Article
Dean Bottino, Rachael Liu, Hojjat Bazzazi, Karthik Venkatakrishnan
Characterizing Exposure–Response Relationship for Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies in Immuno-Oncology and Beyond: Challenges, Perspectives, and Prospects
Summary
- Recent data from immuno-oncology clinical studies show that the exposure–response (E–R) relationship for therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is often confounded by various factors.
- The complex interplay involves patient characteristics, disease, drug exposure, clearance, and treatment response, presenting challenges in E–R analysis.
- An integrative framework is proposed to understand the E–R relationship, involving an interconnected triangle of baseline factors, drug exposure, and treatment response.
- This framework identifies three components of the E–R relationship: exposure-driven E–R, baseline-driven E–R, and response-driven E–R.
- Strategies to decouple these components and mitigate confounding effects are reviewed, highlighting their merits and limitations.
- A roadmap for selecting strategies is proposed, including the use of single-dose pharmacokinetic models and multivariable or case control analysis in randomized studies.
- Discussion includes the importance of data from multiple dose levels, the role of prognostic and predictive factors, and the potential utility of baseline clearance and its changes over time.
Analysis of the exposure response (E–R) relationship has long been an important tool for dose selection and optimization and regulatory decisions during all stages of drug development. In general, it is assumed that the E–R relationship is driven by the exposure and, therefore, a positive E–R correlation suggests that a higher exposure at a higher dose would lead to a better response. However, several recent reports from clinical studies with therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in oncology or immuno-oncology field have shown that this is not always true...
Complex E–R relationship, immuno-oncology, single-dose PK model, therapeutic monoclonal antibodies
Related Topics
You May Also Like
Dean Bottino, Rachael Liu, Hojjat Bazzazi, Karthik Venkatakrishnan
Article
Kirill Peskov, Ivan Azarov, Lulu Chu, Veronika Voronova, Yuri Kosinsky, Gabriel Helmlinger
Quantitative Mechanistic Modeling in Support of Pharmacological Therapeutics Development in Immuno-Oncology
Article
Kushal T. Kadakia, MSc, Malke Asaad, MD, Erica Adlakha, MS, Michael J. Overman, MD, Cristina M. Checka, MD, and Anaeze C. Offodile II, MD, MPH
Virtual Clinical Trials in Oncology-Overview, Challenges, Policy Considerations, and Future Directions
Article
Emmanuelle Jacqueta, Ghania Kerouani-Lafayeb, Francoise Grudeb, Sergio Goncalvesb, Annie Lorenced, Florence Turcryb, Liora Brunelb, Laetitia Belgodereb, Adrien Monardc, Gaëlle Guyaderb, Lotfi Boudalib, Nicolas Albin
Comparative study on anticancer drug access times between FDA, EMA and the French temporary authorisation for use program over 13 years
Article
Aaron S. Long, BS; Audrey D. Zhang, MD; Caitlin E. Meyer, MLIS; Alexander C. Egilman, BS; Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS; Joshua D. Wallach, PhD, MS
Evaluation of Trials Comparing Single-Enantiomer Drugs to Their Racemic Precursors: A Systematic Review
Article
iNIZIO