Population pharmacokinetics of tanezumab in phase 3 clinical trials for osteoarthritis pain

AimsThe aims were to 1) develop the pharmacokinetics model to describe and predict observed tanezumab concentrations over time, 2) test possible covariate parameter relationships that could influence clearance and distribution and 3) assess the impact of fixed dosing vs. a dosing regimen adjusted by body weight.MethodsIndividual concentration–time data were determined from 1608 patients in four phase 3 studies conducted to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous tanezumab. Patients received two or three intravenous doses (2.5, 5 or 10 mg) every 8 weeks. Blood samples for assessment of tanezumab PK were collected at baseline, 1 h post‐dose and at weeks 4, 8, 16 and 24 (or early termination) in all studies. Blood samples were collected at week 32 in two studies. Plasma samples were analyzed using a sensitive, specific, validated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsA two compartment model with parallel linear and non‐linear elimination processes adequately described the data. Population estimates for clearance (CL), central volume (V ₁), peripheral volume (V ₂), inter‐compartmental clearance, maximum elimination capacity (VM) and concentration at half‐maximum elimination capacity were 0.135 l day^–1, 2.71 l, 1.98 l, 0.371 l day^–1, 8.03 μg day^–1 and 27.7 ng ml^–1, respectively. Inter‐individual variability (IIV) was included on CL, V ₁, V ₂ and VM. A mixture model accounted for the distribution of residual error. While gender, dose and creatinine clearance were significant covariates, only body weight as a covariate of CL, V ₁ and V ₂ significantly reduced IIV.ConclusionsThe small increase in variability associated with fixed dosing is consistent with other monoclonal antibodies and does not change risk : benefit.     

Simeprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin lessens time with fatigue,depressive symptoms and functional limitations in patients with chronic hepatitis C compared with peginterferon and ribavirin: results from 1161 patients in the QUEST‐1, QUEST‐2 and PROMISE studies

The value of adding simeprevir (SMV) vs placebo (PBO) to peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection was examined using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs); further, concordance of PROs with virology endpoints and adverse events (AEs) was explored. Patients (n = 768 SMV/PR, n = 393 PBO/PR) rated fatigue (FSS), depressive symptoms (CES‐D) and functional impairment (WPAI: Hepatitis C Productivity, Daily Activity and Absenteeism) at baseline and throughout treatment in three randomised, double‐blind trials comparing the addition of SMV or PBO during initial 12 weeks of PR. PR was administered for 48 weeks (PBO group) and 24/48 weeks (SMV group) using a response‐guided therapy (RGT) approach. Mean PRO scores (except Absenteeism) worsened from baseline to Week 4 to the same extent in both groups but reverted after Week 24 for SMV/PR and only after Week 48 for PBO/PR. Accordingly, there was a significantly lower area under the curve (baseline–Week 60, AUC₆₀) and fewer weeks with clinically important worsening of scores in the SMV/PR group at any time point. Incidences of patients with fatigue and anaemia AEs were similar in both groups, but FSS scores showed that clinically important increases in fatigue lasted a mean of 6.9 weeks longer with PBO/PR (P < 0.001). PRO score subgroup analysis indicated better outcomes for patients who met the criteria for RGT or achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR12); differences in mean PRO scores associated with fibrosis level were only observed with PBO/PR. Greater efficacy of SMV/PR enabled reduced treatment duration and reduced time with PR‐related AEs without adding to AE severity.     

Reading the unique DNA methylation landscape of the brain: Non-CpG methylation,hydroxymethylation, and MeCP2

DNA methylation at CpG dinucleotides is an important epigenetic regulator common to virtually all mammalian cell types, but recent evidence indicates that during early postnatal development neuronal genomes also accumulate uniquely high levels of two alternative forms of methylation, non-CpG methylation and hydroxymethylation. Here we discuss the distinct landscape of DNA methylation in neurons, how it is established, and how it might affect the binding and function of protein readers of DNA methylation. We review studies of one critical reader of DNA methylation in the brain, the Rett syndrome protein methyl CpG-binding protein 2 (MeCP2), and discuss how differential binding affinity of MeCP2 for non-CpG and hydroxymethylation may affect the function of this methyl-binding protein in the nervous system.     

Keeping Secrets or Educating Others: A Dyadic Analysis of Group Entitativity’s Influence on Spouses’ Label Management Connected to AATD

In 1963, Goffman argued that forming a group based on shared stigma may provide benefits. However, there is no empirical research on whether perception that a separate, unique, coherent group exists (i.e., group entitativity) influences coping, such as educating others or secrecy, for the stigmatized individual or his or her spouse. Further, little is known about how spouses influence each other in terms of promoting the education of others about a stigmatizing condition, especially when it comes to the role of believing that stigma-based groups, to which they may both belong, exist. This study provides a step toward bridging this gap in the research by applying the label management model in efforts to understand coping for couples in which one spouse is diagnosed with genetic mutations leading to alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). This study included 50 married couples in which one spouse is diagnosed with genetic mutations leading to alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD). We found that group entitativity related to those with AATD counterbalanced the influence of genetic stigma on spouses’ intentions to keep the diagnosis secret or to educate others about it. Intrapersonal and interpersonal influences appeared among spouses. Attention is needed on the power of creating groups for stigmatized persons and their relatives. Indeed, people live within a dynamic world of group entities, and multiple social identities including spousal and familial. While attention has been paid to the diffusion of stigmas to loved ones, less has been paid to the uplift of group entities for them.