described by a 1-compartment model. The population mean clearance (CL; liter/h) was determined as 0.0397 × (weight/1.5) × (PMA/32)²·49 using a volume of distribution (V) (liter) of 1.07 × (weight/1.5). The relative standard errors around parameter estimates ranged between 11% and 30%. On average, metronidazole concentrations in scavenged samples were 30% lower than those measured in scheduled blood draws. The majority of infants (>70%) met predefined pharmacodynamic efficacy targets. A new, simplified, postmenstrual-age-based dosing regimen is recommended for this population. Minimal-risk methods such as scavenged PK sampling provided meaningful information related to development of metronidazole PK models and dosing recommendations.

Population pharmacokinetics of piperacillin using scavenged samples from preterm infants.

OBJECTIVES: Piperacillin is often used in preterm infants for intra-abdominal infections; however, dosing has been derived from small single-center studies excluding extremely preterm infants at a highest risk for these infections. We evaluated the population pharmacokinetics (PK) of piperacillin using targeted sparse sampling and scavenged samples obtained from preterm infants ≤ 32 weeks of gestational age at birth and <120 postnatal days. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-center study was performed. A population PK model using nonlinear mixed effect modeling was developed. Covariate effects were evaluated based on the estimated precision and clinical significance. RESULTS: Fifty-six preterm infants were evaluated and had a median (range) gestational age at birth of 25 (22-32) weeks, a postnatal age of 17 (1-77) days, a postmenstrual age of 29 (23-40) weeks, and a weight of 867 (400-2580) g. The final PK data set contained 211 samples; 202/211 (96%) were scavenged from the discarded clinical specimens. Piperacillin population PK was best described by a 1-compartment model. The population mean clearance (CL) was derived by the equation CL (L/h) = 0.479 × (weight)(0.75) × 0.5/serum creatinine and using a volume of distribution (V) (L) of 2.91 × (weight). The relative standard errors around parameter estimates ranged from 13.7% to 32.2%. A trend toward increased CL was observed with increasing gestational age at birth; infants with serum creatinine ≥ 1.2 mg/dL had a 60% reduction in piperacillin CL. The majority (>70%) of infants did not meet predefined pharmacodynamic efficacy targets. CONCLUSIONS: Scavenged PK sampling is a minimal-risk approach that can provide meaningful information related to the development of PK models but not dosing recommendations for piperacillin. The utility of scavenged sampling in providing definitive dosing recommendations may be drug dependent and needs to be further explored.