Patent Grant
11980636
The invention relates to compositions and methods the treatment of hematological conditions that are susceptible to treatment with combinations of cytidine analogues and anthracyclines, and to increase the likelihood of receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT).
Combination chemotherapies comprising cytidine analogues and anthracycline agents have been well studied for treatment against various cancers or hematologic proliferative disorders. Drug cocktails of the cytidine analogue, cytarabine, and an anthracycline such as daunorubicin demonstrate some efficacy in patients with hematologic malignancies. See, e.g., Tallum et al., Blood 106:2243 (2005).
Cytarabine (cytosine arabinoside, Ara-C or 1-β-D-arabinofuranosylcytosine) is a cell cycle phase-specific antineoplastic agent, affecting cells predominantly during the S-phase of cell division. Intracellularly, cytarabine is converted into cytarabine-5′-triphosphate (ara-CTP), which is the active metabolite. The mechanism of action is not completely understood, but it appears that ara-CTP acts primarily through inhibition of DNA polymerase. Incorporation into DNA and RNA may also contribute to cytarabine cytotoxicity. Cytarabine is cytotoxic to a wide variety of proliferating mammalian cells in culture.
Daunorubicin hydrochloride is the hydrochloride salt of an anthracycline cytotoxic antibiotic produced by a strain of Streptomyces coeruleorubidus. Daunorubicin has antimitotic and cytotoxic activity through a number of proposed mechanisms of action. Daunorubicin forms complexes with DNA by intercalation between base pairs. It inhibits topoisomerase II activity by stabilizing the DNA-topoisomerase II complex, preventing the religation portion of the ligation-religation reaction that topoisomerase II catalyzes. Single strand and double strand DNA breaks result. Daunorubicin may also inhibit polymerase activity, affect regulation of gene expression, and produce free radical damage to DNA. Daunorubicin possesses an antitumor effect against a wide spectrum of animal tumors, either grafted or spontaneous.
Since 1973, cytarabine combined with an anthracycline has been the standard first-line therapy for acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), against which other regimens are compared. Until recently, the standard of care for AML has been a combination of cytarabine and daunorubicin administered in the classic “7+3” regimen with cytarabine administered for 7 consecutive days and daunorubicin for the first 3 of those 7 consecutive days. Addition of other agents such as 6-thioguanine or etoposide and changes in the dose or schedule of administration have been studied to improve outcomes, but while incremental gains have been made, the 40-year old use of an anthracycline and cytarabine remained the basis for standard induction treatment in AML.
In 2017, Vyxeos® (also known as “CPX-351” and used interchangeably here), a fixed-dose liposomal combination of cytarabine and daunorubicin at a 5:1 ratio which delivers the administered ratio to the patient over time was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adults with two types of high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML): newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). CPX-351 showed a significant improvement in overall survival in these patients compared to the standard 7+3 therapy. Results from earlier clinical studies also showed favorable results for treatment of other leukemias or hematological disorders such as myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and certain lymphoblastic leukemias/lymphomas.
Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor used in combination with low-dose cytarabine or hypomethylating agents in patients with AML who are considered ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The active drugs within CPX-351, daunorubicin and cytarabine, have been shown to bypass an intrinsic resistance mechanism associated with venetoclax, resulting in synergistic cell death when used in combination. CPX-351 plus venetoclax also consistently showed synergistic or additive effects in tested acute leukemia cell lines.
Unfortunately, due to age and/or co-morbidities, many patients with hematological malignancies are ineligible to receive standard intensive chemotherapy (ICT), i.e., ISICT patients or subjects, including approximately 50% of AML patients. The standard therapies for these ISICT patients are hypomethylating agents (HMAs) and low dose cytarabine (LDAC). However, the single agent activity of HMAs and LDAC is discouraging with response rates less than about 20% and a median overall survival of only 7-10 months.
Recognizing that there remains a need to achieve improved efficacy for all patients (including ISICT patients), a combination of CPX-351 and Venetoclax was identified as a therapy providing the sought-after improved efficacy in addition to other benefits, such as, inter alia, improving the likelihood of allogenic stem cell transplant (SCT).
The invention relates to compositions and methods for treating patients with hematological proliferative disorders with CPX-351, a liposomal composition of daunorubicin and cytarabine, and venetoclax.
Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. All patents, applications, published applications and other publications referred to herein are incorporated by reference in their entirety. If a definition set forth in this section is contrary to or otherwise inconsistent with a definition set forth in the patents, applications, published applications and other publications that are herein incorporated by reference, the definition set forth in this section prevails over the definition that is incorporated herein by reference.
Definitions
As used herein, “a” or “an” means “at least one” or “one or more.”
Abbreviations used herein include: PK, pharmacokinetic; PD, pharmacodynamic; CMT, compartment; Ap, peripheral amount of drug; Vp, peripheral volume of distribution; CLd, distribution clearance; k0, 0-order rate constant; Ac, central amount of drug; Vc, central volume of distribution; CL, clearance; GCSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; SC, subcutaneous; F, bioavailability; ka, first-order absorption rate constant; D, dose; CL, clearance; KD, equilibrium dissociation constant for GCSF and GCSF receptor R, accumulation ratio; Kint, first-order rate constant for internalization of GCSF receptor complexed with filgrastim or pegfilgrastim; kD, dissociation constant; IV, intravenous; ANC, absolute neutrophil count.
By “low-intensity therapy”, “low intensity treatment, “LIT”, or “low dose treatment” or “low dose therapy”, it is meant to include both a lower individual dose and/or less dosages in the dosing schedule. For example, weekly or monthly schedule, such as an Induction treatment/therapy or Consolidation treatment/therapy, which is lower and/or less intense than a similar therapy used in cancer patients who may qualify for ICT is also included. Specifically “low dose CPX-351 treatment” may be a lower dose and/or weekly or 28-day dosing schedule that has less dosages than that used in Study 301.
The development of Vyxeos® (Jazz Pharmaceuticals) (CPX-351), cytarabine:daunorubicin liposome injection was based on 1) defining a non-antagonistic ratio of the two active moieties, cytarabine and daunorubicin, using cell-based screening assays and 2) designing a liposomal drug carrier to maintain this ratio after intravenous administration. This ratio was not based on the empirically-derived regimens currently used for cytarabine and anthracyclines.
A “treatment cycle” is a specific protocol that specifies dosage times and amounts for CPX-351 and, if appropriate, an additional agent. For example, a treatment cycle may employ one or more daily administrations of CPX-351 on certain days with specified dosages, for example, on days 1 and 3, or 1, 3, and 5, or 1 and 8, or 1 and 15, or on days 1, 2 and 5, or 1, 5, and 8, or 1, 5 and 15 or 1, 8 and 15. The specific days may vary.
Patients populations, such as untreated AML patients or relapse/refractory AML patients may be treated with the disclosed protocols. Patients population treatable with the methods include patients that fit to receive intensive chemotherapy and patients that are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy.
ISICT patients are critical populations to demonstrate benefit given the high unmet medical need. Population sizes are significant and yet the treatments available today still do not provide adequate improvements in overall survival. CPX-351 represents a promising new tool for improving efficacy while maintaining safety for these patients.
A number of factors are used to determine eligibility for ICT including, for example, physical performance, comorbid conditions and cognitive function (Pettit and Odenike; Front. Oncol. (2015) 5:280; which is incorporated herein by reference). The therapeutic aim for ISICT patients is to reduce disease burden, extend patient life, and improve their quality of life.
AML
Acute Myeloid Leukemia is a clonal expansion of undifferentiated myeloid precursors that causes an impairment of new blood cell generation. The median age of diagnosis 67 years. Clinical manifestations include fever, fatigue, bone pain, pallor, easy bruising. Diagnosis is based on having ≥20% myeloid blasts in the bone marrow. Disease characteristics including cytogenetic and molecular genetic findings are major prognostic factors. Patient characteristics (age, co-morbidities) also play a role in prognosis, since they influence the ability to undergo treatment. Currently, optimal disease treatment for fit patients is based on intensive chemotherapy, divided into induction and consolidation phases. Differential diagnosis includes other hematologic malignancies and MDS.
MDS
Myelodysplastic syndromes are a family of rare disorders in which the bone marrow fails to make enough healthy red blood cells, white blood cells or platelets. This is caused by bone marrow producing lots of underdeveloped, or immature, cells that have an abnormal shape, size or look. These are called blast cells. Most experts agree that MDS is a form of blood and bone marrow cancer and can be difficult to diagnose.
CPX-351 Combination Therapy
In a phase 3 trial in older adults (aged 60-75 years) with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary AML, CPX-351 significantly prolonged overall survival versus standard 7+3 cytarabine/daunorubicin (9.56 vs 5.95 months; hazard ratio=0.69; 1-sided P=0.003), and the safety profile of CPX-351 was generally consistent with the known profile of the 7+3 regimen (Lancet J E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018; 36(26):2684-2692; which is incorporated herein by reference).
Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia is a common and serious complication that is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and is often accompanied by chemotherapy dose adjustments, which may compromise treatment outcomes. Platelet transfusions are a mainstay for treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) is a serious adverse event that is associated with an increased risk of life-threatening infection and often leads to chemotherapy dose reductions and/or treatment delays, which may lead to poor treatment outcomes. Endogenous granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) is the primary regulator of neutrophil production, and recombinant GCSF agents are commonly used to treat CIN.
