AIMS: To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for paclitaxel in the presence of a MDR modulator, zosuquidar 3HCl. METHODS: The population approach was used (implemented with NONMEM) to analyse paclitaxel pharmacokinetic data from 43 patients who received a 3-hintravenous infusion of paclitaxel (175 mg x m(-2) or 225 mg x m(-2)) alone in cycle 2 or concomitantly with the oral administration of zosuquidar 3HCl in cycle 1. RESULTS: The structural pharmacokinetic model for paclitaxel, accounting for the Cremophor ELTM impact, was a three-compartment model with a nonlinear model for paclitaxel plasma clearance (CL), involving a linear decrease in this parameter during the infusion and a sigmoidal increase with time after the infusion. The final model described the effect of Zosuquidar 3HCl on paclitaxel CL by a categorical relationship. A 25% decrease in paclitaxel CL was observed, corresponding to an 1.3-fold increase in paclitaxel AUC (from 14829 microg x l(-1) x h to 19115 microg x l(-1) x h following paclitaxel 175 mg x m(-2)) when zosuquidar Cmax was greater than 350 microg x l(-1). This cut-off concentration closely corresponded to the IC50 of a sigmoidal Emax relationship (328 microg x l(-1)). A standard dose of 175 mg x m(-2) of paclitaxel could be safely combined with doses of zosuquidar 3HCl resulting in plasma concentrations known, from previous studies, to result in maximal P-gp inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides a model which accurately characterized the increase in paclitaxel exposure, which is most likely to be due to P-gp inhibition in the bile canaliculi, in the presence of zosuquidar 3HCl (Cmax > 350 microg x l(-1)) and is predictive of paclitaxel pharmacokinetics following a 3 h infusion. Hence the model could be useful in guiding therapy for paclitaxel alone and also for paclitaxel administered concomitantly with a P-gp inhibitor, and in designing further clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for paclitaxel in the presence of a MDR modulator, zosuquidar 3HCl. METHODS: The population approach was used (implemented with NONMEM) to analyse paclitaxel pharmacokinetic data from 43 patients who received a 3-h intravenous infusion of paclitaxel (175 mg x m(-2) or 225 mg x m(-2)) alone in cycle 2 or concomitantly with the oral administration of zosuquidar 3HCl in cycle 1. RESULTS: The structural pharmacokinetic model for paclitaxel, accounting for the Cremophor ELTM impact, was a three-compartment model with a nonlinear model for paclitaxel plasma clearance (CL), involving a linear decrease in this parameter during the infusion and a sigmoidal increase with time after the infusion. The final model described the effect of Zosuquidar 3HCl on paclitaxel CL by a categorical relationship. A 25% decrease in paclitaxel CL was observed, corresponding to an 1.3-fold increase in paclitaxel AUC (from 14829 microg x l(-1) x h to 19115 microg x l(-1) x h following paclitaxel 175 mg x m(-2)) when zosuquidar Cmax was greater than 350 microg x l(-1). This cut-off concentration closely corresponded to the IC50 of a sigmoidal Emax relationship (328 microg x l(-1)). A standard dose of 175 mg x m(-2) of paclitaxel could be safely combined with doses of zosuquidar 3HCl resulting in plasma concentrations known, from previous studies, to result in maximal P-gp inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides a model which accurately characterized the increase in paclitaxel exposure, which is most likely to be due to P-gp inhibition in the bile canaliculi, in the presence of zosuquidar 3HCl (Cmax > 350 microg x l(-1)) and is predictive of paclitaxel pharmacokinetics following a 3 h infusion. Hence the model could be useful in guiding therapy for paclitaxel alone and also for paclitaxel administered concomitantly with a P-gp inhibitor, and in designing further clinical trials.
Authors: A Sparreboom; A S Planting; R C Jewell; M E van der Burg; A van der Gaast; P de Bruijn; W J Loos; K Nooter; L H Chandler; E M Paul; P S Wissel; J Verweij Journal: Anticancer Drugs Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: I Chico; M H Kang; R Bergan; J Abraham; S Bakke; B Meadows; A Rutt; R Robey; P Choyke; M Merino; B Goldspiel; T Smith; S Steinberg; W D Figg; T Fojo; S Bates Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R A Peck; J Hewett; M W Harding; Y M Wang; P R Chaturvedi; A Bhatnagar; H Ziessman; F Atkins; M J Hawkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: L van Zuylen; M O Karlsson; J Verweij; E Brouwer; P de Bruijn; K Nooter; G Stoter; A Sparreboom Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Stefan Willmann; Karsten Höhn; Andrea Edginton; Michael Sevestre; Juri Solodenko; Wolfgang Weiss; Jörg Lippert; Walter Schmitt Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 2.410
Authors: Bo Gao; Yi Lu; Annemieke J M Nieuweboer; Hongmei Xu; Jonathan Beesley; Ingrid Boere; Anne-Joy M de Graan; Peter de Bruijn; Howard Gurney; Catherine J Kennedy; Yoke-Eng Chiew; Sharon E Johnatty; Philip Beale; Michelle Harrison; Craig Luccarini; Don Conroy; Ron H J Mathijssen; Paul R Harnett; Rosemary L Balleine; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Stuart Macgregor; Anna de Fazio Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 4.379