Model-informed drug development approach supporting approval of the 4-week (Q4W) dosing schedule for nivolumab (Opdivo) across multiple indications: a regulatory perspective

Real-world data on efficacy/safety and economic impact of nivolumab administered every 2 and 4 weeks among Japanese patients

AIM

A new treatment interval for nivolumab administration at 480 mg every 4 weeks, in addition to 240 mg every 2 weeks, was approved in Japan in 2020. Using model-based evaluation, it was speculated that the effects or safety of nivolumab do not differ between the two treatment intervals; however, real-world data on nivolumab efficacy, safety, and economic impact are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to examine the effects of nivolumab treatment intervals (2 weeks vs. 4 weeks) in terms of efficacy, safety, and economic impact in Japanese patients with cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 126 patients treated with nivolumab. The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they received nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks (2-week group) or 480 mg every 4 weeks (4-week group).

RESULTS

Efficacy results found no significant difference between the 4- and 2-week groups considering median overall survival (p = 0.70) and median progression-free survival (p = 0.57). The incidence of any grade and ≥  grade 3 immune-related adverse events did not differ between the 4-week and 2-week groups (any grade, p = 0.13; ≥  grade 3, p = 0.36). Excluding drug costs, the 4-week group had significantly lower medical costs than the 2-week group (2-week vs. 4-week: mean, 94,659 JPY [679.0 USD] vs. 58,737 JPY [421.3 USD]; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Collectively, our findings suggest that nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks may be more effective than nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks in terms of economic impact.

High response rate with extended dosing of cemiplimab in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Cemiplimab (Libtayo®), a human monoclonal immunoglobulin G4 antibody to the programmed cell death-1 receptor, is approved for the treatment of patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC), who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation, using an every-3-weeks (Q3W) dosing interval. Pharmacokinetic modeling indicated that Ctrough of extended intravenous dosing of 600 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) would be comparable to the approved intravenous dosage of 350 mg Q3W. We examined the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of cemiplimab dosed Q4W.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02760498), the cohort of patients ≥18 years old with advanced CSCC received cemiplimab 600 mg intravenously Q4W for up to 48 weeks. Tumor measurements were recorded every 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by independent central review.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients with advanced CSCC were treated with cemiplimab. The median duration of follow-up was 22.4 months (range: 1.0-39.8). An objective response was observed in 39 patients (62%; 95% CI: 48.8% to 73.9%), with 22% of patients (n=14) achieving complete response and 40% (n=25) achieving partial response. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhea, pruritus, and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended dosing of cemiplimab 600 mg intravenously Q4W exhibited substantial antitumor activity, rapid and durable responses, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced CSCC. These results confirm that cemiplimab is a highly active therapy for advanced CSCC. Additional data would help ascertain the benefit-risk profile for the 600 mg intravenous dosing regimen compared with the approved regimen.

A model-informed approach to accelerate the clinical development of cofrogliptin (HSK7653), a novel ultralong-acting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor

AIM

To employ a model-informed drug development approach in facilitating decision making and expediting the clinical progress of cofrogliptin (HSK7653), a novel ultralong-acting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) via a biweekly dosing regimen.

METHODS

Firstly, a population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PopPKPD) model was developed using PK and PD data from a single ascending dose study to simulate the PK and PD time profiles of HSK7653 after multiple doses. Secondly, model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) was performed on published clinical studies of Eastern Asian subjects for all DPP-4 inhibitors. We hypothesized a consistent relationship between PK and DPP-4 inhibition in both healthy individuals and in those with T2D, establishing a quantitative correlation between DPP-4 inhibition and HbA1c. Finally, the predicted PK/DPP-4 inhibition/HbA1c profiles were validated by T2D patients in late clinical trials.

RESULTS

The PK/DPP-4 inhibition/HbA1c profiles of T2D patients treated with HSK7653 matched the modelled data. Our PopPKPD and MBMA models predict multiple ascending dosing PK and PD characteristics from single ascending dosing data, as well as the long-term efficacy in T2D patients, based on healthy subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful waiver approval for the phase 2b dose-finding study was achieved through model-informed recommendations, facilitating the clinical development of HSK7653 and other DPP-4 inhibitors.

A real-world study on the safety profile of extended-interval dosing of immune checkpoint inhibitors for melanoma: a single-center analysis in Japan

Background

Anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies are the mainstay for the treatment of unresectable or high-risk melanoma. However, real-world data on the safety profile of their extended-interval doses (EDs) are limited, particularly in Asian patients with melanoma.

Materials and methods

In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed the risks of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) among 71 Japanese patients (36 males; mean age, 65.0 years) who received anti-PD-1 monotherapy for melanoma at our institute. Patients who were administered ipilimumab prior to anti-PD-1 monotherapy were excluded. Patients were divided into three groups: canonical-interval dose (CD) group (n = 50, body weight-based dosing or 240 mg Q2W for nivolumab and body weight-based dosing or 200 mg Q3W for pembrolizumab), ED group (n = 14, 480 mg Q4W for nivolumab and 400 mg Q6W for pembrolizumab), and dose-switch (DS) group (n = 7, upfront CD followed by ED).

