Comparison of simulated exposure of inotuzumab ozogamicin with and without dose capping in overweight and obese patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Inotuzumab ozogamacin (InO) is an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) consisting of a CD22-directed monoclonal antibody linked to a cytotoxic payload, calicheamicin. InO is approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CD22-positive B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The labeled starting dose of InO is 1.8 mg/m2/cycle (0.8 mg/m2 on D1, and 0.5 mg/m2 on D8 and D15). While many approved ADCs are dosed based on body weight or body surface area (BSA) (Gogia et al. Cancers 2023; 15:3886), some also implement a maximum dose (dose capping), reducing the potential exposure and safety concerns for patients with larger body sizes. In this analysis, simulations using a final population pharmacokinetic (popPK) model were performed to compare the predicted exposure between the labeled regimen of 1.8 mg/m2/cycle and two capped dose regimens, specifically investigating whether dose capping is needed for InO. Methods A popPK model for InO (Garrett et al. J. of PK & PD 2019; 211-222) was updated to fit adult ALL data from three studies: NCT01363297 (N=72, 1.2–1.8 mg/m2/cycle, Phase 1/2), NCT01564784 (N=162, 1.8 mg/m2/cycle, Phase 3), and NCT03677596 (N=99, 1.2 mg/m2/cycle or 1.8 mg/m2/cycle, Phase 4). The final popPK model, using data from these 333 adult patients, was used to simulate exposure with the labeled and dose capping regimens. The exposure with the labeled regimen was compared to that with two modified dose capping regimens in which patients at or above a specified BSA threshold were simulated with a fixed dose. Two dose capping BSA thresholds were investigated, 1.97 m2 (N=105 >1.97 m2) and 2.14m2 (N=49 >2.14 m2), with thresholds corresponding to previously reported mean BSA values (DuBois formula) for overweight and obese populations, respectively (Verbraecken et al. Metabolism 2006; 55.4:515-524). Simulated InO serum concentrations were used to compute exposure metrics for comparison. The labeled and dose capping regimens were compared using four exposure metrics: cumulative area under the curve (cAUC) at the end of cycle 1 (Day 21, termed cAUC-C1) and cycle 4 (Day 105, termed cAUC-C4), along with the maximum concentration (Cmax, over Days 92-105) and trough concentration (Ctrough, computed on Day 105) for the third dose in cycle 4. The population was further subdivided by BMI <25 kg/m2 (N=152, healthy), 25–30 kg/m2 (N=116, overweight) and >30 kg/m2 (N=65, obese) to understand how regimens affected simulated exposure in overweight and obese subpopulations. Results In general, both capped regimens exhibited only minor reductions in simulated exposure relative to the labeled regimen. For patients with BSA values above the capping thresholds, capped regimens resulted in small percentage decreases in median exposure metrics relative to the labeled regimen, with reductions of 6.9% and 4.5% for Cmax, 8.9% and 3.8% for Ctrough, 3.2% and 3.0% for cAUC-C1, and 4.3% and 8.3% for cAUC-C4, for the >=1.97 m2 and >=2.14 m2 capped regimens, respectively. Patients below the BSA threshold in the capped regimens were simulated with the same dose as the labeled regimen and therefore had no predicted exposure differences. BMI-based partitioning of the population yielded similar findings. For the overweight subpopulation (25–30 kg/m2), the capped regimens had only minor decreases in the median simulated exposure metrics relative to the labeled regimen, with reductions of 0% and 0% for Cmax, 1.7% and 0% for Ctrough, 2.1% and 0% for cAUC-C1, and 1.3% and 0% cAUC-C4, in the >=1.97 m2 and >=2.14 m2 capped regimens, respectively. In the obese subpopulation (>30 kg/m2), the median decrease in exposure metrics in the capped regimens were also small relative to the labeled regimen: 14.7% and 8.5% for Cmax, 10.9% and 10.3% for Ctrough, 7.6% and 5.2% for cAUC-C1, and 14.2% and 12.5% for cAUC-C4, for the >=1.97 m2 and >=2.14 m2 caps, respectively. Conclusion The simulated InO exposures with dose capping were slightly reduced relative to the labeled regimen across BSA and BMI-based patient subpopulations, suggesting that dose capping is not needed. These results support the current labeled BSA-based dosing regimen starting at 1.8 mg/m2/cycle.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».