Search

Background: Expensive novel anticancer drugs put a serious strain on healthcare budgets, and the associated drug expenses limit access to life-saving treatments worldwide., Objective: We aimed to develop alternative dosing regimens to reduce drug expenses., Methods: We developed alternative dosing regimens for the following monoclonal antibodies used for the treatment of lung cancer: amivantamab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ramucirumab; and for the antibody-drug conjugate trastuzumab deruxtecan. The alternative dosing regimens were developed by means of modeling and simulation based on the population pharmacokinetic models developed by the license holders. They were based on weight bands and the administration of complete vials to limit drug wastage. The resulting dosing regimens were developed to comply with criteria used by regulatory authorities for in silico dose development., Results: We found that alternative dosing regimens could result in cost savings that range from 11 to 28%, and lead to equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure with no relevant increases in variability in exposure., Conclusions: Dosing regimens based on weight bands and the use of complete vials to reduce drug wastage result in less expenses while maintaining equivalent exposure. The level of evidence of our proposal is the same as accepted by regulatory authorities for the approval of alternative dosing regimens of other monoclonal antibodies in oncology. The proposed alternative dosing regimens can, therefore, be directly implemented in clinical practice., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug used for the treatment of lung cancer and mesothelioma. The use of a low test dosing of cytotoxic drugs may aid in dose individualization without causing harm. The aim of this proof-of-concept study was to assess if the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of a test dose could predict the PKs of a therapeutic pemetrexed dose., Methods: Ten patients received both a low test dose (100 μg) and a therapeutic dose of pemetrexed after which plasma concentrations pemetrexed were measured. PK analysis was performed by means of nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. The predictive performances of test dose clearance and renal function towards a therapeutic dose were assessed., Results: The PKs of a pemetrexed test dose were best described by a one-compartment model with linear elimination. A high variability in the administered dose was observed for the test dose, but not for the therapeutic dose. A statistically significant correlation between test dose clearance and therapeutic dose clearance was observed (Spearman's rho: 0.758, P = 0.02). The predictive performance of test dose clearance was worse than renal function: mean predictive error (+95% confidence interval [CI]) 53.9% (50.1-57.6%) vs 19.4% (12.4-26.4%) and normalized root-mean square error (+95% CI) 57.8% (30.5-85.1%) vs 25.7% (20.3-31.0%)., Conclusion: We show that test dosing of pemetrexed is feasible, but there seems no added value for a low test dosing in the dose individualization of pemetrexed., (© 2022 British Pharmacological Society.)

