Effect of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, the First Oral Protease Inhibitor for the Treatment of COVID-19

Nirmatrelvir, a novel, potent, orally bioavailable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease inhibitor, coadministered with ritonavir for pharmacokinetic (PK) enhancement is licensed for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in individuals at increased risk of progression to severe disease. Cytochrome P450 3A4 is the primary metabolic enzyme responsible for nirmatrelvir metabolism; however, when cytochrome P450 3A4 is inhibited by ritonavir, nirmatrelvir is primarily excreted, unchanged, in urine. Because of intended use of nirmatrelvir among individuals with hepatic impairment, this Phase 1 study (NCT05005312) evaluated the effects of hepatic impairment on nirmatrelvir PK parameters to assess the potential need for any dose adjustments in this population. Participants with normal hepatic function or moderate hepatic impairment (n = 8 each) were administered a single 100-mg nirmatrelvir dose, with 100 mg of ritonavir administered 12 hours before, together with, and 12 and 24 hours after nirmatrelvir. Nirmatrelvir median plasma concentrations and systemic exposure measured by area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinite time and maximum observed plasma concentration values were comparable in both groups. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had an acceptable safety profile in both groups, and no clinically significant changes in laboratory measurements, vital signs, or electrocardiogram assessments were observed. Based on these results, no dose adjustment is deemed necessary in patients with moderate hepatic impairment and, by extension, in patients with mild hepatic impairment.

Effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on midazolam and dabigatran pharmacokinetics in healthy participants

AIMS

To evaluate pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety after coadministration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or ritonavir alone with midazolam (a cytochrome P450 3A4 substrate) and dabigatran (a P-glycoprotein substrate).

METHODS

PK was studied in 2 phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence studies in healthy adults. Single oral doses of midazolam 2 mg (n = 12) or dabigatran 75 mg (n = 24) were administered alone and after steady state (i.e. ≥2 days) of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300 mg/100 mg and ritonavir 100 mg. Midazolam and dabigatran plasma concentrations and adverse events were analysed for each treatment.

RESULTS

After administration of midazolam with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (test) or alone (reference), midazolam geometric mean area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf ) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) increased 14.3-fold and 3.7-fold, respectively. Midazolam coadministered with ritonavir (test) or alone (reference) resulted in 16.5-fold and 3.9-fold increases in midazolam geometric mean AUCinf and Cmax , respectively. After administration of dabigatran with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (test) or alone (reference), dabigatran geometric mean AUCinf and Cmax increased 1.9-fold and 2.3-fold, respectively. Dabigatran coadministered with ritonavir (test) or alone (reference) resulted in a 1.7-fold increase in dabigatran geometric mean AUCinf and Cmax . Midazolam or dabigatran exposures were generally comparable when coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or ritonavir alone, with a slightly higher dabigatran Cmax with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir vs. ritonavir alone. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was generally safe when administered with or without midazolam or dabigatran. No serious or severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Coadministration of midazolam or dabigatran with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir increased systemic exposure of midazolam or dabigatran. Midazolam exposures were comparable when coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or ritonavir alone, suggesting no incremental effect of nirmatrelvir. Dabigatran Cmax was slightly higher when coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with of ritonavir alone, suggesting a minor incremental effect of nirmatrelvir.

Effects of itraconazole and carbamazepine on the pharmacokinetics of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in healthy adults

AIMS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a strong cytochrome P450 family (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor (itraconazole) and inducer (carbamazepine) on the pharmacokinetics and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir.

METHODS

Pharmacokinetics were measured in two phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence studies in healthy adults. During Period 1, oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300 mg/100 mg twice daily was administered alone; during Period 2, it was administered with itraconazole or carbamazepine. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was administered as repeated doses or one dose in the itraconazole and carbamazepine studies, respectively. Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir plasma concentrations and adverse event (AE) rates in both periods were analysed.

RESULTS

Each study included 12 participants. Following administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with itraconazole (Test) or alone (Reference), test/reference ratios of the adjusted geometric means (90% CIs) for nirmatrelvir AUCtau and Cmax were 138.82% (129.25%, 149.11%) and 118.57% (112.50%, 124.97%), respectively. After administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with carbamazepine (Test) or alone (Reference), test/reference ratios (90% CIs) of the adjusted geometric means for nirmatrelvir AUCinf and Cmax were 44.50% (33.77%, 58.65%) and 56.82% (47.04%, 68.62%), respectively. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was generally safe when administered with or without itraconazole or carbamazepine. No serious or severe AEs were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Coadministration of a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor with a strong CYP3A inhibitor used for pharmacokinetic enhancement (i.e., ritonavir) resulted in small increases in plasma nirmatrelvir exposure, whereas coadministration of a strong inducer substantially decreased systemic nirmatrelvir and ritonavir exposures suggesting a contraindication in the label with CYP3A4 strong inducers. Administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir alone or with itraconazole or carbamazepine was generally safe.

