Search

This article, published in the journal Neuropediatrics, discusses a phase 1 study that aimed to assess the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics and gastrointestinal tolerability of selumetinib in adolescents with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1)-related plexiform neurofibromas (PN). The study found that dosing selumetinib with a low-fat meal delayed absorption rate and lowered C max (maximum concentration), but had no clinically significant effect on the extent of absorption and gastrointestinal tolerability. Therefore, the study suggests that dose adjustment is unlikely required and that dosing selumetinib with a low-fat meal has no significant impact on the area under the curve (AUC) or gastrointestinal tolerability. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Selumetinib is approved for the treatment of pediatric patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) who have symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas (PN) in multiple countries, including the USA (≥ 2 years). Until recently, individuals had to take selumetinib twice daily (BID) in a fasted state. This study evaluated the effect of a low-fat meal on selumetinib PK parameters and gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability in adolescent participants with NF1-PN., Methods: Eligible participants aged ≥ 12 to < 18 years took 25 mg/m 2 selumetinib BID with a low-fat meal (T1) for 28 days, followed by a 7-day washout, and then administration in a fasted state (T2) for another 28 days. Primary objectives were to evaluate the effect of a low-fat meal on AUC 0-12,ss and GI tolerability after multiple selumetinib doses in T1 versus T2. Key secondary objectives were additional PK parameters and adverse events (AEs)., Results: At primary data cut-off, all 24 participants completed T1, and 23 participants completed T2. There were no significant differences in AUC 0-12,ss between T1 and T2. In T1 and T2, 29.2% and 33.3% participants, respectively, reported ≥ 1 GI AE. No GI AEs Grade ≥ 3, or serious AEs, or GI AEs resulting in treatment interruptions, discontinuation, or dose reductions were reported in T1 and T2., Conclusions: Dosing selumetinib with a low-fat meal had no clinically relevant impact on selumetinib AUC 0-12,ss nor GI tolerability in adolescents with NF1-PN., Trial Registration Clinicaltrialsgov Id: NCT05101148., Competing Interests: D.V. received advisory support from AstraZeneca, grants or contracts from SpringWorks Therapeutics, Soleno Therapeutics, Levo Therapeutics, NFlection Therapeutics, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from Sanofi Genzyme as well as payment or honoraria from SpringWorks Therapeutics and AstraZeneca. M.W. reports no conflicts of interest. H.S.H. has received advisory fees from AstraZeneca. M.L., P.S., K.S., and A.E. report employment at AstraZeneca. A.E., M.L., and K.S. own AstraZeneca stocks. F.L. owns AstraZeneca and AbbVie stocks., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press, the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology.)

Aims: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially hepatically cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment to provide dosing recommendations., Methods: This Phase I open-label study assessed the PK, safety and tolerability of single doses of olaparib 300-mg tablets in patients with advanced solid tumours. Patients had normal hepatic function (NHF), or mild (MiHI; Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (MoHI; Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment. Blood was collected for PK assessments for 96 hours. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for long-term safety assessment., Results: Thirty-one patients received ≥1 dose of olaparib and 30 were included in the PK assessment. Patients with MiHI had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 0.72, 1.83) and a GLSmean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.13 (0.82, 1.56) vs those with NHF. In patients with MoHI, GLSmean ratio for area under the curve was 1.08 (0.66, 1.74) and for maximum plasma concentration was 0.87 (0.63, 1.22) vs those with NHF. For patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, no new safety signals were detected., Conclusion: Patients with MiHI or MoHI had no clinically significant changes in exposure to olaparib compared with patients with NHF. The safety profile of olaparib did not differ from a clinically relevant extent between cohorts. No olaparib tablet or capsule dose reductions are required for patients with MiHI or MoHI., (© 2020 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, is partially renally cleared. We investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of olaparib in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment to provide dosing recommendations., Methods: This phase I open-label study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of single-dose, oral 300-mg olaparib tablets in adults (aged 18-75 years) with solid tumours. Patients had normal renal function, or mild or moderate renal impairment (estimated creatinine clearance ≥ 81, 51-80 or 31-50 mL/min, respectively). Blood was collected for 96 h, and urine samples collected for 24 h post-dose. Patients could continue taking olaparib 300 mg twice daily for a long-term safety assessment., Results: Overall, 44 patients received one or more doses of olaparib and 38 were included in the pharmacokinetic assessment. Patients with mild renal impairment had an area under the curve geometric least-squares mean ratio of 1.24 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.47) and a geometric least-squares mean maximum plasma concentration ratio of 1.15 (90% confidence interval 1.04-1.27) vs. those with normal renal function. In patients with moderate renal impairment, the geometric least-squares mean ratio for the area under the curve was 1.44 (90% confidence interval 1.10-1.89) and for the maximum plasma concentration was 1.26 (90% confidence interval 1.06-1.48) vs. those with normal renal function. No new safety signals were detected in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment., Conclusions: In patients with mild renal impairment, the small increase in exposure to olaparib was not considered clinically relevant. In patients with moderate renal impairment, exposure to olaparib increased by 44%; thus, these patients should be carefully monitored and the tablet dose should be adjusted to 200 mg twice daily., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01894256.