Results

The CD group received nivolumab more frequently in the metastatic setting. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups, including in sex, age, primary tumor site, tumor subtype, and follow-up period. irAEs occurred in 36.6% (26 patients) of all patients (32.0% of the CD group, 35.7% of the ED group, and 71.4% of the DS group), while severe (grade ≥ 3) irAEs occurred in only two patients, both of whom were in the CD group. Most of the irAEs occurred during the first 6 months of anti-PD-1 therapy and, interestingly, all of the irAEs in the DS group occurred before the switch (during the CD). There was no significant difference among the three groups in the probability of irAE estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Conclusion

These findings may highlight the safety of ED of anti-PD-1 monotherapy in the treatment of Asian patients with melanoma.

Utilization and toxicity patterns of 2-weekly (Q2W) versus 4-weekly (Q4W) nivolumab for treatment of adjuvant and metastatic melanoma at BC cancer

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor used to treat several malignancies, is associated with immune-related adverse events (IrAEs). Original dosing for melanoma was 3 mg/kg (maximum 240 mg) every 2 weeks (Q2W). Based on simulation studies depicting similar efficacy and toxicity to original dosing, extended interval dosing of 6 mg/kg (maximum 480 mg) every 4 weeks (Q4W) was introduced.

OBJECTIVE

This study will compare safety between Q2W and Q4W dosing at BC Cancer in melanoma patients.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review for reported incidence, onset, and severity of IrAEs in melanoma patients treated with nivolumab Q2W and Q4W dosing was completed. Fisher's test was conducted for first incidence IrAEs using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were identified (Q2W n = 35, Q4W n = 36). Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No statistically significant difference was found in incidence of IrAEs between Q2W and Q4W dosing (Q2W 40% vs Q4W 50%, p = 0.477). Rash was most common (Q2W 79% vs Q4W 50%) followed by hypothyroidism (Q2W 33% vs Q4W 20%). Median onset of IrAEs seemed later with Q4W dosing (Q2W cycle 1 vs Q4W cycle 4). Regardless of dosing, most IrAEs were grade 1-2 in severity (Q2W 100% vs Q4W 89%).

CONCLUSION

Q4W dosing is associated with comparable incidence and potentially later onset of IrAEs compared to Q2W dosing. Most IrAEs in both dosing groups were similar and mild. Therefore, Q4W dosing offers a safe alternative to Q2W dosing while providing benefits including decreased workload for staff, decreased clinic visits, and viral exposure by patients.

A comprehensive regulatory and industry review of modeling and simulation practices in oncology clinical drug development

Exposure-response (E-R) analyses are an integral component in the development of oncology products. Characterizing the relationship between drug exposure metrics and response allows the sponsor to use modeling and simulation to address both internal and external drug development questions (e.g., optimal dose, frequency of administration, dose adjustments for special populations). This white paper is the output of an industry-government collaboration among scientists with broad experience in E-R modeling as part of regulatory submissions. The goal of this white paper is to provide guidance on what the preferred methods for E-R analysis in oncology clinical drug development are and what metrics of exposure should be considered.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Nivolumab in Japanese Patients with Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab is an antiprogrammed death-1 (PD-1) antibody used for immuno-oncological therapy of various cancers, including nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to characterize the real-world population pharmacokinetics (PK) of nivolumab in patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

PK samples were collected by opportunistic sampling of Japanese patients with NSCLC treated with nivolumab monotherapy. Population PK analysis was performed using a two-compartment model in Nonlinear Mixed Effect Model. Patient-specific factors such as body weight, age, sex, serum albumin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, performance status, programmed cell death receptor ligand 1 expression in tumors, and treatment periods were evaluated as potential covariates for clearance.

RESULTS

A total of 223 serum samples collected from 34 patients were available for analysis. The median (min-max) age and weight were 69 years (38-83 years) and 62.7 kg (36.8-80.5 kg), respectively. The mean (95% confidence interval) clearance estimate was 0.0064 L/h (0.0058-0.0070 L/h). The inclusion of the ALB level, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and treatment period significantly improved the model fit.

CONCLUSIONS

A real-world nivolumab population PK model was developed using an opportunistic sampling strategy in Japanese patients with NSCLC. Further studies are warranted to characterize the exposure-response relationship and determine the optimal dosing regimens for these patients.

Flat dose regimen of toripalimab based on model-informed drug development approach

Introduction: Flat dosing regimen has recently been approved for programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitors including toripalimab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab. The objective of this study is to provide pharmacological evidence for a flat dosing regimen of toripalimab by assessing the efficacy and safety profile of a 240 mg Q3W flat dose relative to the currently approved 3 mg/kg Q2W. Methods: A population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model was established based on 1,014 evaluable patients in 13 clinical studies. The exposure-objective response rate (ORR, n = 234) and exposure-safety (n = 152) analyses were performed by logistic regression. Three safety endpoints including grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs), treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs, and AEs leading to study drug discontinuation were evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS, n = 234) was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard model with the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Results: The PK profiles of toripalimab are best described by a two-compartment model with time-varying clearance characterized by a sigmoidal maximum effect (E_max) function. Simulations for the first dose and steady-state exposures for the 240 mg Q3W dosing regimen were comparable to those for the 3 mg/kg Q2W dosing regimen with 95% exposure coverage ranging from 88% to 96%. The exposure-safety analysis showed that the probability of an adverse event occurring did not increase with increases in toripalimab exposure. A flat exposure-response relationship for ORR was identified. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that exposure was a predictor for PFS; however, no difference in treatment benefit was demonstrated across exposure quantiles using a Cox proportional hazard model. Discussion: This study revealed that toripalimab exposure of 240 mg Q3W dosing regimen was comparable to 3 mg/kg Q2W dosing regimen. The safety and efficacy E-R results of 240 mg Q3W is flat. Hence, the 240 mg Q3W dosing regimen is determined to be a preferred therapeutic dosage for toripalimab due to the convenience of flat dose.

