A Semi-Physiological Population Pharmacokinetic Model Describing the Non-linear Disposition of Indisulam

Sultiame pharmacokinetic profile in plasma and erythrocytes after single oral doses: A pilot study in healthy volunteers

A pilot study was conducted aiming at specifying sultiame's pharmacokinetic profile, completed by in vitro assays evaluating the intraerythrocytic transfer of sultiame and by a pharmacokinetic model assessing its distribution. Single oral doses of sultiame (Ospolot^® 50, 100, and 200 mg) were administered in open‐label to four healthy volunteers. Serial plasma, whole blood, and urine samples were collected. A spiking experiment was also performed to characterize sultiame's exchanges between plasma and erythrocytes in vitro. Pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated using standard noncompartmental calculations and nonlinear mixed‐effect modeling. The plasma maximal concentrations (C_max) showed striking nonlinear disposition of sultiame, with a 10‐fold increase while doses were doubled. Conversely, whole blood C_max increased less than dose proportionally while staying much higher than in plasma. Quick uptake of sultiame into erythrocytes observed in vivo was confirmed in vitro, with minimal efflux. A two‐compartment model with first‐order absorption, incorporating a saturable ligand to receptor binding, described the data remarkably well, indicating apparent plasma clearance of 10.0 L/h (BSV: 29%) and distribution volume of 64.8 L; saturable uptake into an intracellular compartment of 3.3 L with a maximum binding capacity of 111 mg accounted for nonlinearities observed in plasma and whole blood concentrations. Pharmacokinetic characteristics of sultiame are reported, including estimates of clearance and volume of distribution that were so far unpublished. The noticeable nonlinearity in sultiame disposition should be taken into account for the design of future studies and the interpretation of therapeutic drug monitoring results.

Incorporation of concentration data below the limit of quantification in population pharmacokinetic analyses

Handling of data below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ), below the limit of quantification (BLOQ) in population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) analyses is important for reducing bias and imprecision in parameter estimation. We aimed to evaluate whether using the concentration data below the LLOQ has superior performance over several established methods. The performance of this approach (“All data”) was evaluated and compared to other methods: “Discard,” “LLOQ/2,” and “LIKE” (likelihood-based). An analytical and residual error model was constructed on the basis of in-house analytical method validations and analyses from literature, with additional included variability to account for model misspecification. Simulation analyses were performed for various levels of BLOQ, several structural PopPK models, and additional influences. Performance was evaluated by relative root mean squared error (RMSE), and run success for the various BLOQ approaches. Performance was also evaluated for a real PopPK data set. For all PopPK models and levels of censoring, RMSE values were lowest using “All data.” Performance of the “LIKE” method was better than the “LLOQ/2” or “Discard” method. Differences between all methods were small at the lowest level of BLOQ censoring. “LIKE” method resulted in low successful minimization (<50%) and covariance step success (<30%), although estimates were obtained in most runs (∼90%). For the real PK data set (7.4% BLOQ), similar parameter estimates were obtained using all methods. Incorporation of BLOQ concentrations showed superior performance in terms of bias and precision over established BLOQ methods, and shown to be feasible in a real PopPK analysis.

Covariate pharmacokinetic model building in oncology and its potential clinical relevance

When modeling pharmacokinetic (PK) data, identifying covariates is important in explaining interindividual variability, and thus increasing the predictive value of the model. Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling with stepwise covariate modeling is frequently used to build structural covariate models, and the most commonly used software-NONMEM-provides estimations for the fixed-effect parameters (e.g., drug clearance), interindividual and residual unidentified random effects. The aim of covariate modeling is not only to find covariates that significantly influence the population PK parameters, but also to provide dosing recommendations for a certain drug under different conditions, e.g., organ dysfunction, combination chemotherapy. A true covariate is usually seen as one that carries unique information on a structural model parameter. Covariate models have improved our understanding of the pharmacology of many anticancer drugs, including busulfan or melphalan that are part of high-dose pretransplant treatments, the antifolate methotrexate whose elimination is strongly dependent on GFR and comedication, the taxanes and tyrosine kinase inhibitors, the latter being subject of cytochrome p450 3A4 (CYP3A4) associated metabolism. The purpose of this review article is to provide a tool to help understand population covariate analysis and their potential implications for the clinic. Accordingly, several population covariate models are listed, and their clinical relevance is discussed. The target audience of this article are clinical oncologists with a special interest in clinical and mathematical pharmacology.

