Comparison of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration of rituximab as maintenance treatment for follicular lymphoma: results from a two-stage, phase IB study.

PURPOSE: This two-stage phase IB study investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) administration of rituximab as maintenance therapy in follicular lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In stage 1 (dose finding), 124 patients who responded to rituximab induction were randomly assigned to SC rituximab (375 mg/m2, 625 mg/m2, or an additional group at 800 mg/m2) or IV rituximab (375 mg/m2). The objective was to determine an SC dose that would yield a rituximab serum trough concentration (Ctrough) in the same range as that of IV rituximab. In stage 2, 154 additional patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to SC rituximab (1,400 mg) or IV rituximab (375 mg/m2) given at 2- or 3-month intervals. The objective was to demonstrate noninferior rituximab Ctrough of SC rituximab relative to IV rituximab 375 mg/m2. RESULTS: Stage 1 data predicted that a fixed dose of 1,400 mg SC rituximab would result in a serum Ctrough in the range of that of IV rituximab. Noninferiority (ie, meeting the prespecified 90% CI lower limit of 0.8) was then confirmed in stage 2, with geometric mean Ctrough SC:Ctrough IV ratios for the 2- and 3-month regimens of 1.24 (90% CI, 1.02 to 1.51) and 1.12 (90% CI, 0.86 to 1.45), respectively. Overall safety profiles were similar between formulations (in stage 2, 79% of patients experienced one or more adverse events in each group). Local administration-related reactions (mainly mild to moderate) occurred more frequently after SC administration. CONCLUSION: The fixed dose of 1,400 mg SC rituximab predicted by using stage 1 results was confirmed to have noninferior Ctrough levels relative to IV rituximab 375 mg/m2 dosing during maintenance, with a comparable safety profile. Additional investigation will be required to determine whether the SC route of administration for rituximab provides equivalent efficacy compared with that of IV administration.

Absence of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction of pertuzumab with trastuzumab and docetaxel.

Pertuzumab is a novel antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) humanized monoclonal antibody. Combined with trastuzumab plus docetaxel, pertuzumab improved progression-free and overall survival versus trastuzumab plus docetaxel in the phase III CLEOPATRA trial (NCT00567190) in first-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-seven patients participated in a pharmacokinetic (PK)/corrected QT interval substudy of CLEOPATRA, which evaluated potential PK drug-drug interaction (DDI). PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods, and DDI analyses were carried out. In the presence of trastuzumab and docetaxel, the mean pertuzumab Cmin and Cmax in cycle 3 were 63.6 and 183 µg/ml, respectively. The pertuzumab concentrations observed were consistent with simulations from a validated population PK model, indicating that trastuzumab and docetaxel did not alter pertuzumab PK. Comparison of geometric least-squares mean PK parameters between arms showed no impact of pertuzumab on the PK of trastuzumab or docetaxel. In conclusion, no PK DDI was observed when pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel were combined for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

A phase Ib, dose-finding study of erlotinib in combination with a fixed dose of pertuzumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pertuzumab, a dimerization inhibitor of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), has demonstrated pharmacodynamic activity, with stable disease in non-small-cell lung cancer. Combining erlotinib and pertuzumab may enhance antitumor activity. This study aimed to establish the recommended dosing of the erlotinib and pertuzumab combination; assess safety, preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics; and analyze biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with stage IIIb/IV non-small-cell lung cancer who failed chemotherapy were recruited. The patients received erlotinib (days -8 to -1), then combination therapy (21-day cycles for 6 cycles). Pertuzumab was given intravenous at 840 mg, then 420 mg once every three weeks, with erlotinib given daily (100 or 150 mg). RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Adverse events were generally grade 1/2 and manageable. The objective response rate was 20% (3/15 patients; 2 responders had mutant HER1, 1 responder had wild-type HER1), median overall progression-free survival was 9.3 weeks. High HER1, HER2, and HER3 messenger RNA expression correlated with increased progression-free survival. Combination therapy did not affect erlotinib's pharmacokinetics; however, pertuzumab mean exposures (maximum concentration, 231 mg/L; area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 21 days, 1780 mg*d/L) were slightly higher than in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was well tolerated in patients with good performance status, with encouraging efficacy. A loading dose of pertuzumab 840 mg followed by 420 mg once every three weeks plus daily erlotinib 150 mg appears to be the most appropriate regimen for this combination.

