MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2742169549 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.3318.3318

An Open-Label, Single-Arm, Phase 1 Study of the Pharmacokinetics (PK) and Safety of Carfilzomib in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma and End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD)

2016· article· en· W2742169549 sur OpenAlexaff
Hang Quach, Darrell White, Andrew Spencer, P. Joy Ho, Divaya Bhutani, M. White, Sandeep Inamdar, C.G. Morris, Ying Ou, M Gyger

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensJewish General HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCarfilzomibMedicinePharmacokineticsHemodialysisCmaxRenal functionUrologyEnd stage renal diseaseMultiple myelomaInternal medicineGastroenterologyProteasome inhibitor

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Renal insufficiency is common in multiple myeloma (MM). Carfilzomib (CFZ), an epoxyketone proteasome inhibitor, is approved in the United States for the treatment of relapsed or refractory MM in patients (pts) who have received 1-3 prior lines of therapy. A previous study (PX-171-005) of pts with MM found no apparent differences in CFZ (15 or 20 mg/m2) clearance, area under the concentration time curve (AUC), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) between pts with normal vs those with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment. The primary objective of this study was to assess the influence of end stage renal disease (ESRD) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of 56 mg/m2 CFZ in pts with relapsed MM. Methods: Pts with relapsed MM (≥1 prior lines of therapy ) with normal renal function (fcn; creatinine clearance ≥75 mL/minute [min]) or ESRD requiring hemodialysis received CFZ infusion (over 30 min) on 2 consecutive days each week (wk) for 3 wks (days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) every 28-day cycle; 20 mg/m2 on day 1 to 2 of cycle 1; escalated to 27 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1; if tolerated, 56 mg/m2 started on day 1 of cycle 2. Pts also received dexamethasone 8 mg/day during cycles 1 to 2 on the same days as CFZ, with dexamethasone optional for cycles ≥3. PK parameters were evaluated using a non-compartmental approach. The CFZ PK of pts with ESRD and normal renal fcn were compared using summary statistics and analysis of variance of ln-transformed PK parameters. The primary endpoints were AUC (from time 0 to last concentration measured [AUC0-last] and time 0 extrapolated to infinity [AUC0-inf]) of CFZ 56 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2. Additional endpoints included Cmax, time to maximum concentration (Tmax), clearance (CL), terminal half-life (T1/2), volume of distribution at steady state (Vss), mean residence time (MRT), and safety and tolerability of CFZ and overall response rate (ORR; defined as partial response [PR] or better) in pts who received ≥1 CFZ dose. Results: A total of 26 pts were treated; 15 normal renal fcn and 11 ESRD on hemodialysis. Demographic and baseline characteristics were generally balanced between the 2 cohorts; 65.4% had an ECOG performance score of 1, were a median of 4.2 years from initial diagnosis, and had a median of 3 prior therapies. Ten pts with normal renal fcn and 8 with ESRD were evaluated for the primary endpoint at the 56 mg/m2 dose. ESRD pts demonstrated a trend toward a higher AUC, Cmax and half-life (t1/2), and a slower CL compared with normal renal fcn pts (Table). However, the inter-subject variability in CFZ exposure (AUC and Cmax) was high, with percent coefficient of variations (%CVs) >100% in ESRD pts. The mean CFZ systemic exposures (AUC0-last and AUC0-inf) were approximately 30% higher in ESRD vs normal renal fcn pts (Table). Exposure to some CFZ metabolites was elevated in pts with ESRD; however, these metabolites have no biologic activity. A total of 24 pts were evaluable for response (14 normal renal fcn, 10 ESRD). ORR for the entire study population was 50% (95% CI: 29.1, 70.9); 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8) in the ESRD group and 43% (95% CI: 17.7, 71.1) in the normal renal fcn group. At data cutoff (10/12/15), median CFZ treatment duration was 14.1 wks (range, 2.3-87.1), with a median of 4.0 cycles (range, 1-4). Median exposure was 14.1 (4.0 cycles) and 12.1 (3.0 cycles) wks for pts with normal renal fcn vs ESRD, respectively. All patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE); grade ≥3 TEAE occurred in 12/15 (80%) normal renal fcn pts and 9/11 (82%) ESRD pts. Most common grade ≥3 AEs were thrombocytopenia, anemia, and pneumonia. Six (23%) pts with normal renal fcn and 0 with ESRD pts discontinued CFZ due to TEAEs. There were a total of 5 deaths during the study (1 cardiac arrest [normal renal fcn], 4 progressive disease [2 per cohort]); none were considered related to CFZ. Conclusions: Following a 30-min infusion of 56 mg/m2 CFZ, there was a trend toward a higher AUC, Cmax, and t1/2, and a slower clearance in pts with ESRD vs pts with normal renal fcn. However, the trend differences were smaller than between-subject PK variability. The clinical benefit of therapy with CFZ was not adversely affected by ESRD. The observed AE profile in pts with ESRD was similar and generally consistent with the known safety profile of CFZ in the treatment of pts with relapsed MM. Based upon PK data and safety results, no dose adjustment of CFZ appears to be warranted in pts with MM and ESRD or pts with varying degrees of renal impairment. Disclosures Quach: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. White:Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. White:Amgen: Employment. Inamdar:Amgen: Employment. Morris:Amgen: Employment. Ou:Amgen: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,004
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,313
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→