Standard dose CPX-351 was approved by the FDA for the treatment of adults with two types of high-risk acute myeloid leukemia (AML): newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). CPX-351 showed a significant improvement in overall survival in these patients compared to the standard 7+3 therapy. Results from earlier clinical studies also showed favorable results for treatment of other leukemias or hematological disorders such as myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and certain lymphoblastic leukemias/lymphomas.
Standard dose CPX-351 as currently approved does not cover patients with AML considered ineligible for intensive chemotherapy (ICT), or some patients with MDS. The current approach to treating patients ineligible for ICT consists of lower intensity treatments (e.g. Low dose cytarabine (LDAC) or HMA alone or in various combinations with novel agents. Primary intent is to minimize toxicity while achieving acceptable response rate translating into improvement of Quality-of-Life, reduction of transfusion requirements and possibly extension of survival.
Lower intensity combinations can achieve significant response rates, in particular in vulnerable patient populations. Whereas response rates with LDAC or HMAs single agents are modest, significantly higher and more durable responses can be seen in combinations as recently demonstrated with lower intensity therapy plus Venetoclax (DiNardo et al., Blood (2015) 126:327; incorporated herein by reference.)
CPX-351 is biologically active in high-risk patient populations, including secondary AML with prior history of MDS and those patients with MDS related karyotype (see phase 3 study referenced herein). CPX-351 improved survival compared to the standard 7+3 therapy in patients with AML who progressed from MDS and who were previously untreated with HMA.
Focusing on AML patients with 20-29% blasts (“oligoblastic AML”, in the past also referred to as “RAEBT”, a subtype of advanced MDS), CPX-351 showed superior median overall survival of 12.5 months compared with 5.95 months with 7+3 including patients with prior HMA exposure. Thus there is therefore reason to believe that lower intensity CPX-351 could be a more effective backbone combination partner when compared to LDAC or HMA.
When treating AML patients not eligible for standard ICT, subjects for use with low-intensity treatment of CPX-351 should have histological confirmation of AML by World Health Organization (WHO) criteria.
Provided herein is a method to treat a hematologic proliferative disorder in a subject, which method comprises administering to said subject a pharmaceutical composition comprising a pharmaceutical composition comprising a fixed, 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin, i.e., CPX-351, wherein the cytarabine and daunorubicin are stably associated with one or more delivery vehicles, in a treatment cycle in combination with Venetoclax. Provided herein is a method to treat a hematologic proliferative disorder in a subject, which method comprises administering to said subject a pharmaceutical composition comprising CPX-351 that supplies daunorubicin and cytarabine in a treatment cycle in combination with Venetoclax.
Encapsulation in these delivery vehicles allows two or more agents to be delivered to the disease site in a coordinated fashion, thereby assuring that the agents will be present at the disease site at a non-antagonistic ratio. This result will be achieved whether the agents are co-encapsulated in delivery vehicles, or are separately encapsulated in delivery vehicles administered such that non-antagonistic ratios are maintained at the disease site. The pharmacokinetics (PK) of the composition are controlled by the delivery vehicles themselves such that coordinated delivery is achieved (provided that the PK of the delivery systems are comparable). In a specific embodiment, the pharmaceutical composition comprising a fixed, 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin is CPX-351, described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,238,367; 7,744,921; 7,850,990; 8,022,279; 8,092,828; 8,431,806; 8,518,437; 9,271,931; 10,028,912; and 10,166,184; all of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties for any purpose.
In one embodiment, said pharmaceutical composition comprising a fixed, 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin is administered once or twice a week. In one embodiment, said pharmaceutical composition comprising a fixed, 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin is administered continuously for up to 12 months, or up to 24 months.
In one embodiment, said pharmaceutical composition comprising a fixed, 5:1 molar ratio of cytarabine and daunorubicin is administered at a cytarabine dose of less than 32 mg/m2/day or less than 24 mg/m2/day.
In some embodiments, CPX-351 is administered intravenously on days 1, 3, and 5 and venetoclax is administered orally on days 2-21 on a 28 day cycle. In some embodiments, CPX-351 is administered intravenously on days 1 and 3 and venetoclax is administered orally on days 2-21 on a 28 day cycle.
In some embodiments, the subject is eligible for standard intensive chemotherapy. In some embodiments, the subject eligible for standard intensive chemotherapy has never undergone a previous anti-cancer regimen. In some embodiments, the subject eligible for standard intensive chemotherapy has not previously received intensive chemotherapy. In some embodiments, the subject eligible for standard intensive chemotherapy has previously undergone at least one anti-cancer regimen. In certain embodiments, provided is a method to treat a hematologic proliferative disorder in a subject, said method comprising administering to said subject a low-intensity CPX-351 treatment regimen in combination with venetoclax.
In some embodiments, the subject is ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy. In some embodiments, the subject ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy has never undergone a previous anti-cancer regimen. In some embodiments, the subject ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy has not previously received intensive chemotherapy. In some embodiments, the subject ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy has previously undergone at least one anti-cancer regimen. In certain embodiments, provided is a method to treat a hematologic proliferative disorder in an ISICT subject, said method comprising administering to said subject a low-intensity CPX-351 treatment regimen in combination with venetoclax.
In one embodiment, a low-intensity treatment of CPX-351 comprises administering CPX-351 intravenously in 30 minutes to 3 hours. In specific embodiments, CPX-351 is administered intravenously in 90 minutes or less. In specific embodiments, CPX-351 is administered intravenously in about 90 minutes. In certain embodiments, CPX-351 is administered once or twice a week. In certain other embodiments, CPX-351 is administered at a cytarabine dose of less than 32 mg/m2/day or less than 24 mg/m2/day. Preferably, CPX-351 is administered at a cytarabine dose of less than 24 mg/m2/day.
In one embodiment, provided is a method to treat a hematologic proliferative disorder in a subject, said method comprising administering to said subject a low-dose CPX-351 treatment, wherein said composition is administered prior to said subject receiving any chemotherapy.
In one embodiment, provided is a method to treat a hematologic proliferative disorder in an ISICT subject, said method comprising administering to said ISICT subject a low-dose CPX-351 treatment, wherein said composition is administered prior to said subject receiving any chemotherapy.
In another embodiment, treatment of said subjects ineligible for standard intensive chemotherapy is administered on an outpatient basis or as a home-based treatment.
In some embodiments, the subject is receiving a CYP3A inhibitor. In some embodiments, the subject is receiving a strong CYP3A inhibitor. In some embodiments, the subject is receiving a moderate CYP3A inhibitor. In some embodiments, the subject is not receiving either a strong or moderate CYP3A inhibitor. CYP3A inhibitors include, but are not limited to, oceprevir, cobicistat, danoprevir and ritonavir, elvitegravir and ritonavir, grapefruit juice, indinavir and ritonavir, itraconazole, ketoconazole, lopinavir, ritonavir, paritaprevir and ritonavir and (ombitasvir and/or dasabuvir), posaconazole, saquinavir and ritonavir, telaprevir, tipranavir and ritonavir, telithromycin, troleandomycin, voriconazole, clarithromycin, idelalisib, nefazodone, nelfinavir, prepitant, ciprofloxacin, conivaptan, crizotinib, cyclosporine, diltiazem, dronedarone, erythromycin, fluconazole, fluvoxamine, imatinib, tofisopam, verapamil, chlorzoxazone, cilostazol, cimetidine, clotrimazole, fosaprepitant, istradefylline, ivacaftor, lomitapide, ranitidine, ranolazine, and ticagrelor. Strong CYP3A inhibitors include, but are not limited to, CYP3A inhibitors include, but are not limited to, oceprevir, cobicistat, danoprevir and ritonavir, elvitegravir and ritonavir, grapefruit juice, indinavir and ritonavir, itraconazole, ketoconazole, lopinavir, ritonavir, paritaprevir and ritonavir and (ombitasvir and/or dasabuvir), posaconazole, saquinavir and ritonavir, telaprevir, tipranavir and ritonavir, telithromycin, troleandomycin, voriconazole, clarithromycin, idelalisib, nefazodone, and nelfinavir. Moderate CYP3A inhibitors include, but are not limited to, prepitant, ciprofloxacin, conivaptan, crizotinib, cyclosporine, diltiazem, dronedarone, erythromycin, fluconazole, fluvoxamine, imatinib, tofisopam, and verapamil Weak CYP3A inhibitors include, but are not limited to, chlorzoxazone, cilostazol, cimetidine, clotrimazole, fosaprepitant, istradefylline, ivacaftor, lomitapide, ranitidine, ranolazine, and ticagrelor.
In some embodiments, the hematologic proliferative disorder is acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN). In some embodiments, the hematologic proliferative disorder is an advanced hematologic cancer. In some embodiments, the advanced hematologic cancer is acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). In some embodiments, the advanced hematologic cancer is acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In other embodiments, the hematologic proliferative disorder is myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN). In other embodiments, the hematologic proliferative disorder is myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).
The following examples are offered to illustrate but not to limit the invention.
The following CPX-351 studies were used for PK-PD Modeling:
Study 101
Study 301
Table 1 shows the population PK parameters for Cytarabine and Daunorubicin following CPX-351 administration.
Population PK-PD analysis was conducted using NONMEM version 7.3 via implementation of the first-order conditional estimation method with η-ε interaction. Previously developed population PK models for CPX-351 and non-liposomal cytarabine and daunorubicin were used to generate patient-specific cytarabine and daunorubicin concentration-time profiles (Qi W, et al. Blood. 2017; 130. Abstract 5064 incorporated herein by reference). For both cytarabine and daunorubicin, 2-compartment disposition models were used to describe drug PK following CPX-351 administration. In the population PK-PD model of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia, data from Cycle 1 were excluded if patients had a platelet count <50×109/L prior to the first treatment cycle; data from subsequent cycles were only included if the platelet count returned to ≥50×109/L prior to treatment.