Population pharmacokinetic models of anti-PD-1 mAbs in patients with multiple tumor types: A systematic review

Aims and background

A number of population pharmacokinetic (PPK) models of anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in multiple tumor types have been published to characterize the influencing factors of their pharmacokinetics. This review described PPK models of anti-PD-1 mAbs that investigate the magnitude and types of covariate effects in PK parameters, provide a reference for building PPK models of other anti-PD-1 mAbs, and identify areas requiring additional research to facilitate the application of PPK models.

Methods

A systematic search for analyses of PPK models of eleven anti-PD-1 mAbs on the market that were carried out in humans was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The search covered the period from the inception of the databases to April 2022.

Results

Currently, there are fourteen analyses on PPK models of anti-PD-1 mAbs summarized in this review, including seven models that refer to nivolumab, four referring to pembrolizumab, one referring to cemiplimab, one referring to camrelizumab, and one referred to dostarlimab. Most analyses described the pharmacokinetics of anti-PD-1 mAbs with a two-compartment model with time-varying clearance (CL) and a sigmoidal maximum effect. The estimated CL and volume of distribution in the central (V_C) ranged from 0.179 to 0.290 L/day and 2.98 to 4.46 L, respectively. The median (range) of interindividual variability (IIV) for CL and V_C was 30.9% (8.7%–50.8%) and 29.0% (4.32%–40.7%), respectively. The commonly identified significant covariates were body weight (BW) on CL and V_C, and albumin (ALB), tumor type, sex, and performance status (PS) on CL. Other less assessed significant covariates included lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), immunoglobulin G (IgG), ipilimumab coadministration (IPICO) on CL, and body mass index (BMI), malignant pleural mesothelioma (MESO) on V_C.

Conclusion

This review provides detailed information about the characteristics of PPK models of anti-PD-1 mAbs, the effects of covariates on PK parameters, and the current status of the application of the models. ALB, BW, specific tumor type, sex, and PS should be considered for the future development of the PPK model of anti-PD-1 mAbs. Other potential covariates that were assessed less frequently but still have significance (e.g., LDH, IgG, and IPICO) should not be ignored. Thus, further research and thorough investigation are needed to assess new or potential covariates, which will pave the way for personalized anti-PD-1 mAbs therapy.

Pharmacokinetic Simulation Analysis of Less Frequent Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab Dosing: Pharmacoeconomic Rationale for Dose Deescalation

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibodies, have revolutionized oncology but are expensive. Using an interventional pharmacoeconomic approach, these drugs can be administered less often to reduce costs and increase patient convenience while maintaining efficacy. Both drugs are good candidates for less frequent dosing because of long half-lives and no evidence of a relationship of dose to efficacy. Established population pharmacokinetic models for both nivolumab and pembrolizumab were used to simulate profiles for multiple dosing regimens on 1000 randomly generated virtual patients. Simulations were initially performed on standard dose regimens to validate these in silico predictions. Next, simulations of nivolumab 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks revealed that >95% of patients maintained ≥1.5 μg/mL at steady state, which was inferred as the minimum effective concentration (MEC) for both drugs. Various alternative dosing regimens were simulated for both drugs to determine which regimen(s) can maintain this MEC in >95% of patients. Extended dosing regimens of nivolumab 240 mg every 4 weeks and 480 mg every 8 weeks along with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 6 weeks were simulated, showing that >95% of patients maintained MEC or greater. These simulations demonstrate the potential to reduce drug exposure by at least 50%, thus substantially reducing patient visits (as well as costs), while maintaining equivalent efficacy. These models provide the scientific justification for an ongoing prospective randomized clinical trial comparing standard interval fixed dosing with extended interval fixed dosing, and ultimately an efficacy-driven comparative trial.

Alternative trastuzumab dosing strategies in HER2-positive early breast cancer are associated with patient out-of-pocket savings

Patients with breast cancer frequently experience financial hardship, often due to the high costs of anti-cancer drugs. We sought to develop alternative trastuzumab dosing strategies, compare their pharmacokinetic effectiveness to standard dosing, and assess the expected financial implications of transitioning to them. We extracted clinical data from the records of 135 retrospectively identified patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer at a single, urban comprehensive cancer center who were treated with trastuzumab between 2017 and 2019. We performed pharmacokinetic simulations on a range of trastuzumab dose levels and frequencies, assessing efficacy by trough trastuzumab concentration (Ctrough) and population and individual likelihoods of Ctrough exceeding trastuzumab minimum effective concentration (MEC). We performed deterministic financial modeling to estimate the treatment-associated financial savings from alternative dosing strategies. Trastuzumab maintenance doses of 4 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) and 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) had nearly identical probabilities of Ctrough being above MEC as standard of care 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. In the primary financial analysis, both trastuzumab 4 mg/kg Q3W and 6 mg/kg Q4W were associated with significant drug- and administration-related out-of-pocket cost savings over the duration of therapy, ranging from $765 (neoadjuvant, Q4W) to $2791 (adjuvant, Q4W). In particular, Q4W trastuzumab increased savings related to lost wages and travel cost avoidance. Low-dose and reduced frequency trastuzumab in appropriately selected patients may significantly reduce total drug utilization and meaningfully reduce patient financial toxicity. Prospective clinical trials evaluating low-dose or reduced-frequency administration of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies are warranted and needed.

