TY - JOUR
T1 - Pharmacokinetic and Exposure Response Analysis of the Double-Blind Randomized Study of Posaconazole and Voriconazole for Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis
AU - the study investigators
AU - Maertens, Johan A.
AU - Rahav, Galia
AU - Lee, Dong Gun
AU - Haider, Shariq
AU - Ramirez-Sanchez, Isabel Cristina
AU - Klimko, Nikolai
AU - Ponce-de-León, Alfredo
AU - Han, Seongah
AU - Wrishko, Rebecca
AU - Winchell, Gregory A.
AU - Grandhi, Anjana
AU - Waskin, Hetty
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/9
Y1 - 2023/9
N2 - Background and Objective: A double-blind phase 3 study was conducted to compare posaconazole 300 mg intravenously (IV)/300 mg orally once daily (twice daily day 1) with voriconazole 4 mg/kg IV twice daily/200 mg orally twice daily (6 mg/kg day 1) for treatment of invasive aspergillosis. This analysis was conducted to summarize the pharmacokinetics and exposure–response relationships of posaconazole and voriconazole using plasma trough concentration (C trough) as a surrogate for exposure from the double-blind phase 3 study. Methods: The pharmacokinetic evaluable population included all intention-to-treat (ITT) participants with at least one plasma concentration during the treatment period. Treatment blinding was maintained without therapeutic drug monitoring. C trough sampling occurred throughout treatment; efficacy and safety were evaluated using quartiles determined by mean C trough concentrations. Exposure efficacy variables included day 42 all-cause mortality (primary study endpoint) and global clinical response. Exposure safety variables included all adverse events and treatment-related adverse events. Results: The pharmacokinetic analysis population included 506 of 575 ITT participants (437 with C trough concentrations: 228 posaconazole, 209 voriconazole). No trend was seen across quartiles of posaconazole C trough for the key efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality through day 42. Participants in the highest quartile of voriconazole C trough had higher all-cause mortality through day 42 than participants in the lower three quartiles of voriconazole C trough. Similar findings were observed for global clinical response and C trough. No clear exposure safety trend by quartile was seen for posaconazole or voriconazole. Conclusions: A strong exposure–response relationship was not observed across the range of exposure from the administered doses and formulations for posaconazole or voriconazole. Trial registration:: NCT01782131; registered January 30, 2013.
AB - Background and Objective: A double-blind phase 3 study was conducted to compare posaconazole 300 mg intravenously (IV)/300 mg orally once daily (twice daily day 1) with voriconazole 4 mg/kg IV twice daily/200 mg orally twice daily (6 mg/kg day 1) for treatment of invasive aspergillosis. This analysis was conducted to summarize the pharmacokinetics and exposure–response relationships of posaconazole and voriconazole using plasma trough concentration (C trough) as a surrogate for exposure from the double-blind phase 3 study. Methods: The pharmacokinetic evaluable population included all intention-to-treat (ITT) participants with at least one plasma concentration during the treatment period. Treatment blinding was maintained without therapeutic drug monitoring. C trough sampling occurred throughout treatment; efficacy and safety were evaluated using quartiles determined by mean C trough concentrations. Exposure efficacy variables included day 42 all-cause mortality (primary study endpoint) and global clinical response. Exposure safety variables included all adverse events and treatment-related adverse events. Results: The pharmacokinetic analysis population included 506 of 575 ITT participants (437 with C trough concentrations: 228 posaconazole, 209 voriconazole). No trend was seen across quartiles of posaconazole C trough for the key efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality through day 42. Participants in the highest quartile of voriconazole C trough had higher all-cause mortality through day 42 than participants in the lower three quartiles of voriconazole C trough. Similar findings were observed for global clinical response and C trough. No clear exposure safety trend by quartile was seen for posaconazole or voriconazole. Conclusions: A strong exposure–response relationship was not observed across the range of exposure from the administered doses and formulations for posaconazole or voriconazole. Trial registration:: NCT01782131; registered January 30, 2013.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85169921723&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s40261-023-01282-7
DO - 10.1007/s40261-023-01282-7
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 37676612
AN - SCOPUS:85169921723
SN - 1173-2563
VL - 43
SP - 681
EP - 690
JO - Clinical Drug Investigation
JF - Clinical Drug Investigation
IS - 9
ER -