4.5 Article

Model-based treatment optimization of a novel VEGFR inhibitor

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 74, 期 2, 页码 315-326

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04197.x

关键词

hypertension; lenvatinib; modelling and simulation; oncology; pharmacodynamics; proteinuria

资金

  1. Eisai network of companies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM To evaluate dosing and intervention strategies for the phase II programme of a VEGF receptor inhibitor using PKPD modelling and simulation, with the aim of maximizing (i) the number of patients on treatment and (ii) the average dose level during treatment. METHODS A previously developed PKPD model for lenvatinib (E7080) was updated and parameters were re-estimated (141 patients, once daily and twice daily regimens). Treatment of lenvatinib was simulated for 16 weeks, initiated at 25 mg once daily. Outcome measures included the number of patients on treatment and overall drug exposure. A hypertension intervention design proposed for phase II studies was evaluated, including antihypertensive treatment and dose de-escalation. Additionally, a within-patient dose escalation was investigated, titrating up to 50 mg once daily unless unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS Using the proposed antihypertension intervention design, 82% of patients could remain on treatment, and the mean dose administered was 21.5 mg day-1. The adverse event (AE) guided dose titration increased the average dose by 4.6 mg day-1, while only marginally increasing the percentage of patients dropping out due to toxicity (from 18% to 20.8%). CONCLUSIONS The proposed hypertension intervention design is expected to be effective in maintaining patients on treatment with lenvatinib. The AE-guided dose titration with blood pressure as a biomarker yielded a higher overall dose level, without relevant increases in toxicity. Since increased exposure to lenvatinib seems correlated with increased treatment efficacy, the adaptive treatment design may thus be a valid approach to improve treatment outcome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据