Effects of itraconazole and carbamazepine on the pharmacokinetics of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in healthy adults.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a strong cytochrome P450 family (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor (itraconazole) and inducer (carbamazepine) on the pharmacokinetics and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. METHODS: Pharmacokinetics were measured in two phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence studies in healthy adults. During Period 1, oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300 mg/100 mg twice daily was administered alone; during Period 2, it was administered with itraconazole or carbamazepine. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was administered as repeated doses or one dose in the itraconazole and carbamazepine studies, respectively. Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir plasma concentrations and adverse event (AE) rates in both periods were analysed. RESULTS: Each study included 12 participants. Following administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with itraconazole (Test) or alone (Reference), test/reference ratios of the adjusted geometric means (90% CIs) for nirmatrelvir AUCtau and Cmax were 138.82% (129.25%, 149.11%) and 118.57% (112.50%, 124.97%), respectively. After administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with carbamazepine (Test) or alone (Reference), test/reference ratios (90% CIs) of the adjusted geometric means for nirmatrelvir AUCinf and Cmax were 44.50% (33.77%, 58.65%) and 56.82% (47.04%, 68.62%), respectively. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was generally safe when administered with or without itraconazole or carbamazepine. No serious or severe AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor with a strong CYP3A inhibitor used for pharmacokinetic enhancement (i.e., ritonavir) resulted in small increases in plasma nirmatrelvir exposure, whereas coadministration of a strong inducer substantially decreased systemic nirmatrelvir and ritonavir exposures suggesting a contraindication in the label with CYP3A4 strong inducers. Administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir alone or with itraconazole or carbamazepine was generally safe.

Chemotherapy with or without avelumab followed by avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated epithelial ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 100): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer respond to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, around 70% will relapse within 3 years. The phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 100 trial compared avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, or chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with treatment-naive epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 100 was a global, open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial run at 159 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 25 countries. Eligible women were aged 18 years and older with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (following debulking surgery, or candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive chemotherapy (six cycles; carboplatin dosed at an area under the serum-concentration-time curve of 5 or 6 intravenously every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m2 once a week [investigators' choice]) followed by avelumab maintenance (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks; avelumab maintenance group); chemotherapy plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) followed by avelumab maintenance (avelumab combination group); or chemotherapy followed by observation (control group). Randomisation was in permuted blocks of size six and stratified by paclitaxel regimen and resection status. Patients and investigators were masked to assignment to the two chemotherapy groups without avelumab at the time of randomisation until completion of the chemotherapy phase. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in all randomly assigned patients (analysed by intention to treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718417. The trial was fully enrolled and terminated at interim analysis due to futility, and efficacy is no longer being assessed. FINDINGS: Between May 19, 2016 and Jan 23, 2018, 998 patients were randomly assigned (avelumab maintenance n=332, avelumab combination n=331, and control n=335). At the planned interim analysis (data cutoff Sept 7, 2018), prespecified futility boundaries were crossed for the progression-free survival analysis, and the trial was stopped as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee and endorsed by the protocol steering committee. Median follow-up for progression-free survival for all patients was 10·8 months (IQR 7·1-14·9); 11·1 months (7·0-15·3) for the avelumab maintenance group, 11·0 months (7·4-14·5) for the avelumab combination group, and 10·2 months (6·7-14·0) for the control group. Median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 13·5-not estimable [NE]) with avelumab maintenance, 18·1 months (14·8-NE) with avelumab combination treatment, and NE (18·2 months-NE) with control treatment. The stratified hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 1·43 (95% CI 1·05-1·95; one-sided p=0·99) with the avelumab maintenance regimen and 1·14 (0·83-1·56; one-sided p=0·79) with the avelumab combination regimen, versus control treatment. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (69 [21%] patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 63 [19%] in the avelumab combination group, and 53 [16%] in the control group), neutropenia (91 [28%], 99 [30%], and 88 [26%]), and neutrophil count decrease (49 [15%], 45 [14%], and 59 [18%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (28%) patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 118 (36%) in the avelumab combination group, and 64 (19%) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression). INTERPRETATION: Although no new safety signals were observed, results do not support the use of avelumab in the frontline treatment setting. Alternative treatment regimens are needed to improve outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, activity, and biomarker analysis of palbociclib plus letrozole as first-line treatment for ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer in Chinese women.

PURPOSE: This phase 1, open-label, single-arm clinical trial evaluated pharmacokinetics, safety, and biomarker activity of palbociclib-letrozole as first-line treatment for estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in postmenopausal Chinese women to support palbociclib approval in China. METHODS: Patients received palbociclib 125 mg once daily (3/1 schedule) plus letrozole 2.5 mg once daily. Blood samples were collected predose and ≤ 120 h after single and multiple doses of palbociclib. The incidence and severity of adverse events were reported. Skin biopsy tissues and blood samples were collected for biomarker assessments. RESULTS: By 31 July 2018, 26 patients were enrolled. After single and multiple dosing, palbociclib maximum plasma concentration was 82.14 and 139.7 ng/mL, apparent clearance was 52.40 and 49.97 L/h, AUCτ was 1217 and 2501 ng∙h/mL, and t½ was 23.46 and 27.26 h, respectively. Levels of Ki67, retinoblastoma protein, and thymidine kinase decreased after palbociclib treatment. A similar safety profile as previously reported was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of palbociclib were well characterized in Chinese patients with ABC. Despite higher exposure, pharmacokinetic parameters were similar to those of a previously studied non-Asian population. No palbociclib dose adjustment based on Chinese ethnicity is needed. Palbociclib-letrozole had a manageable safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02499146.

