AIMS: To characterize the population pharmacokinetics of tipifarnib. METHODS: A total of 1083 subjects treated orally with a solution, capsule or tablet formulations of tipifarnib, given as a single dose or as multiple twice-daily doses (range 25-1300 mg) were combined with data from 1, 2 and 24 h intravenous infusions. A total of 3445 concentrations in the index data set were fitted by an open three-compartment linear disposition model with sequential zero-order input into the depot compartment, followed by a first-order absorption process, and lag time, using NONMEM V. The effect of patient covariates on tipifarnib pharmacokinetics was explored. The model was evaluated using goodness of fit plots and relative error measurements for 3894 concentrations in the test data set. Computer simulations were undertaken to evaluate the effect of covariates on tipifarnib pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Tipifarnib oral bioavailability (26.7%) did not differ between the formulations. The absorption rate from the solution was faster than from the solid forms. Whereas the absorption rate and systemic clearance were more rapid in healthy subjects, the extent of absorption and the steady-state volume of distribution were comparable in cancer patients and healthy subjects. Systemic clearance in cancer patients (21.9 l h-1) exhibited a statistically significant relationship with total bilirubin. The typical volume of the central compartment in cancer patients (54.6 l 70 kg-1) was directly proportional to body weight. The clinical relevance of these covariates in cancer patients is questionable as there was a substantial overlap in simulated concentration-time profiles across a wide range of covariate values. CONCLUSIONS: A population PK approach has been used to integrate data gathered during clinical development and to characterize the pharmacokinetics of tipifarnib. Individualization of dose based on body weight or total bilirubin concentration in adult cancer patients is not warranted.
AIMS: To characterize the population pharmacokinetics of tipifarnib. METHODS: A total of 1083 subjects treated orally with a solution, capsule or tablet formulations of tipifarnib, given as a single dose or as multiple twice-daily doses (range 25-1300 mg) were combined with data from 1, 2 and 24 h intravenous infusions. A total of 3445 concentrations in the index data set were fitted by an open three-compartment linear disposition model with sequential zero-order input into the depot compartment, followed by a first-order absorption process, and lag time, using NONMEM V. The effect of patient covariates on tipifarnib pharmacokinetics was explored. The model was evaluated using goodness of fit plots and relative error measurements for 3894 concentrations in the test data set. Computer simulations were undertaken to evaluate the effect of covariates on tipifarnib pharmacokinetics. RESULTS:Tipifarnib oral bioavailability (26.7%) did not differ between the formulations. The absorption rate from the solution was faster than from the solid forms. Whereas the absorption rate and systemic clearance were more rapid in healthy subjects, the extent of absorption and the steady-state volume of distribution were comparable in cancerpatients and healthy subjects. Systemic clearance in cancerpatients (21.9 l h-1) exhibited a statistically significant relationship with total bilirubin. The typical volume of the central compartment in cancerpatients (54.6 l 70 kg-1) was directly proportional to body weight. The clinical relevance of these covariates in cancerpatients is questionable as there was a substantial overlap in simulated concentration-time profiles across a wide range of covariate values. CONCLUSIONS: A population PK approach has been used to integrate data gathered during clinical development and to characterize the pharmacokinetics of tipifarnib. Individualization of dose based on body weight or total bilirubin concentration in adult cancerpatients is not warranted.
Authors: M Crul; G J de Klerk; M Swart; L J van't Veer; D de Jong; L Boerrigter; P A Palmer; C J Bol; H Tan; G C de Gast; J H Beijnen; J H M Schellens Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Zujewski; I D Horak; C J Bol; R Woestenborghs; C Bowden; D W End; V K Piotrovsky; J Chiao; R T Belly; A Todd; W C Kopp; D R Kohler; C Chow; M Noone; F T Hakim; G Larkin; R E Gress; R B Nussenblatt; A B Kremer; K H Cowan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Van Cutsem; H van de Velde; P Karasek; H Oettle; W L Vervenne; A Szawlowski; P Schoffski; S Post; C Verslype; H Neumann; H Safran; Y Humblet; J Perez Ruixo; Y Ma; D Von Hoff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J V Heymach; D H Johnson; F R Khuri; H Safran; L L Schlabach; F Yunus; R F DeVore; P M De Porre; H M Richards; X Jia; S Zhang; B E Johnson Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Stephen R D Johnston; Tamas Hickish; Paul Ellis; Stephen Houston; Lloyd Kelland; Mitch Dowsett; Janine Salter; Bart Michiels; Juan Jose Perez-Ruixo; Peter Palmer; Angela Howes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Amita Patnaik; S Gail Eckhardt; Elzbieta Izbicka; Anthony A Tolcher; Lisa A Hammond; Chris H Takimoto; Garry Schwartz; Heather McCreery; Andrew Goetz; Masataka Mori; Kazutoyo Terada; Lou Gentner; Mary-Ellen Rybak; Henry Richards; Steven Zhang; Eric K Rowinsky Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-10-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M Crul; G J de Klerk; M Swart; L Weiner; P A Palmer; C J Bol; J H Beijnen; J H M Schellens Journal: Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet Date: 2002 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.569
Authors: Leonid Gibiansky; Liviawati Sutjandra; Sameer Doshi; Jenny Zheng; Winnie Sohn; Mark C Peterson; Graham R Jang; Andrew T Chow; Juan José Pérez-Ruixo Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Brigitte C Widemann; Robert J Arceci; Nalini Jayaprakash; Elizabeth Fox; Peter Zannikos; Wendy Goodspeed; Anne Goodwin; John J Wright; Susan M Blaney; Peter C Adamson; Frank M Balis Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Liviawati Sutjandra; Rachelle D Rodriguez; Sameer Doshi; Mark Ma; Mark C Peterson; Graham R Jang; Andrew T Chow; Juan José Pérez-Ruixo Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 6.447