Olaparib is a poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in tumors with deficient homologous recombination repair. Population exposure-response analyses were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olaparib exposure in patients with cancer. Data from multiple phase I/II/III clinical studies from both capsule and tablet formulations were combined for efficacy (N = 410) and safety (N = 757) analyses. Exposure-progression-free survival (Cox proportional hazards model indicated that a 300 mg b.i.d. tablet was statistically superior to the 200 mg b.i.d. tablet dose (hazard ratio of 0.96), although the difference was small. Exposure-safety logistic regression models and hemoglobin models predicted similar probability of safety events or hemoglobin decrease with largely overlapping 95% confidence intervals at 300 mg b.i.d. tablet, 200 mg b.i.d. tablet, and 400 mg b.i.d. capsule. The analyses provided key assessments to support the approval of olaparib 300 mg tablet therapeutic dose in patients with ovarian and breast cancer, regardless of their breast cancer (BRCA) mutation status., (© 2019 Astrazeneca. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2019 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Purpose: Chinese patients have been enrolled in multiple Phase III trials of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza); however, the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of olaparib has not been investigated in this population. This two-part, open-label Phase I study was, therefore, carried out to determine the PK and safety profile of olaparib (tablet formulation) in Chinese patients with advanced solid tumours as monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel (NCT02430311)., Methods: The PK profile of olaparib 300 mg (twice daily [bid]; Cohort 1) as monotherapy after a single dose and at steady state, and 100 mg (bid; Cohort 2) as monotherapy (single dose and at steady state) and in combination (at steady state) with weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m 2 ) was assessed during Part A. Patients could continue to receive treatment (monotherapy, Cohort 1; combination therapy, Cohort 2) in Part B, which assessed safety and tolerability., Results: Twenty and 16 patients were enrolled into Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Steady-state olaparib exposure increased slightly less than proportionally with increasing monotherapy dose and inter-patient variability was high. A statistically significant decrease in olaparib exposure was seen when given in combination with paclitaxel. Discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was rare and haematological AEs were more common in patients receiving combination treatment., Conclusions: The PK and safety profile of olaparib monotherapy in Chinese patients is consistent with that seen previously in Western and Japanese patients, and the recommended Phase III monotherapy tablet dose (300 mg bid) is suitable for use in this population.

