3.8 Article

Population Pharmacokinetics of CC-122

期刊

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CPAA.S310604

关键词

CC-122; population pharmacokinetics; renal impairment

资金

  1. Bristol Myers Squibb

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The population pharmacokinetics of CC-122 was adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination in 298 patients from 3 clinical studies. Tumor types were significantly correlated with apparent clearance and apparent volume of distribution of the central compartment, while creatinine clearance was identified as a statistically significant covariate of clearance. Sex and body weight were statistically but not clinically relevant on volume of distribution.
Background: CC-122 is a cereblon-modulating agent that exerts direct cell-autonomous activity against malignant B cells and immunomodulatory effects. Herein, a population pharmacokinetic (popPK) model of CC-122 was developed and the influence of demographic and disease-related covariates on population pharmacokinetic parameters was assessed based on data from three clinical studies of CC-122 (dose range, 0.5-15 mg) in healthy subjects and cancer patients. Methods: Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was employed in developing a population pharmacokinetic model of CC-122 based on 298 patients from 3 clinical studies. Results: The PK of CC-122 was adequately described with a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. Tumor types were found to be significantly correlated with apparent clearance (CL/F) and apparent volume of distribution of the central compartment. Creatinine clearance was identified as a statistically significant covariate of CL/F. Sex and body weight were statistically but not clinically relevant on V2/F. Conclusion: In conclusion, the two-compartment model built can be used to adequately describe the time course of the population pharmacokinetics of CC-122 and should serve as the basis for dose adjustment decision-making of CC-122.

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

3.8
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