Cargando…
Pharmacometric analyses to characterize the effect of CSL112 on apolipoprotein A‐I and cholesterol efflux capacity in acute myocardial infarction patients
AIMS: To characterize relationships between apolipoprotein A‐I (apoA‐I) exposure and cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) and covariate effects following CSL112 (apoA‐I [human]) administration in an integrated population including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. METHODS: A pharmacometric an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8247400/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33217027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14666 |
Sumario: | AIMS: To characterize relationships between apolipoprotein A‐I (apoA‐I) exposure and cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) and covariate effects following CSL112 (apoA‐I [human]) administration in an integrated population including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. METHODS: A pharmacometric analysis utilized data from seven clinical trials, including patients with AMI, subjects with renal impairment and healthy subjects. A population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis was performed to relate CSL112 doses to changes in apoA‐I plasma concentrations. Covariate analysis was conducted to identify sources of variability in apoA‐I exposure. Exposure‐response modeling was conducted to describe the relationship between apoA‐I exposure and total or ATP binding cassette transporter A1‐(ABCA1)‐dependent CEC and to identify clinical predictors of CEC. RESULTS: A two‐compartment model described apoA‐I PK. ApoA‐I clearance was slightly lower in subjects with AMI, whereas baseline apoA‐I was marginally higher in female and Japanese subjects. Covariate effects on apoA‐I exposure were in the order of 10% and thus not clinically relevant. The relationships between apoA‐I exposure and CECs were described by nonlinear models. Simulations showed CEC elevation resulting from apoA‐I exposure increment was comparable in AMI and non‐AMI subjects; no covariate had clinically meaningful effects on CEC. Simulations also demonstrated that CEC in patients with AMI post 6 g CSL112 dosing was substantially elevated compared to placebo and lower dose levels. CONCLUSIONS: The model‐based exposure‐response analysis demonstrated, irrespective of body weight, sex and race, that fixed 6 g CSL112 dosing causes a desired CEC elevation, which may benefit AMI patients by potentially reducing early recurrent cardiovascular event risk. |
---|