首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Pharmaceuticals >Clinical-Based vs. Model-Based Adaptive Dosing Strategy: Retrospective Comparison in Real-World mRCC Patients Treated with Sunitinib
【2h】

Clinical-Based vs. Model-Based Adaptive Dosing Strategy: Retrospective Comparison in Real-World mRCC Patients Treated with Sunitinib

机译:基于临床的与模型的自适应剂量策略:现实世界MRCC患者的回顾性比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Different target exposures with sunitinib have been proposed in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, such as trough concentrations or AUCs. However, most of the time, rather than therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), clinical evidence is preferred to tailor dosing, i.e., by reducing the dose when treatment-related toxicities show, or increasing dosing if no signs of efficacy are observed. Here, we compared such empirical dose adjustment of sunitinib in mRCC patients, with the parallel dosing proposals of a PK/PD model with TDM support. In 31 evaluable patients treated with sunitinib, 53.8% had an empirical change in dosing after treatment started (i.e., 46.2% decrease in dosing, 7.6% increase in dosing). Clinical benefit was observed in 54.1% patients, including 8.3% with complete response. Overall, 58.1% of patients experienced treatment discontinuation eventually, either because of toxicities or progressive disease. When choosing 50–100 ng/mL trough concentrations as a target exposure (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), 45% patients were adequately exposed. When considering 1200–2150 ng/mL.h as a target AUC (i.e., sunitinib + active metabolite N-desethyl sunitinib), only 26% patients were in the desired therapeutic window. TDM with retrospective PK/PD modeling would have suggested decreasing sunitinib dosing in a much larger number of patients as compared with empirical dose adjustment. Indeed, when using target trough concentrations, the model proposed reducing dosing for 61% patients, and up to 84% patients based upon target AUC. Conversely, the model proposed increasing dosing in 9.7% of patients when using target trough concentrations and in 6.5% patients when using target AUC. Overall, TDM with adaptive dosing would have led to tailoring sunitinib dosing in a larger number of patients (i.e., 53.8% vs. 71–91%, depending on the chosen metrics for target exposure) than a clinical-based decision. Interestingly, sunitinib dosing was empirically reduced in 41% patients who displayed early-onset severe toxicities, whereas model-based recommendations would have immediately proposed to reduce dosing in more than 80% of those patients. This observation suggests that early treatment-related toxicities could have been partly avoided using prospective PK/PD modeling with adaptive dosing. Conversely, the possible impact of model-based adapted dosing on efficacy could not be fully evaluated because no clear relationship was found between baseline exposure levels and sunitinib efficacy measured at 3 months.
机译:在转移性肾细胞癌(MRCC)患者中提出了不同的目标曝光,如润槽浓度或AUC。然而,大多数时间,而不是治疗药物监测(TDM),临床证据是优选定制剂量的,即通过减少治疗相关的毒性显示,如果没有观察到疗效迹象,则通过减少剂量。在此,我们将Sunitinib的阳光毒素的实证剂量调节与TDM载体的PK / PD模型的平行计量提案进行了比较。在31例可评估的患者治疗Sunitinib后,53.8%在治疗开始后,在治疗后的药物经常变化(即,给药的46.2%,给药增加7.6%)。在54.1%的患者中观察到临床效益,其中包括完全反应的8.3%。总体而言,58.1%的患者经历过治疗停止最终是因为毒性或渐进性疾病。选择50-100ng / ml槽浓度作为目标暴露时(即,Sunitinib +活性代谢物N-脱乙基瑞替尼),45%的患者被充分暴露。当考虑1200-2150ng / ml.h作为目标AUC(即,Sunitinib +活性代谢物N-脱乙基瑞替尼),在所需的治疗窗口中只有26%的患者。与追溯PK / PD造型的TDM将在与经验剂量调节相比,在更大数量的患者中表明在更大量的患者中减少了孙尼替尼给药。实际上,当使用目标槽浓度时,该模型提出了减少61%患者的剂量,基于目标AUC的患者高达84%。相反,当使用靶槽浓度和6.5%患者使用目标AUC时,该模型提出了9.7%的患者的给药。总体而言,具有适应性剂量的TDM将导致在更多的临床决策中剪裁更多患者(即53.8%,53.8%与71-91%的患者中的Sunitinib剂量)。有趣的是,Sunitinib给药在41%的患者中经过明确减少,患者展示早期毒性,而基于模型的建议将立即提出在超过80%的患者中减少给药量。该观察结果表明,使用具有自适应剂量的前瞻性PK / PD模型,可以部分避免早期治疗相关的毒性。相反,基于模型的适应剂量对疗效的可能影响无法得到充分评估,因为在3个月内测量的基线暴露水平和孙尼替尼疗效之间没有明确的关系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号