Pharmacokinetics of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, a Protease Inhibitor for Treatment of COVID-19, in Subjects With Renal Impairment

Nirmatrelvir coadministered with ritonavir is highly efficacious in reducing the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) adverse outcomes among patients at increased risk of progression to severe disease, including patients with chronic kidney disease. Because nirmatrelvir is eliminated by the kidneys when given with ritonavir, this phase I study evaluated the effects of renal impairment on pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Participants with normal renal function (n = 10) or mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment (n = 8 each) were administered a single 100‐mg nirmatrelvir dose with 100 mg ritonavir given 12 hours before, together with and 12 and 24 hours after the nirmatrelvir dose. Systemic nirmatrelvir exposure increased with increasing renal impairment, with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment groups having respective adjusted geometric mean ratio areas under the plasma concentration‐time profile from time 0 extrapolated to infinite time of 124%, 187%, and 304% vs. the normal renal function group. Corresponding ratios for maximum plasma concentration were 130%, 138%, and 148%. Apparent clearance was positively correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate, and geometric mean renal clearance values were particularly lower for the moderate (47% decrease) and severe (80% decrease) renal impairment groups vs. the normal renal function group. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir exhibited an acceptable safety profile; treatment‐related adverse events were mild in severity, and there were no significant findings regarding laboratory measurements, vital signs, or electrocardiogram assessments. These findings led to a dose reduction recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients with moderate renal impairment (150/100 mg nirmatrelvir/ritonavir instead of 300/100 mg twice daily for 5 days). NCT04909853.

A Phase I Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Lorlatinib in Adults with Mild, Moderate, and Severe Renal Impairment

Background and Objectives

Lorlatinib is approved (100 mg once daily [QD]) for the treatment of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase- (ALK) positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated the impact of varying degrees of renal impairment on the safety and pharmacokinetics of lorlatinib.

Methods

Participants were assigned to mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment groups and to a matching normal renal function group based on absolute estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR, based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation and adjusted for body surface area [BSA]) and were evaluated for pharmacokinetics and safety.

Results

A total of 29 participants (5 with severe renal impairment; 8 each with moderate and mild impairment and normal renal function) were enrolled and received a single dose of lorlatinib 100 mg. One of the participants with severe renal impairment had end-stage renal disease with a baseline absolute eGFR of 10.3 mL/min. No serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. Eighteen AEs, all mild or moderate in severity, were reported by 12 participants (5, 2, 4, and 1 in the normal, mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively). Area under the plasma concentration–time profile from time zero extrapolated to infinity (AUC_inf) for lorlatinib was increased by 4%, 19%, and 41% in the mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment groups, respectively, compared with the normal renal function cohort.

Conclusion

Lorlatinib 100 mg was well tolerated. As participants with mild and moderate renal impairment did not experience clinically meaningful increases in lorlatinib exposure, no lorlatinib dose adjustment is recommended in these populations. Patients with severe renal impairment are recommended to reduce the starting dose of lorlatinib from 100 mg QD to 75 mg QD.

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier

NCT03542305 (available May 31, 2018 on clinicaltrials.gov)

The Effect of Modafinil on the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Lorlatinib: A Phase I Study in Healthy Participants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Lorlatinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Lorlatinib is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A and contraindicated with strong CYP3A inducers because of significant transaminase elevation. This phase I, open-label, two-period study evaluated the impact of a moderate CYP3A inducer, modafinil, on the safety and pharmacokinetics of lorlatinib.

METHODS

Healthy participants received single-dose oral lorlatinib (50 mg [n = 2], 75 mg [n = 2], or 100 mg [n = 2 + 10 in an expanded cohort]) in Period 1 followed by modafinil 400 mg/day (days 1-19) and single-dose lorlatinib (day 15, same dose as previous) both orally in Period 2. Blood samples were collected for 120 h after each dose of lorlatinib.

RESULTS

Of 16 participants, ten completed the study; six participants, all in the expanded 100-mg cohort, discontinued because of adverse events during the modafinil lead-in dosing period. Single doses of lorlatinib 50-100 mg were well tolerated when administered alone and in the presence of steady-state modafinil. Of the ten participants who completed the study, all had transaminase values within normal limits during the combination of lorlatinib with modafinil. The ratios of the adjusted geometric means (90% confidence interval) for lorlatinib area under the plasma concentration-time profile extrapolated to infinity and maximum plasma concentration were 76.69% (70.15-83.83%) and 77.78% (65.92-91.77), respectively, when lorlatinib 100 mg was co-administered with steady-state modafinil compared with lorlatinib administration alone.

