A limited sampling schedule to estimate individual pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed in patients with varying renal functions

Purpose: Pemetrexed is a widely used cytostatic agent with an established exposure–response relationship. Although dosing is based on body surface area (BSA), large interindividual variability in pemetrexed plasma concentrations is observed. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can be a feasible strategy to reduce variability in specific cases leading to potentially optimized pemetrexed treatment. The aim of this study was to develop a limited sampling schedule (LSS) for the assessment of pemetrexed pharmacokinetics. Methods: Based on two real-life datasets, several limited sampling designs were evaluated on predicting clearance, using NONMEM, based on mean prediction error (MPE %) and normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE %). The predefined criteria for an acceptable LSS were: a maximum of four sampling time points within 8 h with an MPE and NRMSE ≤ 20%. Results: For an accurate estimation of clearance, only four samples in a convenient window of 8 h were required for accurate and precise prediction (MPE and NRMSE of 3.6% and 5.7% for dataset 1 and of 15.5% and 16.5% for dataset 2). A single sample at t = 24 h performed also within the criteria with MPE and NRMSE of 5.8% and 8.7% for dataset 1 and of 11.5% and 16.4% for dataset 2. Bias increased when patients had lower creatinine clearance. Conclusions: We presented two limited sampling designs for estimation of pemetrexed pharmacokinetics. Either one can be used based on preference and feasibility

Model-Informed Development of a Cost-Saving Dosing Regimen for Sacituzumab Govitecan

Background: The antibody–drug conjugate sacituzumab govitecan is approved for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and has shown promising results in various other types of cancer. Its costs may limit patient access to this novel effective treatment modality. Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based rational dosing regimen that results in targeted drug exposure within the therapeutic range while minimizing financial toxicity, to improve treatment access. Patients and Methods: Exposure equivalent dosing strategies were developed based on pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation by using the published pharmacokinetic model developed by the license holder. The alternative dose was based on the principle of using complete vials to prevent spillage and on the established non-linear relationship between body weight and systemic exposure. Equivalent exposure compared to the approved dosing regimen of 10 mg/kg was aimed for. Equivalent exposure was conservatively defined as calculated geometric mean ratios within the 0.9–1.11 boundaries for area under the concentration–time curve (AUC), trough concentration (Ctrough) and maximum concentration (Cmax) of the alternative dosing regimen compared to the approved dosing regimen. Since different vial sizes are available for the European Union (EU) and United States (US) market, because body weight distributions differ between these populations, we performed our analysis for both scenarios. Results: Dosing regimens of sacituzumab govitecan for the EU (&lt; 50 kg: 400 mg, 50–80 kg: 600 mg, and &gt; 80 kg: 800 mg) and US population (&lt; 40 kg: 360 mg, 40–65 kg: 540 mg, 65–90 kg: 720 mg, and &gt; 90 kg: 900 mg) were developed, based on weight bands. The geometric mean ratios for all pharmacokinetic outcomes were within the predefined equivalence boundaries, while the quantity of drug used was 21.5% and 19.0% lower for the EU and US scenarios, respectively. Conclusions: With the alternative dosing proposal, an approximately 20% reduction in drug expenses for sacituzumab govitecan can be realized while maintaining an equivalent and more evenly distributed exposure throughout the body weight range, without notable increases in pharmacokinetic variability.</p

A Systematic Evaluation of Cost-Saving Dosing Regimens for Therapeutic Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates for the Treatment of Lung Cancer

Background: Expensive novel anticancer drugs put a serious strain on healthcare budgets, and the associated drug expenses limit access to life-saving treatments worldwide. Objective: We aimed to develop alternative dosing regimens to reduce drug expenses. Methods: We developed alternative dosing regimens for the following monoclonal antibodies used for the treatment of lung cancer: amivantamab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ramucirumab; and for the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The alternative dosing regimens were developed by means of modeling and simulation based on the population pharmacokinetic models developed by the license holders. They were based on weight bands and the administration of complete vials to limit drug wastage. The resulting dosing regimens were developed to comply with criteria used by regulatory authorities for in silico dose development. Results: We found that alternative dosing regimens could result in cost savings that range from 11 to 28%, and lead to equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure with no relevant increases in variability in exposure. Conclusions: Dosing regimens based on weight bands and the use of complete vials to reduce drug wastage result in less expenses while maintaining equivalent exposure. The level of evidence of our proposal is the same as accepted by regulatory authorities for the approval of alternative dosing regimens of other monoclonal antibodies in oncology. The proposed alternative dosing regimens can, therefore, be directly implemented in clinical practice.</p

Prediction of the pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed with a low test dose: A proof-of-concept study