Background: Olaparib is a first-in-class potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor., Objectives: The aims of this analysis were to establish an integrated population pharmacokinetic (PK) model of olaparib in patients with solid tumors and to bridge the PK of olaparib between capsule and tablet formulations., Methods: The population PK model was developed using plasma concentration data from 659 patients in 11 phase I, II, and III studies of olaparib tablets/capsules monotherapy. Relative bioavailability between the tablet and capsule formulations was estimated and the relative exposure between olaparib tablet and capsule therapeutic doses was further assessed., Results: The concentration-time profile was described using a two-compartment model with sequential zero- and first-order absorption and first-order elimination for both capsules and tablets with different absorption parameters. Multiple-dose clearance compared with single-dose clearance was reduced by approximately 15% (auto-inhibition). Disease severity had an impact on olaparib clearance, and tablet strength had an impact on K a . The olaparib geometric mean area under the curve (AUC) and maximal concentration (C max ) following a single 300 mg tablet were 42.1 μg h/mL and 5.8 μg/mL, respectively, and the steady-state geometric mean AUC and C max following a 300 mg tablet twice daily were 49.0 μg h/mL and 7.7 μg/mL, respectively. The relative exposure (AUC) of the 300 mg tablet formulation is 13% higher than the 400 mg capsule formulation., Conclusion: This analysis bridged the olaparib capsule and tablet formulation PK and provided key assessment to support the approval of the olaparib tablet formulation in patients with ovarian cancer, regardless of their BRCA mutation status.

We report physiologically based pharmacokinetic-modeling analyses to determine olaparib (tablet or capsule) drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Verified DDI simulations provided dose recommendations for olaparib coadministration with clinically relevant CYP3A4 modulators to eliminate potential risk to patient safety or olaparib efficacy. When olaparib is given with strong/moderate CYP3A inhibitors, the dose should be reduced to 100/150 mg b.i.d. (tablet), and 150/200 mg b.i.d. (capsule). Olaparib administration is not recommended with strong/moderate CYP3A inducers. No dose reductions are required with weak CYP3A inhibitors/inducers. Olaparib was shown to be a weak inhibitor of CYP3A (1.6-fold increase in exposure of a sensitive CYP3A probe) and to have no effect on P-glycoprotein or UGT1A1 substrates. Finally, this model was used to simulate exposure in scenarios where clinical data of olaparib are lacking, such as severe renal or hepatic impairment populations, and provided initial dosing recommendations in pediatric patients., (© 2018 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Introduction: The PARP inhibitor olaparib is efficacious as monotherapy and has potential application in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of breast cancer. This phase I study assessed the safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of olaparib combined with tamoxifen, anastrozole or letrozole in patients with advanced solid tumours., Methods: During part A, PK profiles were assessed in three consecutive treatment periods: (1) olaparib (tablet) 300 mg bid, days 1-5 followed by a 4-day washout; (2) cohort 1, tamoxifen 60 mg loading dose qd days 10-13, 20 mg qd days 14-26; cohort 2, anastrozole 1 mg qd days 10-19; cohort 3, letrozole 2.5 mg qd days 10-38; (3) as for period 2, with concomitant olaparib 300 mg bid for 5 days. Patients could then enter part B and receive olaparib monotherapy (300 mg bid continuously). Safety was assessed in parts A and B until 12 months after the last patient entered part B., Results: Seventy-nine patients (20.3% with breast cancer) received treatment in part A; 72 completed part A and 69 entered part B. Anastrozole and letrozole had no effect on the PK profile of olaparib and vice versa. Co-administration with tamoxifen produced a modest decrease in exposure to olaparib [geometric least-squares mean (GLSmean) C max,ss and AUC 0-τ decreased by 20% (90% CI 0.71-0.90) and 27% (0.63-0.84), respectively]. Exposure to tamoxifen was slightly increased when combined with olaparib [GLSmean C max,ss and AUC 0-τ increased by 13% (1.06-1.22) and 16% (1.11-1.21), respectively]; however, the 90% CI fell within the 0.7-1.43 boundary and there were no changes in exposure to tamoxifen metabolites. The safety profile for olaparib alone and in combination with the antihormonal therapies was acceptable., Conclusions: The combination of olaparib and either anastrozole, letrozole or tamoxifen was generally well tolerated, with no clinically relevant PK interactions identified., Funding: AstraZeneca., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02093351.