Second-line pemetrexed treatment in Taiwanese patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: an open-label single-arm study.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Although global and Asian studies on second-line pemetrexed for the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer have confirmed its efficacy and safety, a pivotal postcommitment study to consolidate the evidence regarding the Taiwanese population was warranted. This open-label single-arm study assessed the objective response rate to a tailored dose of single-agent pemetrexed in Taiwanese patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer who had received prior chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV disease were treated with pemetrexed on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. A 500 mg/m(2) dose was administered in cycle 1. For cycle 2, the dose was increased to 1000 mg/m(2) (if there was no toxicity above predefined levels) or decreased to 375 mg/m(2). All patients received standard supplemental therapy. Patient follow-up continued until 18 months after the last patient was enrolled in this study or death. All patients were included in all analyses. RESULTS: Of the 33 patients who were enrolled, 25 (75.8%) received the 1000 mg/m(2) dose during cycle 2; 18 patients were dropped from the study, including 17 (51.5%) who had died by the time of analysis. The objective response and disease control rates were 18.2% (95% confidence limits [CI]: 7.0-35.5) and 54.5% (95% CI: 36.4-71.9), respectively. No patients exhibited a complete response. There were two serious drug-related adverse events (neutropenia and leukopenia) and two drug-related adverse events that resulted in removal from the study. Decreased neutrophil/granulocyte counts were the most frequently observed drug-related grade 3/4 events (9 patients, 24 treatment cycles). CONCLUSION: The objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety and tolerability profile in this population of Taiwanese patients were consistent with the published findings that were conducted using Asian and Western populations. These findings support the use of single-agent, second-line pemetrexed for the treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer in Taiwanese patients.

Randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with pemetrexed-cisplatin, followed sequentially by gefitinib or pemetrexed, in East Asian, never-smoker patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors or chemotherapy have shown improved survival outcomes in East Asian, never-smoker patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, treatment sequence has not been optimized in patients with unknown EGFR mutation status. This trial compared first-line chemotherapy with pemetrexed (P)-cisplatin (C), followed by either gefitinib (G) or P maintenance. METHODS: East Asian, never-smoker, chemo-naïve patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, performance status ≤1 and unknown EGFR mutation status were randomized 1:1 to receive 4 cycles of pemetrexed [500 mg/m(2)]+cisplatin [75 mg/m(2)] q3 weeks, followed by maintenance with either gefitinib [250 mg/d] (PC/G) or pemetrexed [500 mg/m(2)] q3 weeks and ≤2 optional cycles of cisplatin (PC/P). The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was calculated from randomization date. RESULTS: Between Feb and Nov 2007, 70 patients from China, Korea, and Taiwan were randomized and treated, among whom 59 patients (84.3%) had non-squamous NSCLC. Forty-nine patients (70.0%) completed the full sequential treatment (n=25 G; n=24 P). Median PFS was numerically longer for patients on PC/G (9.95 months) than those on PC/P (6.83 months; hazard ratio [HR]=0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.27, 1.04). In contrast, median overall survival was numerically higher for patients on PC/P (HR=2.15, 95% CI=0.83, 5.60), though there was a high censoring rate. Response rate was similar in both arms. Treatment arms were similar for grade 3/4/5 toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: East Asian never-smoker patients with advanced NSCLC and unknown EGFR mutation status had improved PFS following treatment with first-line PC and sequential G. Irrespective of subsequent maintenance treatment, induction PC was safe and efficacious, leading to prolonged OS in the Asian patient population.

A phase I/II and pharmacogenomic study of pemetrexed and cisplatin in patients with unresectable, advanced gastric carcinoma.

This phase I/II study was conducted to determine the maximum recommended dose of pemetrexed when given in combination with a fixed dose of cisplatin, and the efficacy, toxicity and association of 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) variants with this pemetrexed--cisplatin combination, in patients with unresectable, advanced gastric carcinoma. Patients 18-70 years of age, with stage IV disease or post-surgery recurrence, no earlier palliative chemotherapy, 0 or 1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, were included. The cisplatin dose was 75 mg/m. In phase I, the initial dose of pemetrexed was 600 mg/m, escalated in 100 mg/m increments. In phase II, efficacy, including overall response rate, overall survival, as well as toxicity and MTHFR pharmacogenetics were investigated. Phase I enrolled 16 patients; 700 mg/m was defined as pemetrexed recommended dose. Thirteen serious adverse events were reported; the most common grade 3/4 toxicities were haematologic (10 of 13, 76.9%). Phase II enrolled 73 patients, 69 qualified for safety and 68 for efficacy analysis; 65 for pharmacogenomic analysis. Overall response rate was 23.5% (14.1%, 35.4%), disease control rate 55.9%, median overall survival 11.8 months (95% confidence interval, 7.2-18.5 months), progression-free survival 4.9 months (95% confidence interval, 2.8-7.1 months), and median response duration 5.4 months. Patients with MTHFR A1298C variants had median overall survival of 6.6 months, significantly shorter than patients with the wild type (median 18.5 months, P=0.001). The pemetrexed--cisplatin combination in patients with advanced gastric cancer generates modest efficacy and a manageable toxicity profile. The reduced overall survival in patients with MTHFR A1298C polymorphism variants deserves further investigation.