Effect of oseltamivir treatment on anticoagulation: a cross-over study in warfarinized patients.

AIM: To investigate whether oseltamivir enhances the anticoagulant effect of warfarin and to evaluate any pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction between the agents. METHODS: Twenty volunteers (mean age 62 years) receiving daily warfarin and with INR values of 2.0-3.5 during the previous 2 weeks were randomized to concomitant oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for 4.5 days or warfarin alone in a two-way cross-over design with a 4-8 day wash-out. Anticoagulant effects were assessed by calculating overall [AUEC(0,96 h)] and observed maximum effect (E(max) ) increase from baseline in INR, decrease from baseline in factor VIIa, and change in vitamin K1 concentrations. Plasma pharmacokinetics of (R)- and (S)-warfarin and oseltamivir were also assessed. RESULTS: For both treatments, changes in INR and factor VIIa during treatment were small; for net AUEC(0,96 h), least square mean values were -9.53 (oseltamivir + warfarin) and -1.69 h (warfarin alone) for INR (difference -7.84 h, 90% CI -18.86, 3.17 h), and 1.56 and 0.54 kIU l⁻¹ h, respectively, for factor VIIa (difference, 1.01 kIU l⁻¹ h; 90% CI -1.18, 3.21). Differences between the treatments in E(max) increase from baseline for INR, decrease from baseline for factor VIIa and change from baseline in vitamin K1 concentration were not statistically significant. Oseltamivir did not alter warfarin pharmacokinetics. Oseltamivir was well tolerated in this study with no clinically significant adverse safety findings. CONCLUSION: Concomitant administration of oseltamivir for 4.5 days to volunteers on daily warfarin had little or no effect on warfarin pharmacokinetics and no effect on pharmacodynamics.

The pharmacokinetics and tolerability of oseltamivir suspension in patients on haemodialysis and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Oseltamivir dose reduction is recommended for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, dosing recommendations are not available for treatment or prophylaxis of influenza in these patients. This study assessed the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of oseltamivir in ESRD patients undergoing maintenance haemodialysis (HD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). METHODS: In this open-label, multiple-dose study, patients received 30 mg oral oseltamivir suspension over 6.5 weeks. This dose was predicted to be suitable for ESRD patients based on a 2-compartment model. HD patients received 9 doses given 1 h after the completion of alternate HD sessions (three times a week). CAPD patients received 6 doses given once weekly after a dialysate exchange. The primary parameters were peak plasma concentration (C(max)) and the area under the curve (AUC) for oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate. RESULTS: In HD patients, the C(max) for oseltamivir carboxylate after single and repeated dosing were 943 and 1120 ng/ml, respectively. The mean AUC(0-42) was 31 600 ng h/ml for days 1-5 and 38 200 ng h/ml for days 38-43. Similarly, in CAPD patients, mean C(max) after the first and sixth doses were 885 and 849 ng/ml, respectively. The mean AUC(0-48) values for days 1-6 and days 36-43 were 33 400 and 32 400 ng h/ml, respectively. Oseltamivir was well-tolerated in both the patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: A 30 mg dose of oseltamivir given once weekly in CAPD or after alternate sessions in HD patients provides sufficient exposure to oseltamivir carboxylate to allow safe and effective anti-influenza treatment and prophylaxis.

Gait analysis as an objective measure in a chronic pain model.

The aim of this study was to investigate objective characterisation of gait as a marker of the chronic pain of adjuvant arthritis (AA). Video recorded images of spontaneous rat ambulations were analysed to quantify various temporal and spatial parameters and compare these between the AA and control groups. Changes were also recorded after the administration of a single dose of buprenorphine (15 ?g). Individual temporal parameters were significantly reduced (velocity (P=0.05), stride length (P=0.007), single stance time (P<0.001), swing time (P=0.001)), or increased (dual stance time (P<0.001)) at 10 days in the AA group compared to control. The rear paws showed reduced ground contact and the fore paws an increase in proximal pad and decrease in digit area, although these changes were not all statistically significant. Some of the gait parameters showed significant reversal following administration of buprenorphine (velocity (P<0.001) and stride length (P<0.001) were increased and single stance time (P=0.014) reduced). It is proposed that changes in gait are a marker of AA chronic pain in this model. These behavioural changes were significant at a very early stage (day 10), before the development of physical deformities and increase in paw volume and might permit an earlier detection of pain than other models.