Background: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations have a better response to treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib than patients without HRR mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy between olaparib and androgen pathway inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaparib plus the androgen pathway inhibitor abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer regardless of HRR mutation status., Methods: We carried out this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries across Europe and North America. Eligible male patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and were candidates for abiraterone treatment. Patients were excluded if they had received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy, or had previous exposure to second-generation antihormonal drugs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice or web response system, without stratification, to receive oral olaparib 300 mg twice daily or placebo. All patients received oral abiraterone 1000 mg once daily and prednisone or prednisolone 5 mg twice daily. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 criteria). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of olaparib or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients., Findings: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 142 patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). The clinical cutoff date for the final analysis was Sept 22, 2017. Median rPFS was 13·8 months (95% CI 10·8-20·4) with olaparib and abiraterone and 8·2 months (5·5-9·7) with placebo and abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65, 95% CI 0·44-0·97, p=0·034). The most common grade 1-2 adverse events were nausea (26 [37%] patients in the olaparib group vs 13 [18%] patients in the placebo group), constipation (18 [25%] vs eight [11%]), and back pain (17 [24%] vs 13 [18%]). 38 (54%) of 71 patients in the olaparib and abiraterone group and 20 (28%) of 71 patients in the placebo and abiraterone group had grade 3 or worse adverse events, including anaemia (in 15 [21%] of 71 patients vs none of 71), pneumonia (four [6%] vs three [4%]), and myocardial infarction (four [6%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported by 24 (34%) of 71 patients receiving olaparib and abiraterone (seven of which were related to treatment) and 13 (18%) of 71 patients receiving placebo and abiraterone (one of which was related to treatment). One treatment-related death (pneumonitis) occurred in the olaparib and abiraterone group., Interpretation: Olaparib in combination with abiraterone provided clinical efficacy benefit for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with abiraterone alone. More serious adverse events were observed in patients who received olaparib and abiraterone than abiraterone alone. Our data suggest that the combination of olaparib and abiraterone might provide an additional clinical benefit to a broad population of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

1. In vitro studies were conducted to evaluate potential inhibitory and inductive effects of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, olaparib, on cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. Inhibitory effects were determined in human liver microsomes (HLM); inductive effects were evaluated in cultured human hepatocytes. 2. Olaparib did not inhibit CYP1A2, CYP2A6, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2D6 or CYP2E1 and caused slight inhibition of CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP3A4/5 in HLM up to a concentration of 100 μM. However, olaparib (17-500 μM) inhibited CYP3A4/5 with an IC 50 of 119 μM. In time-dependent CYP inhibition assays, olaparib (10 μM) had no effect against CYP1A2, CYP2A6, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6 and CYP2E1 and a minor effect against CYP3A4/5. In a further study, olaparib (2-200 μM) functioned as a time-dependent inhibitor of CYP3A4/5 (K I , 72.2 μM and K inact , 0.0675 min -1 ). Assessment of the CYP induction potential of olaparib (0.061-44 μM) showed minor concentration-related increases in CYP1A2 and more marked increases in CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 mRNA, compared with positive control activity; however, no significant change in CYP3A4/5 enzyme activity was observed. 3. Clinically significant drug-drug interactions due to olaparib inhibition or induction of hepatic or intestinal CYP3A4/5 cannot be excluded. It is recommended that olaparib is given with caution with narrow therapeutic range or sensitive CYP3A substrates, and that prescribers are aware that olaparib may reduce exposure to substrates of CYP2B6.

