4.5 Article

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Relationship of Erenumab (AMG 334) and Capsaicin-Induced Dermal Blood Flow in Healthy and Migraine Subjects

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 1784-1795

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-017-2183-6

关键词

anti-CGRP receptor; dermal blood flow; migraine; pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics; vasodilation

资金

  1. Amgen Inc.
  2. Abide
  3. Amgen
  4. Galderma
  5. Genentech
  6. GlaxoSmithKline
  7. Janssen Research Development
  8. Lilly Chorus
  9. MSD
  10. Novartis
  11. Sanofi Pasteur
  12. UCB
  13. Vertex

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Capsaicin-induced dermal blood flow (CIDBF) is a validated biomarker used to evaluate the target engagement of potential calcitonin gene-related peptide-blocking therapeutics for migraine. To characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) and quantify the inhibitory effects of erenumab (AMG 334) on CIDBF, CIDBF data were pooled from a single- and a multiple-dose study in healthy and migraine subjects. Methods Repeated capsaicin challenges and DBF measurements were performed and serum erenumab concentrations determined. A population analysis was conducted using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach. Effects of body weight, gender, and age on model parameters were evaluated. Results Two-compartment target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) model assuming binding of erenumab in the central compartment best described the nonlinear PK of erenumab. Subcutaneous absorption half-life was 1.6 days and bioavailability was 74%. Erenumab produced a maximum inhibition of 89% (95% confidence interval: 87-91%). Erenumab concentrations required for 50% and 99% of maximum inhibition were 255 ng/mL and 1134 ng/mL, respectively. Increased body weight was associated with increased erenumab clearance but had no effect on the inhibitory effect on CIDBF. Conclusions Our results show that erenumab pharmacokinetics was best characterized by a TMDD model and resulted in potent inhibition of CIDBF.

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