A Science-Based Methodology Framework for the Assessment of Combination Safety Risks in Clinical Trials

Multiple components factor into the assessment of combination safety risks when two or more novel individual products are used in combination in clinical trials. These include, but are not limited to, biology, biochemistry, pharmacology, class effects, and preclinical and clinical findings (such as adverse drug reactions, drug target and mechanism of action, target expression, signaling, and drug-drug interactions). This paper presents a science-based methodology framework for the assessment of combination safety risks when two or more investigational products are used in clinical trials. The aim of this methodology framework is to improve prediction of the risks, to enable the appropriate safety risk mitigation and management to be put in place for the combination, and the development of the project combination safety strategy.

A Phase I Study Investigating AZD8186, a Potent and Selective Inhibitor of PI3Kβ/δ, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

PURPOSE

To characterize safety and tolerability of the selective PI3Kβ inhibitor AZD8186, identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and assess preliminary efficacy in combination with abiraterone acetate or vistusertib.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase I open-label study included patients with advanced solid tumors, particularly prostate cancer, triple-negative breast cancer, and squamous non-small cell lung cancer. The study comprised four arms: (i) AZD8186 monotherapy dose finding; (ii) monotherapy dose expansion; (iii) AZD8186/abiraterone acetate (with prednisone); and (iv) AZD8186/vistusertib. The primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and identification of the RP2D of AZD8186 monotherapy and in combination. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, and tumor and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses.

RESULTS

In total, 161 patients were enrolled. AZD8186 was well tolerated across all study arms, the most common adverse events being gastrointestinal symptoms. In the monotherapy dose-finding arm, four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (mainly rash). AZD8186 doses of 60-mg twice daily [BID; 5 days on, 2 days off (5:2)] and 120-mg BID (continuous and 5:2 dosing) were taken into subsequent arms. The PKs of AZD8186 were dose proportional, without interactions with abiraterone acetate or vistusertib, and target inhibition was observed in plasma and tumor tissue. Monotherapy and combination therapy showed preliminary evidence of limited antitumor activity by imaging and, in prostate cancer, PSA reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

AZD8186 monotherapy had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, and combination with abiraterone acetate/prednisone or vistusertib was also tolerated. There was preliminary evidence of antitumor activity, meriting further exploration of AZD8186 in subsequent studies in PI3Kβ pathway-dependent cancers.

Concentration-QT modeling shows no evidence of clinically significant QT interval prolongation with capivasertib at expected therapeutic concentrations

Pharmacokinetics‐matched digital electrocardiogram data (n = 503 measurements from 180 patients) collected in a first‐in‐human, multi‐part, dose‐escalation (from 80 to 800 mg) and dose expansion (at 480 mg) phase 1 study in patients with advanced solid malignancies, were used to assess potential risk of QT prolongation associated with the AKT inhibitor capivasertib. The relationship between plasma drug concentrations and baseline‐adjusted Fridericia‐corrected QT (ΔQTcF) values was estimated using a prespecified linear mixed‐effects model. The model provided an unbiased reproduction of the experimental data set, estimating a small but positive correlation between capivasertib concentration and ΔQTcF. At the expected therapeutic dose (400 mg twice daily) the predicted mean ΔQTcF at the steady state maximum concentration was 3.97 ms with an upper limit of the 90% CI of 5.07 ms; below the 10 ms limit proposed by ICH E14 guidance. This analysis suggests that capivasertib is not expected to present a clinically significant risk for QT prolongation that is associated with pro‐arrhythmic effects.