Purpose: Pemetrexed is a chemotherapeutic drug in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Optimized dosing of pemetrexed based on renal function instead of body surface area (BSA) is hypothesized to reduce pharmacokinetic variability in systemic exposure and could therefore improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare optimized dosing to standard BSA-based dosing., Methods: A multicenter randomized (1:1) controlled trial was performed to assess superiority of optimized dosing versus BSA-based dosing in patients who were eligible for pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. The individual exposure to pemetrexed in terms of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was determined. The fraction of patients attaining to a predefined typical target AUC (164 mg × h/L ± 25%) was calculated., Results: A total of 81 patients were included. Target attainment was not statistically significant different between both arms (89% vs. 84% (p = 0.505)). The AUC of pemetrexed was similar between the optimized dosing arm (n = 37) and the standard of care arm (n = 44) (155 mg × h/L vs 160 mg × h/L (p = 0.436)., Conclusion: We could not show superiority of optimized dosing of pemetrexed in patients with an adequate renal function does not show added value on the attainment of a pharmacokinetic endpoint, safety, nor QoL compared to standard of care dosing., Clinical Trial Number: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03655821., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Neutropenia is a dose-related treatment-limiting and costly adverse event of pemetrexed. We postulate that individualized dosing reduces the incidence of neutropenia. The aims of this study were (i) to investigate the costs of pemetrexed-related neutropenia and (ii) to determine the pharmacoeconomic benefits of individualized dosing of pemetrexed in terms of budget impact, yearly cost savings, and reduction in severe neutropenia. Retrospective data on the treatment of grade 3 or higher neutropenia during pemetrexed-based chemotherapy were collected from three Dutch hospitals to determine the mean healthcare consumption during a neutropenic episode. Subsequently, Monte Carlo simulations were performed using a validated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model to predict the neutropenia incidence during four cycles for standard dosing of pemetrexed and individualized dosing. The mean costs per neutropenia and the expected neutropenia incidence were combined to calculate the budget impact and cost savings. We found that the average costs per pemetrexed-associated neutropenic episode to be €1,490 (US $1,674). The neutropenia incidence for the standard and individualized pemetrexed dosing strategies were 12.7% and 9.9%, respectively. This resulted in total expected neutropenia-related costs of ~ €3.0 million (US $3.372 million) and €2.4 million (US $2.697 million), respectively. Taking the number of patients eligible for pemetrexed treatment into account, individualized dosing could result in saving €686,000 (US $770,995) on a yearly basis in the Netherlands alone. Individualized dosing of pemetrexed can decrease the incidence of neutropenia and thus result in a significant decrease in neutropenia-related costs and decreased risk of hospitalization or even death while maintaining therapeutic exposure., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug for first-line treatment of lung cancer. It is often combined with other anticancer drugs such as cisplatin or carboplatin. In clinical practice, hyperhydration regimens are applied to overcome cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity. As pemetrexed is almost completely eliminated from the body by the kidneys, hyperhydration can result in augmented clearance. Furthermore, administration of large quantities of fluid may increase the volume of distribution of pemetrexed. Pharmacokinetics and, thus, efficacy and toxicity may be influenced by hyperhydration. This has not yet been properly studied. We performed a population pharmacokinetic analysis to assess hyperhydration as a covariate for pemetrexed clearance and for volume of distribution A relevant change was defined as >25% increase in clearance or volume of distribution. In our extensive dataset of 133 individuals, we found that hyperhydration did not significantly or relevantly explain variability in pemetrexed clearance (unchanged, P = .196) or volume of distribution (+7% change, P = .002), despite a power of >99% to detect a relevant change. Therefore, dose adjustments of pemetrexed are not required during hyperhydration with cisplatin., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Pemetrexed is an important component of first line treatment in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. However, a limitation is the contraindication in patients with renal impairment due to hematological toxicity. Currently, it is unknown how to safely dose pemetrexed in these patients. The aim of our study was to elucidate the relationship between pemetrexed exposure and toxicity to support the development of a safe dosing regimen in patients with renal impairment. A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis was performed based on phase II study results in three patients with renal dysfunction, supplemented with data from 106 patients in early clinical studies. Findings were externally validated with data of different pemetrexed dosing regimens. Alternative dosing regimens were evaluated using the developed model. We found that pemetrexed toxicity was driven by the time above a toxicity threshold concentration. The threshold for vitamin-supplemented patients was 0.110 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.092-0.146 mg/mL). It was observed that in patients with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]: <45 mL/min) the approved dose of 500 mg/m 2 would yield a high probability of severe neutropenia in the range of 51.0% to 92.6%. A pemetrexed dose of 20 mg for patients (eGFR: 20 mL/min) is shown to be neutropenic-equivalent to the approved dose in patients with adequate renal function (eGFR: 90 mL/min), but would result in an approximately 13-fold lower area under the concentration-time curve. The pemetrexed exposure-toxicity relationship is explained by a toxicity threshold and substantially different from previously thought. Without prophylaxis for toxicity, it is unlikely that a therapeutic dose can be safely administered to patients with renal impairment., (© 2021 UICC.)

Background: Pemetrexed is used for the treatment for non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Patients with renal impairment are withheld treatment with this drug as it is unknown what dose is well tolerated in this population., Objective: The purpose of our study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of pemetrexed in patients with renal impairment., Methods: A population PK analysis of pemetrexed was performed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling with phase I data obtained from the manufacturer. Additionally, the impact of renal function on pemetrexed PK was assessed with a simulation study using the developed PK model and a previously developed PK model lacking the phase I data., Results: The dataset included 548 paired observations of 47 patients, with a wide range of estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR; 14.4-145.6 mL/min). Pemetrexed PK were best described by a three-compartment model with eGFR (calculated using the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration [CKD-EPI] formula) as a linear covariate on renal pemetrexed clearance. Using the developed model, we found that renal clearance accounts for up to 84% (95% confidence interval 69-98%) of total pemetrexed clearance, whereas the manufacturer previously reported a 50% contribution of renal clearance., Conclusion: Renal function is more important for the clearance of pemetrexed than previously thought and this should be taken into account in patients with renal impairment. Furthermore, a third compartment may contribute to prolonged exposure to pemetrexed during drug washout.