Predictive Simulations in Preclinical Oncology to Guide the Translation of Biologics

Preclinical in vivo studies form the cornerstone of drug development and translation, bridging in vitro experiments with first-in-human trials. However, despite the utility of animal models, translation from the bench to bedside remains difficult, particularly for biologics and agents with unique mechanisms of action. The limitations of these animal models may advance agents that are ineffective in the clinic, or worse, screen out compounds that would be successful drugs. One reason for such failure is that animal models often allow clinically intolerable doses, which can undermine translation from otherwise promising efficacy studies. Other times, tolerability makes it challenging to identify the necessary dose range for clinical testing. With the ability to predict pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses, mechanistic simulations can help advance candidates from in vitro to in vivo and clinical studies. Here, we use basic insights into drug disposition to analyze the dosing of antibody drug conjugates (ADC) and checkpoint inhibitor dosing (PD-1 and PD-L1) in the clinic. The results demonstrate how simulations can identify the most promising clinical compounds rather than the most effective in vitro and preclinical in vivo agents. Likewise, the importance of quantifying absolute target expression and antibody internalization is critical to accurately scale dosing. These predictive models are capable of simulating clinical scenarios and providing results that can be validated and updated along the entire development pipeline starting in drug discovery. Combined with experimental approaches, simulations can guide the selection of compounds at early stages that are predicted to have the highest efficacy in the clinic.

Immune checkpoint-targeted antibodies: a room for dose and schedule optimization?

Anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors are therapeutic monoclonal antibodies that do not target cancer cells but are designed to reactivate or promote antitumor immunity. Dosing and scheduling of these biologics were established according to conventional drug development models, even though the determination of a maximum tolerated dose in the clinic could only be defined for anti-CTLA-4. Given the pharmacology of these monoclonal antibodies, their high interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, the actual clinical benefit as monotherapy that is observed only in a specific subset of patients, and the substantial cost of these treatments, a number of questions arise regarding the selected dose and the dosing interval. This review aims to outline the development of these immunotherapies and considers optimization options that could be used in clinical practice.

Exposure-Response Analysis to Support Nivolumab Once Every 4 Weeks Dosing in Combination with Cabozantinib in Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE

A benefit:risk assessment for a less-frequent nivolumab 480 mg Q4W + cabozantinib 40 mg QD dosing regimen was predicted using modeling and simulation of clinical trial data from nivolumab monotherapy studies and from the nivolumab 240 mg Q2W + cabozantinib 40mg QD dosing regimen, which demonstrated clinical benefit versus sunitinib in previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in the phase III CheckMate 9ER trial (NCT03141177).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analyses were conducted using nivolumab monotherapy data in previously treated aRCC and data from CheckMate 9ER to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and grade {greater than or equal to}2 immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs).

RESULTS

Nivolumab 240 mg Q2W + cabozantinib versus nivolumab showed improvement in PFS (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.31-0.47), OS (HR, 0.63 95% CI, 0.46-0.85), and increased risk of grade {greater than or equal to}2 IMAEs (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.79-2.67). Nivolumab exposure was not a predictor of PFS/OS or grade {greater than or equal to}2 IMAEs. Lower nivolumab clearance, male sex, higher baseline bodyweight, and Karnofsky performance (100) were each associated with PFS/OS improvements. Region and IMDC poor score were negative OS predictors. Age, baseline albumin, and programmed death ligand-1 status were not significant PFS/OS predictors. Cabozantinib was a significant grade {greater than or equal to}2 IMAE predictor, driven by diarrhea and hepatic events. Model-predicted PFS/OS and grade {greater than or equal to}2 IMAE rates were similar (<2.5% difference) for nivolumab 240 mg Q2W + cabozantinib and 480 mg Q4W + cabozantinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable benefit:risk was predicted for nivolumab 480 mg Q4W + cabozantinib and nivolumab 240 mg Q2W + cabozantinib.

Nivolumab exposure in a hemodialysis patient with metastatic melanoma

The effect of intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) on nivolumab serum concentrations in patients with severe renal impairment is largely unknown. Here, we present a 79-year-old patient with metastatic melanoma and end-stage renal disease on IHD three times a week, treated with 480 mg nivolumab every 4 weeks. A serum trough concentration of nivolumab was determined before the start of the third cycle, and two samples were taken immediately before and after a hemodialysis session during this cycle. All nivolumab serum concentrations were within a similar range as those previously measured among patients without renal insufficiency, after a comparable duration of nivolumab treatment. Therefore, we conclude that IHD does not influence nivolumab exposure. Furthermore, nivolumab treatment was continued without complications and appears to be well tolerated for patients on IHD.