CONCLUSION

Lorlatinib 100 mg may be safely co-administered with moderate CYP3A inducers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03961997; registered 23 May, 2019.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Glasdegib in Participants With Moderate/Severe Hepatic Impairment: A Phase I, Single-Dose, Matched Case-Control Study

This phase I open-label trial (NCT03627754) assessed glasdegib pharmacokinetics and safety in otherwise healthy participants with moderate (Child-Pugh B) or severe (Child-Pugh C) hepatic impairment. Participants with hepatic impairment and age/weight-matched controls with normal hepatic function received a single oral 100-mg glasdegib dose under fasted conditions. The primary end points were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_inf ) and maximum plasma concentration (C_max ). Twenty-four participants (8/cohort) were enrolled. Glasdegib plasma exposures in moderate hepatic impairment were similar to controls, with adjusted geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 110.8% (90% confidence interval [CI], 78.0-157.3) for AUC_inf and 94.8% (69.9-128.4) for C_max versus controls. In severe hepatic impairment, glasdegib plasma exposures were lower than controls (AUC_inf GMR, 75.7%; 90%CI, 51.5-111.0; C_max GMR, 58.0%; 90%CI, 37.8-89.0). Unbound glasdegib exposures were similar to controls for moderate (AUC_inf,u GMR, 118.1%; 90%CI, 88.7-157.2; C_max,u GMR, 101.1%; 90%CI, 78.4-130.3) and severe hepatic impairment (AUC_inf,u GMR, 116.3%; 90%CI 81.8-165.5; C_max,u GMR, 89.2%, 90%CI, 60.2-132.3). No treatment-related adverse events or clinically significant changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiograms were observed. Together with previous findings, this suggests glasdegib dose modifications are not required based on hepatic impairment.

Clinical and Model-Based Evaluation of the Effect of Glasdegib on Cardiac Repolarization From a Randomized Thorough QT Study

Glasdegib is a potent, selective oral inhibitor of the Hedgehog signaling pathway. This phase 1 double‐blind thorough QT study (NCT03162900) evaluated the effects of glasdegib on QTc interval. The study enrolled 36 healthy volunteers to receive a single dose of 150 mg glasdegib (representing a therapeutic dose), 300 mg glasdegib (representing a supratherapeutic dose), 400 mg moxifloxacin (positive control), or placebo under fasted conditions. The study demonstrated that therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of glasdegib had no significant effect on QTc interval; the upper bound of the 2‐sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for all time‐matched least‐squares mean differences in QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) between glasdegib and placebo was below the prespecified criterion of 20 milliseconds (Food and Drug Administration correspondence reviewed and accepted). Based on an exposure–response analysis, glasdegib was determined not to have a meaningful effect on heart rate (change in RR interval). The mean (90%CI) model‐derived baseline and placebo‐adjusted QTcF at the average maximum observed concentration values corresponding to therapeutic and supratherapeutic glasdegib doses was 7.3 milliseconds (6.5‐8.2 milliseconds) and 13.7 milliseconds (12.0‐15.5 milliseconds), respectively. Together these results demonstrated that following therapeutic and supratherapeutic glasdegib dosing, the change in QTc from baseline was well below the 20‐millisecond threshold of clinical concern in oncology.

Bioequivalence and Bioavailability of an Orodispersible Tablet of Sildenafil Citrate in Healthy Chinese Male Subjects

Sildenafil citrate is approved to treat erectile dysfunction. An orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) of sildenafil citrate that does not require swallowing or administration with fluids has been developed. The bioequivalence and bioavailability of sildenafil citrate ODT (50 mg) without and with water were compared with conventional sildenafil citrate tablets (50 mg) in an open-label, randomized crossover study. Healthy Chinese male subjects (n = 36) were allocated to 1 of 6 sildenafil citrate treatment sequences under fasted conditions, and plasma samples for determination of sildenafil concentrations were collected predose through 14 hours postdose. Bioequivalence was demonstrated for sildenafil citrate ODT administered without water relative to the sildenafil citrate tablet administered with water; 90%CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for sildenafil AUClast , Cmax , and AUCinf (ratio, 101.41%; 90%CI, 95.49%-107.70%; ratio, 93.55%; 90%CI, 84.15%-104.00%; and ratio, 101.03%; 90%CI, 94.80%-107.66%; respectively) were wholly contained within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80% to 125%, indicating bioequivalence criteria were met. Relative bioavailability of sildenafil citrate ODT administered with water to the sildenafil citrate tablet (50 mg) administered with water was 97.10%, 91.43%, and 97.09% with respect to sildenafil AUClast , Cmax , and AUCinf , respectively (90%CI, 91.43%-03.12%, 82.25%-101.65%, and 90.90%-103.71%, respectively). Both sildenafil citrate formulations were generally well tolerated in healthy Chinese men. Sildenafil citrate ODT administered without or with water was bioequivalent to or met bioequivalence criteria compared with conventional sildenafil citrate tablets administered with water under fasted conditions in healthy Chinese men, thus offering a convenient alternative method of oral administration.

