Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) involves frequent measurements of drug concentrations to ensure levels remain within a therapeutic window, and it is especially useful for drugs with narrow therapeutic indices or extensive interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. This technique has never been applied to immuno‐oncology drugs, but, given recent examinations of clinical data (both exposure and response) on a number of these drugs, further investigations into TDM may be justified to reduce costs as well as potentially reducing the severity and/or duration of immune‐related adverse events. Specifically, all but one of the approved PD‐1 and PD‐L1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, cemiplimab‐rwlc, atezolizumab, avelumab, durvalumab) have been shown to exhibit a plateaued exposure‐response (E‐R) curve at doses evaluated extensively to date, as well as time‐dependent changes in drug exposure. Furthermore, responders have a greater decrease in drug clearance over time and would, therefore, have supratherapeutic serum concentrations. With frequent trough measurements, it is possible to use pharmacokinetic modelling and simulation to estimate drug clearance via Bayesian methods. Based on patient‐specific estimates for clearance, optimal alternative dosing strategies can be simulated to lower drug and cost burden yet maintain therapeutic levels, especially as the clearance of the drug decreases over time. This review will comprehensively discuss each of the FDA approved PD‐1, PD‐L1/2 and CTLA‐4 inhibitors regarding their indications and current recommended dosing, with evidence supporting the investigation of these types of TDM strategies.

Remdesivir, formerly GS-5734, has recently become the first antiviral drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. Therapeutic dosing and pharmacokinetic studies require a simple, sensitive, and selective validated assay to quantify drug concentrations in clinical samples. Therefore, we developed a rapid and sensitive LC-MS/MS assay for the quantification of remdesivir in human plasma with its deuterium-labeled analog, remdesivir- 2 H5, as the internal standard. Chromatographic separation was achieved on a Phenomenex® Synergi TM HPLC Fusion-RP (100 x 2 mm, 4 μm) column by gradient elution. Excellent accuracy and precision (<5.2% within-run variations and <9.8% between-run variations) were obtained over the range of 0.5-5000 ng/mL. The assay met the FDA Bioanalytical Guidelines for selectivity and specificity, and low inter-matrix lot variability (<2.7%) was observed for extraction efficiency (77%) and matrix effect (123%) studies. Further, stability tests showed that the analyte does not degrade under working conditions, nor during freezing and thawing processes.

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab, anti–programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibodies, have revolutionized oncology but are expensive. Using an interventional pharmacoeconomic approach, these drugs can be administered less often to reduce costs and increase patient convenience while maintaining efficacy. Both drugs are good candidates for less frequent dosing because of long half‐lives and no evidence of a relationship of dose to efficacy. Established population pharmacokinetic models for both nivolumab and pembrolizumab were used to simulate profiles for multiple dosing regimens on 1000 randomly generated virtual patients. Simulations were initially performed on standard dose regimens to validate these in silico predictions. Next, simulations of nivolumab 0.3 mg/kg every 3 weeks revealed that >95% of patients maintained ≥1.5 μg/mL at steady state, which was inferred as the minimum effective concentration (MEC) for both drugs. Various alternative dosing regimens were simulated for both drugs to determine which regimen(s) can maintain this MEC in >95% of patients. Extended dosing regimens of nivolumab 240 mg every 4 weeks and 480 mg every 8 weeks along with pembrolizumab 200 mg every 6 weeks were simulated, showing that >95% of patients maintained MEC or greater. These simulations demonstrate the potential to reduce drug exposure by at least 50%, thus substantially reducing patient visits (as well as costs), while maintaining equivalent efficacy. These models provide the scientific justification for an ongoing prospective randomized clinical trial comparing standard interval fixed dosing with extended interval fixed dosing, and ultimately an efficacy‐driven comparative trial.

No abstract