Purpose: Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug used for the treatment of lung cancer and mesothelioma. The use of a low test dosing of cytotoxic drugs may aid in dose individualization without causing harm. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to assess if the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of a test dose could predict the PKs of a therapeutic pemetrexed dose. Methods: Ten patients received both a low test dose (100 μg) and a therapeutic dose of pemetrexed after which plasma concentrations pemetrexed were measured. PK analysis was performed by means of nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. The predictive performances of test dose clearance and renal function towards a therapeutic dose were assessed. Results: The PKs of a pemetrexed test dose were best described by a one-compartment model with linear elimination. A high variability in the administered dose was observed for the test dose, but not for the therapeutic dose. A statistically significant correlation between test dose clearance and therapeutic dose clearance was observed (Spearman's rho: 0.758, P = 0.02). The predictive performance of test dose clearance was worse than renal function: mean predictive error (+95% confidence interval [CI]) 53.9% (50.1-57.6%) vs 19.4% (12.4-26.4%) and normalized root-mean square error (+95% CI) 57.8% (30.5-85.1%) vs 25.7% (20.3-31.0%). Conclusion: We show that test dosing of pemetrexed is feasible, but there seems no added value for a low test dosing in the dose individualization of pemetrexed

Rethinking the Application of Pemetrexed for Patients with Renal Impairment : A Pharmacokinetic Analysis

Background Pemetrexed is used for the treatment for non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Patients with renal impairment are withheld treatment with this drug as it is unknown what dose is well tolerated in this population. Objective The purpose of our study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of pemetrexed in patients with renal impairment. Methods A population PK analysis of pemetrexed was performed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling with phase I data obtained from the manufacturer. Additionally, the impact of renal function on pemetrexed PK was assessed with a simulation study using the developed PK model and a previously developed PK model lacking the phase I data. Results The dataset included 548 paired observations of 47 patients, with a wide range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR; 14.4-145.6 mL/min). Pemetrexed PK were best described by a three-compartment model with eGFR (calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] formula) as a linear covariate on renal pemetrexed clearance. Using the developed model, we found that renal clearance accounts for up to 84% (95% confidence interval 69-98%) of total pemetrexed clearance, whereas the manufacturer previously reported a 50% contribution of renal clearance. Conclusion Renal function is more important for the clearance of pemetrexed than previously thought and this should be taken into account in patients with renal impairment. Furthermore, a third compartment may contribute to prolonged exposure to pemetrexed during drug washout

Renal function-based versus standard dosing of pemetrexed: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose: Pemetrexed is a chemotherapeutic drug in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Optimized dosing of pemetrexed based on renal function instead of body surface area (BSA) is hypothesized to reduce pharmacokinetic variability in systemic exposure and could therefore improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare optimized dosing to standard BSA-based dosing. Methods: A multicenter randomized (1:1) controlled trial was performed to assess superiority of optimized dosing versus BSA-based dosing in patients who were eligible for pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. The individual exposure to pemetrexed in terms of area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) was determined. The fraction of patients attaining to a predefined typical target AUC (164 mg × h/L ± 25%) was calculated. Results: A total of 81 patients were included. Target attainment was not statistically significant different between both arms (89% vs. 84% (p = 0.505)). The AUC of pemetrexed was similar between the optimized dosing arm (n = 37) and the standard of care arm (n = 44) (155 mg × h/L vs 160 mg × h/L (p = 0.436). Conclusion: We could not show superiority of optimized dosing of pemetrexed in patients with an adequate renal function does not show added value on the attainment of a pharmacokinetic endpoint, safety, nor QoL compared to standard of care dosing. Clinical trial number: Clinicaltrials.go

Hyperhydration with cisplatin does not influence pemetrexed exposure

Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug for first-line treatment of lung cancer. It is often combined with other anticancer drugs such as cisplatin or carboplatin. In clinical practice, hyperhydration regimens are applied to overcome cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity. As pemetrexed is almost completely eliminated from the body by the kidneys, hyperhydration can result in augmented clearance. Furthermore, administration of large quantities of fluid may increase the volume of distribution of pemetrexed. Pharmacokinetics and, thus, efficacy and toxicity may be influenced by hyperhydration. This has not yet been properly studied. We performed a population pharmacokinetic analysis to assess hyperhydration as a covariate for pemetrexed clearance and for volume of distribution A relevant change was defined as >25% increase in clearance or volume of distribution. In our extensive dataset of 133 individuals, we found that hyperhydration did not significantly or relevantly explain variability in pemetrexed clearance (unchanged, P =.196) or volume of distribution (+7% change, P =.002), despite a power of >99% to detect a relevant change. Therefore, dose adjustments of pemetrexed are not required during hyperhydration with cisplatin