Background: The Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service (WAPPS) project generates individually predicted pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and tailored prophylactic treatment regimens for haemophilic patients, which rely on a set of population PK (PopPK) models providing concentrate-specific priors for the Bayesian forecasting methodology. Aim: To describe the predictive performance of the WAPPS PopPK models in use on the WAPPS-Hemo platform. Methods: Data for modelling include dense PK data obtained from industry sponsored and independent PK studies, and dense and sparse data accumulated through WAPPS-Hemo. WAPPS PopPK models were developed via non-linear mixed-effect modelling taking into account the effects of covariates and between-individual-and sometimes between-occasion-variability. Model evaluation consisted of (a) prediction-corrected Visual Predictive Check (pcVPC), (b) Limited Sampling Analysis (LSA) and (c) repeated hold-out cross-validation.Results: Thirty-three WAPPS PopPK models built on data from 3188 patients (ages 1-78 years) under treatment by factor VIII or IX products (FVIII, FIX) were evaluated.Overall, models exhibit excellent performance characteristics. The pcVPC shows that the observed PK data fall within acceptable 90% interpercentile predictive bands. A slight overprediction beyond the expected half-life, an anticipated result of using sparse data, occurs for some models. The LSA results in lower than 3% of relative error for FVIII and FIX products and 16% for engineered FIX products. Cross-Validation analysis yields relative errors lower than 1.5% and 1.4% in estimates of half-life and time to 0.02 IU/mL, respectively. Conclusion:The WAPPS-Hemo models consistently showed excellent performance characteristics for the intended use for Bayesian forecasting of individual PK profiles. K E Y W O R D Sfactor IX, factor VIII, population pharmacokinetics | 385 HAJDUCEK Et Al.

The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the current use of pharmacokinetics for tailoring prophylaxis in hemophilia patients switching between clotting factor products. Patients with hemophilia may require switching of clotting factor concentrates due to a variety of factors, but there have been perceived risks associated with switching, such as inhibitor development or suboptimal protection due to inadequate dosing while titrating treatment. Studies that look at patients switching from one clotting factor concentrate to another are categorized in terms of their primary and/or secondary objectives, notably biosimilarity and comparative pharmacokinetic studies and inhibitor development studies. Research on how best to switch concentrates with respect to dosing regimen are lacking, and currently a trial‐and‐error approach is used for dosing the new factor concentrate. In the future, studies looking at the predictability of pharmacokinetics (PK) of a new factor concentrate based on individual PK knowledge of the original factor concentrate may offer clinical benefit by providing a safer switching approach and protocol.

Introduction Emicizumab is dosed as mg/kg and, according to the label, any unused drug left in the vial(s) must be discarded, thereby wasting expensive resources. The aim of this study was to use population pharmacokinetics to illustrate the implications of changing the dosing interval to avoid wastage. Methods We used a previously published emicizumab PopPK model after extending its validation to children. We simulated PK parameters for labelled dosing regimens and for regimens using full vials with infusion frequency varied to keep the steady‐state drug concentration unchanged. Cost and drug savings were calculated. Results The model evaluation was successful. When rounding up, the average individual below 53, 47 and 39 has a time‐to‐trough increase of up to 5.7, 7.9 and 5.8 days for the QW, Q2 W and Q4 W regimen, respectively. This resulted in an annual cost reduction of up to $173,136, $75,747 and $61,319 USD per patient. At higher body weights, rounding down the dose to the nearest vial resulted in negligible changes in the steady state concentration and cost savings of up to $93,781, $46,891 and $23,446 USD per patient, respectively. Conclusion Individuals with a lower body weight may benefit from increasing dose intervals and rounding up dose up to the nearest vial, and individuals with a higher body weight from maintaining the injection frequency and rounding dose down to the nearest vial without significant change in emicizumab levels. Administering the entire vial may result in a reduction of vials used annually and potential cost savings.

No abstract

No abstract