Healthy volunteers in first-in-human oncology drug development for small molecules

The use of microtracers in food-effect trials: An alternative study design for toxic drugs with long half-lives exemplified by the case for alectinib

The traditional design of food-effect studies has a high patient burden for toxic drugs with long half-lives (e.g., anticancer agents). Microtracers could be used to assess food-effect in patients without influencing their ongoing treatment. The feasibility of a microtracer food-effect study during steady-state of the therapeutic drug was investigated in an in silico simulation study with alectinib as an example for a relative toxic drug with a long half-life. Microtracer pharmacokinetics were simulated based on a previously published population pharmacokinetic model and used for estimation of a model with and a model without food as a covariate on oral bioavailability of alectinib (assuming a 40% food-effect). Power was defined as the fraction of clinical trials where a significant (p < 0.01) food-effect was identified. The proposed study design of 10 patients on steady-state treatment, 10 blood samples collected within 24 h after administration and an assumed food-effect of 40% had a power of 99.9%. The mean estimated food-effect was 39.8% (80% confidence interval: 31.0%-48.6%). The feasibility of microtracer food-effect studies was demonstrated. The design of the microtracer food-effect study allowed estimation of the food-effect with minimal influence on therapeutic treatment and reducing patient burden compared to the traditional study design for toxic drugs with long half-lives.

Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.

Toxicologic Pathology Forum: Opinion on Approaches for Reporting Toxic and Adverse Dose Levels in Nonclinical Toxicology Studies Supporting the Development of Anticancer Pharmaceuticals

The advancement of an investigational new drug in humans is a significant developmental milestone. In first-in-human (FIH)-enabling toxicology studies, the highest dose without a test article-related adverse effect (no-observed-adverse-effect-level [NOAEL]) serves as the basis for deriving a safe FIH starting dose. For anticancer pharmaceuticals, the FIH dose may be calculated using the highest non-severely toxic dose (HNSTD) in nonrodent models or the dose severely toxic to 10% (STD10) in rodents. Given the practice of reporting the NOAEL, but the lack of regulatory requirements to do so for anticancer pharmaceuticals, we conducted an informal survey of 20 companies to answer the question "How is our industry reporting toxic/adverse dose levels in FIH-enabling toxicology studies for anticancer indications?" The data indicated 4 reporting approaches, each providing a path to regulatory acceptance. Within the integrated toxicology study report, 45% of respondents report the HNSTD/STD10, 25% report the NOAEL, 20% report both the HNSTD/STD10 and NOAEL, and 10% do not define either, reserving definitions for regulatory submissions. One reporting approach may be preferred over another for reasons including consistency across indications, repurposing pharmaceuticals, regulatory feedback, or simplicity. The reporting approach should be defined in advance of study initiation, and the pathologist should provide context to support the chosen approach.

Effects of food and race on the pharmacokinetics of lazertinib in healthy subjects and patients with EGFR mutation-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Lazertinib is a potent, irreversible, brain-penetrant, mutant-selective, and wild type-sparing third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor indicated for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study aimed to evaluate the effects of food and race on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of lazertinib from a healthy volunteer trial and PK data from NSCLC patients with EGFR mutation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An open-label, single-dose, two-period, single-sequence crossover study was conducted in healthy subjects with two race groups (non-Asian and Asian). Subjects orally received a single dose of lazertinib 240 mg in fasted and fed state (high-fat meal) in each period separated by a 21-day washout. An open-label, multicenter, phase 1/2 study was conducted in Asian and non-Asian patients with NSCLC. Patients were given oral lazertinib 20-320 mg once daily in fasted state continuously in 21-day cycles. PK parameters were evaluated using non-compartmental analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 24 healthy subjects (12 non-Asians and 12 Asians) and 52 NSCLC patients (22 non-Asians and 30 Asians) were evaluated. The change in the overall systemic exposure of lazertinib at fed state was less than 15%. Non-Asians showed 58-76% of the systemic exposure than Asians in healthy subjects. In contrast, there were no significant differences in systemic exposure by race both after single and multiple doses among NSCLC patients.

CONCLUSION

Lazertinib can be taken with or without food considering the comparable systemic exposures related to food. Although effect of race was not consistent across studies, there was no evidence for dose adjustment based on race.

Integration of healthy volunteers in early phase clinical trials with immuno-oncological compounds

Aim

Traditionally, early phase clinical trials in oncology have been performed in patients based on safety risk-benefit assessment. Therapeutic transition to immuno-oncology may open new opportunities for studies in healthy volunteers, which are conducted faster and are less susceptible to confounders. Aim of this study was to investigate to what extent this approach is utilized and whether pharmacodynamic endpoints are evaluated in these early phase trials. We conducted a comprehensive review of clinical trials with healthy volunteers using immunotherapies potentially relevant for oncology.

Methods

Literature searches according to PRISMA guidelines and after registration in PROSPERO were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases with the cut-off date 20 October 2020, using search terms of relevant targets in immuno-oncology. Articles describing clinical trials with immunotherapeutics in healthy volunteers with a mechanism relevant for oncology were included. “Immunotherapeutic” was defined as compounds exhibiting effects through immunological targets. Data including study design and endpoints were extracted, with specific attention to pharmacodynamic endpoints and safety.

Results

In total, we found 38 relevant immunotherapeutic compounds tested in HVs, with 86% of studies investigating safety, 82% investigating the pharmacokinetics (PK) and 57% including at least one pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoint. Most of the observed adverse events (AEs) were Grade 1 and 2, consisting mostly of gastrointestinal, cutaneous and flu-like symptoms. Severe AEs were leukopenia, asthenia, syncope, headache, flu-like reaction and liver enzymes increase. PD endpoints investigated comprised of cytokines, immune and inflammatory biomarkers, cell counts, phenotyping circulating immune cells and ex vivo challenge assays.

Discussion

Healthy volunteer studies with immuno-oncology compounds have been performed, although not to a large extent. The integration of healthy volunteers in well-designed proof-of-mechanism oriented drug development programs has advantages and could be pursued more in the future, since integrative clinical trial protocols may facilitate early dose selection and prevent cancer patients to be exposed to non-therapeutic dosing regimens.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=210861, identifier CRD42020210861