Platelet count versus time data were described by a modified maturation PK-PD model proposed by Friberg et al (Friberg L E, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(24):4713-4721; incorporated herein by reference). Inhibition of platelet proliferation by CPX-351 and/or “7+3” was driven by a sigmoidal maximum inhibition (Imax) function of the sum of the molar concentrations of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Interindividual and interoccasion variability were estimated for select structural PK-PD model parameters using exponential error models.
The effect of each platelet transfusion on platelet dynamics was incorporated as a bolus input of 35×109/L into the circulating platelet pool, as this was the expected rise in platelet counts immediately post-transfusion (McCullough J. Semin Hematol. 2010; 47(3):235-242; incorporated herein by reference) (see
A graphical screening procedure was conducted to examine the relationship between patient covariates and key PK-PD model parameters, followed by stepwise forward selection (α=0.01) and backward elimination (α=0.001) to evaluate covariate effects. Baseline Patient Demographics were: Weight, height, age, body mass index, body surface area, sex, race, and ethnicity. Baseline Clinical Laboratory Measures were: Albumin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin, white blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and creatinine clearance. Disease-related Indices were: Cancer type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.
An R Shiny application was developed in conjunction with the mrgsolve package (Metrum Research Group) so that the population PK-PD model could be used to simulate neutrophil or platelet dynamics following administration of various CPX-351 and “7+3” dosing regimens (including as administered in Study 301) with or without intermittent platelet transfusions. Simulations were conducted in 200 patients with characteristics similar to the trial population to evaluate the temporal events of myelosuppression in the absence of platelet transfusion or GCSF administration (see below).
Relevant patient demographics were generated with distributions that were comparable to those in the analysis dataset. Results are shown in Tables 2 and 3 below.
The early analysis dataset consisted of 2,023 platelet counts from 137 patients. Most patients (n=135; 98.5%) received ≥1 platelet transfusion during the study. The mean (standard deviation) number of platelet transfusions per person was 12 (9). The model fit improved significantly (P<0.00001) when bolus inputs to circulating platelets were incorporated to account for platelet transfusions. No potential covariates met criteria for inclusion.
The model successfully captured observed data for CPX-351 and 7+3, with good precision on parameter estimates. In fact, most parameters in the final PK-PD model were estimated with excellent precision (<35% standard error of the mean [SEM]).
No covariates affecting the PD parameters of CPX-351 were identified, but body weight was identified as a covariate affecting the IC50 of 7+3. The population mean for baseline circulating platelet numbers (Circ0) was similar for CPX-351 and 7+3, while the population mean for mean transit time (MTT) was slightly shorter for CPX-351. 7+3 was more potent than CPX-351, albeit the plasma concentrations of cytarabine and daunorubicin with CPX-351 were far greater than with 7+3.
The median time to observe the first platelet count <0.5×109/L was 6.4 days after CPX-351 treatment and 5.8 days after 7+3, while the median time to an observed platelet count <20×109/L was 10.8 days and 8.9 days, respectively. The median duration with platelet counts <20×109/L was longer with CPX-351 (18 days) versus 7+3 (8 days), and the median duration of platelet counts platelet count <50×109/L was 22 days and 15 days, respectively. These results are summarized in Table 5 below.
A visual predictive check based on 100 simulated datasets showed reasonably good agreement between the median and the 10th and 90th percentiles of the observed and simulated platelet counts over time since the start of the treatment cycle. For the final dataset, the R Shiny application was used to simulate 200 patients undergoing chemotherapy with either 100 units/m2 of CPX-351 via 90-minute IV infusion at 0, 48, and 96 hours (
Conclusions: a maturation PK-PD model was developed to characterize the effect of CPX-351 and 7+3 on platelets in patients with AML, ALL, or MDS. CPX-351 achieved a rapid and substantial suppression of platelet counts, with an estimated IC50 of 0.324 μM. The model accounted for the confounding nature of platelet transfusions on platelet dynamics during chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia. The final model was successfully embedded in an R Shiny application that can be utilized to evaluate the temporal events of thrombocytopenia following administration of various CPX-351 or 7+3 dosing regimens with intermittent platelet transfusions. These are used to design an appropriate treatment cycle for LiT administration of CPX-351.
The CPX-351 and 7+3 studies and Cytarabine/Daunorubicin modeling was performed as in Example 1.
Results shown below:
Population PK-PD analysis was conducted using NONMEM version 7.3 via implementation of the first-order conditional estimation method with η-ε interaction. Previously developed population PK models for CPX-351 or 7+3 (2-compartment disposition) were used to generate patient-specific cytarabine and daunorubicin concentration-time profiles. Previously reported population PK models for GCSF agents (1-compartment with target-mediated drug disposition) were used to predict patient-specific concentration-time profiles following exogenous GCSF administration based on individual dosing histories and population mean PK parameters.
In the population PK-PD model for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN), data from Cycle 1 were excluded if patients had an absolute neutrophil count (ANC)<1.0×109/L prior to the first treatment cycle; data from subsequent cycles were only included if the ANC returned to ≥1.0×109/L prior to treatment. ANC versus time data were described by a modified maturation PK-PD model proposed by Friberg et al. Stimulation of neutrophil proliferation and maturation by exogenous granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) agents was driven by the fraction of GCSF receptors bound to exogenous GCSF. Inhibition of neutrophil proliferation by CPX-351 (or 7+3) was driven by an Imax function of the sum of the molar concentrations of cytarabine and daunorubicin. Interindividual variability was estimated for select structural PK-PD model parameters using exponential error models. Previously reported population PK models for GCSF agents (1 compartment with target-mediated drug disposition) were used to predict patient-specific concentration-time profiles following exogenous GCSF administration (filgrastim and/or pegfilgrastim) based on individual dosing histories and population mean PK parameters. A graphical screening procedure was first conducted to examine the relationship between patient covariates and key PK-PD model parameters, followed by stepwise forward selection (α=0.01) and backward elimination (α=0.001) to evaluate covariate effects. Baseline Patient Demographics were: Weight, height, age, body mass index, body surface area, sex, race, and ethnicity. Baseline Clinical Laboratory Measures were: Albumin, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin, white blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and creatinine clearance. Disease-related Indices were: Cancer type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. An R Shiny application was developed in conjunction with the mrgsolve package (Metrum Research Group) so the population PK-PD model could be used to simulate neutrophil (or platelet) dynamics following administration of CPX-351 (or 7+3) and GCSF in various dosing regimens; relevant patient demographics were generated with distributions that were comparable to those in the analysis dataset.
Results:
aFor patients who were neutropenic (ANC <1.0 × 109/L pirot to the first treatment cycle, data from Cycle 1 were excluded from analysis, and data from subsequent cycles were only included if the ANC returned to ≥1.0 × 109/L prior to treatment, However, for the purposes of covariate evaluation, the baseline ANC from Cycle 1 was used, even if the value was <1.0 × 109/L.
The early analysis dataset consisted of 1,797 ANC observations from 129 patients, of whom 43 (33.3%) received GCSF therapy at least once during the study. Incorporation of the stimulatory effect of exogenous GCSF on neutrophil proliferation and maturation significantly improved the model fit (P<0.00001). During covariate evaluation, a strong inverse correlation was observed between mean transit time and baseline ANC (P<0.00001); no other potential covariates met the criteria for inclusion. In the late stages of model development, Imax was estimated to be 1.05 and subsequently fixed at 1, which produced a minor increase of 4.5 units in the minimum value of objective function.
Parameters in the PK-PD model were estimated with high precision (<26% standard error of the mean). The population mean for Circ0 before treatment was estimated to be similar for CPX-351 and 7+3, while the population mean for MTT of maturation was slightly longer with CPX-351 versus 7+3. 7+3 was more potent than CPX-351. Including GCSF effect in the model significantly improved the model fit.
The median time to observe the first blood neutrophil count <0.5×109/L was later following CPX-351 (8.3 days) versus 7+3 (7.4 days) treatment. The median duration with neutrophil counts <0.5×109/L was longer with CPX-351 (23 days) than with 7+3 (14 days). The median lowest neutrophil counts were well below 0.2×109/L for both CPX-351 and 7+3. These results are summarized in Table 9 below.
Conclusions: a maturation PK-PD model was developed to characterize the effect of CPX-351 and 7+3 on ANC in patients with AML or ALL or MDS. CPX-351 achieved a rapid and maximal suppression of ANC (Imax=1) and had an estimated IC50 of 24.9 μM. The model accounted for the confounding nature of concurrent GCSF therapy on neutrophil dynamics during CIN. The final model was successfully embedded in an R Shiny application that can be utilized to evaluate the temporal events of neutropenia following administration of CPX-351 or 7+3 and GCSF therapy in various dosing regimens. The myelosuppressive effects of CPX-351 were different from 7+3 in terms of duration of myelosuppression and time to neutrophil count <0.5×109/L. The median time for initial detection of myelosuppression with CPX-351 was 1 to 2 days later than with 7+3. Additionally, the median duration of myelosuppressive effects was longer with CPX-351 than with 7+3. These results may have implications for the clinical monitoring scheme of patients with AML who receive CPX-351 therapy. These are used to design an appropriate treatment cycle for LIT administration of CPX-351.