A Thorough QT Study to Evaluate the Effects of a Supratherapeutic Dose of Sertraline on Cardiac Repolarization in Healthy Subjects

The effect of steady-state supratherapeutic sertraline (Zoloft) on QT interval was assessed in a single-center, randomized, 3-way crossover, double-blind, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled thorough QT study. Healthy adults received sertraline 400 mg/day, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and placebo, with a washout period (≥14 days) between treatments. A 12-lead electrocardiogram was recorded in triplicate before dosing and at selected time points up to 72 hours after dosing. Analysis of covariance using a mixed-effect model with sequence, period, treatment, time, and treatment-by-time interaction as fixed effects; subject within sequence as a random effect; and baseline QT corrected for heart rate using Fridericia formula (QTcF) as a covariate was conducted. A 90% confidence interval for the least squares (LS) mean difference in QTcF between active treatment and placebo was computed for each postdose time point. Exposure-response was assessed using linear mixed-effect modeling. Fifty-four subjects were enrolled. Over 24 hours after dosing, the LS mean difference in QTcF for sertraline versus placebo ranged from 5.597 milliseconds to 9.651 milliseconds. The upper bound of the 90% confidence interval for the LS mean difference exceeded a predefined 10-millisecond significance threshold at the 4-hour postdose time point only (LS mean, 9.651 milliseconds [90% confidence interval, 7.635-11.666]). In the exposure-response analysis, QTcF values increased significantly with increasing sertraline concentration (slope = 0.036 milliseconds/ng/mL; P < .0001). Predicted change from baseline in QTcF at therapeutic maximum plasma sertraline concentration was 3.57 milliseconds. This thorough QTc study demonstrated a positive signal for QTc prolongation for sertraline at the steady-state 400-mg/day dose.

Evaluation of the effect of rifampin on the pharmacokinetics of the Smoothened inhibitor glasdegib in healthy volunteers

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a strong CYP3A inducer, rifampin, on glasdegib pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

In an open-label, fixed-sequence, two-period Phase 1 study, subjects received a single 100-mg oral dose of glasdegib alone or following once-daily pre-treatment with 600 mg rifampin. Glasdegib pharmacokinetics were calculated using a noncompartmental analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve healthy male volunteers (3 whites, 5 blacks and 4 others) were enrolled in the study. Mean age, weight, height and body mass index was 37.8 years, 83.0 kg, 177.3 cm and 26.5 kg (m² ) ^-1 , respectively. When dosed alone, glasdegib geometric mean (% coefficient of variation) area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_inf ) was 8145 ng × h ml^-1 (23%) and maximum observed concentration (C_max ) was 703.2 ng ml^-1 (19%). With rifampin, glasdegib AUC_inf and C_max decreased, with an adjusted geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) 29.66% (26.17-33.62) for AUC_inf and 64.71% (57.21-73.19) for C_max . Mean terminal half-life decreased from 13.39 to 5.11 hours, geometric mean apparent oral clearance increased from 12.27 to 41.38 l h^-1 , whereas median time to C_max remained similar (1.50 vs. 1.25 hours) in the presence of rifampin. All adverse events (n = 29) were mild in severity and resolved by the end of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-administration of rifampin expectedly decreased glasdegib AUC_inf and C_max by ~70% and ~35%, respectively. These results will help to formulate recommendations for dosing strategies in combination with CYP3A inducers in situations where co-administration may be necessary. (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02430545).

Evaluation of the effect of new formulation, food, or a proton pump inhibitor on the relative bioavailability of the smoothened inhibitor glasdegib (PF-04449913) in healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

This phase I open-label study investigated the oral bioavailability of two novel maleate salt-based glasdegib (PF-04449913) tablet formulations (small- and large-particle size) relative to the current clinical formulation (diHCl salt-based). In addition, the effect of a gastric pH-altering agent (rabeprazole) and food on the pharmacokinetics of the large-particle size formulation of glasdegib were evaluated. The pharmacokinetics of glasdegib oral solution was also assessed.

METHODS

Thirty-four healthy subjects received glasdegib 100 mg as three different formulations in the fasted state (diHCl salt or small- or large-particle size maleate formulation); 13 received the large-particle maleate formulation (fed), and 14 concurrently with rabeprazole (fasted); six subjects received glasdegib 50 mg oral solution (fasted).

