Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model-Informed Drug Development for Polatuzumab Vedotin: Label for Drug-Drug Interactions Without Dedicated Clinical Trials

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to predict drug-drug interactions with the antibody-drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin

Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprised of a Nectin-4-directed antibody and monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), which is primarily eliminated through P-glycoprotein (P-gp)-mediated excretion and cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4)-mediated metabolism. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed to predict effects of combined P-gp with CYP3A4 inhibitor/inducer (ketoconazole/rifampin) on MMAE exposure when coadministered with enfortumab vedotin and study enfortumab vedotin with CYP3A4 (midazolam) and P-gp (digoxin) substrate exposure. A PBPK model was built for enfortumab vedotin and unconjugated MMAE using the PBPK simulator ADC module. A similar model was developed with brentuximab vedotin, an ADC with the same valine-citrulline-MMAE linker as enfortumab vedotin, for MMAE drug-drug interaction (DDI) verification using clinical data. The DDI simulation predicted a less-than-2-fold increase in MMAE exposure with enfortumab vedotin plus ketoconazole (MMAE geometric mean ratio [GMR] for maximum concentration [Cmax], 1.15; GMR for area under the time-concentration curve from time 0 to last quantifiable concentration [AUClast], 1.38). Decreased MMAE exposure above 50% but below 80% was observed with enfortumab vedotin plus rifampin (MMAE GMR Cmax, 0.72; GMR AUClast, 0.47). No effect of enfortumab vedotin on midazolam or digoxin systemic exposure was predicted. Results suggest that combination enfortumab vedotin, P-gp, and a CYP3A4 inhibitor may result in increased MMAE exposure and patients should be monitored for potential adverse effects. Combination P-gp and a CYP3A4 inducer may result in decreased MMAE exposure. No exposure change is expected for CYP3A4 or P-gp substrates when combined with enfortumab vedotin.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier Not applicable.

Application of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models for therapeutic proteins and other novel modalities

The past two decades have seen diversification of drug development pipelines and approvals from traditional small molecule therapies to alternative modalities including monoclonal antibodies, engineered proteins, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), oligonucleotides and gene therapies. At the same time, physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models for small molecules have seen increased industry and regulatory acceptance.This review focusses on the current status of the application of PBPK models to these newer modalities and give a perspective on the successes, challenges and future directions of this field.There is greatest experience in the development of PBPK models for therapeutic proteins, and PBPK models for ADCs benefit from prior experience for both therapeutic proteins and small molecules. For other modalities, the application of PBPK models is in its infancy.Challenges are discussed and a common theme is lack of availability of physiological and experimental data to characterise systems and drug parameters to enable a priori prediction of pharmacokinetics. Furthermore, sufficient clinical data are required to build confidence in developed models.The PBPK modelling approach provides a quantitative framework for integrating knowledge and data from multiple sources and can be built on as more data becomes available.

ADME and DMPK considerations for the discovery and development of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs)

 The therapeutic concept of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) is to selectively target tumour cells with small molecule cytotoxic drugs to maximise cell kill benefit and minimise healthy tissue toxicity.An ADC generally consists of an antibody that targets a protein on the surface of tumour cells chemically linked to a warhead small molecule cytotoxic drug.To deliver the warhead to the tumour cell, the antibody must bind to the target protein and in general be internalised into the cell. Following internalisation, the cytotoxic agent can be released in the endosomal or lysosomal compartment (via different mechanisms). Diffusion or transport out of the endosome or lysosome allows the cytotoxic drug to express its cell-killing pharmacology. Alternatively, some ADCs (e.g. EDB-ADCs) rely on extracellular cleavage releasing membrane permeable warheads.One potentially important aspect of the ADC mechanism is the 'bystander effect' whereby the cytotoxic drug released in the targeted cell can diffuse out of that cell and into other (non-target expressing) tumour cells to exert its cytotoxic effect. This is important as solid tumours tend to be heterogeneous and not all cells in a tumour will express the targeted protein.The combination of large and small molecule aspects in an ADC poses significant challenges to the disposition scientist in describing the ADME properties of the entire molecule.This article will review the ADC landscape and the ADME properties of successful ADCs, with the aim of outlining best practice and providing a perspective of how the field can further facilitate the discovery and development of these important therapeutic modalities.

Development of a Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Model for Whole-Body Disposition of MMAE Containing Antibody-Drug Conjugate in Mice

PURPOSE

To quantitate and mathematically characterize the whole-body pharmacokinetics (PK) of different ADC analytes following administration of an MMAE-conjugated ADC in tumor-bearing mice.

