@inproceedings{DemarisGrišićHuisingaetal.2020, author = {D{\´e}maris, Alise and Grišić, Ana-Marija and Huisinga, Wilhelm and Walter, Reinisch and Kloft, Charlotte}, title = {Evaluation of dosing strategies of anti-TNF alpha monoclonal antibodies using pharmacokinetic modelling and simulation}, series = {Journal of Crohn's and Colitis}, volume = {14}, booktitle = {Journal of Crohn's and Colitis}, number = {Supp. 1}, publisher = {Oxford Univ. Press}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {1873-9946}, doi = {10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.201}, pages = {S171 -- S172}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Background: Anti-TNFα monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are a well-established treatment for patients with Crohn's disease (CD). However, subtherapeutic concentrations of mAbs have been related to a loss of response during the first year of therapy1. Therefore, an appropriate dosing strategy is crucial to prevent the underexposure of mAbs for those patients. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of different dosing strategies (fixed dose or body size descriptor adapted) on drug exposure and the target concentration attainment for two different anti-TNFα mAbs: infliximab (IFX, body weight (BW)-based dosing) and certolizumab pegol (CZP, fixed dosing). For this purpose, a comprehensive pharmacokinetic (PK) simulation study was performed. Methods: A virtual population of 1000 clinically representative CD patients was generated based on the distribution of CD patient characteristics from an in-house clinical database (n = 116). Seven dosing regimens were investigated: fixed dose and per BW, lean BW (LBW), body surface area, height, body mass index and fat-free mass. The individual body size-adjusted doses were calculated from patient generated body size descriptor values. Then, using published PK models for IFX and CZP in CD patients2,3, for each patient, 1000 concentration-time profiles were simulated to consider the typical profile of a specific patient as well as the range of possible individual profiles due to unexplained PK variability across patients. For each dosing strategy, the variability in maximum and minimum mAb concentrations (Cmax and Cmin, respectively), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and the per cent of patients reaching target concentration were assessed during maintenance therapy. Results: For IFX and CZP, Cmin showed the highest variability between patients (CV ≈110\% and CV ≈80\%, respectively) with a similar extent across all dosing strategies. For IFX, the per cent of patients reaching the target (Cmin = 5 µg/ml) was similar across all dosing strategies (~15\%). For CZP, the per cent of patients reaching the target average concentration of 17 µg/ml ranged substantially (52-71\%), being the highest for LBW-adjusted dosing. Conclusion: By using a PK simulation approach, different dosing regimen of IFX and CZP revealed the highest variability for Cmin, the most commonly used PK parameter guiding treatment decisions, independent upon dosing regimen. Our results demonstrate similar target attainment with fixed dosing of IFX compared with currently recommended BW-based dosing. For CZP, the current fixed dosing strategy leads to comparable percentage of patients reaching target as the best performing body size-adjusted dosing (66\% vs. 71\%, respectively).}, language = {en} } @article{KluweMicheletMuellerSchoelletal.2020, author = {Kluwe, Franziska and Michelet, Robin and M{\"u}ller-Sch{\"o}ll, Anna and Maier, Corinna and Klopp-Schulze, Lena and van Dyk, Madele and Mikus, Gerd and Huisinga, Wilhelm and Kloft, Charlotte}, title = {Perspectives on model-informed precision dosing in the digital health era}, series = {Clinical pharmacology \& therapeutics}, volume = {109}, journal = {Clinical pharmacology \& therapeutics}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0009-9236}, doi = {10.1002/cpt.2049}, pages = {29 -- 36}, year = {2020}, language = {en} } @article{GrisicEserHuisingaetal.2020, author = {Grisic, Ana-Marija and Eser, Alexander and Huisinga, Wilhelm and Reinisch, Walter and Kloft, Charlotte}, title = {Quantitative relationship between infliximab exposure and inhibition of C-reactive protein synthesis to support inflammatory bowel disease management}, series = {British journal of clinical pharmacology}, volume = {87}, journal = {British journal of clinical pharmacology}, number = {5}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0306-5251}, doi = {10.1111/bcp.14648}, pages = {2374 -- 2384}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Aim Quantitative and kinetic insights into the drug exposure-disease response relationship might enhance our knowledge on loss of response and support more effective monitoring of inflammatory activity by biomarkers in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treated with infliximab (IFX). This study aimed to derive recommendations for dose adjustment and treatment optimisation based on mechanistic characterisation of the relationship between IFX serum concentration and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration.
Methods Data from an investigator-initiated trial included 121 patients with IBD during IFX maintenance treatment. Serum concentrations of IFX, antidrug antibodies (ADA), CRP, and disease-related covariates were determined at the mid-term and end of a dosing interval. Data were analysed using a pharmacometric nonlinear mixed-effects modelling approach. An IFX exposure-CRP model was generated and applied to evaluate dosing regimens to achieve CRP remission.
Results The generated quantitative model showed that IFX has the potential to inhibit up to 72\% (9\% relative standard error [RSE]) of CRP synthesis in a patient. IFX concentration leading to 90\% of the maximum CRP synthesis inhibition was 18.4 mu g/mL (43\% RSE). Presence of ADA was the most influential factor on IFX exposure. With standard dosing strategy, >= 55\% of ADA+ patients experienced CRP nonremission. Shortening the dosing interval and co-therapy with immunomodulators were found to be the most beneficial strategies to maintain CRP remission.
Conclusions With the generated model we could for the first time establish a robust relationship between IFX exposure and CRP synthesis inhibition, which could be utilised for treatment optimisation in IBD patients.}, language = {en} } @article{MuellerSchoellGroenlandScherfClaveletal.2020, author = {Mueller-Schoell, Anna and Groenland, Stefanie L. and Scherf-Clavel, Oliver and van Dyk, Madele and Huisinga, Wilhelm and Michelet, Robin and Jaehde, Ulrich and Steeghs, Neeltje and Huitema, Alwin D. R. and Kloft, Charlotte}, title = {Therapeutic drug monitoring of oral targeted antineoplastic drugs}, series = {European journal of clinical pharmacology}, volume = {77}, journal = {European journal of clinical pharmacology}, number = {4}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Heidelberg}, issn = {0031-6970}, doi = {10.1007/s00228-020-03014-8}, pages = {441 -- 464}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Purpose This review provides an overview of the current challenges in oral targeted antineoplastic drug (OAD) dosing and outlines the unexploited value of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Factors influencing the pharmacokinetic exposure in OAD therapy are depicted together with an overview of different TDM approaches. Finally, current evidence for TDM for all approved OADs is reviewed. Methods A comprehensive literature search (covering literature published until April 2020), including primary and secondary scientific literature on pharmacokinetics and dose individualisation strategies for OADs, together with US FDA Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Reviews and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use European Public Assessment Reports was conducted. Results OADs are highly potent drugs, which have substantially changed treatment options for cancer patients. Nevertheless, high pharmacokinetic variability and low treatment adherence are risk factors for treatment failure. TDM is a powerful tool to individualise drug dosing, ensure drug concentrations within the therapeutic window and increase treatment success rates. After reviewing the literature for 71 approved OADs, we show that exposure-response and/or exposure-toxicity relationships have been established for the majority. Moreover, TDM has been proven to be feasible for individualised dosing of abiraterone, everolimus, imatinib, pazopanib, sunitinib and tamoxifen in prospective studies. There is a lack of experience in how to best implement TDM as part of clinical routine in OAD cancer therapy. Conclusion Sub-therapeutic concentrations and severe adverse events are current challenges in OAD treatment, which can both be addressed by the application of TDM-guided dosing, ensuring concentrations within the therapeutic window.}, language = {en} }