RESULTS

For both new tablet formulations of glasdegib, ratios (Test:Reference) of adjusted geometric means (90% confidence interval) of area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity and maximum plasma concentration were within 80-125% compared with the diHCl formulation (fasted). For the large-particle size formulation (fed), these ratios were 86.3% (81.0-92.0%) and 75.7% (65.3-87.7%), respectively, compared with fasted. When the large-particle maleate formulation was administered concurrently with rabeprazole versus alone (fasted), these ratios were 111.9% (102.8-121.9%) and 87.2% (75.9-100.3%), respectively. The pharmacokinetics of oral solution was similar to the tablet.

CONCLUSIONS

The maleate salt-based tablet formulations were bioequivalent to the diHCl tablet formulation. The extent of the observed effect of a high-fat, high-calorie meal or concurrent rabeprazole treatment on glasdegib exposure is not considered clinically meaningful.

Effect of food or proton pump inhibitor treatment on the bioavailability of dacomitinib in healthy volunteers

This phase 1, open-label crossover study evaluated the relative bioavailability of dacomitinib in healthy volunteers under fed and fasted conditions and following coadministration with rabeprazole, a potent acid-reducing proton pump inhibitor (PPI). Twenty-four male subjects received a single dacomitinib 45-mg dose under 3 different conditions separated by washout periods of ≥ 16 days: coadministered with rabeprazole 40 mg under fasting conditions; alone under fasting conditions; and alone after a high-fat, high-calorie meal. Increased peak exposure of 23.7% (90% confidence interval [CI], 5.3%-45.2%) was detected with dacomitinib taken after food versus fasting. The adjusted geometric mean ratio (fed/fasted) for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUCinf ) was 114.2% (90%CI, 104.7%-124.5%) and not considered clinically meaningful. In the fasted state, a decrease in dacomitinib AUCinf was observed following rabeprazole versus dacomitinib alone (PPI+fasted/fasted alone): 71.1% (90%CI, 61.7%-81.8%). Dacomitinib was generally well tolerated. Dacomitinib may be taken with or without food. Use of long-acting acid-reducing agents, such as PPIs with dacomitinib should be avoided if possible. Shorter-acting agents such as antacids and H2-receptor antagonists may have lesser impact on dacomitinib exposure and may be preferable to PPIs if acid reduction is clinically required.

Axitinib plasma pharmacokinetics and ethnic differences

Axitinib, a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, showed improved progression-free survival over sorafenib in patients previously treated for advanced renal cell carcinoma in the AXIS trial. Although a few studies had established the efficacy and safety of axitinib in Asian patients, additional evaluation was necessary to obtain regulatory approval in several Asian countries, especially in light of ethnic differences that are known to exist in genetic polymorphisms for metabolizing enzymes such as cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A5, CYP2C19 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A1, which are involved in axitinib metabolism. Axitinib plasma pharmacokinetics following single or multiple administration of oral axitinib in Asian (Japanese or Chinese) healthy subjects as well as Asian patients with advanced solid tumors was compared with that obtained in Caucasians. Upon review, the data demonstrated that axitinib can be characterized as not sensitive to ethnic factors based on its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Axitinib exhibited similar pharmacokinetics in Asian and non-Asian subjects. A pooled population pharmacokinetic analysis indicated lack of a clinically meaningful effect of ethnicity on axitinib disposition. Therefore, dose adjustment for axitinib on the basis of ethnicity is not currently warranted.

A randomized, open-label 3-way crossover study to investigate the relative bioavailability and bioequivalence of crushed sildenafil 20 mg tablets mixed with apple sauce, extemporaneously prepared suspension (EP), and intact sildenafil 20 mg tablets in healthy volunteers under fasting conditions

The relative bioavailability and bioequivalence of 20-mg doses of a pediatric formulation of sildenafil extemporaneous preparation suspension (EP; 10 mg/mL), the sildenafil 20-mg intact tablet and the crushed sildenafil 20-mg tablet mixed with apple sauce were assessed in a single-dose, randomized, open-label, 3-way crossover study with 18 healthy adult volunteers. Blood samples were collected at predefined times and analyzed for sildenafil plasma concentrations. Natural log-transformed sildenafil pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax , AUClast , and AUCinf ) were used to estimate relative bioavailability and construct 90% confidence intervals (CI) using a mixed-effects model. Bioequivalence was concluded among the three formulations with one exception, in which the EP suspension showed a 15% decrease in Cmax with a lower 90% CI of 76% compared with the intact tablet. The 15% decrease in sildenafil Cmax is not considered to be clinically relevant. Therefore, the EP suspension is considered to be an appropriate pediatric formulation. All 3 formulations were well tolerated in healthy adult volunteers.

