Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Bendamustine Rapid‐Infusion Formulation. (31st May 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cheung, Eric M.; Edenfield, William J.; Mattar, Bassam; Anthony, Stephen P.; Mutch, Peter J.; Chanas, Brian; Smith, Mark; Hepner, Adrian
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical pharmacology. Volume 57:Number 11(2017)
• Page Start: 1400
• Page End: 1408
• Publication Date: 2017-05-31
• Subjects: bendamustine -- bioequivalence -- comparison -- liquid -- safety; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Pharmacology, Clinical -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1002/jcph.942
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0091-2700

Abstract

Abstract: Bendamustine hydrochloride (BDM) is approved in the United States to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia and relapsed indolent B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma. The first formulation marketed in the United States (original BDM) was a lyophilized product requiring reconstitution prior to dilution to the final admixture. A liquid formulation of BDM was subsequently introduced that did not require reconstitution before dilution. Both formulations are administered as a 500 mL admixture with a recommended infusion time of 30 or 60 minutes for chronic lymphocytic leukemia and indolent B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma, respectively. A newer liquid BDM formulation (rapid BDM) is a ready‐to‐dilute solution not requiring reconstitution that dilutes into an admixture of only 50 mL and can be safely administered in a shorter infusion time (10 minutes). Rapid BDM admixture also has longer stability at room temperature than both lyophilized and liquid BDM formulations (6 vs 2 to 3 hours). This phase 1, open‐label, randomized, crossover (3‐period, partially replicated) study, conducted in "end‐of‐life" cancer patients at 10 oncology centers in the United States, demonstrates that rapid BDM is bioequivalent to original BDM as determined by area under the curve. Expected differences in maximum plasma concentration and time to maximum plasma concentration were observed between study treatments, given the substantially shorter infusion time of rapid BDM. No clinically relevant differences in other evaluated pharmacokinetic parameters were found. Rapid BDM infusions were safe and tolerable for cancer patients in this study. The overall safety profiles of the 2 BDM formulations were comparable, with no new safety signals identified and no differences in infusion‐related adverse events.