Covariate-based dose individualization of the cytotoxic drug indisulam to reduce the risk of severe myelosuppression

AIM

Chemotherapy with indisulam causes myelosuppression. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of patient-related covariates on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, to identify patients at risk for severe myelosuppression and to develop a dosing algorithm for treatment optimization.

METHODS

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data of 412 patients were available. Non-linear mixed effects modeling was used to determine the relative risk of dose-limiting myelosuppression for various covariates (demographics, physical condition, prior treatment, comedication, CYP2C genotype and biochemistry).

RESULTS

Body surface area (BSA), race and CYP2C genotype had a significant impact on indisulam elimination (P < 0.001). Low BSA, Japanese race, variant CYP2C genotype, low baseline neutrophil and thrombocyte counts and female sex were clinically relevant risk factors of dose-limiting myelosuppression (RR > 1.1). A dosing strategy was developed to optimize treatment for patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified covariates related to an increased risk of myelosuppression after indisulam therapy. Dose individualization may contribute to treatment optimization.

Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis to support treatment optimization of combination chemotherapy with indisulam and carboplatin

AIMS

Indisulam and carboplatin have shown synergistic activity in preclinical studies. In a dose escalation study of the combination, a treatment delay was frequently required in a 3-weekly regimen to allow recovery from myelosuppression from previous cycles. A 4-weekly regimen was better tolerated, but had a decreased dose-intensity which may compromise efficacy. The aims of this study were (i) to develop a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model to describe the myelosuppressive effect of the combination, and (ii) to use this model to select a dosing regimen for Phase II evaluation.

METHODS

Sixteen patients were treated at four different dose levels of indisulam (1-h infusion on day 1) and carboplatin (30-min infusion on day 2). Pharmacokinetic data were analysed with nonlinear mixed effects modelling. A semiphysiological model describing chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression characterized the relationship between the pharmacokinetics and the haematological toxicity of indisulam and carboplatin. A simulation study was performed to evaluate the tolerability and dose-intensity for 3-weekly and 4-weekly treatment regimens.

RESULTS

The PK-PD model described the pharmacokinetics and the myelosuppressive effect of indisulam and carboplatin. The risk of a treatment delay at cycle 2 due to myelosuppression was unacceptably high (34-65%) in a 3-weekly regimen for various dose levels (350-600 mg m(-2) indisulam in combination with carboplatin to achieve an AUC of 4-6 mg min(-1) ml(-1)). This risk was acceptable for a 4-weekly regimen (9-24%), which is in line with the clinical study results.

CONCLUSIONS

This PK-PD study supports the selection of indisulam 500 mg m(-2) and a dose of carboplatin to achieve an AUC of 6 mg min(-1) ml(-1) in a 4-weekly regimen as the recommended dose for future studies.

A dose-escalation study of indisulam in combination with capecitabine (Xeloda) in patients with solid tumours

This dose escalation study was designed to determine the recommended dose of the multi-targeted cell cycle inhibitor indisulam in combination with capecitabine in patients with solid tumours and to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of the combination. Thirty-five patients were treated with indisulam on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Capecitabine was administered two times daily (BID) on days 1–14. Plasma concentrations of indisulam, capecitabine and its three metabolites were determined for pharmacokinetic analysis. The main dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression. Hand/foot syndrome and stomatitis were the major non-haematological toxicities. The recommended dose was initially established at indisulam 700 mg m⁻² and capecitabine 1250 mg m⁻² BID. However, during cycle 2 the recommended dose was poorly tolerated in three patients. A dose of indisulam 500 mg m⁻² and capecitabine 1250 mg m⁻² BID proved to be safe at cycle 1 and 2 in nine additional patients. Indisulam pharmacokinetics during cycle 1 were consistent with pharmacokinetic data from phase I mono-therapy studies. However, exposure to indisulam was remarkably increased at cycle 2 due to a drug–drug interaction between capecitabine and indisulam. Partial response was confirmed in two patients, one with colon carcinoma and the other with pancreatic carcinoma. Seventeen patients had stable disease. Indisulam (700 mg m⁻²) in combination with capecitabine (1250 mg m⁻² BID) was well tolerated during the first cycle. A dose of indisulam 500 mg m⁻² and capecitabine 1250 mg m⁻² BID was considered safe in multiple treatment cycles. The higher incidence of toxicities observed during cycle 2 can be explained by a time-dependent pharmacokinetic drug–drug interaction.