Simulation of myelosuppression profile for lower dose/regimen scenarios:
The PK/PD modeling described in Examples 1 and 2 is used to further examine the cell cycle time and Vyxeos treatment effect.
Simulation Outcomes for Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC): Simulations were conducted using previous developed mechanistic PK/PD model for absolute neutrophil count.
Simulation outcome for platelet count: Simulations were conducted using previous developed mechanistic PK/PD model for platelet count. During simulation, no platelet infusion was given and the starting platelet count is around 10,000/uL.
Simulation outcome for platelet count: this data appears to be the first time to observe a platelet count below a certain threshold level that is not related to regimen. Rather, it is related to the drug properties and dose. Vyxeos treatment results in a later observation than 7+3 treatment. With increase of dose of Vyxeos, the median start-time of observing platelet count <20,000/uL approaches 258 h (Day 10-11 post the first dose). With increase of dose of Vyxeos, the median start-time of observing platelet count <50, 000/uL approaches 154 h (Day 6-7 post the first dose). For 7+3, the median start-time of observing platelet count <20,000/uL is around 200 h (Day 8-9 post start of the treatment). For 7+3, the median start-time of observing platelet count <50,000/uL is around 139 h (Day 5-6 post start of the treatment). The results are shown in
Simulation outcome for neutrophils: this data appears to be the first time to observe a ANC below a certain threshold related to the drug properties and dose. Vyxeos treatment results in a late-onset but prolonged neutropenia than 7+3 treatment. With increase of dose of Vyxeos, the median start-time of observing ANC<500/uL approaches 200 h (Day 8-9 post the first dose). For 7+3, the median start-time of observing ANC<500/uL is around 178 h (Day 7-8 post start of the treatment). The results are shown in
In order to evaluate the cytotoxicity of CPX-351 in combination with Venetoclax, various drug:drug combinations were tested in 15 Passage 1 (P1) models of human Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and assayed for cell viability.
The study type and duration used was an ex-vivo cell killing assay with primary leukapharesis-derived AML cells using a 96-well plate format, 90 wells, 6-day incubation, Cell Titer Glo viability endpoint with IC50.
AML Models used were CTG-2226, CTG-2227, CTG-2228, CTG-2231 to CTG-2234, CTG-2236, CTG-2237, CTG-2238, CTG-2242, CTG-2243, CTG-2251, CTG-2255, and CTG-2299. The IDH1/2 status for each cell line was noted and some were Wildtype while others were IDH1 or IDH2 mutant. AML cells were seeded at a density of 20,000 cells/100 ul per well in a 96 well plate in enriched media. Therapeutic agents were added to wells on Day 0 along with cell plating according to the experimental design in volume of 100 ul/well bringing the total volume to 200 ul/well.
CPX-351 and Venetoclax were each tested alone (100 uM) as well as in combination as outlined in Table 10 below:
Cytarabine (5000 nM) concentration was used as a positive control; Media+vehicle were used as negative control. Plates were kept in 37° C./5% CO2 incubator. Media was not changed during the 6-day incubation period with test agents. On day 6, cell viability was tested using Cell Titer Glo assay.
Cell Titer Glo Assay: Plates were removed from incubator and equilibrated to room temperature up to 30 minutes. 100 ul of Cell Titer Glo was added to wells and mixed for 2 minutes by keeping the plates on plate rocker. The plates were incubated at room temperature for 10 minutes to stabilize luminescent signal Luminescence was recorded using Tecan plate reader.
Data Analysis: data was reported as changes in RLU units to different drug concentrations as luminescence read is directly proportional to cell viability.
The results from first 7 cells all demonstrated strong synergy. This may be due to the high concentrations of venetoclax in the incubation and so testing of lower concentrations is in progress. The results from remaining 8 cell models demonstrated either synergistic or additive effects of combining Vyxeos and Venetoclax in 7 cell models, with only showing antagonistic effect.
In order to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of CPX-351 plus venetoclax, versus combinations of venetoclax plus azacitidine, decitabine or cytarabine, various drug:drug combinations were tested on acute leukemia cell lines and assayed for cell viability.
AML cell lines used were: HL-60 (ATCC), SKM-1 (Sekisui XenoTech) and KG-1 (ATCC). Acute Lymphoid Leukemia (ALL) cell lines used were: CCRF-CEM (ATCC), MOLT-3 (ATCC), and Jurkat E6-1 (ATCC).
Each cell line was seeded in triplicate in round-bottom 96-well plates with 5×104 cells in 180 μL in each well. After 24 hours, cells were dosed with CPX-351, venetoclax, azacitidine, decitabine, and/or cytarabine. CPX-351 and cytarabine were each dosed in a titration starting at 50 μM (for CPX-351, this was measured by its cytarabine content), with 8 additional serial dilutions of 5× each and a final group with no treatment. Venetoclax, azacitidine, and decitabine were each dosed in a titration starting at 100 μM, with 8 additional serial dilutions of 5× each and a final group with no treatment. For the combination treatment of CPX-351 and venetoclax, the same titrations were used as in single-agent treatment. About 72 hours after dosing, cell viability was measured by CellTiter-Glo assay (Promega) according to manufacturer instructions; luminescence was measured and IC50 values were estimated by Cytation Multi-Mode reader (BioTek). Combination index (CI) was calculated as above based on the Chou and Talalay method using the equation CI=[D1/(Dx)1]+[D2/(Dx)2]; CI was calculated at 50%- and 70%-maximal effective concentrations (EC50 and EC70) for the drug combinations.
The IC50 and CI values are outlined in Tables 11 and 12 below, respectively:
The data together demonstrated that the combination of CPX-351 plus venetoclax is synergistic or additive in all AML and ALL cell lines tested. In addition, the results show that the combination of venetoclax with hypomethylating agents (azacitidine or decitabine) showed synergy in the KG-1 and MOLT-3 cell lines, but antagonism in the SKM-1 and Jurkat E6-1 cell lines; other cell lines showed variable effects. The combination of venetoclax with cytarabine, showed synergy only in the MOLT-3 cell line; in other cell lines, additive or antagonistic effects were observed.
A Phase 1b trial of CPX-351 Lower Intensity Therapy (LIT) plus venetoclax is conducted as First Line Treatment for Subjects with AML who are ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy.
The primary objectives are to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination of CPX-351 and venetoclax when administered to subjects with newly diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy (ICT). In addition, the safety of this combination is to be determined.
Secondary objections are to perform initial assessments of efficacy, including complete remission (CR), complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CRi), composite complete remission rate (CRc: CR+CRi), overall response rate (ORR; CR+CRi+partial response [PR]) and assessment of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) status (negative/positive) in subjects with documented CR or Cri. The study is also to determine the pharmacokinetics (PK) of CPX-351 and venetoclax when given in combination.
The duration of remission (DOR) and overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) 1-year after first administration of the study treatment will also be explored.
The study will comprise 2 phases: a Dose Escalation Phase and an Expansion Phase, in which all subjects will receive a combination of CPX-351 and venetoclax. In the Dose Escalation Phase, a 3+3 design will be employed and enroll up to 24 subjects with newly diagnosed AML who are ineligible for standard ICT using stepwise dose escalations of CPX-351 in combination with 400 mg venetoclax in each cohort to determine the MTD for the combination.
After determining the MTD of the combination of CPX-351 and venetoclax, the Expansion Phase will commence with 20 additional subjects treated with the combination to determine an initial response rate based on both morphologic assessment and MRD. Stopping rules for excessive toxicity and for futility will be included for the Expansion Phase.
Subjects will be followed for safety (1 month after End of Treatment) and every 2 months (±2 weeks) for survival (up to 1 year after the first administration of study treatment). Each subject will be evaluated for response at the end of each cycle. Those subjects with CR, CRi or PR will be offered up to a total of 4 cycles of CPX-351 and venetoclax, as deemed appropriate by the treating physician. Subjects with NR (no response) after 2 cycles will stop treatment. Subjects who have completed 4 cycles of treatment will be managed at the investigator's discretion, as per institutional guidelines.
In each cycle, CPX-351 will be administered on Days 1 and 3, and venetoclax will be administered on Days 2 through 21. During Cycle 2 Day 3 of the Dose Escalation Phase, venetoclax will be administered at the study site during the infusion of CPX-351 to permit PK assessment.
Blood collection for PK studies will be conducted during the first and second cycles of therapy for all dose cohorts in the Dose Escalation Phase. Blood collection for sparse PK sampling will also be performed in the Expansion Phase for subjects receiving their Day 3 and Day 4 care at the study site. During Cycle 1 Day 3 of the Expansion Phase, venetoclax will be administered at the study site during the infusion of CPX-351 to permit PK assessment. The
Dose Escalation and Definition of MTD. The Dose Escalation Phase will employ a 3+3 design to determine the dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and MTD as follows. The first 3 subjects will be treated at Dose Level 1 (see Table 13). If this is deemed safe (see specifics below), then dose escalations will proceed as follows:
bPatients may receive up to 4 cycles of therapy.
c1 unit = 1 mg cytarabine + 0.44 mg daunorubicin.