Model-Informed Drug Development Approaches to Assist New Drug Development in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Leveraging limited clinical and nonclinical data through modeling approaches facilitates new drug development and regulatory decision making amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Model‐informed drug development (MIDD) is an essential tool to integrate those data and generate evidence to (i) provide support for effectiveness in repurposed or new compounds to combat COVID‐19 and dose selection when clinical data are lacking; (ii) assess efficacy under practical situations such as dose reduction to overcome supply issues or emergence of resistant variant strains; (iii) demonstrate applicability of MIDD for full extrapolation to adolescents and sometimes to young pediatric patients; and (iv) evaluate the appropriateness for prolonging a dosing interval to reduce the frequency of hospital visits during the pandemic. Ongoing research activities of MIDD reflect our continuous effort and commitment in bridging knowledge gaps that leads to the availability of effective treatments through innovation. Case examples are presented to illustrate how MIDD has been used in various stages of drug development and has the potential to inform regulatory decision making.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab in Combination with Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

On October 2, 2020, FDA approved nivolumab with ipilimumab as first-line treatment for adult patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The approval was based on results from Study CA209743 (CHECKMATE-743), an open-label trial of patients with MPM randomized to receive nivolumab and ipilimumab for up to 2 years (n = 303) or six cycles of chemotherapy with cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed (n = 302). Overall survival (OS) was improved for patients who received nivolumab and ipilimumab, with a median OS of 18.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 16.8-21.5] compared with 14.1 months (95% CI: 12.5-16.2; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.89; P = 0.002), for patients who received chemotherapy. The magnitude of benefit was larger for patients with non-epithelioid versus epithelioid histology. Additional clinical pharmacology data support an alternative dosing regimen of nivolumab than evaluated in the trial, which will reduce the number of required treatment visits. This application was reviewed under FDA's Project Orbis, in collaboration with Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration, Switzerland's Swissmedic, Health Canada, and Brazil's National Health Surveillance Agency or ANVISA (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária). Nivolumab and ipilimumab is the first drug regimen approved by FDA for MPM since 2004.

Model-Informed Drug Development in Pediatric Dose Selection

Model-informed drug development (MIDD) has been a powerful and efficient tool applied widely in pediatric drug development due to its ability to integrate and leverage existing knowledge from different sources to narrow knowledge gaps. The dose selection is the most common MIDD application in regulatory submission related to pediatric drug development. This article aims to give an overview of the 3 broad categories of use of MIDD in pediatric dose selection: leveraging from adults to pediatric patients, leveraging from animals to pediatric patients, and integrating mechanism in infants and neonates. Population pharmacokinetic analyses with allometric scaling can reasonably predict the clearance in pediatric patients aged >5 years. A mechanistic-based approach, such as physiologically based pharmacokinetic accounting for ontogeny, or an allometric model with age-dependent exponent, can be applied to select the dose in pediatric patients aged ≤2 years. The exposure-response relationship from adults or from other drugs in the same class may be useful in aiding the pediatric dose selection and benefit-risk assessment. Increasing application and understanding of use of MIDD have contributed greatly to several policy developments in the pediatric field. With the increasing efforts of MIDD under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act VI, bigger impacts of MIDD approaches in pediatric dose selection can be expected. Due to the complexity of model-based analyses, early engagement between drug developers and regulatory agencies to discuss MIDD issues is highly encouraged, as it is expected to increase the efficiency and reduce the uncertainty.

Rationale for once-daily or twice-daily dosing of zanubrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma

This report summarizes a totality-of-evidence approach supporting recommendation of a 320-mg total daily dose, either as 160-mg twice daily (BID) or 320-mg once daily (QD) for zanubrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Data were derived from a phase 2 study in patients receiving 160-mg BID and a phase 1/2 study with similar response rates observed with 160-mg BID or 320-mg QD. Given the limited number of patients in the QD dose group, population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response analyses were employed to bridge the two regimens. The analyses showed that similar plasma exposure and BTK inhibition were achieved, and differences in trough concentration and maximum plasma concentration between the two regimens are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on efficacy and safety endpoints. The totality of data, including pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, safety, efficacy, and exposure-response analyses, provided support for the recommended 320-mg total daily dose for the approved indication.

Nivolumab exposure-response analysis for adjuvant treatment of melanoma supporting a change in posology

Nivolumab monotherapy is approved as adjuvant treatment for melanoma based on results from the pivotal CheckMate 238 trial. We present a model‐based, benefit–risk assessment of nivolumab in adjuvant melanoma supporting a posology change from a weight‐based to a less frequent, flat‐dosing regimen. The exposure–response (E–R) relationship for efficacy was evaluated using recurrence‐free survival (RFS) and distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS) end points from the CheckMate 238 trial. The E–R for safety was evaluated using data from 14 studies across a broad range of doses in several tumor types using grade 3+ adverse event (AE) and grade 2+ immune‐mediated AE (IMAE) end points. Nivolumab trough exposures were not significant predictors of RFS or DMFS. Covariates significantly associated with increased risk of disease recurrence or death were programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1; less than 5% cutoff), lower baseline lactate dehydrogenase, and higher age. Covariates associated with increased risk of distant metastasis or death were PD‐L1 (less than 5% cutoff) and higher age. Higher nivolumab maximum concentration after first dose (Cmax1) was significantly associated with grade 2+ IMAEs, but not grade 3+ AEs. The risk of grade 3+ AEs was significantly lower in adjuvant versus advanced melanoma. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status higher than zero was associated with higher incidences of grade 2+ IMAEs and grade 3+ AEs. Female patients had significantly higher incidences of grade 2+ IMAEs than male patients. Nivolumab monotherapy in adjuvant melanoma demonstrated a relatively flat E–R relationship over the range of exposures produced by 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks and predicted a comparable benefit–risk profile to flat‐dosing regimens.

