Pharmacokinetically-guided dosing to improve the efficacy of brigatinib in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Brigatinib was recently approved for the treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer and is dosed according to a one-dose-fits-all paradigm. We aimed to identify a pharmacokinetically-guided precision dosing strategy to improve treatment response with brigatinib through simulations using a previously published pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model. Dosing strategies explored were the approved 180 mg QD; the highest tolerable dose tested in clinical trials: 240 mg QD; and two precision dosing strategies targeting the median trough concentrations following 180 mg QD, and 240 mg QD. We investigated the impact of alternative dosing regimens on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and the probability of developing a grade ≥2 rash or grade ≥2 amylase increase. Median PFS and OS increased by 1.6 and 7.8 months, respectively between the currently approved dosing strategy and precision dosing to the median trough concentration of the 240 mg dosing strategy, with only a minor increase in the probability of developing toxicity

Early bactericidal activity studies for pulmonary tuberculosis : A systematic review of methodological aspects

A milestone in the development of novel antituberculosis drugs is the demonstration of early bactericidal activity (EBA) in a phase IIa clinical trial. The significant variability in measurements of bacterial load complicates data analysis in these trials. A systematic review and evaluation of methods for determination of EBA in pulmonary tuberculosis studies was undertaken. Bacterial load quantification biomarkers, reporting intervals, calculation methods, statistical testing, and handling of negative culture results were extracted. In total, 79 studies were identi-fied in which EBA was determined. Colony-forming units on solid culture media and/or time-to-positivity in liquid media were the biomarkers used most often, reported in 72 (91%) and 34 (43%) studies, respec-tively. Twenty-two different reporting intervals were presented, and 12 different calculation methods for EBA were identified. Statistical testing for a significant EBA compared with no change was performed in 54 (68%) studies, and between-group testing was performed in 32 (41%) studies. Negative culture result handling was discussed in 34 (43%) studies. Notable variation was found in the analysis methods and reporting of EBA studies. A standardized and clearly reported analysis method, accounting for different levels of variability in the data, could aid the generalization of study results and facilitate comparison between drugs/regimens