Inter‐individual variability in atrasentan exposure partly explains variability in kidney protection and fluid retention responses: A post hoc analysis of the <scp>SONAR</scp> trial
Jeroen V. Koomen, Jasper Stevens, George L. Bakris, Ricardo Correa‐Rotter, Fan Fan Hou, Dalane W. Kitzman, Donald E. Kohan, Hirofumi Makino, John J.V. McMurray, Hans‐Henrik Parving, Vlado Perkovic, Sheldon W. Tobe, Dick de Zeeuw, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate whether atrasentan plasma exposure explains between-patient variability in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) response, a surrogate for kidney protection, and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) response, a surrogate for fluid expansion. METHODS: Type 2 diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease (n = 4775) received 0.75 mg atrasentan for 6 weeks in the active run-in period. Individual area under the concentration-time-curve (AUC) was estimated using a population pharmacokinetic model. The association between atrasentan AUC, other clinical characteristics, and UACR and BNP response, was estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: The median atrasentan AUC was 43.8 ng.h/mL with a large variation among patients (2.5th-97.5th percentiles [P]: 12.6 to 197.5 ng.h/mL). Median UACR change at the end of enrichment was -36.0% and median BNP change was 8.7%, which also varied among patients (UACR, 2.5th-97.5th P: -76.2% to 44.5%; BNP, 2.5th-97.5th P: -71.5% to 300.0%). In the multivariable analysis, higher atrasentan AUC was associated with greater UACR reduction (4.88% per doubling in ng.h/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}: 6.21% to 3.52%], P < .01) and greater BNP increase (3.08% per doubling in ng.h/mL [95% CI: 1.12% to 4.11%], P < .01) independent of estimated glomerular filtration rate, haemoglobin or BNP. Caucasian patients compared with black patients had greater UACR reduction (7.06% [95% CI: 1.38% to 13.07%]) and also greater BNP increase (8.75% [95% CI: 1.65% to 15.35%]). UACR response was not associated with BNP response (r = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Atrasentan plasma exposure varied among individual patients and partially explained between-patient variability in efficacy and safety response.