The Role of Systemic Therapy in Advanced Cutaneous Melanoma of the Head and Neck

The treatment of advanced melanoma has changed dramatically over the last decade. With the discovery of activating BRAF mutations and the development of targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors, the overall survival of patients with advanced melanoma has improved. This article provides an overview of systemic therapies, including the pivotal agents that have led to these advances.

Clinical Benefit-Risk Assessment of Nivolumab 240 mg Every 2 Weeks in Chinese Patients With Advanced and Metastatic Solid Tumors

Nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks is approved in China by the National Medical Product Agency for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and gastric cancer, based on population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analyses and benefit-risk assessment of safety/efficacy in solid tumors, including Chinese and global populations. The aim of this assessment was to investigate exposure and risk for adverse events (AEs) with flat dosing compared with weight-based dosing. Nivolumab 240-mg and 3-mg/kg every-2-week exposures in Chinese patients were simulated using PPK modeling, and AEs in Chinese and pooled global populations were compared by dosing regimen, exposure, and weight. The 10-mg/kg every-2-week regimen was included because it is known to be well tolerated. Predicted nivolumab exposure in Chinese patients receiving 240 mg every 2 weeks was ∼25% higher versus 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, but ∼60% lower versus 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Grade 3/4 AE incidence in Chinese patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks was similar with 240-mg every-2-week dosing and with patients from global populations treated with 3 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. There was no trend toward increased AE incidence with high versus low nivolumab exposure or in global patients of varying body weight receiving 3 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Objective response rates were similar in Chinese and global patients with squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC. Results showed that benefit-risk profiles with nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks were similar to those of the 3-mg/kg every-2-week regimen in Chinese patients and global populations, providing an alternative treatment option to Chinese patients.

Early 3+3 Trial Dose-Escalation Phase I Clinical Trial Design and Suitability for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

PURPOSE

Despite the expansion of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) indications, the relationship between ICI dose and toxicity or response is not well established. To understand this correlation, we performed a meta-analysis of ICI trials that used dose escalation.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

We searched PubMed and abstracts presented at (inter)national meetings for trials using FDA-approved ICIs. The reported rates of grade 3-5 adverse events (G3-5 AE), immune-related adverse events (irAE), and response were correlated with doses within each ICI using marginal exact generalized linear models.

RESULTS

A total of 74 trials (7,469 patients) published between January 2010 and January 2017 were included. For ipilimumab, the incidence of G3-5 AEs was 34% with a significant 27% reduced risk in lower doses (P = 0.002). However, no relationship was observed between dose and irAEs or response. For nivolumab, the incidence of G3-5 AEs was 20.1% which was lower in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or melanoma (P ≤ 0.05) with no dose-toxicity relationship. In melanoma and NSCLC, a dose-response association was observed, which was not observed in RCC. For pembrolizumab, the incidence of G3-5 AEs was 13.3%, which was lower in melanoma compared with NSCLC (P = 0.03) with no dose-toxicity relationship. In melanoma, lower dose levels correlated with decreased odds of response (P = 0.01), a relationship that was not observed in NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows a lack of consistent dose-toxicity or dose-response correlation with ICIs. Therefore, dose escalation is not an appropriate design to conduct ICI studies. Here we present an innovative trial design for immune-modulating agents.

An update on the safety of nivolumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma

Introduction: Due to its unique mechanism of action as an immune checkpoint inhibitor, nivolumab has high antitumor activity, but at the same time this mechanism is responsible for immune-related adverse events that may limit patients' safety and therapy continuation.Areas covered: Long-term safety of nivolumab including 5-year follow-up, safety of nivolumab treatment after ipilimumab therapy, safety of nivolumab in challenging subgroups (elderly, patients with brain metastases, patients with autoimmune disorders), safety of nivolumab in with rare melanoma subtypes (including mucosal melanoma), as well as specificity of AEs reported for nivolumab treatment in melanoma patients in comparison to other cancer types and other immunotherapy molecules, and impact of AEs on response rates and PFS on nivolumab treatment are discussed.Expert opinion: Search for biomarkers that would help us to identify patient populations that may suffer from severe nivolumab toxicity could help in selecting patients that should not be treated with this type of therapy. Novel combinations and immunotherapy drugs including use of NKTR-214 (IL-2 pathway), lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3), local injections of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), or systemic use of T-cell receptors agonists such as OX40, CD137, ICOS-1, could provide regimens with limited toxicity and higher activity.

Evolving management strategies for lymphomas during the COVID-19 pandemic

The evolving CoViD-19 pandemic has raised unprecedented challenges for physicians who face significant constraints in medical resources and cancer therapies. The management of patients with lymphoma represents a unique challenge given the heterogeneity of the patient population and treatment goals as well as the myriad choices of therapy available to clinicians. Adaptation in clinical practice with the goal of maintaining appropriate continuity and quality of care while mitigating exposure risk has forced clinicians around the world to develop new standards of practice and can pose difficult ethical choices in vulnerable patient populations. Based on recommendations formulated by several medical groups and societies, this article provides an overview of the general and specific practical considerations that apply to the care of lymphoma patients during the outbreak. We hope to provide a practical framework to help guide physicians in their therapeutic choices and facilitate the ongoing management of this specific patient population.

