Search

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) in healthy Japanese adults. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study, AZD7442 was administered intramuscularly (300 or 600 mg) or intravenously (300 or 1000 mg) to healthy Japanese adults. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. Anti-drug antibodies and neutralizing antibody activities were secondary endpoints. A total of 40 participants were randomized to receive AZD7442 (n = 30) or placebo (n = 10). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 12 (40%) and 3 (30%) participants, respectively; there were no deaths, serious AEs, or AEs leading to study withdrawal. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab had mean half-lives of 82.1–95.9 and 77.9–92.0 days, respectively, which were generally similar regardless of administration route. SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers were >4-fold higher than baseline levels from Day 8 to Day 211 in participants receiving AZD7442. AZD7442 was well tolerated in healthy Japanese adults, with predictable pharmacokinetics and an extended half-life, consistent with previous studies. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04896541. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Tremelimumab, a cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte‐associated protein 4 human monoclonal antibody of the immunoglobulin G2 κ isotype, has been studied in oncology clinical trials as both monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of tremelimumab as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab and evaluated the impact of patient covariates on pharmacokinetics. Methods: A pooled‐analysis population pharmacokinetics model was built using NONMEM methodology. Pharmacokinetic data from 5 studies spanning different tumour types and therapy regimens were pooled for model development (956 patients). A dataset pooled from 4 additional studies was used for external validation (554 patients). Demographic and relevant clinical covariates were explored during model development. Results: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics, well described by a 2‐compartment model, with time‐varying clearance (0.276 L/day at baseline) associated primarily with therapy regimen and linked with changes in disease status. As monotherapy and combination therapy, tremelimumab clearance over 1 year increased by ~16% and decreased by ~17%, respectively. Pharmacokinetic behaviour was consistent across patient demographics and cancer subtypes. Patients with higher bodyweight and lower albumin levels at baseline had significantly higher clearance; however, no dosage adjustments are warranted. A flat dose (75 mg) was projected to provide comparable exposure to weight‐based dosing (1 mg/kg) in adults. Conclusion: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics but consistently opposite trends of time‐varying clearance as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. Baseline bodyweight and albumin were significant covariates, but conversion from weight‐based dosing at 1 mg/kg to flat dosing at 75 mg had no clinically relevant impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cut point is an important parameter for immunogenicity assay validation and critical to immunogenicity assessment in clinical trials. FDA (2019) recommends using a statistical approach to derive cut point, with an appropriate outlier removal procedure. In general, the industry follows the methods described in Shankar et al. (2008) and Zhang et al. (2013) among others to determine cut point. Outlier removal is a necessary step during the cut point determination exercise to reduce potential false negative classifications. However, the widely used statistical outlier removal method, namely, Tukey's box-plot method (1.5 times inter-quartile range, IQR), is often found to be overly conservative in the sense that it removes too many "outliers". Tukey's box-plot method can be used to flag potential outliers for further investigation, however, it is not a hypothesis testing based statistical method. Removing these suspected "outliers" will lead to lower cut point which might confound immunogenicity assessment due to the presence of many low false positives. Besides, the very nature of assay analytical variability has a non-negligible adverse impact on the reliability of ADA classification in terms of false positive and false negative, demanding as large as possible contribution from biological variability relative to analytical variability. A new outlier removal procedure, which takes into account the relative magnitude between biological variability and analytical variability within the sample population, is proposed and statistically justified. After sequential removal of analytical and biological outliers, a 5% false positive rate and 1% false positive rate in screening and confirmatory assays, respectively, are still targeted without increasing potential false negatives. Internal data shows that this practice has minimal impact on assay sensitivity and has the advantage of selecting true positive samples. It is shown that the new procedure is more appropriate for cut point determination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]