Jakob Ribbing (1,2,3), Julia Korell (2,4), Frank Cerasoli (1,5), Peter A. Milligan (1), Steven W. Martin (1), Mats O. Karlsson (2)
(1) Pfizer LTD; (2) Uppsala University. Current employment: (3) Pharmetheus AB; (4) Model Answers Pty Ltd; (5) Medical Dynamics
Objectives: To describe the relationship between forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and annual rate of moderate-severe[1] exacerbations (ER) utilizing summary-level, literature data.
Shorter duration Phase 2 studies assess FEV1 whereas Phase 3 chronic maintenance studies assess the registerable endpoint (prevention of COPD exacerbations).
Methods: Data was extracted from 29 randomized trials (80 treatment arms), of 43 472 patients. As predictors of ER, model-predicted trough FEV1[2] at baseline and Week 12, as well as covariates, were investigated using NONMEM. Placebo ER was a function of covariates and interstudy variability. The ER ratio (treatment vs. placebo) was described by separate functions for FEV1 efficacy (ΔΔFEV1) from direct bronchodilators (long-acting; LABD) and anti-inflammatory (AI) agents. Outcomes were derived as point estimate [95%-Confidence interval] versus placebo/reference arm.
Results: The final model predicted that placebo ER increased with a) disease severity (FEV1%Predicted), b) fraction of (ICS experienced) patients required to wash out from ICS (ICSwashout), and c) inclusion criteria requiring a history of exacerbations.
The log(ER-ratio) (treated vs untreated), was described by separate linear-slopes for LABD and AI ΔΔFEV1, and in addition for %ICSwashout; by a ΔΔFEV1AI-Emax model. The model predicted that for log(ER-ratio) < -0.2 (>18% ER reduction), LABDs must achieve at least a ΔΔFEV1 122 mL [114mL−132mL] improvement (over placebo/reference). For a scenario with 62% ICSwashout, an AI treatment (ICS or PDE4i) must achieve at least a ΔΔFEV1 45 mL [17mL−79mL] improvement, for log(ER-ratio) < -0.2.
Conclusions: The investigated AIs have modest efficacy on FEV1, but if patients are washed out from ICS, these treatments achieve reductions in ER comparable to the new-generation LABD. The outcomes from this analysis may be applied while designing Phase 3 efficacy studies, pharmaco-economic outcomes studies[3,4], and quantifying comparative effectiveness of available treatments.
References:
[1] Mario Cazzola, et al. Outcomes for COPD pharmacological trials: from lung function to biomarkers. Eur Respir J, 2008. 31(2): p. 416-69.
[2] Julia Korell, Steven W. Martin, Mats O. Karlsson and Jakob Ribbing. A model-based longitudinal meta-analysis of FEV1 in randomized COPD trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2015 Aug 14 [Epub ahead of print].
[3] Julia F. Slejko, Richard J. Willke, Jakob Ribbing and Peter Milligan. Translating Pharmacometrics to a Pharmacoeconomic Model of COPD.
[4] Richard J. Willke, Julia F. Slejko, Jakob Ribbing and Peter Milligan. Calibration of a Health Economic Microsimulation Model to Pharmacometric Model-Based Meta-Analysis Predictions: A Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Example.
Reference: PAGE 25 () Abstr 3699 [www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=3699]
Poster: Drug/Disease modeling - Other topics