Quantitative prediction of human pharmacokinetics for monoclonal antibodies: retrospective analysis of monkey as a single species for first-in-human prediction.
OBJECTIVE
Prediction of human pharmacokinetics for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) plays an important role for first-in-human (FIH) dose selection. This retrospective analysis compares observed FIH pharmacokinetic data for 16 mAbs to those predicted in humans based on allometric scaling of Cynomolgus monkey pharmacokinetic data.


METHODS
Ten mAbs exhibited linear pharmacokinetics in monkeys based on non-compartmental analysis. For these, simple allometric scaling based on bodyweight was applied to predict human clearance (CL) and volume of distribution (V(d)) from those obtained in monkeys. Six mAbs exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics in monkeys based on population modelling. For these, a population modelling approach using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling software, NONMEM, was applied to describe monkey data by a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with parallel linear and nonlinear elimination from the central compartment. The pharmacokinetic parameters in monkeys were then scaled to humans based on simple allometry. Human concentration-time profiles of these mAbs were then simulated and compared with those observed in the FIH studies.


RESULTS
Antibodies with linear elimination in monkeys also exhibited linear elimination in humans. For these, observed CL and V(d) were predicted within 2.3-fold by allometry. The predictability of human peak serum concentration (C(max)) and area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) for mAbs with nonlinear pharmacokinetics in monkeys was, however, concentration dependent. C(max) was consistently overestimated (up to 5.3-fold higher) when below the predicted Michaelis-Menten constant (Km; range 0.3-4 μg/mL). The prediction of human C(max) was within 2.3-fold when concentrations greatly exceeded Km. Similarly, differences between predicted human AUCs and those observed in the FIH studies were much greater at low doses/concentrations. Consequently, predicted drug exposure in humans at low starting doses (range 0.01-0.3 mg/kg) in FIH studies was poorly estimated for three of six mAbs with nonlinear pharmacokinetics.


CONCLUSIONS
Allometric prediction of human pharmacokinetics may be sufficient for mAbs that exhibit linear pharmacokinetics. For mAbs that exhibited nonlinear pharmacokinetics, the best predictive performance was obtained after doses that achieved target-saturating concentrations.
Department of Pharmacokinetics and Drug Metabolism, Amgen Inc., Seattle, Washington 98119, USA.
Jennifer Q
JQ
Dong
David H
DH
Salinger
Christopher J
CJ
Endres
John P
JP
Gibbs
Cheng-Pang
CP
Hsu
Brian J
BJ
Stouch
Eunju
E
Hurh
Megan A
MA
Gibbs
D000818:Animals; D000911:Antibodies, Monoclonal / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D019540:Area Under Curve; D017321:Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D006801:Humans; D016014:Linear Models; D008252:Macaca fascicularis; D008657:Metabolic Clearance Rate; D008954:Models, Biological; D017711:Nonlinear Dynamics; D012107:Research Design; D012189:Retrospective Studies
D000911:Antibodies, Monoclonal
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;49(3):237-42
8666001
Drug Metab Rev. 1984;15(5-6):1071-121
6396053
Pharm Res. 2009 Feb;26(2):306-15
18975059
J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 May;47(5):553-65
17379759
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2008 Oct;35(5):573-91
19005743
Drug Discov Today. 2007 Dec;12(23-24):1018-24
18061880
Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel. 2007 Jan;10(1):84-96
17265746
Lancet. 1966 Nov 19;2(7473):1087-93
4162525
Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009 Jul;5(7):803-12
19505189
J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999 Jan;288(1):371-8
9862791
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Feb;67(2):153-60
19076987
N Engl J Med. 2006 Sep 7;355(10):1018-28
16908486
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;54(2):164-82
19345250
Br J Pharmacol. 2006 Aug;148(8):1116-23
16847437
J Pharm Sci. 2004 Jan;93(1):177-85
14648647
Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2009;24(1):16-24
19252333
J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1982 Apr;10(2):201-27
7120049
J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Sep;49(9):1056-70
19617465
J Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Jul;45(7):792-801
15951469
Science. 1949 Jun 10;109(2841):579-85
17835379
Pharm Res. 2005 Jan;22(1):103-12
15771236
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010 Apr;87(4):492-6
20147897
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1996 May;138(1):84-9
8658517
J Clin Pharmacol. 2010 Mar;50(3):257-67
19934030
J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1973 Oct;1(5):435-61
4787619
Pharm Res. 2002 Oct;19(10):1537-43
12425473
Drug Discov Today. 2007 Jul;12(13-14):540-7
17631248
Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2003 Apr;5(2):172-9
12772508
J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005 May;313(2):578-85
15647331
J Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Dec;49(12):1382-402
19837907
Pharm Res. 1991 Nov;8(11):1351-9
1798669
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1998 Jun;150(2):295-300
9653060
J Immunol. 1991 Aug 15;147(4):1352-9
1869828
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007 Oct;34(5):711-26
17653836
Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2004 May;25(4):177-86
15108220
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Mar;85(3):247-58
19177065
J Pharm Sci. 1986 Nov;75(11):1028-40
3820096
Pharm Res. 2010 May;27(5):920-32
20232116
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Nov;84(5):548-58
18784655
J Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Apr;45(4):468-76
15778428
J Pharm Sci. 2004 Nov;93(11):2645-68
15389672