Jianguo Li1, Nidal Al-Huniti1, Anja Henningsson2, Weifeng Tang1, Eric Masson1. 1. Quantitative Clinical Pharmacology, Early Clinical Development, Innovative Medicine and Early Development, AstraZeneca, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 2. qPharmetra, LLC, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: A population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed for cediranib to simulate cediranib exposure for different doses, including comedication with strong uridine glucuronosyl transferase/P-glycoprotein inducers such as rifampicin, in cancer patients. METHODS: Plasma concentrations and covariates from 625 cancer patients after single or multiple oral cediranib administrations ranging from 0.5 to 90 mg in 19 Phase I and II studies were included in the analysis. Stepwise covariate modelling was used to develop the population PK model. The final model was used to simulate cediranib exposure in cancer patients to evaluate cediranib target coverage and the need for dose adjustment for covariates or coadministration with rifampicin. RESULTS: A two-compartment model with sequential zero- and first-order absorption and first-order elimination adequately described the cediranib concentration-time courses. Body weight and age were identified as having statistically significant impact on cediranib PK, but only <21% impact on AUC and maximum concentrations. Simulated lower bounds of 90% prediction interval or median of unbound cediranib concentrations after cediranib 15 or 20 mg exceeded the IC50 for vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-1, -2 and -3. Exposures of cediranib 20 or 30 mg with coadministration of rifampicin were comparable to those of 15 or 20 mg, respectively, without coadministration. CONCLUSIONS: No covariate was identified to require dose adjustment for cediranib. Cediranib exposure following 15 or 20 mg daily dose administration is adequate overall for inhibition of in vitro estimated vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1, -2 and -3 activities. An increase in cediranib dose may be needed for cediranib coadministered with strong uridine glucuronosyl transferase/P-glycoprotein inducers such as rifampicin.
AIMS: A population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed for cediranib to simulate cediranib exposure for different doses, including comedication with strong uridine glucuronosyl transferase/P-glycoprotein inducers such as rifampicin, in cancerpatients. METHODS: Plasma concentrations and covariates from 625 cancerpatients after single or multiple oral cediranib administrations ranging from 0.5 to 90 mg in 19 Phase I and II studies were included in the analysis. Stepwise covariate modelling was used to develop the population PK model. The final model was used to simulate cediranib exposure in cancerpatients to evaluate cediranib target coverage and the need for dose adjustment for covariates or coadministration with rifampicin. RESULTS: A two-compartment model with sequential zero- and first-order absorption and first-order elimination adequately described the cediranib concentration-time courses. Body weight and age were identified as having statistically significant impact on cediranib PK, but only <21% impact on AUC and maximum concentrations. Simulated lower bounds of 90% prediction interval or median of unbound cediranib concentrations after cediranib 15 or 20 mg exceeded the IC50 for vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-1, -2 and -3. Exposures of cediranib 20 or 30 mg with coadministration of rifampicin were comparable to those of 15 or 20 mg, respectively, without coadministration. CONCLUSIONS: No covariate was identified to require dose adjustment for cediranib. Cediranib exposure following 15 or 20 mg daily dose administration is adequate overall for inhibition of in vitro estimated vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1, -2 and -3 activities. An increase in cediranib dose may be needed for cediranib coadministered with strong uridine glucuronosyl transferase/P-glycoprotein inducers such as rifampicin.
Authors: Peter Mulders; Robert Hawkins; Paul Nathan; Igle de Jong; Susanne Osanto; Emilio Porfiri; Andrew Protheroe; Carla M L van Herpen; Bijoyesh Mookerjee; Laura Pike; Juliane M Jürgensmeier; Martin E Gore Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-01-28 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: D Menon-Andersen; B Yu; R Madabushi; V Bhattaram; W Hao; R S Uppoor; M Mehta; L Lesko; R Temple; N Stockbridge; T Laughren; J V Gobburu Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Stephen Ph Alexander; Doriano Fabbro; Eamonn Kelly; Neil Marrion; John A Peters; Helen E Benson; Elena Faccenda; Adam J Pawson; Joanna L Sharman; Christopher Southan; Jamie A Davies Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Sandra R Brave; Kirsty Ratcliffe; Zena Wilson; Neil H James; Sue Ashton; Anna Wainwright; Jane Kendrew; Philippa Dudley; Nicola Broadbent; Graham Sproat; Sian Taylor; Claire Barnes; Jeffrey C Silva; Charles L Farnsworth; Laurent Hennequin; Donald J Ogilvie; Juliane M Jürgensmeier; Masabumi Shibuya; Stephen R Wedge; Simon T Barry Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Veli-Matti Leppänen; Andrea E Prota; Michael Jeltsch; Andrey Anisimov; Nisse Kalkkinen; Tomas Strandin; Hilkka Lankinen; Adrian Goldman; Kurt Ballmer-Hofer; Kari Alitalo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Patricia Lorusso; Anthony F Shields; Shirish Gadgeel; Ulka Vaishampayan; Tina Guthrie; Thomas Puchalski; John Xu; Qi Liu Journal: Invest New Drugs Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Scott A Laurie; Isabelle Gauthier; Andrew Arnold; Frances A Shepherd; Peter M Ellis; Eric Chen; Glenwood Goss; Jean Powers; Wendy Walsh; Dongsheng Tu; Jane Robertson; Thomas A Puchalski; Lesley Seymour Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-10 Impact factor: 44.544