4.5 Article

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of peginterferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the randomized ADVANCE study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 514-522

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12521

关键词

interferon beta-1a; multiple sclerosis; pegylation

资金

  1. Biogen Idec Inc (Cambridge, MA, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsTo evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of subcutaneous peginterferon beta-1a in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the phase 3 ADVANCE study (n = 1512). MethodsDuring year 1, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo or peginterferon beta-1a 125g every 2 or 4 weeks. After year 1, patients randomized to placebo were re-randomized to 125g peginterferon beta-1a administered every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks for year 2. Patients randomized to peginterferon beta-1a in year 1 remained on the same dosing regimen in year 2. Intensive blood samples for PK and PD (neopterin elevation; a biomarker of pharmacological activity induced by interferon beta-1a) measurements were collected from 44 patients pre-dosing and at intervals over 240h post-dosing at weeks 4 and 24. Sparse samples were collected from all patients after each dosing at weeks 4, 12, 24, 56 and 84. ResultsThe PK profile of peginterferon beta-1a did not change over time or between dosing regimens. No accumulation was observed. Peak serum concentrations were reached 1-1.5 days post-dosing, with a mono-phasic decline and a median half-life of approximately 2-3 days. Dosing every 2 weeks provided approximately two-fold greater monthly cumulative area under the curve than every 4 weeks. Neopterin elevation was sustained for 10-14 days following each dose, indicating doubled cumulative duration of pharmacological activity for dosing every 2 weeks vs. every 4 weeks. ConclusionsThese PK/PD profiles potentially explain the enhanced efficacy of dosing every 2 weeks in patients with RRMS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据