Evaluation of the effect of food and ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics of the smoothened inhibitor PF-04449913 in healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of a potent cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitor, ketoconazole, and separately the effect of food on PF-04449913 pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was an open-label, two-sequence, three-period, three-treatment, single-dose, crossover study. Subjects were randomized to receive single doses of 200 mg PF-04449913 after an overnight fast or after consuming a high-fat meal during Period 1 or 2, with a washout period of at least 8 days. In Period 3, all subjects received ketoconazole (400 mg/day) (days 1-7) and a co-administered single 200-mg PF-04449913 dose (day 4).

RESULTS

Geometric mean ratio of PF-04449913 in the presence of ketoconazole versus PF-04449913 alone was 2.40 [90% confidence interval (CI) 2.15, 2.68] for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(0-inf)) and 1.40 (90% CI 1.24, 1.58) for peak plasma concentration (C max). The geometric mean ratio for fed state compared with fasted state for AUC(0-inf) was 0.87 (90% CI 0.78, 0.97) and for C max was 0.66 (90% CI 0.56, 0.78). PF-04449913 was well tolerated, and all adverse events were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

PF-04449913 plasma exposures and peak concentrations were increased following concurrent administration of ketoconazole in healthy volunteers. These findings provide the upper limit for expected PF-04449913 exposures after co-administration of a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor in patients with cancer who routinely receive antifungal azoles. While a high-fat meal decreased PF-04449913 exposure, the differences in plasma exposure under the two conditions were not considered clinically meaningful.

Pegvisomant bioavailability of single 30 mg/mL subcutaneous injection compared to two 15 mg/mL subcutaneous injections: a pharmacokinetic, safety and tolerability study

OBJECTIVE

The study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), relative bioavailability (relBA), safety and tolerability of two single-dose pegvisomant subcutaneous (SC) administrations: one injection of 30 mg/mL (1 × 30 mg/mL) versus two injections of two 15 mg/mL (2 × 15 mg/mL).

DESIGN

This was a 2-period, single-dose, crossover study in 14 healthy male and female subjects. All subjects received both administrations during the two treatment periods separated by a two-week washout. Serum samples were collected intensively up to 360 h post injection and were assayed by a validated enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for pegvisomant. PK parameters including AUC and Cmax were derived by noncompartmental analyses. Mixed effects model was used to obtain bioavailability estimates. Safety and tolerability were assessed by clinical monitoring, including adverse events, laboratory assessments and injection site reactions.

RESULTS

All subjects completed the study. The relBA of 1 × 30 mg/mL relative to 2 × 15 mg/mL was 123.89% with a 90% CI (112.91-135.93%). Adjusted for the difference in actual pegvisomant amounts in both formulations the dose-adjusted relBA reduced to 112.97% with a 90% CI (103.09-123.80%). Single injection with a higher drug concentration in injection solution might have a role in this 13% higher bioavailability for 1 × 30 mg/mL administration. Other PK parameters for the two administrations were comparable. No laboratory abnormalities, vital signs, ECG, or injection site reactions of clinical concern were observed in either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable BA, safety and tolerability of the new 30 mg/mL strength to the currently marketed 15 mg/mL strength were established in this study.

A Randomized, Open-Label, 3-Way Crossover Study to Demonstrate Bioequivalence of Sildenafil Powder for Oral Suspension With Tablets Used Commercially and in Clinical Studies for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Sildenafil citrate (Revatio) is approved for pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in the European Union. A new pediatric formulation, 10 mg/mL sildenafil citrate powder for oral suspension (POS), was developed for pediatric PAH patients. Bioequivalence among the POS suspension (20 mg), the Revatio 20-mg commercial tablet, and the sildenafil citrate 2 × 10-mg clinical trial tablets was assessed. In this randomized, open-label study, 42 healthy adult volunteers received the 3 different sildenafil treatments, each in a single 20-mg oral dose, using a 3-way crossover design. Blood samples were collected at predefined times and analyzed for sildenafil plasma concentrations. Natural log-transformed sildenafil pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax , AUClast , and AUC∞ ) were evaluated for bioequivalence using a mixed-effects model. Results were used to estimate relative bioavailability and construct 90% confidence intervals (CIs). Bioequivalence was concluded if the 90% CIs for Cmax , AUClast , and AUC∞ were wholly contained within 80% to 125%. All 90% CIs for the ratios of adjusted geometric means of Cmax , AUClast , and AUC∞ were within 80% to 125%, the prespecified bioequivalence criteria. All 3 formulations were well tolerated. In conclusion, the POS suspension, the commercial 20-mg Revatio tablet, and the 10-mg sildenafil tablets were all bioequivalent to one another when given at the equal doses.

