Rituximab pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic evaluation based on a study in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma: Influence of tumor size on pharmacokinetic and assessment of pharmacokinetic similarity

• Published in: CPT: pharmacometrics and systems pharmacology Vol. 12; no. 2; pp. 154 - 167
• Main Authors: Svensson, Robin J., Ooi, Qing Xi, Friberg, Lena E., Maharaj, Narendra, Reddy, Pramod Kumar, López‐Lázaro, Luis, Hansson, Emma
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.02.2023; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Biological products; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals - pharmacokinetics; Biosimilar Pharmaceuticals - therapeutic use; Disease; Drug dosages; Humans; Immunotherapy; Laboratories; Lymphoma; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse - drug therapy; Monoclonal antibodies; Patients; Pharmacodynamics; Pharmacokinetics; Rituximab - pharmacokinetics; Switzerland; Targeted cancer therapy; Switzerland; India
• ISSN: 2163-8306; 2163-8306
• DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12885

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories rituximab (DRL_RI; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories SA, Basel, Switzerland) is under development as a rituximab biosimilar. Study RI‐01‐002 (Clinical Trials Registry ‐ India/2012/11/003129), comparing DRL_RI to the reference medicinal product (RMP) MabThera® (Roche, Grenzach‐Wyhlen, Germany), demonstrated pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence and showed comparable pharmacodynamic, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles. We used data from the same study to perform population PK and PK–pharmacodynamic analyses: first exploring possible factors influencing the PK similarity assessment between products and then performing simulations to investigate the impact of tumor size on rituximab PK. Nonlinear mixed‐effects models for PK, tumor size, tumor size–PK, and tumor response were developed independently. The final PK model included drug product as a dose‐scaling parameter and predicted a 6.75% higher dose reaching the system in RMP‐treated patients. However, when tumor size was included in the tumor size–PK model, the drug product effect was no longer observed. The model rather indicated that patients with larger tumor size have higher clearance. Further simulations confirmed that higher baseline tumor size is associated to slightly lower rituximab exposure. Tumor response, described by a continuous‐time Markov model, did not differ between drug products. Both had higher effects during the first 20 weeks of treatment. Also, the model described a subpopulation of nonresponders to treatment (42%) with faster transitions to a worse state. The different rituximab exposure initially detected between drug products (6.75%) was shown using PK/PK–pharmacodynamic analysis to be attributed to a tumor size imbalance between treatment groups. PK/PK–pharmacodynamic analyses may contribute to PK similarity assessments.