METHODS

The PK of different ADC analytes (total antibody, total drug, unconjugated drug) was measured following administration of an MMAE-conjugated ADC in tumor-bearing mice. The PK of ADC analytes was compared with the whole-body PK of the antibody and drug obtained following administration of these molecules alone. An ADC PBPK model was developed by linking antibody PBPK model with small-molecule PBPK model, where the drug was assumed to deconjugate in DAR-dependent manner.

RESULTS

Comparison of antibody biodistribution coefficient (ABC) values for total antibody suggests that conjugation of drug did not significantly affect the PK of antibody. Comparison of tissue:plasma AUC ratio (T/P) for the conjugated drug and total antibody suggests that in certain tissues (e.g., spleen) ADC may demonstrate higher deconjugation. It was observed that the tissue distribution profile of the drug can be altered following its conjugation to antibody. For example, MMAE distribution to the liver was found to increase while its distribution to the heart was found to decrease upon conjugation to antibody. MMAE exposure in the tumor was found to increase by ~20-fold following administration as conjugate (i.e., ADC). The PBPK model was able to a priori predict the PK of all three ADC analytes in plasma, tissues, and tumor reasonably well.

CONCLUSIONS

The ADC PBPK model developed here serves as a platform for translational and clinical investigations of MMAE containing ADCs.

Not your usual drug-drug interactions: Monoclonal antibody-based therapeutics may interact with antiseizure medications

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have emerged as the fastest growing drug class. As such, mAbs are increasingly being co-prescribed with other drugs, including antiseizure medications (ASMs). Although mAbs do not share direct targets or mechanisms of disposition with small-molecule drugs (SMDs), combining therapeutics of both types can increase the risk of adverse effects and treatment failure. The primary goal of this literature review was identifying mAb-ASM combinations requiring the attention of professionals who are treating patients with epilepsy. Systematic PubMed and Embase searches (1980-2021) were performed for terms relating to mAbs, ASMs, drug interactions, and their combinations. Additional information was obtained from documents from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Evidence was critically appraised - key issues calling for clinicians' consideration and important knowledge gaps were identified, and practice recommendations were developed by a group of pharmacists and epileptologists. The majority of interactions were attributed to the indirect effects of cytokine-modulating antibodies on drug metabolism. Conversely, strong inhibitors or inducers of drug-metabolizing enzymes or drug transporters could potentially interact with the cytotoxic payload of antibody-drug conjugates, and ASMs could alter mAb biodistribution. In addition, mAbs could potentiate adverse ASM effects. Unfortunately, few studies involved ASMs, requiring the formulation of class-based recommendations. Based on the current literature, most mAb-ASM interactions do not warrant special precautions. However, specific combinations should preferably be avoided, whereas others require monitoring and potentially adjustment of the ASM doses. Reduced drug efficacy or adverse effects could manifest days to weeks after mAb treatment onset or discontinuation, complicating the implication of drug interactions in potentially deleterious outcomes. Prescribers who treat patients with epilepsy should be familiar with mAb pharmacology to better anticipate potential mAb-ASM interactions and avoid toxicity, loss of seizure control, or impaired efficacy of mAb treatment.

Risk-Based Pharmacokinetic and Drug-Drug Interaction Characterization of Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Oncology Clinical Development: An International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development Perspective

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) represent a rapidly evolving area of drug development and hold significant promise. To date, nine ADCs have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These conjugates combine the target specificity of monoclonal antibodies with the anticancer activity of small-molecule therapeutics (also referred to as payload). Due to the complex structure, three analytes, namely ADC conjugate, total antibody, and unconjugated payload, are typically quantified during drug development; however, the benefits of measuring all three analytes at later stages of clinical development are not clear. The cytotoxic payloads, upon release from the ADC, are considered to behave like small molecules. Given the relatively high potency and low systemic exposure of cytotoxic payloads, drug-drug interaction (DDI) considerations for ADCs might be different from traditional small molecule therapeutics. The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development (IQ Consortium) convened an ADC working group to create an IQ ADC database that includes 26 ADCs with six unique payloads. The analysis of the ADC data in the IQ database, as well as nine approved ADCs, supports the strategy of pharmacokinetic characterization of all three analytes in early-phase development and progressively minimizing the number of analytes to be measured in the late-phase studies. The systemic concentrations of unconjugated payload are usually too low to serve as a DDI perpetrator; however, the potential for unconjugated payloads as a victim still exists. A data-driven and risk-based decision tree was developed to guide the assessment of a circulating payload as a victim of DDI.