Maria Learoyd

Antitumor activity in ras-driven tumors by blocking akt and mek

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). Clin Cancer Res; 21(4); 739–48. ©2014 AACR.

A phase I dose-escalation study of oral MK-2206 (allosteric AKT inhibitor) with oral selumetinib (AZD6244; MEK inhibitor) in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

3004 Background: The PI3K-Akt and RAF/MEK/ERK pathways represent two of the most frequently activated growth factor signaling pathways in human cancer. Inhibition of both pathways could yield greater benefits than inhibiting either pathway alone. The objectives of this phase I study were to examine the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and preliminary antitumor activity of the novel combination of MK-2206 with selumetinib. This investigational study represents a new approach to early-stage drug development with the collaboration of two pharmaceutical companies co-developing early stage targeted agent combinations ( NCT01021748 ). METHODS Eligible patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with MK-2206 either every other day (QOD) or once weekly (QW), in combination with selumetinib administered continuously either once daily (QD) or twice daily (BID). RESULTS To date, 33 patients have been treated on five dose levels. In the MK-2206 QOD dosing schedule, dose-limiting Grade 3 macular skin rash was reported in 2/3 evaluable patients at MK-2206 45 mg QOD with selumetinib 75mg BID; the tolerable dose was MK-2206 45 mg QOD with selumetinib 75 mg QD. For QW MK-2206, dose-limiting acneiform rash (n=1), stomatitis (n=1) and detached retinal pigment epithelium (n=1) were observed in 3/7 evaluable patients treated at MK-2206 90 mg QW with selumetinib 75mg BID; dose reduction to MK-2206 90mg QW/ selumetinib 50 mg BID was not tolerated due to dose-limiting acneiform rash in 2/ 4 evaluable patients. An intermediate dose of MK-2206 90mg once weekly with selumetinib 75mg QD was tolerable. Preliminary assessment of PK/PD data suggest no apparent drug-drug interactions with the PK profile of each drug administered in this combination. CONCLUSIONS MK2206 at 45 mg QOD, or 90 mg QW is well tolerated in combination with selumetinib 75 mg QD in patients with advanced cancer.

A phase I dose-finding, safety and tolerability study of AZD8330 in patients with advanced malignancies

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.

Phase 1 study assessing the steady-state concentration of ceftazidime and avibactam in plasma and epithelial lining fluid following two dosing regimens

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.

Olaparib combined with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

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.

Randomized pharmacokinetic and drug-drug interaction studies of ceftazidime, avibactam, and metronidazole in healthy subjects

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.

In vitro evaluation of the inhibition and induction potential of olaparib, a potent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, on cytochrome P450

Abstract 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 IC50 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 (KI, 72.2 μM and Kinact, 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.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling for Olaparib Dosing Recommendations: Bridging Formulations, Drug Interactions, and Patient Populations

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.

An open-label, non-randomised, phase 1, single-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics of ceftaroline in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring intermittent haemodialysis

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.