Background: Avibactam is a non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor that restores the in vitro activity of β-lactams, such as ceftazidime, against bacterial pathogens harboring Ambler class A, C, and some class D β-lactamases., Objective: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I study (NCT01920399) evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of single and repeated doses of avibactam and ceftazidime in healthy Chinese subjects., Methods: Sixteen healthy Chinese males aged 18-45 years were randomized 3:1 to receive 2000 mg ceftazidime and 500 mg avibactam (n = 12) or matched placebo (n = 4) as a 120-min intravenous infusion, once on Days 1 and 9, and every 8 h on Days 2-8., Results: Avibactam and ceftazidime showed time-independent pharmacokinetics. Plasma exposure to avibactam and ceftazidime was similar following single and multiple dosing and accumulation of either agent was negligible. The majority of the avibactam and ceftazidime dose was recovered in urine. Adverse events were reported in three subjects (25.0%) in the ceftazidime-avibactam group and one subject (25.0%) in the placebo group. Two subjects in the ceftazidime-avibactam group had elevations in transaminases and one subject in the placebo group had elevated serum bilirubin levels that were considered causally related to study treatment. All adverse events were of mild intensity., Conclusions: Single and multiple doses of 2000 mg ceftazidime and 500 mg avibactam were well tolerated in healthy Chinese subjects, and the observed pharmacokinetics were comparable to previous studies conducted in Western subjects.

For patients with normal renal function, the recommended ceftaroline fosamil dose is a 600 mg 1-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 12 h (q12h). In patients with a creatinine clearance of ≤30 mL/min, including those with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), the recommended dose is a 200 mg 1-h i.v. infusion q12h. This phase 1 study (NCT01664065) evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of ceftaroline fosamil 200 mg 1-h i.v. infusion in patients with ESRD. Patients with ESRD (n=8) participated in two treatment periods (ceftaroline fosamil 200 mg administered pre- and post-haemodialysis) separated by >1 week. Healthy volunteers (n=7) received a single 600 mg dose of ceftaroline fosamil. Blood (pre- and post-haemodialysis) and dialysate samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic analysis. In patients with ESRD, the geometric mean [coefficient of variation (%CV)] plasma ceftaroline area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-∞) following post-haemodialysis ceftaroline fosamil 200 mg infusion was 64.8 (38.9)μg·h/mL, similar to that in volunteers following a 600 mg infusion [62.7 (9.4)μg·h/mL]. Ceftaroline AUC0-∞ decreased by ca. 50% when infusion was initiated pre-haemodialysis. In the pre-haemodialysis treatment period, 80% of the ceftaroline fosamil dose was recovered in dialysate as ceftaroline (73%) and ceftaroline M-1 (7%). The frequency of adverse events was similar across patients with ESRD (pre- and post-haemodialysis) and volunteers (43%, 50% and 43% of subjects, respectively). Ceftaroline fosamil 200 mg 1-h i.v. infusion q12h, administered post-haemodialysis on dialysis days, is an appropriate dosage regimen for ESRD patients., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this Phase 1, open-label study (NCT01395420) was to measure and compare concentrations of ceftazidime and avibactam in bronchial epithelial lining fluid (ELF) and plasma, following administration of two different dosing regimens in healthy subjects., Patients and Methods: Healthy volunteers received 2000 mg of ceftazidime + 500 mg of avibactam (n = 22) or 3000 mg of ceftazidime + 1000 mg of avibactam (n = 21), administered intravenously every 8 h for 3 days (total of nine doses). Bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage was performed once per subject, 2, 4, 6 or 8 h after the last infusion. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated from individual plasma concentrations and the composite ELF concentration-time profile. Safety was assessed., Results: Forty-three subjects received treatment (2000 mg of ceftazidime + 500 mg of avibactam, n = 22; 3000 mg of ceftazidime + 1000 mg of avibactam, n = 21). Plasma and ELF concentrations increased dose-proportionally for both drugs, with 1.5- and 2-fold increases in AUCτ, for respective components. Ceftazidime Cmax and AUCτ in ELF were ∼ 23%-26% and 31%-32% of plasma exposure. Avibactam Cmax and AUCτ in ELF were ∼ 28%-35% and 32%-35% of plasma exposure. ELF and plasma elimination were similar for both drugs. No serious adverse events were observed., Conclusions: Both ceftazidime and avibactam penetrated dose-proportionally into ELF, with ELF exposure to both drugs ∼ 30% of plasma exposure., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We