Abstract 763: A phase 1 open-label study to investigate the potential drug-drug interaction (DDI) between single-dose (SD) dacomitinib (PF-00299804; DC) and steady-state (SS) paroxetine (PX) in healthy volunteers (HVs)

Introduction: DC, a small molecule, pan-HER inhibitor, is partly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6. Concomitant administration with therapeutic agents that are inhibitors of CYP2D6 could potentially cause DDIs. This study evaluated the effect of PX, a potent CYP2D6 inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of DC in HVs who were extensive CYP2D6 metabolizers. The safety and tolerability of SD DC was also assessed when given alone and co-administered with PX. Methods: In this Phase 1, single fixed-sequence, 2-period study, 14 HVs received a 45 mg SD of DC alone (Period 1). After a 21-day washout, 30 mg of PX was given daily for 10 days (Period 2) and on Day 4, a 45 mg SD of DC was co-administered with PX. Blood samples were collected up to 240 h post DC dose in both periods and analyzed for DC, its CYP2D6 metabolite PF-05199265, and PX using validated high performance liquid chromatographic tandem mass spectrometric methods. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. Analysis of variance was performed on natural log transformed AUC and Cmax to estimate adjusted mean treatment differences and 90% confidence intervals (CI) which were exponentiated to produce the adjusted geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% CI of the ratios. Results: 14 males (median age 41 [23-54] yrs; 9 black, 5 Caucasian) were evaluated for PK and safety. The GMR and 90% CI of AUCinf and Cmax for DC when given as DC + PX vs DC alone was 137.2% (109.1%, 172.6%) and 110% (82.9%, 145.1%), respectively. Median Tmax of DC was 8 and 10 h post dose, and its half-life was 96 and 90 h, in the presence and absence of PX, respectively. Total exposure (AUC240) to PF-05199265 was decreased in the presence of SS PX (33.5 vs 322 ng.hr/mL). There were no serious adverse events (AEs), severe AEs, or deaths during the study. The majority of AEs were mild (including all 14 events reported during DC treatment alone) and resolved. Conclusions: PX inhibited DC metabolism resulting in 90% reduction in exposure (AUC240) of the CYP2D6 metabolite, PF-05199265. No meaningful change in absorption was observed when DC was given with SS concentrations of PX. DC seems to present a low extraction profile and high variability during the absorption phase, the latter probably due to its physicochemical characteristics (BCS Class II). In the presence of PX, there was an approximate 37% increase in DC exposure (AUCinf) with a wide CI, reflecting large intra-subject variability. The DC change in exposure reported in this study is likely to be less in the clinical setting (45 mg QD). As the exposure of DC reported in the presence of PX is within the range shown to be tolerated and efficacious, no dose adjustment is recommended for DC when administered concomitantly with a CYP2D6 inhibitor, such as PX. SD DC administered alone and in combination with PX was well tolerated.

Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 763. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-763

The impact of calories and fat content of meals on oral ziprasidone absorption: a randomized, open-label, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Food is known to increase the bioavailability of ziprasidone. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of meals of differing caloric and fat content on steady-state ziprasidone exposure in a stable, treated group of subjects with DSM-IV diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, or psychotic disorder (not otherwise specified) who were already receiving oral ziprasidone as their standard therapy.

METHOD

Patients took ziprasidone under 6 meal conditions in randomized sequences (fasted, low calorie/low fat, low calorie/high fat, medium calorie/high fat, high calorie/low fat, and high calorie/high fat); each crossover period was separated by at least 3 days for washout of the previous meal condition. Serial blood samples were obtained over the 12 hours postdose. The study was conducted from July 27 to September 28 of 2006.

RESULTS

Maximum ziprasidone exposures in this study were observed with high-calorie meals (1000 kcal), which were nearly twice those observed under fasting conditions. The medium-calorie meal (500 kcal) was associated with exposures similar to the high-calorie meals. Low-calorie meals (250 kcal) were associated with exposures that were approximately 60% to 90% lower than those of medium- and high-calorie meals, and approached exposures seen under fasting conditions. Fat content of the meal had no significant effect on ziprasidone absorption. The ziprasidone exposures observed with medium- and high-calorie meals had less variability than those with low-calorie meals and under fasting conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm that ziprasidone should be taken with food and that a meal equal to or greater than 500 kcal, irrespective of fat content, is required for optimal and reproducible bioavailability of the administered dose.

Significant decrease in nelfinavir systemic exposure after omeprazole coadministration in healthy subjects

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of omeprazole on the multiple-dose (steady-state) pharmacokinetics and safety of nelfinavir, and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of nelfinavir when administered alone and with omeprazole.

DESIGN

Open-label, two-period, single-fixed-sequence study.

