Extension of the Alternative IV Dosing Regimens of Atezolizumab into Combination Settings through Modeling and Simulation

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.

In Silico Re-Optimization of Atezolizumab Dosing Using Population Pharmacokinetic Simulation and Exposure-Response Simulation

Atezolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), was initially approved in 2016, around the same time that the sponsor published the minimum serum concentration to maintain the saturation of receptor occupancy (6 μg/mL). The initially approved dose regimen of 1200 mg every 3 weeks (q3w) was subsequently modified to 840 mg q2w or 1680 mg q4w through pharmacokinetic simulations. Yet, each standard regimen yields steady-state trough concentrations (CMIN,SS ) far exceeding (≈ 40-fold) the stated target concentration. Additionally, the steady-state area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUCSS ) at 1200 mg q3w was significantly (P = .027) correlated with the probability of adverse events of special interest (AESIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and, coupled with excess exposure, this provides incentive to explore alternative dose regimens to lower the exposure burden while maintaining an effective CMIN,SS . In this study, we first identified 840 mg q6w as an extended-interval regimen that could robustly maintain a serum concentration of 6 μg/mL (≥99% of virtual patients simulated, n = 1000), then applied this regimen to an approach that administers 2 "loading doses" of standard-interval regimens for a future clinical trial aiming to personalize dose regimens. Each standard dose was simulated for 2 loading doses, then 840 mg q6w thereafter; all yielded cycle-7 CMIN,SS values of >6 μg/mL in >99% of virtual patients. Further, the AUCSS from 840 mg q6w resulted in a flattening (P = .63) of the exposure-response relationship with adverse events of special interest (AESIs). We next aim to verify this in a clinical trial seeking to validate extended-interval dosing in a personalized approach using therapeutic drug monitoring.

Development of a pediatric physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to support recommended dosing of atezolizumab in children with solid tumors

Background: Atezolizumab has been studied in multiple indications for both pediatric and adult patient populations. Generally, clinical studies enrolling pediatric patients may not collect sufficient pharmacokinetic data to characterize the drug exposure and disposition because of operational, ethical, and logistical challenges including burden to children and blood sample volume limitations. Therefore, mechanistic modeling and simulation may serve as a tool to predict and understand the drug exposure in pediatric patients.

Objective: To use mechanistic physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to predict atezolizumab exposure at a dose of 15 mg/kg (max 1,200 mg) in pediatric patients to support dose rationalization and label recommendations.

Methods: A minimal mechanistic PBPK model was used which incorporated age-dependent changes in physiology and biochemistry that are related to atezolizumab disposition such as endogenous IgG concentration and lymph flow. The PBPK model was developed using both in vitro data and clinically observed data in adults and was verified across dose levels obtained from a phase I and multiple phase III studies in both pediatric patients and adults. The verified model was then used to generate PK predictions for pediatric and adult subjects ranging from 2- to 29-year-old.

Results: Individualized verification in children and in adults showed that the simulated concentrations of atezolizumab were comparable (76% within two-fold and 90% within three-fold, respectively) to the observed data with no bias for either over- or under-prediction. Applying the verified model, the predicted exposure metrics including C_min, C_max, and AUC_tau were consistent between pediatric and adult patients with a geometric mean of pediatric exposure metrics between 0.8- to 1.25-fold of the values in adults.

Conclusion: The results show that a 15 mg/kg (max 1,200 mg) atezolizumab dose administered intravenously in pediatric patients provides comparable atezolizumab exposure to a dose of 1,200 mg in adults. This suggests that a dose of 15 mg/kg will provide adequate and effective atezolizumab exposure in pediatric patients from 2- to 18-year-old.