Phase II clinical trial of amatuximab, a chimeric antimesothelin antibody with pemetrexed and cisplatin in advanced unresectable pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Amatuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody to mesothelin, a cell surface glycoprotein highly expressed in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). On the basis of its synergy with chemotherapy in preclinical studies, we evaluated the antitumor activity of amatuximab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin in patients with unresectable MPM. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a single-arm phase II study, amatuximab (5 mg/kg) was administered on days 1 and 8 with pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of 21-day cycles for up to six cycles. Patients with response or stable disease received amatuximab maintenance until disease progression. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were enrolled at 26 centers. Median of five cycles (range, 1-6) of combination treatment was administered, and 56 (63%) patients received amatuximab maintenance. Combination therapy resulted in no overlapping toxicities. Eleven patients (12.4%) had amatuximab-related hypersensitivity reactions. Responses included partial responses in 33 (40%) and stable disease in 42 (51%). Six-month PFS rate was 51% [95% confidence interval (CI), 39.1-62.3)], median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.8-6.4), and median OS was 14.8 months (95% CI, 12.4-18.5) with 29 patients alive at data cut-off. CONCLUSIONS: Amatuximab with pemetrexed and cisplatin was well tolerated with objective tumor response or stable disease rate of 90% by independent radiologic review. Although PFS was not significantly different from historical controls, the median OS was 14.8 months with a third of patients alive and 5 continuing to receive amatuximab at the time of analysis.

The effects of desvenlafaxine and paroxetine on the pharmacokinetics of the cytochrome P450 2D6 substrate desipramine in healthy adults.

The potential for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 substrates to interact with desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) and paroxetine was evaluated. In an open-label, crossover study, 20 healthy volunteers (aged 21-50) were randomized to 2 series of 9 days each of desvenlafaxine (100 mg/d) or paroxetine (20 mg/d), separated by a 5-day washout. The CYP2D6 substrate desipramine (50 mg) was administered alone on day 1 and coadministered on day 6 of dosing with either desvenlafaxine or paroxetine. CYP2D6 genotype was determined at baseline. Based on least squares geometric mean ratios between reference (desipramine alone) and test treatments, desvenlafaxine produced minor increases in desipramine area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC; 36%) and peak plasma concentration (C(max); 30%) (vs paroxetine: 419%, 90%, respectively; both P < .001). Desvenlafaxine produced little change in 2-hydroxydesipramine AUC (16% increase) and C(max) (0%) versus paroxetine (18% and 82% decreases, respectively; P = .008, P < .001, respectively), indicating that desvenlafaxine, especially at the recommended therapeutic dose of 50 mg/d for major depressive disorder in the United States, has little potential to interact with CYP2D6 substrates.

An assessment of drug-drug interactions: the effect of desvenlafaxine and duloxetine on the pharmacokinetics of the CYP2D6 probe desipramine in healthy subjects.

A number of antidepressants inhibit the activity of the cytochrome P450 2D6 enzyme system, which can lead to drug-drug interactions. Based on its metabolic profile, desvenlafaxine, administered as desvenlafaxine succinate, a new serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is not expected to have an impact on activity of CYP2D6. This single-center, randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of multiple doses of desvenlafaxine (100 mg/day, twice the recommended therapeutic dose for major depressive disorder in the United States) and duloxetine (30 mg b.i.d.) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a single dose of desipramine (50 mg). A single dose of desipramine was given first to assess its PK. Desvenlafaxine or duloxetine was then administered, in a crossover design, so that steady-state levels were achieved; a single dose of desipramine was then coadministered. The geometric least-square mean ratios (coadministration versus desipramine alone) for area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentrations (C(max)) of desipramine and 2-hydroxydesipramine were compared using analysis of variance. Relative to desipramine alone, increases in AUC and C(max) of desipramine associated with duloxetine administration (122 and 63%, respectively) were significantly greater than those associated with desvenlafaxine (22 and 19%, respectively; P < 0.001). Duloxetine coadministered with desipramine was also associated with a decrease in 2-hydroxydesipramine C(max) that was significant compared with the small increase seen with desvenlafaxine and desipramine (-24 versus 9%; P < 0.001); the difference between changes in 2-hydroxydesipramine AUC did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.054). Overall, desvenlafaxine had a minimal impact on the PK of desipramine compared with duloxetine, suggesting a lower risk for CYP2D6-mediated drug interactions.