TY - JOUR
T1 - Insights Into Patient Variability During Ivacaftor-Lumacaftor Therapy in Cystic Fibrosis
AU - Hanafin, Patrick O.
AU - Sermet-Gaudelus, Isabelle
AU - Griese, Matthias
AU - Kappler, Matthias
AU - Ellemunter, Helmut
AU - Schwarz, Carsten
AU - Wilson, John
AU - Tan, Marsha
AU - Velkov, Tony
AU - Rao, Gauri G.
AU - Schneider-Futschik, Elena K.
N1 - Funding Information:
We want to thank the patients who donated their time and contributed to our study and Joseph Pelle (HMST Lab, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences) for his help with the mass spectrometer. Parts of this work were scheduled as oral presentations at the TSANZ ASM 2020 (Melbourne, Australia) and ECFS 2020 (Lyon, France). Both conferences were cancelled due to COVID-19 and only the respective abstracts published online (Hanafin et al., 2020a ; Hanafin et al., 2020b).
Funding Information:
ES-F supported by a research grant (APP1157287) from The University of Melbourne and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) as Biomedical Research Fellow. Portions of this work were supported by the Peter Phelan grant from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright © 2021 Hanafin, Sermet-Gaudelus, Griese, Kappler, Ellemunter, Schwarz, Wilson, Tan, Velkov, Rao and Schneider-Futschik.
PY - 2021/8/2
Y1 - 2021/8/2
N2 - Background: The advent of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein (CFTR) modulators like ivacaftor have revolutionised the treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF). However, due to the plethora of variances in disease manifestations in CF, there are inherent challenges in unified responses under CFTR modulator treatment arising from variability in patient outcomes. The pharmacokinetic (PK) data available for ivacaftor-lumacaftor cystic fibrosis (CF) transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator drug combination is limited. Methods: Secondary objectives were to identify (1) patient characteristics and (2) the interactions between ivacaftor-lumacaftor responsible for interindividual variability (IIV). Results: Peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) of ivacaftor - lumacaftor were >10 fold lower than expected compared to label information. The one-way ANOVA indicated that the patient site had an effect on Cmax values of ivacaftor metabolites ivacaftor-M1, ivacaftor-M6, and lumacaftor (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). The Spearman’s rho test indicated that patient weight and age have an effect on the Cmax of lumacaftor (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively) and ivacaftor metabolite M1 (p = 0.020 and p < 0.001, respectively). Age (p < 0.001) was found to effect on Cmax of ivacaftor M6 and on Tmax of ivacaftor M1 (p = 0.026). A large impact of patient characteristics on the IIV of PK parameters Cmax and Tmax, was observed among the CF patients. Conclusion: Understanding the many sources of variability can help reduce this individual patient variability and ensure consistent patient outcomes.
AB - Background: The advent of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein (CFTR) modulators like ivacaftor have revolutionised the treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF). However, due to the plethora of variances in disease manifestations in CF, there are inherent challenges in unified responses under CFTR modulator treatment arising from variability in patient outcomes. The pharmacokinetic (PK) data available for ivacaftor-lumacaftor cystic fibrosis (CF) transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator drug combination is limited. Methods: Secondary objectives were to identify (1) patient characteristics and (2) the interactions between ivacaftor-lumacaftor responsible for interindividual variability (IIV). Results: Peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) of ivacaftor - lumacaftor were >10 fold lower than expected compared to label information. The one-way ANOVA indicated that the patient site had an effect on Cmax values of ivacaftor metabolites ivacaftor-M1, ivacaftor-M6, and lumacaftor (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). The Spearman’s rho test indicated that patient weight and age have an effect on the Cmax of lumacaftor (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively) and ivacaftor metabolite M1 (p = 0.020 and p < 0.001, respectively). Age (p < 0.001) was found to effect on Cmax of ivacaftor M6 and on Tmax of ivacaftor M1 (p = 0.026). A large impact of patient characteristics on the IIV of PK parameters Cmax and Tmax, was observed among the CF patients. Conclusion: Understanding the many sources of variability can help reduce this individual patient variability and ensure consistent patient outcomes.
KW - cystic fibrosis
KW - cytochrome interactions
KW - drug- drug interactions
KW - ivacaftor
KW - lumacaftor
KW - pharmacodynamics
KW - pharmacokinetic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85110158697&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fphar.2021.577263
DO - 10.3389/fphar.2021.577263
M3 - Article
C2 - 34408649
AN - SCOPUS:85110158697
SN - 1663-9812
VL - 12
JO - Frontiers in Pharmacology
JF - Frontiers in Pharmacology
M1 - 577263
ER -