Quantitative Clinical Pharmacology Supports the Bridging from i.v. Dosing and Approval of s.c. Rituximab in B-Cell Hematological Malignancies

Applications of pharmacometrics in drug development

The last two decades have witnessed profound changes in how advanced computational tools can help leverage tons of data to improve our knowledge, and ultimately reduce cost and increase productivity in drug development. Pharmacometrics has demonstrated its impact through model-informed drug development (MIDD) approaches. It is now an indispensable component throughout the whole continuum of drug discovery, development, regulatory review, and approval. Today, applications of pharmacometrics are common in designing better trials and accelerating evidence-based decisions. Newly emerging technologies, especially those from data and computer sciences, are being integrated with existing computational tools used in the pharmaceutical industry at a remarkably fast pace. The new challenges faced by the pharmacometrics community are not what or how to contribute, but which optimal MIDD strategy should be adopted to maximize its value in the decision-making process. While we are embracing new innovative approaches and tools, this article discusses how a variety of existing modeling tools, with differentiated advantages and focus, can work in concert to inform drug development.

Model-informed Evidence for Clinical Non-inferiority of Every-2-Weeks Versus Standard Weekly Dosing Schedule of Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Cetuximab was initially developed and approved as a first-line treatment in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) for weekly administration (250 mg/m2 Q1W with 400 mg/m2 loading dose). An every-2-weeks schedule (500 mg/m2 Q2W) was approved recently by several health authorities. Being synchronized with chemotherapy, Q2W administration should improve patients' convenience and healthcare resource utilization. Herein, we present evidence of non-inferiority of Q2W cetuximab, compared with Q1W dosing using pharmacometrics modeling and clinical trial simulation (CTS). Pooled data from five phase I-III clinical trials in 852 patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC treated with Q1W or Q2W cetuximab were modeled using a population exposure-tumor size (TS) model linked to overall survival (OS); exposure was derived from a previously established population pharmacokinetic model. A semi-mechanistic TS model adapted from the Claret model incorporated killing rate proportional to cetuximab area under the concentration-time curve over 2 weeks (AUC) with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status as covariate on baseline TS. The OS was modeled with Weibull hazard using ECOG, baseline TS, primary tumor location, and predicted percent change in TS at 8 weeks as covariates. Model-based simulations revealed indistinguishable early tumor shrinkage and survival between Q2W vs. Q1W cetuximab. CTS evaluated OS non-inferiority (predefined margin of 1.25) in 1,000 trials, each with 2,000 virtual patients receiving Q2W or Q1W cetuximab (1:1), and demonstrated non-inferiority in 94% of cases. Taken together, these analyses provide model-based evidence for clinical non-inferiority of Q2W vs. Q1W cetuximab in mCRC with potential benefits to patients and healthcare providers.

IMscin001 Part 2: a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre study examining the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of atezolizumab subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in previously treated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and pharmacokinetics comparison with other approved indications

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab intravenous (IV) is approved for the treatment of various solid tumours. To improve treatment convenience and health care efficiencies, a coformulation of atezolizumab and recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 was developed for subcutaneous (SC) use. Part 2 of IMscin001 (NCT03735121) was a randomised phase III, open-label, multicentre, noninferiority study comparing the drug exposure of atezolizumab SC with atezolizumab IV.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with locally advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomised 2 : 1 to receive atezolizumab SC (1875 mg; n = 247) or IV (1200 mg; n = 124) every 3 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were cycle 1 observed trough serum concentration (Ctrough) and model-predicted area under the curve from days 0 to 21 (AUC0-21 d). The secondary endpoints were steady-state exposure, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Exposure following atezolizumab SC was then compared with historical atezolizumab IV values across approved indications.

RESULTS

The study met both of its co-primary endpoints: cycle 1 observed Ctrough {SC: 89 μg/ml [coefficient of variation (CV): 43%] versus IV: 85 μg/ml (CV: 33%); geometric mean ratio (GMR), 1.05 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.24]} and model-predicted AUC0-21 d [SC: 2907 μg d/ml (CV: 32%) versus IV: 3328 μg d/ml (CV: 20%); GMR, 0.87 (90% CI 0.83-0.92)]. Progression-free survival [hazard ratio 1.08 (95% CI 0.82-1.41)], objective response rate (SC: 12% versus IV: 10%), and incidence of anti-atezolizumab antibodies (SC: 19.5% versus IV: 13.9%) were similar between arms. No new safety concerns were identified. Ctrough and AUC0-21 d for atezolizumab SC were consistent with the other approved atezolizumab IV indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IV, atezolizumab SC demonstrated noninferior drug exposure at cycle 1. Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity were similar between arms and consistent with the known profile for atezolizumab IV. Similar drug exposure and clinical outcomes following SC and IV administration support the use of atezolizumab SC as an alternative to atezolizumab IV.

Pharmacokinetic characterization, benefits and barriers of subcutaneous administration of monoclonal antibodies in oncology

OBJECTIVE

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in oncology are slowly becoming the dominant treatment option for many different cancer types. The main route of administration, infusion, requires extensive product preparations, patient hospitalization and close monitoring. Patient comfort improvement, staff workload reduction and cost savings dictated the development of subcutaneous formulations. The aim of this review is to present pharmacokinetic characteristics of subcutaneous products, discuss the differences between intravenous and subcutaneous routes and to point out the advantages as well as challenges of administration route shift from the formulation development and pharmacometric angle.

DATA SOURCES

Food and Drug administration's Purple book database and electronic medicines compendium were used to identify monoclonal antibodies in oncology approved as subcutaneous forms. Using keywords subcutaneous, monoclonal antibodies, pharmacokinetics, model, as well as specific drugs previously identified, both PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were researched.

DATA SUMMARY

There are currently six approved subcutaneous onco-monoclonal antibodies on the market. For each of them, exposure to the drug was similar in relation to infusion, treatment effectiveness was the same, administration was well tolerated by the patients and costs of the medical service were reduced.

CONCLUSION

Development of subcutaneous forms for existing and emerging new monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment as well as shifting from administration via infusion should be encouraged due to patient preference, lower costs and overall lack of substantial differences in efficacy and safety between the two routes.