Dose escalation algorithm: If none of the first 3 evaluable subjects at a dose level experience a DLT, then the next 3 subjects will be treated at the next dose level (dose escalation). If 1 out of the first 3 evaluable subjects experiences a DLT, then an additional 3 subjects will be treated at the same dose (for a total of 6 subjects at a dose level). If 1 out the 6 total evaluable subjects at a dose level experiences a DLT, then the next 3 subjects will be treated at the next dose level (dose escalation). If 2 or more of the first 3 evaluable subjects at a dose level experience a DLT, then no additional subjects will be treated at this or higher dose level. If 2 or more of the 6 total evaluable subjects experience a DLT, then no additional subjects will be treated at this or higher dose level.
MTD determination algorithm: If ≥2 out of 3 or ≥2 out of 6 evaluable subjects experience a DLT at Dose Level 1 (starting dose), then the study will stop and no MTD will be determined. Otherwise, the MTD will be determined as the highest dose level at which either 0 out of 3 or 1 out of 6 evaluable subjects experiences a DLT. If this is Dose Level 4, then the maximum administered dose will be Dose Level 4, and for the purposes of this study, Dose Level 4 will be considered the MTD. The DLT observation period will be Days 1 to 49 after starting treatment, with a minimum observation period of 28 days. Subjects who are eligible to progress to a second cycle, or who have transitioned to an alternative therapy, may have an abbreviated DLT observation period (ie, less than 49 days). Subjects who do not complete a full cycle of therapy due to disease-related mortality or who withdraw from the study for reasons unrelated to drug effects, and have not experienced a DLT, will not be evaluable for DLTs. These subjects will be replaced. A regular teleconference, occurring approximately every 3 weeks, will be held among the Jazz medical and clinical team and study investigators to review safety data (hereafter referred to as the Safety Assessment Committee [SAC]). The SAC will also meet at the completion of each dosing cohort to determine whether 1) dose escalation will proceed with the next cohort; 2) the current dose level requires additional assessment; 3) the MTD has been reached; or 4) whether the study will be stopped. To mitigate the risk of potential tumor lysis syndrome, during the first cycle a venetoclax dose ramp-up will occur on Days 2 through 4, followed by treatment at the target dose on Days 5 to 21. For subsequent cycles, venetoclax will be administered at the full target dose during Days 2 through 21.d
Main Inclusion Criteria (full list provided in body of protocol)
Additional Criteria:
In addition, all subjects must meet the following criteria:
Main Exclusion Criteria (full list provided in body of protocol) Subjects who meet any of the following criteria will be excluded from the study:
Test Product, Dose and Mode of Administration:
CPX-351 is provided as a sterile, preservative-free, purple, lyophilized cake in a single-use vial. Each vial of CPX-351 contains 44 mg daunorubicin and 100 mg cytarabine. After reconstitution (but before final dilution) each mL contains 2.2 mg daunorubicin and 5 mg cytarabine. CPX-351 is administered as an IV infusion over approximately 90 minutes. Venetoclax is available in 3 strengths and is self-administered as an oral dose once daily with a meal and water:
Patient A: An 87-year-old white male with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML with a history of prior lymphoma who was considered unfit for intensive chemotherapy (an ISICT patient) was enrolled at dose level 1 in the dose-escalation phase (as outlined in Example 6), received 20 units of CPX-351 (Daunorubicin 8.8 mg/m2 and Cytarabine 20 mg/m2) on days 1 and 3 and was scheduled to take Venetoclax from days 2-21 (Venetoclax was administered 400 mg/day with an initial dose ramp-up from days 2-4 of Cycle 1 of 100 mg/day, then 200 mg/day and then 400 mg/day). The subject inadvertently took Venetoclax for an additional 8 days during this cycle and was considered not evaluable for Dose Limiting Toxicity (DLT); however he remained being treated. At the end of cycle 1, the subject had prolonged myelosuppression that eventually resolved before moving to cycle 2. During the second cycle, the subject received 20 units of CPX-351 (Daunorubicin 8.8 mg/m2 and Cytarabine 20 mg/m2) on days 1 and 3 and a reduced duration of dosing for Venetoclax 400 mg/day from days 2-14 due to the prolonged myelosuppression at cycle 1. The subject achieved CRi at the end of cycle 1 and had an upgraded response of CR with a further reduction in blast percentage at the end of cycle 2 (MRD results from central lab at the end of cycle 1=3.12% and at the end of cycle 2=0.22%). This subject is no longer being treated.
Patient B: A 74-year-old white male with newly diagnosed de novo AML who was considered unfit for intensive chemotherapy (an ISICT patient) was enrolled at dose level 1 in the dose-escalation phase, and received 20 units of CPX-351 (Daunorubicin 8.8 mg/m2 and Cytarabine 20 mg/m2) on days 1 and 3 and Venetoclax on days 2-21 (Venetoclax was administered 400 mg/day with an initial dose ramp-up from days 2-4 of Cycle 1 of 100 mg/day, then 200 mg/day and then 400 mg/day). The subject has thus far received three cycles of this regimen. The subject achieved CR at the end of cycle 1 and continued to be in CR after cycle 2. This subject is currently ending cycle 3 and the treatment plan beyond this has not yet been finalized as it will depend on his response to cycle 3.
Table 14 clarifies criteria for CR and CRi
The dose of CPX-351 was constant: (daunorubicin 44 mg/m2+araC 100 mg/m2) IV on D1,3,5 of induction and (daunorubicin 29 mg/m2+araC 65 mg/m2) IV on D1,3 during consolidation. The starting effective dose of Venetoclax (Ven) was 300 mg (at the −1 dose level) on D2-21 for the safety lead-in cohort, composed of patients with R/R AML. Interruption of Ven after D14 was allowed if a D14 bone marrow (BM) was hypocellular and without evidence of leukemia. Dose adjustments for Ven were made for concomitant moderate and strong CYP3A inhibitors. Upon encountering 3/6 patients with DLT (cytopenias >43 days), dose level −2 was explored (Ven 300 mg on D2-8) and expanded. Once safety was confirmed, two expansions cohorts were opened to confirm safety and efficacy: Cohort A for pts with R/R AML and Cohort B for pts with newly diagnosed AML. Patients with adequate organ function, ECOG PS<2 were allowed on study and prior Ven exposure was allowed. Initial dose-escalation design is described in Table 15. Dose Finding is described in Table 16.
The liposome CPX-351 encapsulates the antineoplastic agents cytarabine and daunorubicin. Cytarabine, also known as ara-C, is a nucleoside metabolic inhibitor that halts the proliferation of a variety of mammalian cells. Daunorubicin, also referred to as daunomycin, is classified as an anthracycline topoisomerase inhibitor. A liposomal combination of the two chemotherapeutics (VYXEOS®) is approved by the FDA to treat adults with newly-diagnosed therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes.
Cytarabine and daunorubicin are encapsulated in CPX-351 at an optimal molar ratio of 5:1. The cytotoxic agents are surrounded by liposomal membranes composed of distearoylphosphatidylcholine (DSPC), distearoylphosphatidylglycerol (DSPG), and cholesterol in a 7:2:1 molar ratio. Evidence suggests that CPX-351 preferentially accumulates in leukemia cells. Previous in vivo studies have shown uptake of intact CPX-351 lipsomes by bone marrow cells. In a murine model of leukemia, greater uptake of CPX-351 was observed in leukemia cells than in healthy bone marrow cells. Post-internalization, liposomal degradation likely facilitates the release of cytarabine and daunorubicin into the intracellular environment.
Occurring more frequently with advanced age, secondary AML accounts for approximately one-quarter of AMLs and is associated with poor outcomes. Treatment with CPX-351 was compared to a standard-of-care cytarabine and daunorubicin regimen (referred to herein as 7+3) in a survival study of 60-75 year old human subjects newly diagnosed with high risk secondary AML. The two treatments were assessed in a randomized, open-label, phase III trial with 309 participants.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive induction and consolidation therapy with CPX-351 or the 7+3 regimen. Subjects were stratified by age (60 to 69 and 70 to 75) and AML subtype (therapy-related AML, AML with a history of myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS] with and without prior hypomethylating agents, AML with a history of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia [CMML], and de novo AML with MDS-related cytogenetic abnormalities). To achieve complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery (CRi), patients were eligible to receive up to two cycles of induction chemotherapy followed by a maximum of two cycles of consolidation therapy. Attending physicians performed hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) at their discretion.
Initial induction therapy with CPX-351 consisted of 90-minute infusions of liposomal 100:44 mg/m2 cytarabine:daunorubicin on days 1, 3, and 5. A second induction course of CPX-351 was administered on days 1 and 3 to patients who did not achieve hypoplastic bone marrow on a day 14 bone marrow assessment. Patients who reached CR/CRi status after CPX-351 induction therapy received a post-remission treatment that consisted of up to two cycles of 65:29 mg/m2 cytarabine:daunorubicin on days 1 and 3.
The 7+3 cohort was treated with an initial induction course that consisted of a 7-day continuous infusion of 100 mg/m2 cytarabine with three once-daily doses of 60 mg/m2 daunorubicin on day 1, day 2, and day 3. The secondary induction course and post-remission consolidation therapy were identical in the 7+3 group. These courses consisted of a 5-day continuous infusion of 100 mg/m2 cytarabine with once-daily doses of 60 mg/m2 daunorubicin on days 1 and 2.
Time-to-event end points were evaluated using a stratified log-rank test to compare treatment groups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the distribution of these end points over time. A Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by age and AML subtype was used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs. A Mantel-Haenszel test was used to compare remission rates and other binary end points. A sample size of 270 patients was expected to result in 236 deaths, factoring in accrual within 2 years, minimum follow-up of 1.2 years, and an estimated median OS of 0.526 years in the 7+3 treatment group, giving this trial 93.7% power and a one-sided a of 0.025 to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.635 between treatment arms. An additional 30 patients were accrued to account for ineligible patients and patients who withdrew consent.