SETTING

Clinical research unit of a large, teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty healthy volunteers (mean age 26 +/- 9 yrs, range 18-48 yrs). Intervention. Subjects received nelfinavir 1250 mg every 12 hours for 4 days (period 1). After a 7-day washout period, subjects were coadministered nelfinavir 1250 mg every 12 hours and omeprazole 40 mg every 24 hours for 4 days (period 2).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and its active metabolite M8 were determined on day 4 of both periods. Plasma samples were assayed by a high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet method for nelfinavir and M8 concentrations, and noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by using analytical software. In the presence of omeprazole, nelfinavir area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (AUC(tau)), maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)), and minimum observed plasma concentration (C(min)) were reduced by an average of 36%, 37%, and 39%, respectively, relative to administration of nelfinavir alone. The AUC(tau), C(max), and C(min) of M8 were reduced by an average of 92%, 89%, and 75%, respectively. The slopes of the terminal elimination phase of nelfinavir and M8 plasma concentration-time curves were similar between treatments. Nelfinavir was well tolerated when administered alone and when coadministered with omeprazole.

CONCLUSION

The observed reduction in the systemic exposure to both nelfinavir and its active metabolite M8 after coadministration with omeprazole could result in loss of virologic control and potential emergence of drug resistance. Hence, omeprazole should not be coadministered to patients taking nelfinavir.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between voriconazole and efavirenz at steady state in healthy male subjects

A randomized, placebo-controlled (with respect to voriconazole), 2-period, multiple-dose intragroup fixed-dose sequence study was conducted in 34 healthy male subjects to evaluate the interactions between voriconazole (triazole antifungal agent) and efavirenz (reverse transcriptase inhibitor). In period 1, subjects received 200 mg twice-daily (bid) voriconazole (n = 17) or placebo (n = 17) for 3 days (400-mg bid loading doses on day 1). In period 2, following a 7-day washout, subjects received 400 mg once-daily (qd) efavirenz alone for 10 days (days 11-20). Then efavirenz was coadministered with 200 mg bid voriconazole or placebo for the next 9 days (days 21-29). Serial plasma voriconazole and efavirenz concentrations were measured on days 3, 19, and 29, and the safety data were collected throughout the study. The 400-mg qd efavirenz dose substantially reduced the steady-state mean voriconazole area under the curve over the dosing interval (AUC0-12) by 80% (90% confidence interval [CI], 75%-84%) and peak concentration (Cmax) by 66% (90% CI, 57%-73%). The decrease in voriconazole exposure during coadministration is probably mainly due to the induction of CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 by efavirenz. The 200 mg bid voriconazole increased the steady-state mean AUC0-24 and Cmax of efavirenz by 43% (90% CI, 36%-51%) and 37% (90% CI, 29%-46%), respectively. The increase in efavirenz exposure during coadministration is probably due to the inhibition of CYP3A4 by voriconazole. Coadministration of 200 mg bid voriconazole with 400 mg (or higher) qd efavirenz is contraindicated due to the clinically significant effect of efavirenz on voriconazole pharmacokinetics.

Steady-state pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of voriconazole and ritonavir in healthy male subjects

Since there is a likelihood of coadministration of voriconazole and ritonavir, two studies were conducted to evaluate the potential of drug interaction. Study A was a randomized, placebo-controlled, two-period, parallel-group trial (n = 34). Study B had the same design without the placebo group (n = 17). In period 1, subjects received 200 mg voriconazole or placebo twice daily (BID) for 3 days (400 mg BID on day 1). In period 2, following a 7-day washout, subjects received ritonavir alone at 400 mg BID (study A) or 100 mg BID (study B) for 10 days (days 11 to 20), and then ritonavir was coadministered with 200 mg BID voriconazole or placebo for the next 10 days (days 21 to 30). Serial plasma samples were collected on days 3, 20, and 30, and safety data were collected throughout the study. High-dose (400 mg BID) ritonavir substantially reduced the steady-state mean voriconazole exposure (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h [AUC(0-12)], -82%; maximum concentration [C(max)], -66%). However, the effect of low-dose (100 mg BID) ritonavir was less pronounced (AUC(0-12), -39%; C(max), -24%). The decrease in voriconazole exposure was probably due to the induction of CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 by ritonavir. It is interesting that one subject in each study exhibited the opposite effect of ritonavir on voriconazole exposure (a 2.5- to 3-fold increase), probably due to lack of CYP2C19. Voriconazole had no apparent effect on the exposure of high-dose ritonavir but slightly decreased the exposure of low-dose ritonavir (AUC(0-12), -14%; C(max), -24%). The safety profile of combination therapy was not notably different from that of voriconazole or ritonavir alone. Due to the significant effect of ritonavir on voriconazole exposure, coadministration of voriconazole with 400 mg BID ritonavir is contraindicated; coadministration with 100 mg BID ritonavir should be avoided, unless an assessment of the benefit/risk to the patient justifies the use.