Literature DB >> 10709156

Population pharmacokinetics/toxicodynamics (PK/TD) relationship of SAM486A in phase I studies in patients with advanced cancers.

H Zhou1, L Choi, H Lau, U Bruntsch, E E Vries, G Eckhardt, A T Oosterom, J Verweij, H Schran, N Barbet, R Linnartz, R Capdeville.   

Abstract

SAM486A (previously termed CGP 48664), a potent inhibitor of S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase, is under clinical development for the treatment of advanced refractory malignancies. Hematological toxicity manifested by dose-dependent neutropenia has been observed in phase I studies. Population methods were used to investigate pharmacokinetics (PK) as a prognostic factor for safety end point (hematological toxicity) in patients with advanced cancers. SAM486A plasma concentrations and neutrophil counts were collected from three ascending-dose tolerability and PK studies (study 1: single 5-day continuous intravenous (IV) infusion with doses ranging from 24-700 mg/m2/cycle; study 2: 10-minute to 3-hour IV infusion once weekly with doses ranging from 16-325 mg/m2/week; study 3: 1-hour IV infusion once daily for 5 days with doses ranging from 3.6-202.8 mg/m2/day). The PK of SAM486A were best estimated by a population linear three-compartment model with NONMEM (version 5) using data from 9 patients in studies 1 through 3. The population pharmacokinetic parameters (SD) were CL = 6.2 (0.4) l/h/m2, Q2 = 15.4 (1.5) l/h/m2, Q3 = 33.6 (5.3) l/h/m2, V1 = 9.5 (1.6) l/m2, V2 = 672 (52) l/m2, and V3 = 39.9 (8.3) l/m2, and the corresponding intersubject variability was 45.4%, 74.0%, 85.3%, 80.1%, 37.0%, and 103%, respectively, where CL is total body clearance, Q2 and Q3 are intercompartmental clearances, and V1, V2, and V3 are the volumes of distribution in central and peripheral compartments, respectively. The intrasubject variability was 24.0%. The cumulative AUC before the onset of neutrophil nadir count (AUC) and the duration of exposure over threshold SAM486A concentrations in the range of 0.05 to 0.1 microM based on Bayesian PK parameter estimates significantly correlated with absolute neutrophil count nadir (< 5 x 10(9)/l). AUC showed the best correlation (R2 = 0.72) with absolute neutrophil count nadir by an inhibitory sigmoid Emax model and also correlated with percent decrease in neutrophil count from baseline to nadir by a simple Emax model (R2 = 0.53). Logistic regression analysis indicated that AUC and the duration of exposure over 0.05 to 0.1 microM, but not Cmax, were strong predictors of grade 4 neutropenia (< 0.5 x 10(9)/l). Drug exposure parameters such as AUC derived from population analysis may be used clinically as a useful predictor of drug-induced neutropenia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10709156     DOI: 10.1177/00912700022008946

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0091-2700            Impact factor:   3.126


  10 in total

Review 1.  Mechanistic models for myelosuppression.

Authors:  Lena E Friberg; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 2.  Methods and strategies for assessing uncontrolled drug-drug interactions in population pharmacokinetic analyses: results from the International Society of Pharmacometrics (ISOP) Working Group.

Authors:  Peter L Bonate; Malidi Ahamadi; Nageshwar Budha; Amparo de la Peña; Justin C Earp; Ying Hong; Mats O Karlsson; Patanjali Ravva; Ana Ruiz-Garcia; Herbert Struemper; Janet R Wade
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 3.  Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics for treatment optimization in clinical oncology.

Authors:  Anthe S Zandvliet; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen; Alwin D R Huitema
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 6.447

4.  Application of population pharmacokinetic modeling in early clinical development of the anticancer agent E7820.

Authors:  Ron J Keizer; Miren K Zamacona; Mendel Jansen; David Critchley; Jantien Wanders; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens; Alwin D R Huitema
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 5.  Polyamines and cancer: implications for chemotherapy and chemoprevention.

Authors:  Shannon L Nowotarski; Patrick M Woster; Robert A Casero
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Med       Date:  2013-02-22       Impact factor: 5.600

6.  PK/TD modeling for prediction of the effects of 8C2, an anti-topotecan mAb, on topotecan-induced toxicity in mice.

Authors:  Dhaval K Shah; Joseph P Balthasar
Journal:  Int J Pharm       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.875

7.  Pharmacodynamic modeling of chemotherapeutic effects: application of a transit compartment model to characterize methotrexate effects in vitro.

Authors:  Evelyn D Lobo; Joseph P Balthasar
Journal:  AAPS PharmSci       Date:  2002

8.  Role of the sulfonium center in determining the ligand specificity of human s-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase.

Authors:  Shridhar Bale; Wesley Brooks; Jeremiah W Hanes; Arnold M Mahesan; Wayne C Guida; Steven E Ealick
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 3.162

9.  Structural basis for putrescine activation of human S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase.

Authors:  Shridhar Bale; Maria M Lopez; George I Makhatadze; Qingming Fang; Anthony E Pegg; Steven E Ealick
Journal:  Biochemistry       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 3.162

Review 10.  Pharmacodynamic modeling of adverse effects of anti-cancer drug treatment.

Authors:  A H M de Vries Schultink; A A Suleiman; J H M Schellens; J H Beijnen; A D R Huitema
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 2.953

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.