Time-to-Event Modeling of Peripheral Neuropathy: Platform Analysis of Eight Valine-Citrulline-Monomethylauristatin E Antibody-Drug Conjugates

Approaches to Improve the Translation of Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Therapeutic Index of ADCs

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are an important class of cancer therapies. They are complex molecules, comprising an antibody, a cytotoxic payload, and a linker. ADCs intend to confer high specificity by targeting a unique antigen expressed predominately on the surface of the tumor cells than on the normal cells and by releasing the potent cytotoxic drug inside the tumor causing cytotoxic cell death. Despite high specificity to tumor antigens, many ADCs are associated with off-target and on-target off-tumor toxicities, often leading to safety concerns before achieving the desirable clinical efficacy. Therefore, it is crucial to improve the therapeutic index (TI) of ADCs to enable the full potential of this important therapeutic modality.The review summarizes current approaches to improve the translation of safety, pharmacokinetics, and TI of ADCs. Common safety findings of ADCs resulting from off-target and on-target toxicities and nonclinical approaches to de-risk ADC safety will be discussed; multiple approaches of using preclinical and clinical dose and exposure data to calculate TI to guide clinical dosing will be elaborated; different approaches to improve TI of ADCs, including selecting the right target, right payload-linker and patients, optimizing physicochemical properties, and using fractionation dosing, will also be discussed.

Antibody drug conjugates: Design implications for clinicians

OBJECTIVE

There are currently 11 antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) that are FDA approved for use in oncologic disease states, with many more in the pipeline. The authors aim to review the pharmacokinetic profiles of the components of ADCs to engage pharmacist practitioners in practical considerations in the care of patients. This article provides an overview on the use of ADCs in the setting of organ dysfunction, drug-drug interactions, and management of on- and off-target adverse effects.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the literature on ADCs through September 2023 was conducted. Clinical trials as well as articles on ADC design and functional components, adverse effects, and pharmacokinetics were reviewed. Reviewed literature included prescribing information as well as tertiary sources and primary literature.

DATA SUMMARY

A total of 11 ADCs were reviewed for the purpose of this article. A description of the mechanism of action and structure of ADCs is outlined, and a table containing description of each currently FDA-approved ADC is included. Various mechanisms of ADC toxicity are reviewed, including how ADC structure may be implicated.

CONCLUSION

It is imperative that pharmacist clinicians understand the design and function of each component of an ADC to continue to assess new approvals for use in oncology patients. Understanding the design of the ADC can help a pharmacy practitioner compare and contrast adverse effect profiles to support their multidisciplinary teams and to engage patients in education and management of their care.

Peripheral neuropathy associated with monomethyl auristatin E-based antibody-drug conjugates

Since the successful approval of gemtuzumab ozogamicin, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have emerged as a pivotal category of targeted therapies for cancer. Among these ADCs, the use of monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) as a payload is prevalent in the development of ADC drugs, which has significantly improved overall therapeutic efficacy against various malignancies. However, increasing clinical observations have raised concerns regarding the potential nervous system toxicity associated with MMAE-based ADCs. Specifically, a higher incidence of peripheral neuropathy has been reported in ADCs incorporating MMAE as payloads. Considering the increasing global use of MMAE-based ADCs, it is imperative to provide an inclusive overview of diagnostic and management strategies for this adverse event. In this review, we examine current information and what future research directions are required to better understand and manage this type of clinical challenge.

Safety and Tolerability of a Novel Anti-HER2 Antibody-Drug Conjugate (PF-06804103) in Patients with HER2-Expressing Solid Tumors: A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Study

PF-06804103 is an anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugate with auristatin payload. We evaluated its safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity in patients with advanced/unresectable or metastatic breast and gastric cancers. This multicenter, open-label, first-in-human, phase 1 study (NCT03284723) comprised dose escalation (P1) and dose expansion (P2). In P1, adults with HER2+ breast or gastric cancer received PF-06804103 0.15-5.0 mg/kg intravenously once/21 days (Q3W); in P2, patients with HER2+ or HER2-low (IHC 1+ or IHC 2+/ISH-) breast cancer received 3.0 or 4.0 mg/kg Q3W. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and safety (P1), and objective response rate (ORR) assessed using RECIST v1.1 (P2). Ninety-three patients enrolled in P1 (n = 47: HER2+ gastric cancer = 22, HER2+ breast cancer = 25) and P2 [n = 46: HER2+ breast cancer = 19, hormone receptor (HR)+ HER2-low breast cancer = 27] received PF-06804103. Four patients (3.0- and 4.0-mg/kg groups, n = 2 each) had DLTs (mostly Grade 3). Safety and efficacy results showed a dose-response relationship. Adverse events (AE) leading to treatment discontinuation (44/93, 47.3%) included neuropathy (11/93, 11.8%), skin toxicity (9/93, 9.7%), myalgia (5/93, 5.4%), keratitis (3/93, 3.2%), and arthralgia (2/93, 2.2%). Two (2/79, 2.5%) patients (P1, 4.0- and 5.0-mg/kg groups, n = 1 each) achieved complete response; 21 (21/79, 26.6%) achieved partial response. In P2, ORR was higher in HER2+ compared with HR+ HER2-low breast cancer [3.0 mg/kg: 16.7% (2/12) vs. 10.0% (1/10); 4.0 mg/kg: 47.4% (9/19) vs. 27.3% (3/11)]. PF-06804103 demonstrated antitumor activity; however, AEs led to discontinuation in 47.3% of patients. Safety and efficacy were dose-dependent.