Role of Model-Informed Drug Development in Pediatric Drug Development, Regulatory Evaluation, and Labeling

The unique challenges in pediatric drug development require efficient and innovative tools. Model-informed drug development (MIDD) offers many powerful tools that have been frequently applied in pediatric drug development. MIDD refers to the application of quantitative models to integrate and leverage existing knowledge to bridge knowledge gaps and facilitate development and decision-making processes. This article discusses the current practices and visions of applying MIDD in pediatric drug development, regulatory evaluation, and labeling, with detailed examples. The application of MIDD in pediatric drug development can be broadly classified into 3 categories: leveraging knowledge for bridging the gap, dose selection and optimization, and informing clinical trial design. In particular, MIDD can provide evidence for the assumption of exposure-response similarity in bridging existing knowledge from reference to target population, support the dose selection and optimization based on the "exposure-matching" principle in the pediatric population, and increase the efficiency and success rate of pediatric trials. In addition, the role of physiologically based pharmacokinetics in drug-drug interaction in children and adolescents and in utilizing ontogeny data to predict pharmacokinetics in neonates and infants has also been illustrated. Moving forward, MIDD should be incorporated into all pediatric drug development programs at every stage to inform clinical trial design and dose selection, with both its strengths and limitations clearly laid out. The accumulated experience and knowledge of MIDD has and will continue to drive regulatory policy development and refinement, which will ultimately improve the consistency and efficiency of pediatric drug development.

Opportunities for Quantitative Translational Modeling in Oncology

A 2-day meeting was held by members of the UK Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Network () in November 2018 on the topic of Translational Challenges in Oncology. Participants from a wide range of backgrounds were invited to discuss current and emerging modeling applications in nonclinical and clinical drug development, and to identify areas for improvement. This resulting perspective explores opportunities for impactful quantitative pharmacology approaches. Four key themes arose from the presentations and discussions that were held, leading to the following recommendations: Evaluate the predictivity and reproducibility of animal cancer models through precompetitive collaboration. Apply mechanism of action (MoA) based mechanistic models derived from nonclinical data to clinical trial data. Apply MoA reflective models across trial data sets to more robustly quantify the natural history of disease and response to differing interventions. Quantify more robustly the dose and concentration dependence of adverse events through mathematical modelling techniques and modified trial design.

Extended-Interval Dosing Strategy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Lung Cancer: Will it Outlast the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Patients with lung cancer are particularly vulnerable to complications from coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Recurrent hospital visits and hospital admission are potential risk factors for acquiring infection with its causative pathogen, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). As immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) constitute the therapeutic backbone for the vast majority of patients with advanced lung cancer in the absence of actionable driver oncogenes, there have been intense discussions within the oncology community regarding risk-benefit of delaying these treatments or use of alternative extended-interval treatment strategies to minimize the risk of viral transmission secondary to unintended nosocomial exposures. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for extended-interval strategy of pembrolizumab at a dose of 400 mg every 6 weeks for all already approved oncologic indications. Herein, we summarize the evidence from the in silico pharmacokinetic modeling/simulation studies supporting extended-interval dosing strategies for the ICIs used in lung cancer. We further review the evolving clinical evidence behind these approaches and predict that they will continue to be used in routine practice even long after the pandemic, particularly for patients with durable disease control.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Dosing: Can We Go Lower Without Compromising Clinical Efficacy?

In just a few years, immune checkpoint inhibitors have dramatically changed the landscape in oncology, offering durable responses and improved survival for many patients across several tumor types. With more than 3,300 new agents in the immuno-oncology pipeline plus a wide array of combinations being studied, it seems this new era is just getting started. These advances come with a significant caveat: most of the world population does not have access to their benefits, because the yearly cost of a novel anticancer medication can routinely exceed $100,000. There is a large amount of data showing that checkpoint inhibitors have significant activity at doses much lower than those currently approved. We review the evidence for reduced drug dosing as a strategy to increase the number of patients who can be treated and what would be needed to further validate this approach.

Design and Conduct of Early Clinical Studies of Immunotherapy: Recommendations from the Task Force on Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies 2019 (MDICT)

PURPOSE

To review key aspects of the design and conduct of early clinical trials (ECT) of immunotherapy agents.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies Task Force 2019 included experts from academia, nonprofit organizations, industry, and regulatory agencies. The review focus was on methodology for ECTs testing immune-oncology therapies (IO) used in combination with other IO or chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Although early successes have been seen, the landscape continues to be very dynamic, and there are ongoing concerns regarding the capacity to test all new drugs and combinations in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimization of drug development methodology is required, taking into account early, late, and lower grade intolerable toxicities, novel response patterns, as well as pharmacodynamic data.

How to manage lymphoid malignancies during novel 2019 coronavirus (CoVid-19) outbreak: a Brazilian task force recommendation

The novel Coronavirus (CoVid-19) outbreak is now consider a world pandemic, affecting more than 1,300,000 people worldwide. Cancer patients are in risk for severe disease, including a higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for invasive ventilation or death. Management of patients with lymphoid malignancies can be challenging during the outbreak, due to need of multiple hospital visits and admissions, immunosuppression and need for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and stem cell transplantation. In this article, we will focus on the practical management of patients with lymphoid malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on minimizing the risk for patients.