In comparison to 7+3, CPX-351 was associated with a significantly higher overall remission rate (CR+CRi=47.7% v 33.3%; two-sided P=0.016) and CR rate (37.3% v 25.6%; two-sided P=0.040). CR and CR+CRi (overall remission rate) were assessed according to the Revised International Working Group Criteria for AML. Of the 309 participants in the study, 91 patients (29.4%) received allogeneic HCT. There was no significant difference in the number of patients who received allogeneic HCT between treatment groups (52 [34.0%] of 153 patients in the CPX-351 cohort and 39 [25.0%] of 156 in the 7+3 cohort; two-sided P=0.098).
CPX-351 significantly improved OS. With a median follow-up period of 20.7 months, median survival in the CPX-351 cohort surpassed that of the 7+3 cohort (9.56 vs. 5.95 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90; one-sided P=0.003). Survival was analyzed after 236 deaths (104 in the CPX-351 group and 132 in the 7+3 group). The CPX-351 1-year Kaplan-Meier (KM)-estimated OS far surpassed the 7+3 estimate (41.5% vs. 27.6%). Similarly, the 2-year KM-estimated OS for CPX-351 (31.1%) was nearly three times that of 7+3 (12.3%).
In patients who achieved CR+CRi after an initial induction course, the median time to neutrophil (≥500/μL) and platelet (≥50,000/μL) recovery was longer in those treated with CPX-351 (35.0 and 36.5 days, respectively) versus 7+3 (29 and 29 days, respectively). In patients who received a subsequent induction course, treatment with CPX-351 extended median recovery time by at least 7 days when compared to 7+3 (median time to ≥500/μL ANC: 35 days vs. 28 days; median time to ≥50,000/μL platelets: 35 days vs. 24 days). Despite these findings, the response rates and survival data in this trial favored CPX-351 as the superior treatment for adults with newly diagnosed secondary AML.
The efficacy and safety profile of CPX-351 combined with venetoclax for the treatment of AML was evaluated in human subjects. Venetoclax (VENCLEXTA®) is approved by the FDA to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma. During the lead-in phase, adult patients (≥18 years old) with relapsed and/or refractory (R/R) AML were eligible. Patients with R/R AML were grouped into dose expansion Cohort A. Prior treatment with venetoclax was permissible for R/R AML participants. Patients (18-65 years old) with de novo AML, who had not received any prior therapy for AML, were grouped into dose expansion Cohort B. Patients were screened to determine adequate organ function (bilirubin: ≤2 mg/dL; AST/ALT: ≤3×upper limit of normal (ULN) or ≤5×ULN if related to leukemic involvement; creatinine: ≤1.5×ULN; known cardiac ejection fraction of ≥45% within the past 3 months). Further regarding eligibility, patients must have rated ≤2 on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. The ECOG is a scale used to assess the progression of an individual's illness, with zero representing a person who is fully active and able to carry on all pre-disease performance without restriction.
Table 17 shows patient characteristics, including age, cytogenetics, and blast cell count. The blast percentage is of particular importance as it can determine an AML diagnosis. Patients received induction and consolidation courses of combination therapy with CPX-351 and venetoclax. Induction therapy consisted of intravenous CPX-351 on days 1, 3, and 5. Venetoclax was orally administered from day 2 through day 21. Patients were eligible to receive up to four consolidation courses. Consolidation therapy consisted of intravenous CPX-351 on day 1 and day 3, and oral venetoclax from day 2 through day 21. Up to 4 consolidation cycles were administered.
In a high-risk population of patients with R/R AML, combination therapy with CPX-351 and venetoclax produced an overall response rate of 44% and an estimated 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate of 86%. Considering responding patients, 88% (7 of 8) were able to receive allogeneic HCT. Regarding OS, a median OS of 6.1 months and a 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate of 46% was determined. Survival was associated with treatment response, patients without prior venetoclax exposure may have better outcomes with the combination of CPX-351 and venetoclax.
Regarding safety, prolonged myelosuppression was dose limiting when combining standard dose CPX-351 with 21 days of venetoclax. A 7-day regimen of Venetoclax combined with CPX-351 was tolerable. The most commonly observed serious adverse events were infections, nausea, and prolonged cytopenias.
A Phase 1b trial of CPX-351 Lower Intensity Therapy (LIT) plus venetoclax was conducted as First Line Treatment for Subjects with AML who are ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy.
The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to assess the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of CPX-351 lower-intensity therapy+venetoclax in patients with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit for IC.
Methods
Results
aOne patient at dose level 1b turned 75 years of age in between providing informed consent and receiving treatment; the patient was therefore categorized as <75 years of age at baseline but indicated as ≥75 years of age as a reason for being considered unfit for intensive therapy.
bTP53 and ECOG PS data not available for 1 patient treated in dose level 1b.
aEach dose escalation is confirmed by a safety assessment committee.
bOf each 28-day cycle. Patients may receive up to 4 cycles of therapy during the dose-exploration phase.
c1 unit CPX-351 = 0.44 mg daunorubicin + 1 mg cytarabine.
aTwo patients at dose level 1b were still undergoing treatment at the time of the data cutoff (Sep. 21, 2021).
aAny grade TEAEs occurring in >20% of patients in the overall study population.
bGrade ≥3 TEAEs occurring in >10% of patients in the overall study population.
aOne patient who achieved CR or CRi in the dose level 2 cohort did not have their ANC fall below the 500/μL threshold.
Preliminary results from this ongoing phase 1b study established an MTD and RP2D of CPX-351 30 units/m2 on Days 1 and 3+venetoclax 400 mg on Days 2 to 21 in adults with newly diagnosed AML who were considered unfit or ineligible to receive IC.
The combination of CPX-351 lower-intensity therapy+venetoclax was generally well tolerated and demonstrated promising initial efficacy, with achievement of CR in the majority of patients.
Further studies are ongoing and additional patients are being enrolled to further evaluate the RP2D.
This application claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/115,540, filed on Nov. 18, 2020, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. The subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement. The parties to the joint research agreement are Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited and The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3932657 | Rahman | Jan 1976 | A |
| 4610868 | Fountain et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
| 4756910 | Yagi et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4769250 | Forssen | Sep 1988 | A |
| 4780535 | Theodoropulos | Oct 1988 | A |
| 4915951 | Baldeschwieler | Apr 1990 | A |
| 4927571 | Huang et al. | May 1990 | A |
| 5010073 | Kappas et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5059421 | Loughrey et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
| 5077056 | Bally et al. | Dec 1991 | A |
| 5145684 | Liversidge et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5166319 | Wrasidlo | Nov 1992 | A |
| 5188837 | Domb | Feb 1993 | A |
| 5225212 | Martin et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5330768 | Park et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
| 5336506 | Josephson et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5393530 | Schneider et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
| 5415869 | Straubinger et al. | May 1995 | A |
| 5470583 | Na et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5543158 | Gref et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5663387 | Singh | Sep 1997 | A |
| 5736155 | Bally et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5766818 | Smith et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5837282 | Fenske et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5869103 | Yeh et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
| 5891475 | Perrin et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5928832 | Smith et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 6045821 | Garrity et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6139871 | Hope et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6270806 | Liversidge et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6274116 | Hawthorne et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
| 6429200 | Monahan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6482413 | Chalasani et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6500461 | Perkins et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
| 6559243 | Heinzman et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
| 6673612 | Monahan et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 6676963 | Lanza et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
| 6679822 | Kubo et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
| 7238367 | Tardi et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7744921 | Tardi et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7842676 | Janoff et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7850990 | Tardi et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 8022279 | Mayer et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 8092828 | Louie et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8431806 | Mayer et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
