Chen-Hsi Chou1,2, Li-Feng Hsu3,4. 1. Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 2. School of Pharmacy, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 3. Center of Consultation, Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE), 3F, No.465, Sec.6, Zhongxiao E. Rd., Taipei, 11557, Taiwan. Lfhsu@cde.org.tw. 4. Faculty of Pharmacy, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. Lfhsu@cde.org.tw.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The currently recommended dosages of atezolizumab for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and urothelial carcinoma (UC) is 840 mg every 2 weeks, 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w), and 1680 mg every 4 weeks (q4w). However, it has been argued that these dosages may not be optimal. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of extended dosing regimens by population pharmacokinetics (PK) simulations and exposure-response (E-R) relationships. METHODS: All simulations were conducted based on the established population PK and E-R model for safety (i.e., adverse events of special interest, AESI) and efficacy (i.e., objective response rate, ORR) for patients with NSCLC or UC. The PK, AESI, and ORR profiles of the following dosing regimens were simulated: (i) 840 mg q4w, (ii) 1200 mg every 6 weeks (q6w), and (iii) 1680 mg q8w. These regimens were compared with those of the 1200 mg q3w standard regimen. RESULTS: The simulation revealed that the ranking of efficacy for different extended dosing regimens were 1680 mg q8w ≅ 1200 mg q3w ≅ 1200 mg q6w > 840 mg q4w based on the predicted probability of ORR in patients with NSCLC and UC, and this ranking order was similar to that of the safety outcome of the AESI. The minimum serum concentration at steady-state (Cmin,ss) values for all dosing regimens was all higher than the target effective concentration of 6 μg/mL. CONCLUSION: The findings from this simulation suggest that extended dosing regimens are unlikely to significantly impair clinical outcomes and may provide more therapeutic benefits to patients in terms of safety.
PURPOSE: The currently recommended dosages of atezolizumab for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and urothelial carcinoma (UC) is 840 mg every 2 weeks, 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w), and 1680 mg every 4 weeks (q4w). However, it has been argued that these dosages may not be optimal. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of extended dosing regimens by population pharmacokinetics (PK) simulations and exposure-response (E-R) relationships. METHODS: All simulations were conducted based on the established population PK and E-R model for safety (i.e., adverse events of special interest, AESI) and efficacy (i.e., objective response rate, ORR) for patients with NSCLC or UC. The PK, AESI, and ORR profiles of the following dosing regimens were simulated: (i) 840 mg q4w, (ii) 1200 mg every 6 weeks (q6w), and (iii) 1680 mg q8w. These regimens were compared with those of the 1200 mg q3w standard regimen. RESULTS: The simulation revealed that the ranking of efficacy for different extended dosing regimens were 1680 mg q8w ≅ 1200 mg q3w ≅ 1200 mg q6w > 840 mg q4w based on the predicted probability of ORR in patients with NSCLC and UC, and this ranking order was similar to that of the safety outcome of the AESI. The minimum serum concentration at steady-state (Cmin,ss) values for all dosing regimens was all higher than the target effective concentration of 6 μg/mL. CONCLUSION: The findings from this simulation suggest that extended dosing regimens are unlikely to significantly impair clinical outcomes and may provide more therapeutic benefits to patients in terms of safety.
Authors: M Stroh; H Winter; M Marchand; L Claret; S Eppler; J Ruppel; O Abidoye; S L Teng; W T Lin; S Dayog; R Bruno; J Jin; S Girish Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-06-09 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jonathan E Rosenberg; Jean Hoffman-Censits; Tom Powles; Michiel S van der Heijden; Arjun V Balar; Andrea Necchi; Nancy Dawson; Peter H O'Donnell; Ani Balmanoukian; Yohann Loriot; Sandy Srinivas; Margitta M Retz; Petros Grivas; Richard W Joseph; Matthew D Galsky; Mark T Fleming; Daniel P Petrylak; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Howard A Burris; Daniel Castellano; Christina Canil; Joaquim Bellmunt; Dean Bajorin; Dorothee Nickles; Richard Bourgon; Garrett M Frampton; Na Cui; Sanjeev Mariathasan; Oyewale Abidoye; Gregg D Fine; Robert Dreicer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Louis Fehrenbacher; Alexander Spira; Marcus Ballinger; Marcin Kowanetz; Johan Vansteenkiste; Julien Mazieres; Keunchil Park; David Smith; Angel Artal-Cortes; Conrad Lewanski; Fadi Braiteh; Daniel Waterkamp; Pei He; Wei Zou; Daniel S Chen; Jing Yi; Alan Sandler; Achim Rittmeyer Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G V Long; S S Tykodi; J G Schneider; C Garbe; G Gravis; M Rashford; S Agrawal; E Grigoryeva; A Bello; A Roy; L Rollin; X Zhao Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Tomoko Freshwater; Anna Kondic; Malidi Ahamadi; Claire H Li; Rik de Greef; Dinesh de Alwis; Julie A Stone Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2017-05-16 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Kari M Morrissey; Mathilde Marchand; Hina Patel; Rong Zhang; Benjamin Wu; H Phyllis Chan; Almut Mecke; Sandhya Girish; Jin Y Jin; Helen R Winter; René Bruno Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2019-09-21 Impact factor: 3.333