PK/PD model of indisulam and capecitabine: interaction causes excessive myelosuppression

The anticancer agent indisulam was evaluated in a dose-escalation study in combination with capecitabine. Severe myelotoxicity was observed after multiple treatment cycles. We hypothesized that capecitabine inhibits the synthesis of CYP2C9, which metabolizes indisulam. The objectives were to develop a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model for the combination treatment and to estimate the impact of a drug-drug interaction on the safety of various dose levels. NONMEM was used to develop a PK/PD model, including the impact of capecitabine coadministration on indisulam pharmacokinetics. A simulation study was performed to evaluate the risk of dose-limiting neutropenia. A time-dependent pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction resulted in increased exposure to indisulam and in increased myelotoxicity. The risk of dose-limiting neutropenia increased with treatment duration and with dose. The excessive myelosuppression after multiple cycles may be explained by a pharmacokinetic interaction between indisulam and capecitabine. The combination of 550 mg/m(2) indisulam and 1,250 mg/m(2) capecitabine twice daily was considered safe.

CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 polymorphic forms are related to increased indisulam exposure and higher risk of severe hematologic toxicity

PURPOSE

The anticancer agent indisulam is metabolized by the cytochrome P450 of enzymes CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. Polymorphisms of these enzymes may affect the elimination rate of indisulam. Consequently, variant genotypes may be clinically relevant predictors for the risk of developing severe hematologic toxicity. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of genetic variants of CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 on the pharmacokinetics of indisulam and on clinical outcome and to assess the need for pharmacogenetically guided dose adaptation.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Pharmacogenetic screening of CYP2C polymorphisms was done in 67 patients treated with indisulam. Pharmacokinetic data were analyzed with a population pharmacokinetic model, in which drug elimination was described by a linear and a Michaelis-Menten pathway. The relationships between allelic variants and the elimination pharmacokinetic parameters (CL, V(max), K(m)) were tested using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Polymorphisms causing a high risk of dose-limiting neutropenia were identified in a simulation study.

RESULTS

The Michaelis-Menten elimination rate (V(max)) was decreased by 27% (P<0.0001) for heterozygous CYP2C9*3 mutants. Heterozygous CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*3 mutations reduced the linear elimination rate (CL) by 38% (P < 0.0001). The risk of severe neutropenia was significantly increased by these mutations and dose reductions of 50 to 100 mg/m(2) per mutated allele may be required to normalize this risk.

CONCLUSIONS

CYP2C9*3, CYP2C19*2, and CYP2C19*3 polymorphisms resulted in a reduced elimination rate of indisulam. Screening for these CYP2C polymorphisms and subsequent pharmacogenetically guided dose adaptation may assist in the selection of an optimized initial indisulam dosage.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of indisulam in combination with carboplatin

Indisulam (E7070) is an anticancer agent that is currently being evaluated in phase II clinical studies. A significant reduction in glutathione synthetase and glutathione reductase transcripts by indisulam provided a molecular basis for its combination with platinum agents. Indisulam demonstrated high anti-tumour activity in various preclinical cancer models. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the recommended dose of indisulam in combination with carboplatin in patients with solid tumours and (2) to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of the combination. Patients with solid tumours were treated with indisulam in combination with carboplatin. Indisulam (350, 500, or 600 mg m(-2)) was given as a 1-hour intravenous infusion on day 1 and carboplatin (5 or 6 mg min ml(-1)) as an intravenous infusion over 30 min on day 2 of a three-weekly cycle. Sixteen patients received study treatment and were eligible. Thrombocytopenia was the major dose limiting toxicity followed by neutropenia. Both drugs contributed to the myelosuppressive effect of the combination. Indisulam 500 mg m(-2) in combination with carboplatin 6 mg min ml(-1) was identified not to cause dose limiting toxicity, but a delay of re-treatment by 1 week was required regularly to allow recovery from myelosuppression. The recommended dose and schedule for an envisaged phase II study in patients with non-small cell lung cancer is indisulam 500 mg m(-2) in combination with carboplatin 6 mg min ml(-1) repeated four-weekly. Patients who do not experience severe thrombocytopenia at cycle 1 will be permitted to receive an escalated dose of indisulam of 600 mg m(-2) from cycle 2 onwards.