| 8486924 | Ansell et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
| 8518437 | Tardi et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
| 9271931 | Tardi et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
| 10028912 | Cabral-Lilly et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
| 10166184 | Cabral-Lilly et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
| 10835492 | Cabral-Lilly et al. | Nov 2020 | B2 |
| 10905775 | Mayer et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
| 10927418 | Gordon et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
| 11746386 | Gordon et al. | Sep 2023 | B2 |
| 20030147945 | Tardi et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20040052864 | Rubinfeld et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040152913 | Caprioli et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
| 20040221989 | Zhou et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20160354370 | Reid | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20210393665 | Cheung et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
| 20220033892 | Sarwal et al. | Feb 2022 | A1 |
| 20230172855 | Cabral-Lilly et al. | Jun 2023 | A1 |
| 20230279503 | Gordon et al. | Sep 2023 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 104114156 | Oct 2014 | CN |
| 113164502 | Jul 2021 | CN |
| 101878024 | Dec 2022 | CN |
| 115414376 | Dec 2022 | CN |
| 1744764 | Jan 2007 | EP |
| 1786443 | May 2007 | EP |
| 2187869 | May 2010 | EP |
| 2222278 | Sep 2010 | EP |
| 2344161 | Jul 2011 | EP |
| 2768484 | Aug 2014 | EP |
| 3300601 | Apr 2018 | EP |
| 3572071 | Nov 2019 | EP |
| 2187869 | Sep 1987 | GB |
| 2222278 | Feb 1990 | GB |
| 2256139 | Dec 1992 | GB |
| 2344161 | May 2000 | GB |
| 2001-026544 | Jan 2001 | JP |
| 2001-302496 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2002-363278 | Oct 2001 | JP |
| 2003-026604 | Jan 2003 | JP |
| 2007-533670 | Nov 2007 | JP |
| 2007-316041 | Dec 2007 | JP |
| 2009-513662 | Apr 2009 | JP |
| 2010-519224 | Jun 2010 | JP |
| 2011-504937 | Feb 2011 | JP |
| 2011-171772 | Sep 2011 | JP |
| 2014-532623 | Dec 2014 | JP |
| 2017-160211 | Sep 2017 | JP |
| 2018-150342 | Sep 2018 | JP |
| 2018-535975 | Dec 2018 | JP |
| 2022-502498 | Jan 2022 | JP |
| 2022-024031 | Feb 2022 | JP |
| 10-2010-0101121 | Oct 2015 | KR |
| 10-2018-0108572 | Nov 2016 | KR |
| 10-2014-0092323 | Sep 2019 | KR |
| 10-2019-0111139 | May 2020 | KR |
| 10-2021-0065962 | Jun 2021 | KR |
| 10-2020-0057104 | Aug 2021 | KR |
| 10-2021-0095746 | Oct 2022 | KR |
| 10-2022-0141906 | Oct 2022 | KR |
| 2014120475 | Nov 2015 | RU |
| 2018107407 | Feb 2019 | RU |
| 2021111401 | Oct 2022 | RU |
| WO 199326019 | Dec 1993 | WO |
| WO 199413265 | Jun 1994 | WO |
| WO 199515762 | Jun 1995 | WO |
| WO 199531217 | Nov 1995 | WO |
| WO 1999027908 | Jun 1999 | WO |
| WO 199959545 | Nov 1999 | WO |
| WO 199959547 | Nov 1999 | WO |
| WO 200105372 | Jan 2001 | WO |
| WO 200152826 | Jul 2001 | WO |
| WO 200189653 | Nov 2001 | WO |
| WO 2002076970 | Oct 2002 | WO |
| WO 2002098465 | Dec 2002 | WO |
| WO 2003028696 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| WO 2003028697 | Apr 2003 | WO |
| WO 2004087105 | Oct 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004087115 | Oct 2004 | WO |
| WO 2004093795 | Nov 2004 | WO |
| WO 2005000266 | Jan 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005102359 | Nov 2005 | WO |
| WO 2006014626 | Feb 2006 | WO |
| WO 2007050784 | May 2007 | WO |
| WO 2008101214 | Aug 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009070761 | Jun 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009097011 | Aug 2009 | WO |
| WO 2010043050 | Apr 2010 | WO |
| WO 2013059133 | Apr 2013 | WO |
| WO 2017083592 | May 2017 | WO |
| WO 2020068979 | Apr 2020 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (Year: 2018). |
| Kadia et al.(Blood, 2020, 136, (Supplement 1):20) (Year: 2020). |
| Ahl, P., et al., “Enhancement of the In Vivo Circulation Lifetime of L-a-Distearoylphosphatidylcholine Liposomes: Importance of Liposomal Aggregation Versus Complement Opsonization,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1997, 1329:370-382. |
| Akhtar, S., et al., “Interactions of Antisense DNA Oligonucleotide Analogs with Phospholipid Membranes (Liposomes),” Nucleic Acids Research, 1991, 19(20):5551-5559. |
| Alkan-Onyuksel, H. et al., “A Mixed Micellar Formulation Suitable for the Parenteral Administration of Taxol,” Pharmaceutical Research, 1994, 11(2):206-212. |
| Allen, T. et al., “Drug Delivery Systems: Entering the Mainstream,” Science, Mar. 19, 2004, 303:1818-1822. |
| Allen, T. et al., “Phosphatidylserine as a Determinant of Reticuloendothelial Recognition of Liposome Models of the Erythrocyte Surface,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Nov. 1998, 85:8067-8071. |
| Ansfield, F. et al., “Further Clinical Comparison Between 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)1 and 5-Fluoro-2′-Deoxyuridine (5-FUDR)2,3,4,” Cancer Chemotherapy Reports, Oct. 1963, 32:101-105. |
| Bendas, G. et al., “Synthetic Glycolipids as Membrane-Bound Cryoprotectants in the Freeze-drying Process of Liposomes,” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 1996, 4:211-222. |
| Bouma, J. et al., “Anthracycline antitumour agents—A review of physicochemical, analytical and stability properties,” Pharmaceutisch Weekblad Scientific Edition, 1986, 8:109-133. |
| Brodt, P., et al., “Inhibition of Murine Hepatic Tumor Growth by Liposomes Containing a Lipophilic Muramyl Dipeptide,” Cancer Immunol. Immunother., 1989, 28:54-58. |
| Cao, S. et al., “Synergistic Antitumor Activity of Irinotecan in Combination with 5-Fluorouracil in Rats Bearing Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Role of Drug Sequence and Dose1,” Cancer Research, Jul. 15, 2000, 60:3717-3721. |
| Celano, M. et al., “Cytotoxic effects of Gemcitabine-loaded liposomes in human anaplastic thyroid carcinoma cells,” BMC Cancer, 2004, 4(63), 5 pages. |
| Chang, T.T. et al., “Rational Approach to the Clinical Protocol Design for Drug Combinations: A Review,” Acta Paediatr. Tw., 2000, 41(6):294-302. |
| Chou, T.C. et al., “Quantitative Analysis of Dose-Effect Relationships: The Combined Effects of Multiple Drugs or Enzyme Inhibitors,” Adv. Enzyme Reg., 1984, 22:27-55. |
| Cleek, R. et al., “Microparticles of poly(DL-lactic-co-glycolic acid)/poly(ethylene glycol) blends for controlled drug delivery,” Journal of Controlled Release, 1997, 48:259-268. |
| Cortes, J. et al., “High-dose liposomal daunorubicin and high-dose cytarabine combination in patients with refractory or relapsed acute myelogenous leukemia,” Cancer Jul. 1, 2001, 92(1):7-14. |
| Coutinho, A. et al., “Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: System Treatment in the New Millennium,” Cancer Control, May/Jun. 2003, 10(3):224-238. |
| Creaven, P. et al., “Phase I and pharmacokinetic evaluation of floxuridine/leucovorin given on the Roswell Park weekly regimen,” Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol., 1994, 34:261-265. |
| DiNardo, C. et al., “A Phase 1b Study of Venetoclax (ABT-199/GDC-0199) in Combination with Decitabine or Azacitidine in Treatment-Naïve Patients with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Who Are > to 65 Years and Not Eligible for Standard Induction Therapy,” Blood, Dec. 3, 2015, 126(23):327, 5 pages. |
| European Medicines Agency—Science Medicines Health, “Vyxeos liposomal (previously known as Vyexos—daunorubicin / cyarabine,” https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/vyxeos-liposomal, accessed Oct. 17, 2023, 7 pages. |
| Farmer, M. et al., “Liposome-Encapsulated Hemoglobin as an Artificial Oxygen-Carrying System” Methods in Enzymology, 1987, 149:184-200. |
| Fisher, M., “Irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin, oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/irinotecan are each effective in the treatment of 5-FU-resistant advanced colorectal cancer,” Clinical Colorectal Cancer, Aug. 2001, 1(2):85-86. |
| Fonseca, C. et al., “Paclitaxel-loaded PLGA nanoparticles: preparation, physicochemical characterization and in vitro anti-tumoral activity,” Journal of Controlled Release, 2002, 83:273-286. |
| Fracasso, P. et al., “Phase I study of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin and Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Malignancies,” Cancer, Nov. 15, 2002, 95(10):2223-2229. |
| Frei, III, E. et al., “The relationship between high-dose treatment and combination chemotherapy: the concept of summation dose intensity,” Clinical Cancer Research, Sep. 1998, 4:2027-2037. |
| Frerot, E. et al., “Controlled Stepwise Release of Fragrance Alcohols from Dendrimer-Based 2-Carbamoylbenzoates by Neighbouring Group Participation,” Eur. J. Org. Chern., 2003, 967-971. |
| Friberg, L. et al., “Model of Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression With Parameter Consistency Across Drugs,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dec. 15, 2002, 20(24):4713-4721. |
| Giles, F. et al., “Adaptive randomized study of idarubicin and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and idarubicin in untreated patients 50 years or older with adverse karyotype acute myeloid leukemia,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, May 1, 2003, 21(9): 1722-1727. |
| Gokhale, PC et al., “An improved method of encapsulation of doxorubicin in liposomes: pharmacological, toxicological and therapeutic evaluation,” British Journal of Cancer, 1996, 74(1):43-48. |
| Goodrich, R. et al., “Alterations in Membrane Surfaces Induced by Attachment of Carbohydrates,” Biochemistry, 1991, 30(21):5313-5318. |
