Search

This open‐label, phase 1 study was conducted with healthy adult participants to evaluate the potential drug‐drug interaction between rilzabrutinib and quinidine (an inhibitor of P‐glycoprotein [P‐gp] and CYP2D6) or rifampin (an inducer of CYP3A and P‐gp). Plasma concentrations of rilzabrutinib were measured after a single oral dose of rilzabrutinib 400 mg administered on day 1 and again, following a wash‐out period, after co‐administration of rilzabrutinib and quinidine or rifampin. Specifically, quinidine was given at a dose of 300 mg every 8 hours for 5 days from day 7 to day 11 (N = 16) while rifampin was given as 600 mg once daily for 11 days from day 7 to day 17 (N = 16) with rilzabrutinib given in the morning of day 10 (during quinidine dosing) or day 16 (during rifampin dosing). Quinidine had no significant effect on rilzabrutinib pharmacokinetics. Rifampin decreased rilzabrutinib exposure (the geometric mean of Cmax and AUC0‐∞ decreased by 80.5% and 79.5%, respectively). Single oral doses of rilzabrutinib, with or without quinidine or rifampin, appeared to be well tolerated. These findings indicate that rilzabrutinib is a substrate for CYP3A but not a substrate for P‐gp. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalized dosing approaches play important roles in clinical practices to improve benefit: risk profiles. Whereas this is also important for drug development, especially in the context of drugs with narrow therapeutic windows, such approaches have not been fully evaluated during clinical development. Fazpilodemab (BFKB8488A) is an agonistic bispecific antibody which was being developed for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The objective of this study was to characterize the exposure‐response relationships of fazpilodemab with the purpose of guiding dose selection for a phase II study, as well as to evaluate various personalized dosing strategies to optimize the treatment benefit. Fazpilodemab exhibited clear exposure‐response relationships for a pharmacodynamic (PD) biomarker and gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs), such as nausea and vomiting. Static exposure‐response analysis, as well as longitudinal adverse event (AE) analysis using discrete‐time Markov model, were performed to characterize the observations. Clinical trial simulations were performed based on the developed exposure‐response models to evaluate probability of achieving target PD response and the frequency of GIAEs to inform phase II dose selection. Dynamic simulation of personalized dosing strategies demonstrated that the AE‐based personalized dosing is the most effective approach for optimizing the benefit–risk profiles. The approach presented here can be a useful framework for quantifying the benefit of personalized dosing for drugs with narrow therapeutic windows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Fenebrutinib (GDC‐0853) is a noncovalent, oral, and highly selective inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK). The efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamics of fenebrutinib in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were assessed in this phase II, multicenter, randomized, placebo‐controlled study. Methods: Patients who had moderately to severely active SLE while receiving background standard therapy were randomized to receive placebo, fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily, or fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily. Glucocorticoid taper was recommended from weeks 0 to 12 and from weeks 24 to 36. The primary end point was the SLE Responder Index 4 (SRI‐4) response at week 48. Results: Patients (n = 260) were enrolled from 44 sites in 12 countries, with the majority from Latin America, the US, and Western Europe. The SRI‐4 response rates at week 48 were 51% for fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily (P = 0.37 versus placebo), 52% for fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (P = 0.34 versus placebo), and 44% for placebo. British Isles Lupus Assessment Group–based Combined Lupus Assessment response rates at week 48 were 53% for fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily (P = 0.086 versus placebo), 42% for fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (P = 0.879 versus placebo), and 41% for placebo. Safety results were similar across all arms, although serious adverse events were more frequent with fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily. By week 48, patients treated with fenebrutinib had reduced levels of a BTK‐dependent plasmablast RNA signature, anti–double‐stranded DNA autoantibodies, total IgG, and IgM, as well as increased complement C4 levels, all relative to placebo. Conclusion: While fenebrutinib had an acceptable safety profile, the primary end point, SRI‐4 response, was not met despite evidence of strong pathway inhibition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate fenebrutinib, an oral and highly selective noncovalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Patients with RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) (cohort 1; n = 480) were randomized to receive fenebrutinib (50 mg once daily, 150 mg once daily, or 200 mg twice daily), adalimumab (40 mg every other week), or placebo. Patients with RA and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (cohort 2; n = 98) received fenebrutinib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Both cohorts continued MTX therapy. Results: In cohort 1, the percentages of patients in whom American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (ACR50) was achieved at week 12 were similar in the fenebrutinib 50 mg once daily and placebo groups, and were higher in the fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily group (28%) and 200 mg twice daily group (35%) than in the placebo group (15%) (P = 0.016 and P = 0.0003, respectively). Fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily and adalimumab (36%) were comparable (P = 0.81). In cohort 2, ACR50 was achieved in more patients receiving fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (25%) than placebo (12%) (P = 0.072). The most common adverse events in the fenebrutinib groups included nausea, headache, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infections. Fenebrutinib had significant effects on myeloid and B cell biomarkers (CCL4 and rheumatoid factor). Fenebrutinib and adalimumab caused overlapping as well as distinct changes in B cell and myeloid biomarkers. Conclusion: Fenebrutinib demonstrates efficacy comparable to adalimumab in patients with an inadequate response to MTX, and safety consistent with existing immunomodulatory therapies for RA. These data support targeting both B and myeloid cells via this novel mechanism for potential efficacy in the treatment of RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fenebrutinib is a CYP3A substrate and time‐dependent inhibitor, as well as a BCRP and OATP1B transporter inhibitor in vitro. Physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling strategies with the ultimate goal of understanding complex drug‐drug interactions (DDIs) and proposing doses for untested scenarios were developed. The consistency in the results of two independent approaches, PBPK simulation and endogenous biomarker measurement, supported that the observed transporter DDI is primarily due to fenebrutinib inhibition of intestinal BCRP, rather than hepatic OATP1B. A mechanistic‐absorption model accounting for the effects of excipient complexation with fenebrutinib was used to rationalize the unexpected observation of itraconazole‐fenebrutinib DDI (maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) decreased, and area under the curve (AUC) increased). The totality of the evidence from sensitivity analysis and clinical and nonclinical data suggested that fenebrutinib is likely a sensitive CYP3A substrate. This advanced PBPK application allowed the use of model‐informed approach to facilitate the development of concomitant medication recommendations for fenebrutinib without requiring additional clinical DDI studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]