NIAID workshop: What is a robust PK-PD package?

Dear All:

The ~150 of us who gathered in Washington yesterday and today for the NIAID’s PK-PD workshop enjoyed a very rich conversation. It’s really hard to capture the full debate, but here is a brief slide set and as well a written summary of the meeting that provide the main points. More materials can be found online at this link.

The heart of the workshop was an extended debate about the nature of a “robust PK-PD package.” We also had a good discussion of what PK-PD both can and can’t do. See the slides, but the critical material is also excerpted below my signature.

Given the intrinsic variability in all biological assays, a core message was that PD target estimates may differ substantially by method and by lab.  A lot of the discussion focused on  ways to manage this variability. Building substantial depth by testing multiple isolates in multiple models and by use of benchmark (internal control) compounds were all discussed as ways to build confidence around an estimate.

Overall, I see PK-PD as a field that continues to evolve rapidly. You definitely need an expert at your side (and it was great to have all the PK-PD gurus in the room!) but it is possible to find solid ground via careful work.

Many thanks to team NIAID for making this event happen with a special thanks to Tina Guina and Ann Eakin for their proactive leadership!

All best wishes and safe travels, –jr

John H. Rex, MD | Chief Medical Officer, F2G Ltd. | Chief Strategy Officer, CARB-X | Expert-in-Residence, Wellcome Trust
Follow me on Twitter: @JohnRex_NewAbx

Text from two of the slides

What is robust dose selection?

  • “Robust” should reduce risk. What reduces risk?
    • Standards:
      • Use benchmark compounds as internal controls. We do this implicitly within classes – being explicit about this is helpful
      • Isolates: Consider the use of standard (QC-like) PD isolates
    • Orthogonal data:
      • Test a range of isolates & models.
      • Chose them to explore relevant variation
    • Buffer your P3 study vs. patient-level PK variation
      • Select dose to give maximum exposure within tox limits
      • When all you have is HV data, anticipate greater variance in patients
      • Get PK in suitably diverse patient settings as early as possible
    • Exposure at the site matters: Keep site PK in mind … is plasma a good correlate or do you need to go deeper (e.g., ELF)?

What PK-PD can / cannot do

  • Can
    • Early: Derisk dose-selection
    • Mid: Enable programs to happen at all in settings where clinical data are limited
    • Late: Help with labeling questions about dosing and PK in special pops, pediatrics, drug-drug interactions, etc.
    • Late: Provide support to breakpoint determination
  • Cannot (necessarily)
    • Speed the program: PK-PD is often iterative
    • Make overall program smaller: You may well need to spend time exploring / confirming PK in relevant patient settings

Share

Conflict-Borne XDR Superbugs: It’s Time for the PASTEUR Act!

Dear All: The recent publication of an exceptionally good plain-language summary of the AMR problem in Rolling Stone (yes, you read that correctly!) prompts today’s 3-part journey into the way(s) that war contributes to the threat of resistant superbugs. We’ve summarized the story in outline form — please explore the references for further details. And

ENABLE-2 funding now includes Hit Identification & Validation

23 July 2024 addenda x 2:  Mark Blaskovich let me know that the CO-ADD project is still offering a free in vitro screening service. See https://www.co-add.org/ to submit compounds for free testing vs 5 bacteria and 2 fungi; see https://db.co-add.org/ for structures and screening data on >100K compounds. The GHIT Fund has announced its 21st Request for Proposals for its Hit-to-Lead Platform to

NIAID/DMID thinking for FY2026: Antibacterials, Phage, and Antifungals

Dear All, NIAID’s DMID (Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases) recently held a council meeting during which they proposed program concepts that encompassed both antibacterial therapies (including phage) as well as antifungal therapies for funding in FY 2026 (the year that would run from 1 Oct 2025 to 30 Sep 2026). There is no guarantee that

WHO Antibacterial Pipeline Review: Update thru 31 Dec 2023

Dear All, WHO have released an update through 31 Dec 2023 of their ongoing series of antibacterial pipeline reviews! Here are the links you need: The report: 2023 Antibacterial agents in clinical and preclinical development: an overview and analysis and a press release about the report. Infographics: Key facts and recommendations from the 2023 antibacterial agents in clinical

Scroll to Top