MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

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 on OpenAlexaff
Hang Quach, Darrell White, Andrew Spencer, P. Joy Ho, Divaya Bhutani, M. White, Sandeep Inamdar, C.G. Morris, Ying Ou, M Gyger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarfilzomibMedicinePharmacokineticsHemodialysisCmaxRenal functionUrologyEnd stage renal diseaseMultiple myelomaInternal medicineGastroenterologyProteasome inhibitor

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→