4.4 Article

Clinical pharmacokinetics of bevacizumab in patients with solid tumors

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 779-786

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-007-0664-8

关键词

population pharmacokinetics; bevacizumab; monoclonal antibody; covariate effect; dosing schedule

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To characterize the population pharmacokinetics of bevacizumab and the influence of demographic factors, disease severity, and concomitantly used chemotherapy agents on it's pharmacokinetic behavior. Patients and methods Data from eight clinical trials with bevacizumab administered by intravenous infusion were included. A total of 4,629 bevacizumab concentrations from 491 patients with solid tumors, who received bevacizumab doses ranging from 1 to 20 mg/kg at a dosing frequency ranging from weekly to every 3 weeks, were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling approach (NONMEM). Results The best structural model was a two-compartment model with first-order elimination. In the final model, estimated clearance (CL) and central compartment volume of distribution (V-c) were 0.207 L/day and 2.39 L for a typical female. The terminal half-life estimate was similar to 20 days for both men and women. Body weight and gender were the most significant covariates to explain interpatient variability for CL and V-c. Clearance was 26% faster in men than in women. Patients with low serum albumin and high serum alkaline phosphatase had 19 and 23% faster CL, respectively, than a typical patient. Consistent with the long elimination half life, simulations showed that similar steady-state exposures can be maintained when the weekly mg/kg dose rate is maintained, therefore allowing administration of bevacizumab to coincide with the frequency of administration of the cytotoxic agents. Conclusion The PK parameters were consistent with those of other IgG molecules. The results support dosing bevacizumab on a once every 2 weeks or once every 3 weeks dosing schedule on a mg/kg basis.

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

4.4
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