MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405041821 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-206054

Exposure-Response (ER) and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) Analyses for Optimal Step-up Dose (SUD) Selection to Improve Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) Safety Profile of Abbv-383 in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM)

2024· article· en· W4405041821 sur OpenAlexaff
Fan Wang, Heiko Babel, Vanessa Schmitt, Muhammad Erfan Uddin, Muhamed Baljević, Peter M. Voorhees, Cesar Rodriguez, Shaji Kumar, Hira Mian, Anders Svensson, Chetasi Talati, Sven Mensing, Rajeev Menon, Benjamin Engelhardt, Akshanth R. Polepally

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPharmacodynamicsPharmacokineticsMedicineCytokinePharmacologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction ABBV-383 is a differentiated BCMA x CD3 bispecific antibody (fully humanized IgG4) T-cell engager composed of a bivalent BCMA binding domain with high avidity, a low-affinity CD3-binding domain, and a present but silenced-Fc tail retaining the FcRn binding allowing for an extended half-life and thereby, enabling dosing convenience. ABBV-383 monotherapy has shown promising activity and improved CRS safety profile with modified dexamethasone (Dex) premedication in patients (pts) with RRMM (NCT03933735; Rodriguez et al., JCO 2024;42[suppl 16]:7531). Here, ER and CRS PK/PD analyses supporting the selection of optimal SUD for ABBV-383 are reported. Methods ER-efficacy (N=286) and -safety (N=290) analyses were conducted using logistic regression methodology (R version 4.3.2) combining data from escalation (0.025-120 mg Q3W) and expansion (20, 40, 60 mg Q3W and 60 mg Q4W) cohorts of phase 1 study NCT03933735 and Arm A of phase 1b study NCT05650632 evaluating step-up dose (2 or 4 mg on Day 1) with a full dose (60 mg on Day 4) in pts with RRMM. Pts received modified Dex with full dose in expansion cohorts of 60 mg Q4W and 2/60 mg Q4W. In all other cohorts with or without SUD, pts received low Dex. Based on prior knowledge (JCO 2024;42[suppl 16]:7541), the safety endpoints (CRS: any-grade and ≥ G2) were modeled with Cycle 1 total (unbound + bound to soluble BCMA) Cmax, while objective response rate (ORR) was modeled with free (unbound + partially bound to soluble BCMA) Cavg. CRS ER models included a priori selected Dex (low vs. modified) and SUD (yes vs. no) as predictors. Relevant pt-specific covariates were tested in all models. CRS PK/PD analyses included total PK, IL-6, and CRS data (N=199) from the first 3 cycles of the above phase 1/1b studies. A semi-mechanistic indirect response PK/IL-6 model was developed to correlate total PK and IL-6 (NONMEM 7.5). Maximal IL-6 concentrations were derived using post hoc estimates from the PK/IL-6 model and correlated with CRS events (logistic regression; R version 4.3.2). The models included effects of time-dependent Dex (low vs. modified) and SUD (yes vs. no). The overall modeling approach was assessed by comparing observed and predicted CRS rates. Simulations were conducted for various dosing regimens, including one or two SUD and Dex premedication scenarios to support the selection of the optimal SUD. Results Consistent with clinical observations (separate abstract submission), any-grade CRS model predicted probabilities suggested two key outcomes: 1) premedication with modified Dex improves the CRS safety profile compared to the low Dex (42% vs 69% for 60 mg Q4W); 2) modified Dex with SUD further improves the CRS safety profile of ABBV-383 compared to low Dex with SUD (29% vs 43% for 2/60 mg Q4W). Consistent with prior work, no ER relationship was observed for ≥ G2 CRS (p > 0.05). The ORR model resulted in a predicted probability of 68% ORR (closely matching with overall observed 64% ORR) with no impact of SUD and modified Dex. Only soluble BCMA was selected as a covariate in the ORR ER model. The final semi-mechanistic PK/IL-6 model well captured the observed IL-6 data, and the CRS rates (predicted by the logistic regression models) closely matched with the observed data. The CRS PK/PD analyses findings were consistent with the clinical observations and ER analyses key outcomes 1 and 2. The CRS PK/PD analyses predictions comparing the 1-SUD vs 2-SUD (untested) regimens with modified Dex suggested that 1) among the 2-SUD regimens with modified Dex, the 2/3/60 mg regimen would have the maximum reduction of 4% points in any-grade CRS compared to the 2/60 mg 1-SUD regimen, however, with substantial overlap of confidence intervals and with no decrease in ≥ G2 CRS (< 0.5% point); 2) 4 mg as an intermediate SUD in a 2-SUD regimen would lead to higher any-grade and ≥ G2 CRS rates (~9% and 3% points higher, respectively), compared to the 2/60 mg Q4W regimen. Conclusions ER and CRS PK/PD analyses suggested that modified Dex and SUD improve the CRS safety profile of ABBV-383 with no impact on efficacy (ORR) in pts with RRMM. The CRS PK/PD predictions indicated that implementation of 2-SUDs provide minimal additional or no improvement in CRS safety profile compared to 1-SUD. Overall, the 1-SUD dosing regimen of 2 mg with modified premedication prior to the full dose of 60 mg Q4W showed promising results and can be considered for future evaluation and studies.

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,039

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,321
Écart entre enseignants0,302 · 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'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
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

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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