Assessment of nivolumab benefit–risk profile of a 240-mg flat dose relative to a 3-mg/kg dosing regimen in patients with advanced tumors

Abstract Background Nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W) has shown benefit versus the standard of care in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, flat dosing is expected to shorten preparation time and improve ease of administration. With knowledge of nivolumab safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics across a wide dose range in body weight (BW) dosing, assessment of the benefit–risk profile of a 240-mg flat dose relative to the approved 3-mg/kg dose was approached by quantitative clinical pharmacology. Patients and methods A flat dose of 240 mg was selected based on its equivalence to the 3-mg/kg dose at the median BW of ∼80 kg in patients in the nivolumab program. The benefit–risk profile of nivolumab 240 mg was evaluated by comparing exposures at 3 mg/kg Q2W and 240 mg Q2W across BW and tumor types; clinical safety at 3 mg/kg Q2W by BW and exposure quartiles in melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC; and safety and efficacy at 240 mg Q2W relative to 3 mg/kg Q2W in melanoma, NSCLC, and RCC. Results The median nivolumab exposure and its distribution at 240 mg Q2W were similar to 3 mg/kg Q2W in the simulated population. Safety analyses did not demonstrate a clinically meaningful relationship between BW or nivolumab exposure quartiles and frequency or severity of adverse events. The predicted safety and efficacy were similar across nivolumab exposure ranges achieved with 3 mg/kg Q2W or 240 mg Q2W flat dose. Conclusion Based on population pharmacokinetic modeling, established flat exposure–response relationships for efficacy and safety, and clinical safety, the benefit–risk profile of nivolumab 240 mg Q2W was comparable to 3 mg/kg Q2W. The quantitative clinical pharmacology approach provided evidence for regulatory decision-making on dose modification, obviating the need for an independent clinical study.

[1]  S. Agrawal,et al.  Model‐Based Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Nivolumab in Patients With Solid Tumors , 2016, CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology.

[2]  S. Agrawal,et al.  Quantitative Characterization of the Exposure–Response Relationship for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Case Study of Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Melanoma , 2016, CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology.

[3]  J. Radford Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck , 2016, BDJ.

[4]  S. Agrawal,et al.  Nivolumab dose selection: challenges, opportunities and lessons learned for cancer immunotherapy , 2015, Journal of Immunotherapy for Cancer.

[5]  A. Ravaud,et al.  Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  C. Rudin,et al.  Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  L. Crinò,et al.  Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  G. Linette,et al.  Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. , 2015, The Lancet. Oncology.

[9]  D. Schadendorf,et al.  Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  William Abramovits,et al.  OPDIVO (Nivolumab). , 2015, Skinmed.

[11]  D. Allison,et al.  A Guide to Rational Dosing of Monoclonal Antibodies , 2012, Clinical Pharmacokinetics.

[12]  David C. Smith,et al.  Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Drew M. Pardoll,et al.  The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy , 2012, Nature Reviews Cancer.