An Analysis of Recent FDA Oncology Scientific Publications

In addition to its primary regulatory role, the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is engaged in many forms of scientific authorship. During the period of 2010 to 2018, FDA oncology staff contributed to 356 publications in the scientific literature. Here, we collaborated with analysts in the Office of Program Planning, Analysis, and Evaluation at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH), to present a series of analyses aimed at quantifying the characteristics and potential impact of these contributions, as well as characterizing the areas of work addressed. We found that FDA oncology papers are enriched for high-impact publications and have about two times the number of citations as an average NIH-funded paper. Further impact of the publications was measured based on the presence of 65 publications that were cited by guidelines and 12 publications cited by publicly listed clinical trials. The results seen here are promising in determining the impact of FDA oncology publication work but prompt further investigation into longer-term impacts, such as the influence of this work on other regulatory activities at FDA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes the first comprehensive study of scientific publications produced by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology staff. The analysis illustrates that staff are highly engaged in publishing in the scientific literature in addition to completing regulatory review work. Publications are generally in clinical medicine, consistent with the large number of medical oncologists working at the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP). OHOP publications generally focus either on communicating important regulatory work (approval summaries) or highlighting regulatory science issues to encourage dialogue with the scientific community (commentaries, reviews, and expert working papers). The analysis also suggests that several FDA oncology publications may influence clinical guidelines, but further work is needed to evaluate impact.

Progress and Opportunities to Advance Clinical Cancer Therapeutics Using Tumor Dynamic Models

There is a need for new approaches and endpoints in oncology drug development, particularly with the advent of immunotherapies and the multiple drug combinations under investigation. Tumor dynamics modeling, a key component to oncology "model-informed drug development," has shown a growing number of applications and a broader adoption by drug developers and regulatory agencies in the past years to support drug development and approval in a variety of ways. Tumor dynamics modeling is also being investigated in personalized cancer therapy approaches. These models and applications are reviewed and discussed, as well as the limitations and issues open for further investigations. A close collaboration between stakeholders like clinical investigators, statisticians, and pharmacometricians is warranted to advance clinical cancer therapeutics.

Structure and Optimization of Checkpoint Inhibitors

With the advent of checkpoint inhibitor treatment for various cancer types, the optimization of drug selection, pharmacokinetics and biomarker assays is an urgent and as yet unresolved dilemma for clinicians, pharmaceutical companies and researchers. Drugs which inhibit cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein-4 (CTLA-4), such as ipilimumab and tremelimumab, programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1), such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1), such as atezolizumab, durvalumab and avelumab, each appear to have varying pharmacokinetics and clinical activity in different cancer types. Each drug differs in terms of dosing, which becomes an issue when drug comparisons are attempted. Here, we examine the various checkpoint inhibitors currently used and in development. We discuss the antibodies and their protein targets, their pharmacokinetics as measured in various tumor types, and their binding affinities to their respective antigens. We also examine the various dosing regimens for these drugs and how they differ. Finally, we examine new developments and methods to optimize delivery and efficacy in the field of checkpoint inhibitors, including non-fucosylation, prodrug formations, bispecific antibodies, and newer small molecule and peptide checkpoint inhibitors.

Alternative dosing regimens for atezolizumab: an example of model-informed drug development in the postmarketing setting

PURPOSE

To determine the exposure-response (ER) relationships between atezolizumab exposure and efficacy or safety in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or urothelial carcinoma (UC) and to identify alternative dosing regimens.

METHODS

ER analyses were conducted using pooled NSCLC and UC data from phase 1 and 3 studies (PCD4989g, OAK, IMvigor211; ClinicalTrials.gov IDs, NCT01375842, NCT02008227, and NCT02302807, respectively). Objective response rate, overall survival, and adverse events were evaluated vs pharmacokinetic (PK) metrics. Population PK-simulated exposures for regimens of 840 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) and 1680 mg every 4 weeks (q4w) were compared with the approved regimen of 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w) and the maximum assessed dose (MAD; 20 mg/kg q3w). Phase 3 IMpassion130 (NCT02425891) data were used to validate the PK simulations for 840 mg q2w. Observed safety data were evaluated by exposure and body weight subgroups.

RESULTS

No significant ER relationships were observed for safety or efficacy. Predicted exposures for 840 mg q2w and 1680 mg q4w were comparable to 1200 mg q3w and the MAD and consistent with observed PK data from IMpassion130. Observed safety was similar between patients with a C_max above and below the predicted C_max for 1680 mg q4w and between patients in the lowest and upper 3 body weight quartiles.

CONCLUSION

Atezolizumab regimens of 840 mg q2w and 1680 mg q4w are expected to have comparable efficacy and safety as the approved regimen of 1200 mg q3w, supporting their interchangeable use and offering patients greater flexibility.

Model-Informed Drug Development Approach Supporting Approval of Adalimumab (HUMIRA) in Adolescent Patients with Hidradenitis Suppurativa: a Regulatory Perspective

On October 16, 2018, FDA expanded the adalimumab dosing regimen to adolescent hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) patients 12 years and older, weighing at least 30 kg without new clinical data. This approval was mainly supported by the model-informed drug development approach. Population pharmacokinetic simulations suggest body weight-tiered dosing regimens in adolescent patients will achieve similar exposure to adult patients across all weight range. Adalimumab has a well-established, 16-year long-term safety profile in various diseases in adult and pediatric populations. Current data of adalimumab in the pediatric population demonstrate no exposure-response relationship for adverse events. The effectiveness in adolescent patients was extrapolated from two adequate and well-controlled phase 3 studies in adult patients, assuming similar positive exposure-efficacy relationships in adults and adolescents. This article provides the insight of the application of MIDD on the adalimumab approval in adolescent HS patients and its implication on drug development and regulatory decision especially for pediatrics or rare diseases.