| Greenwald, R. et al., “Poly(ethylene glycol) Conjugated Drugs and Prodrugs: A Comprehensive Review,” Critical Reviews in Therapeutic Drug Carrier Systems, 2000, 17(2):101-161. |
| Greenwald, R., “PEG drugs: an overview,” Journal of Controlled Release, 2001, 74:159-171. |
| Greenwald, R. et al., “Drug Delivery Systems: Water Soluble Taxol 2′-Poly(ethylene glycol) Ester Prodrugs-Design and in Vivo Effectiveness,” J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39:424-431. |
| Gref, R. et al., “'Stealth' corona-core nanoparticles surface modified by polyethylene glycol (PEG): influences of the corona (PEG chain length and surface density) and of the core composition on phagocytic uptake and plasma protein adsorption,” Colloids and Surfaces, 2000, 18:301-313. |
| Gupta, M. et al., “BRG1 loss predisposes lung cancers to replicative stress and ATR dependency,” Cancer Res., Sep. 15, 2020, 80(18): 3841-3854. |
| Hayashi, H. et al., “The effects of delayed treatment with sialyl Lewis X against lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in rabbits,” European Journal of Pharmacology, 2000, 392:109-116. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/CA2005/000625, mailed on Aug. 11, 2005, 13 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US05/025549, mailed on Aug. 14, 2006, 5 pages. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2006/041832, mailed on Apr. 24, 2007, 10 pages. |
| Kao, Y. et al., “Pharmacological Disposition of Negatively Charged Phospholipid Vesicles in Rats” Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nov. 1980, 69(11):1338-1349. |
| Kemeny, N. et al., “Hepatic-arterial chemotherapy,” The Lancet Oncology, Jul. 2001, 2:418-428. |
| Kim, S.Y. et al., “Poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide)-poly(ethylene oxide)/poly(e-caprolactone) (PCL) amphiphilic block copolymeric nanospheres II. Thermo-responsive drug release behaviors,” Journal of Controlled Release, 2000, 65:345-358. |
| Kirby, C. et al., “Effect of the Cholesterol Content of Small Unilamellar Liposomes on their Stability In Vivo and In Vitro,” Biochem. J., 1980, 186:591-598. |
| Lamprecht, A. et al., “Influences of process parameters on nanoparticle preparation performed by a double emulsion pressure homogenization technique,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2000) 196:177-182. |
| Lancet, J. et al., “CPX-351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) Liposome for Injection Versus Conventional Cytarabine Plus Daunorubicin in Older Patients With Newly Diagnosed Secondary Acute Myeloid Leukemia,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Sep. 10, 2018, 36(26):2684-2692. |
| Lancet, J. et al.,“ CPX-351 versus 7+3 cytarabine and daunorubicin chemotherapy in older adults with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia: 5-year results of randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial,” Articles, Lancet Haematol, 2021, 8(7): e481-e491. |
| Lemoine, D. et al., Stability study of nanoparticles of poly(E-caprolactone), poly(D,L-lactide) and poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide), Biomaterials, 1996, 17:2191-2197. |
| Li, C., “Poly(L-glutamic acid)—anticancer drug conjugates,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2002, 54(5):695-713. |
| Litvak, D. et al., “Systemic Irinotecan and Regional Floxuridine After Hepatic Cytoreduction in 185 Patients With Unresectable Colorectal Cancer Metastases,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, 2002, 9(2): 148-155. |
| Lundberg, B., “A Submicron Lipid Emulsion Coated with Amphipathic Polyethylene Glycol for Parenteral Administration of Paclitaxel (Taxol),” J. Pharm. Pharmacal., 1997, 49:16-21. |
| Mayer, L. et al., “Ratiometric dosing of anticancer drug combinations: Controlling drug ratios after systemic administration regulates therapeutic activity in tumor-bearing mice,” Mol. Cancer Ther., Jul. 2006, 5(7):1854-1863. |
| McCullough, J., “Overview of Platelet Transfusion,” Seminars in Hematology, Jul. 2010, 47(3):235-242. |
| Meta-Analysis Group In Cancer, “Reappraisal of Hepatic Arterial Infusion in the Treatment of Nonresectable Liver Metastases From Colorectal Cancer,” Articles, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Mar. 6, 1996, 88(5), 252-258. |
| Mu, L. et al., “A novel controlled release formulation for the anticancer drug paclitaxel (Taxol®): PLGA nanoparticles containing vitamin E TPGS,” Journal of Controlled Release, 2003, 86:33-48. |
| Nishiyama, N. et al., “Novel Cisplatin-Incorporated Polymeric Micelles Can Eradicate Solid Tumors in Mice,” Cancer Research, Dec. 15, 2003, 63:8977-8983. |
| Nishiyama, N. et al., “Preparation and characterization of size-controlled polymeric micelle containing cis-dichlorodiammineplatinum(II) in the core,” Journal of Controlled Release, 2001, 74:83-94. |
| Niu, X. et al., “Binding of released Bim to Mcl-1 is a mechanism of intrinsic resistance to ABT-199 which can be overcome by combination with daunorubicin or cytarabine in AML cells,” Clin. Cancer Res., Sep. 1, 2016, 22(17):4440-4451. |
| Ogihara-Umeda, I., et al., “Cholesterol enhances the delivery of liposome-encapsulated gallium-67 to tumors,” Eur. J. Nucl. Med., 1989, 15:612-617. |
| Ohya, Y. et al., “Design of Poly(ethylene glycol) Immobilizing Platinum Complex through Chelate-type Coordination Bond,” Polym. Adv. Technol., 2000, 11:635-641. |
| Olbrich, C. et al., “Lipid-Drug-Conjugate (LDC) Nanoparticles as Novel Carrier System for the Hydrophilic Antitrypanosomal Drug Diminazenediaceturate,” Journal of Drug Targeting, 2002, 10(5):387-396. |
| Perkins, W. et al., “Novel therapeutic nano-particles (lipocores): trapping poorly water soluble compounds,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2000, 200:27-39. |
| Pettit, K. et al., “Defining and Treating Older Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Therapies,” Dec. 14, 2015, 5(280):1-5. |
| Pitot, H. et al., “Phase II Trial of Irinotecan in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Aug. 1997, 15(8):2910-2919. |
| Rivera, E. et al., “Phase I Study of Stealth Liposomal Doxorubicin in Combination With Gemcitabine in the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Mar. 15, 2001, 19(6): 1716-1722. |
| Rivera, E. et al., “Phase II Study of Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Combination With Gemcitabine in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Sep. 1, 2003, 21(17):3249-3254. |
| Rivera, E., “Liposomal Anthracyclines in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Clinical Update,” The Oncologist, 2003, 8(Suppl 2):3-9. |
| Rougier, P. et al., “Phase II Study of Irinotecan in the Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer in Chemotherapy -Naïve Patients and Patients Pretreated With Fluorouracil-Based Chemotherapy,” J. Clin. Oncol., 1997, 15:251-260. |
| Shiah, J.-G. et al., “Combination chemotherapy and photodynamic therapy of targetable N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer-doxorubicin/mesochlorin e6-OV-TL 16 antibody immunoconjugates,” Journal of Controlled Release, 2001, 74:249-253. |
| Soo, P. et al., “Incorporation and Release of Hydrophobic Probes in Biocompatible Polycaprolactone-block-poly(ethylene oxide) Micelles: Implications for Drug Delivery,” Langmuir, 2002 18:9996-10004. |
| Soo, P. et al., “Polycaprolactone-block-poly(ethylene oxide) Micelles: A Nanodelivery System for 17B-Estradiol,” Molecular Pharmaceutics, Jun. 10, 2005, 2(6):519-527. |
| Spiers, A. et al., “Prolonged remission maintenance in acute myeloid leukaemia,” British Medical Journal, 1977, 2:544-547. |
| Tallman, M. et al., “Drug therapy for acute myeloid leukemia,” Blood, Aug. 15, 2005, 106(4):1154-1163. |
| Thigpen, T., “The Role of Gemcitabine-Based Doublets in the Management of Ovarian Carcinoma,” Seminars in Oncology, Feb. 2002, 29(1, Suppl. 1):11-16. |
| Torchilin, V. et al., “Liposomes and Micelles to Target the Blood Pool for Imaging Purposes,” Journal of Liposome Research, 2000, 10(4): 483-499. |
| Tracy, M.A. et al., “Factors affecting the degradation rate of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres in vivo and in vitro,” Biomaterials, 1999, 20(11): 1057-1062. |
| Trubetskoy, V. et al., “Use of polyoxyethylene-lipid conjugates as long-circulating carriers for delivery of therapeutic and diagnostic agents,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 1995, 16(2-3):311-320. |
| Vaage, J. et al., “Therapy of Mouse Mammary Carcinomas with Vincristine and Doxorubicin Encapsulated in Sterically Stabilized Liposomes,” Int. J. Cancer, 1993, 54(1): 959-964. |
| Van Laar, J.A.M. et al., “Comparison of 5-Fluoro-2'-deoxyuridine with 5-Flurouracil and their Role in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer,” European Journal of Cancer, 1998, 34(3):296-306. |
| Vodovozova, E.L. et al., “Antitumour activity of cytotoxic liposomes equipped with selection ligand SiaLeX, in a mouse mammary adenocarcinoma model”, European Journal of Cancer, 2000, 36:942-949. |
| Vyxeos, Daunorubicin and cytarabine liposome for injection—Powder, 44 mg daunorubicin and 100 mg cytarabine per vial, intravenous infusion—Antineoplastic Agent, Apr. 28, 2021, 1-41. |
| Wang, Q. et al., “CPX-351 Population Pharmacokinectics in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies,” Blood, Dec. 7, 2017, 130(Suppl_1):5064, 3 pages. |
| Wheeler, J. et al., “Polyethylene Glycol Modified Phospholipids Stabilize Emulsions Prepared from Triacylglycerol,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nov. 1994, 83(11):1558-1564. |
| Yates, J. et al., “Cytosine Arabinoside With Daunorubicin or Adriamycin for Therapy of Acute Myelocytic Leukemia: A CALGB Study,” Blood, Aug. 1982, 60(2):454-462. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20220152074 A1 | May 2022 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63115540 | Nov 2020 | US |