assessed pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of ceftazidime-avibactam administered ± metronidazole, and whether drug-drug interactions exist between ceftazidime and avibactam, or ceftazidime-avibactam and metronidazole. The first study (NCT01430910) involved two cohorts of healthy subjects. Cohort 1 received ceftazidime-avibactam (2000-500 mg) as a single infusion or as multiple intravenous infusions over 11 days to evaluate ceftazidime-avibactam pharmacokinetics. Cohort 2 received ceftazidime, avibactam, or ceftazidime-avibactam over 4 days to assess drug-drug interaction between ceftazidime and avibactam. The second study (NCT01534247) assessed interaction between ceftazidime-avibactam and metronidazole in subjects receiving ceftazidime-avibactam (2000-500 mg), metronidazole (500 mg), or metronidazole followed by ceftazidime-avibactam over 4 days. In all studies, subjects received a single-dose on the first and final days, and multiple-doses every 8 h on intervening days. Concentration-time profiles for ceftazidime and avibactam administered as single- or multiple-doses separately or together with/without metronidazole were similar. There was no evidence of time-dependent pharmacokinetics or accumulation. In both interaction studies, 90% confidence intervals for geometric least squares mean ratios of area under the curve and maximum plasma concentrations for each drug were within the predefined interval (80-125%) indicating no drug-drug interaction between ceftazidime and avibactam, or ceftazidime-avibactam and metronidazole. There were no safety concerns. In conclusion, pharmacokinetic parameters and safety of ceftazidime, avibactam, and metronidazole were similar after single and multiple doses with no observed drug-drug interaction between ceftazidime and avibactam, or ceftazidime-avibactam and metronidazole.

Avibactam is a novel non-β-lactam β-lactamase inhibitor that has been shown to restore the in vitro activity of ceftazidime against pathogens producing Ambler class A, C, and some class D β-lactamases. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of single and multiple doses of avibactam alone or with ceftazidime in healthy Japanese subjects. In this Phase I, double-blind study (NCT01291602), 16 healthy Japanese males, mean age 28.8 years, were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive avibactam 500 mg (n = 6), ceftazidime 2000 mg plus avibactam 500 mg (n = 7), or placebo (n = 3), each administered as a 100 ml intravenous infusion over 2 h, once on Day 1, every 8 h on Days 3-6, and once on Day 7. There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Nine treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in three subjects in the avibactam group - including one elevation in transaminase levels, and three vital signs events (tachycardia, palpitations, and orthostatic hypotension) - and one in the ceftazidime-avibactam group. All events were considered mild. After single or multiple dosing, plasma concentrations of avibactam and ceftazidime declined in a multi-exponential manner. No plasma concentration accumulation was observed, and the majority of avibactam was excreted unchanged in urine within 24 h. No clinically relevant changes in intestinal bacterial flora were observed. In conclusion, avibactam alone and ceftazidime-avibactam were generally well tolerated in healthy male Japanese subjects, and avibactam pharmacokinetics were comparable whether administered alone or in combination with ceftazidime., (Copyright © 2015 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: KRAS is the most commonly mutated oncogene in human tumors. KRAS-mutant cells may exhibit resistance to the allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib (AZD6244; ARRY-142886) and allosteric AKT inhibitors (such as MK-2206), the combination of which may overcome resistance to both monotherapies., Experimental Design: We conducted a dose/schedule-finding study evaluating MK-2206 and selumetinib in patients with advanced treatment-refractory solid tumors. Recommended dosing schedules were defined as MK-2206 at 135 mg weekly and selumetinib at 100 mg once daily., Results: Grade 3 rash was the most common dose-limiting toxicity (DLT); other DLTs included grade 4 lipase increase, grade 3 stomatitis, diarrhea, and fatigue, and grade 3 and grade 2 retinal pigment epithelium detachment. There were no meaningful pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Clinical antitumor activity included RECIST 1.0-confirmed partial responses in non-small cell lung cancer and low-grade ovarian carcinoma., Conclusion: Responses in KRAS-mutant cancers were generally durable. Clinical cotargeting of MEK and AKT signaling may be an important therapeutic strategy in KRAS-driven human malignancies (Trial NCT number NCT01021748)., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: This is the first clinical study of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD8330 (ARRY-424704). This phase I study defined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of AZD8330 in patients with advanced malignancies., Methods: Patients with refractory cancer or cancer with no standard therapy received either once-daily (OD) or twice-daily (BID) oral AZD8330 on day 1 followed by a 7-day washout period and continuous dosing from day 8. The starting dose was 0.5 mg with dose escalations in subsequent cohorts until a non-tolerated dose was reached., Results: Eighty-two patients received AZD8330 across 11 cohorts. The most frequent AZD8330-related adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (13/82, 16%), fatigue (11/82, 13%), diarrhoea (11/82, 13%) and vomiting (9/82, 11%). Four patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: mental status changes (40 mg OD; 2/9 patients and 60 mg OD; 1/3) and rash (20 mg BID; 1/9). The MTD was defined as 20mg BID. AZD8330 exposure increased approximately proportionally with dose across the dose range 0.5-60 mg OD. Dose-dependent modulation of phosphorylated ERK in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was observed at doses ≥3 mg. One patient had a partial response and thirty-two (39%) had stable disease, with a duration >3 months in 22 patients, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors., Conclusion: AZD8330 has a manageable toxicity profile at the MTD of 20 mg BID, and target inhibition was confirmed in PBMCs. One patient with malignant melanoma had a partial response., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This Phase I study assessed whether food influences the rate and extent of selumetinib absorption in patients with advanced solid malignancies and determined the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of selumetinib and its active metabolite N-desmethyl-selumetinib in fed and fasted states., Methods: A single dose of 75 mg selumetinib was to be taken with food on Day 1 followed by a single dose of 75 mg after fasting for at least 10 h on Day 8, or vice versa, followed by twice daily dosing of 75 mg selumetinib from Day 10. Plasma concentrations and PK parameters were determined on Days 1 and 8. Patients could continue to receive selumetinib for as long as they benefitted from treatment., Results: In total, 31 patients were randomized to receive selumetinib; 15 to fed/fasted sequence and 16 to fasted/fed sequence. Comprehensive PK sampling was performed on 11 and 10 patients, respectively. The geometric least-squares means of C(max) and AUC for selumetinib were reduced by 62% (ratio 0.38 90% CI 0.29, 0.50) and 19% (ratio 0.81 90% CI 0.74, 0.88), respectively, under fed compared with fasting conditions. The rate of absorption (t(max)) of selumetinib (fed) was delayed by approximately 2.5 h (median). The food effect was also observed for the active metabolite N-desmethyl-selumetinib. Selumetinib was well tolerated., Conclusions: The presence of food decreased the extent of absorption of selumetinib. It is recommended that for further clinical studies, selumetinib be taken on an empty stomach. Selumetinib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in the advanced cancer population.

PURPOSE Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common and deadly malignancy with few systemic therapy options. The RAF/mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK)/extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) pathway is activated in approximately 50% to 60% of HCCs and represents a potential target for therapy. Selumetinib is an orally available inhibitor of MEK tyrosine kinase activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with locally advanced or metastatic HCC who had not been treated with prior systemic therapy were enrolled on to the study. Patients were treated with selumetinib at its recommended phase II dose of 100 mg twice per day continuously. Cycle length was 21 days. Imaging was performed every two cycles. Biopsies were obtained at baseline and at steady-state in a subset of patients, and pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis was performed on all patients. Results Nineteen patients were enrolled, 17 of whom were evaluable for response. Most (82%) had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. Toxicity was in line with other studies of selumetinib in noncirrhotic patients. PK parameters were also comparable to those in noncirrhotic patients. No radiographic response was observed in this group, and the study was stopped at the interim analysis. Of 11 patients with elevated α-fetoprotein, three (27%) had decreases of 50% or more. Median time to progression was 8 weeks. Inhibition of ERK phosphorylation was demonstrated by Western blotting. CONCLUSION In this study of selumetinib for patients with HCC, no radiographic responses were seen and time to progression was short, which suggests minimal single-agent activity despite evidence of suppression of target activation.