Phase Ib Study of Telisotuzumab Vedotin in Combination With Erlotinib in Patients With c-Met Protein-Expressing Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Overexpression of c-Met protein and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations can co-occur in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), providing strong rationale for dual targeting. Telisotuzumab vedotin (Teliso-V), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting c-Met, has shown a tolerable safety profile and antitumor activity as monotherapy. Herein, we report the results of a phase Ib study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02099058) evaluating Teliso-V plus erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), in patients with c-Met-positive (+) NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study evaluated Teliso-V (2.7 mg/kg once every 21 days) plus erlotinib (150 mg once daily) in adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with c-Met+ NSCLC. Later enrollment required presence of an EGFR-activating mutation (EGFR-M+) and progression on a prior EGFR TKI. End points included safety, pharmacokinetics, objective response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The efficacy-evaluable population consisted of c-Met+ patients (confirmed histology [H]-score ≥ 150) who had at least one postbaseline scan; c-Met+ patients with H-scores ≥ 225 were classified as c-Met high.

RESULTS

As of January 2020, 42 patients were enrolled (N = 36 efficacy-evaluable). Neuropathies were the most common any-grade adverse events reported, with 24 of 42 patients (57%) experiencing at least one event. The pharmacokinetic profile of Teliso-V plus erlotinib was similar to Teliso-V monotherapy. Median PFS for all efficacy-evaluable patients was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to not reached). ORR for EGFR-M+ patients (n = 28) was 32.1%. Of EGFR-M+ patients, those who were c-Met high (n = 15) had an ORR of 52.6%. Median PFS was 6.8 months for non-T790M+ and for those whose T790M status was unknown, versus 3.7 months for T790M+.

CONCLUSION

Teliso-V plus erlotinib showed encouraging antitumor activity and acceptable toxicity in EGFR TKI-pretreated patients with EGFR-M+, c-Met+ NSCLC.

Zilovertamab Vedotin Targeting of ROR1 as Therapy for Lymphoid Cancers

Zilovertamab Vedotin Targeting of ROR1 as Therapy for Lymphoid Cancers In a Phase 1 trial, patients with refractory lymphoid cancers, an antibody-drug complex directed against ROR1 had no unexpected toxicities. About half of the patients with mantle cell lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma had clinically meaningful responses.

Impact of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetics, Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics in the Development of Antibody-Drug Conjugates

Antibody‐drug conjugates are important molecular entities in the treatment of cancer, with 8 antibody‐drug conjugates approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2000 and many more in early‐ and late‐stage clinical development. These conjugates combine the target specificity of monoclonal antibodies with the potent anticancer activity of small‐molecule therapeutics. The complex structure of antibody‐drug conjugates poses unique challenges to pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characterization because it requires a quantitative understanding of the PK and PD properties of multiple different molecular species (eg, conjugate, total antibody, and unconjugated payload) in different tissues. Quantitative clinical pharmacology using mathematical modeling and simulation provides an excellent approach to overcome these challenges, as it can simultaneously integrate the disposition, PK, and PD of antibody‐drug conjugates and their components in a quantitative manner. In this review, we highlight diverse quantitative clinical pharmacology approaches, ranging from system models (eg, physiologically based pharmacokinetic [PBPK] modeling) to mechanistic and empirical models (eg, population PK/PD modeling for single or multiple analytes, exposure‐response modeling, platform modeling by pooling data across multiple antibody‐drug conjugates). The impact of these PBPK and PK/PD models to provide insights into clinical dosing justification and inform drug development decisions is also highlighted.

Model-Informed Therapeutic Dose Optimization Strategies for Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Oncology: What Can We Learn From US Food and Drug Administration-Approved Antibody-Drug Conjugates?

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) combine the specificity of an antibody with the cytotoxicity of a chemical agent. They represent a rapidly evolving area of oncology drug development and hold significant promise. There are currently nine ADCs on the market, more than half of which gained US Food and Drug Administration approval more recently, since 2019. Despite their enormous promise, the therapeutic window for these ADCs remains relatively narrow, especially when compared with other oncology drugs, such as targeted therapies or checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we provide a detailed overview of the five dosing regimen optimization strategies that have been leveraged to broaden the therapeutic window by mitigating the safety risks while maintaining efficacy. These include body weight cap dosing; treatment duration capping; dose schedule (e.g., dosing frequency and dose fractionation); response‐guided dosing recommendations; and randomized dose‐finding. We then discuss how the lessons learned from these studies can inform ADC development going forward. Informed application of these dosing strategies should allow researchers to maximize the safety and efficacy for next‐generation ADCs.