Efficacy and Safety Exposure-Response Analysis of Loncastuximab Tesirine in Patients with B cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Time-dependent clearance can confound exposure-response analysis of therapeutic antibodies: A comprehensive review of the current literature

Exposure-response (ER) analysis is used to optimize dose and dose regimens during clinical development. Characterization of relationships between drug exposure and efficacy or safety outcomes can be utilized to make dose adjustments that improve patient response. Therapeutic antibodies typically show predictable pharmacokinetics (PK) but can exhibit clearance that decreases over time due to treatment. Moreover, time-dependent changes in clearance are frequently associated with drug response, with larger decreases in clearance and increased exposure seen in patients who respond to treatment. This often confounds traditional ER analysis, as drug response influences exposure rather than the reverse. In this review, we survey published population PK analyses for reported time-dependent drug clearance effects across 158 therapeutic antibodies approved or in regulatory review. We describe the mechanisms by which time-dependent clearance can arise, and evaluate trends in frequency, magnitude, and time scale of changes in clearance with respect to indication, mechanistic interpretation of time-dependence, and PK modeling techniques employed. We discuss the modeling and simulation strategies commonly used to characterize time-dependent clearance, and examples where time-dependent clearance has impeded ER analysis. A case study using population model simulation was explored to interrogate the impact of time-dependent clearance on ER analysis and how it can lead to spurious conclusions. Overall, time-dependent clearance arises frequently among therapeutic antibodies and has spurred erroneous conclusions in ER analysis. Appropriate PK modeling techniques aid in identifying and characterizing temporal shifts in exposure that may impede accurate ER assessment and successful dose optimization.

Harnessing the Immune System: An Effective Way to Manage Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogenous hematological disorder with malignant potential controlled by immunological characteristics of the tumor microenvironment. Rapid breakthrough in the molecular pathways has made immunological approaches the main anchor in the management of DLBCL, with or without chemotherapeutic agents. Rituximab was the first monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of DLBCL. Following rituximab that transformed the therapeutic landscape, other novel immunological agents including chimeric antigen T-cell therapy have reshaped the management of relapsed/refractory DLBCL. However, resistance and refractory state remain a challenge in the management of DLBCL. For this literature review, we screened articles from Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases and the European/North American guidelines from March 2010 through October 2022 for DLBCL. Here we discuss immunological agents that will significantly affect future treatment of this aggressive type of lymphoma.

The diverse landscape of dermatologic toxicities of non-immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody-based cancer therapy

BACKGROUND

Since their first approval 25 years ago, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become important targeted cancer therapeutics. However, dermatologic toxicities associated with non-immune checkpoint inhibitor (non-ICI) mAbs may complicate the course of cancer treatment. Data on the incidence and types of these reactions are limited.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted on dermatologic toxicities associated with different classes of non-ICI mAbs approved for treatment of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. The review included prospective Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials; retrospective literature reviews; systematic reviews/meta-analyses; and case series/reports.

RESULTS

Dermatologic toxicities were associated with several types of non-ICI mAbs. Inflammatory reactions were the most common dermatologic toxicities, manifesting as maculopapular, urticarial, papulopustular/acneiform, and lichenoid/interface cutaneous adverse events (cAEs) with non-ICI mAbs. Immunobullous reactions were rare and a subset of non-ICI mAbs were associated with the development of vitiligo cAEs.

CONCLUSION

Dermatologic toxicities of non-ICI mAbs are diverse and mostly limited to inflammatory reactions. Awareness of the spectrum of the histopathologic patterns of cAE from non-ICI mAbs therapy is critical in the era of oncodermatology and oncodermatopathology.

Variable or variate? A conundrum in pharmacometrics exposure-response models

Key elements of scientific writing-consistency and clarity-can be compromised in case of inaccurate use of methodological terms, especially in complex and multidisciplinary scientific fields. Such is the case in reports of pharmacometrics exposure-response analyses with the use of the terms univariate/multivariate and univariable/multivariable. This perspective outlines the issues in the use of these terms, clarifies their definitions, provides examples, and makes recommendations for authors, reviewers, and journals in the fields of clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics.