Noncompartmental Analysis Methods Research Articles

Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Two Formulations of Azithromycin Tablets: A Randomized, Single-Dose, Three-Period, Crossover Study in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under Fasting and Fed Conditions.

Azithromycin is the first azalide antibiotic that is related to the macrolide family of antibiotics. Bioequivalence studies in China are initiated by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), which supports a generic consistency evaluation program for ensuring that generic products manufactured in China meet the required standards and provide equivalent therapeutic effects to their reference products. This study aimed to assess the bioequivalence of two azithromycin tablets under both fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese volunteers. This was a single-center, open-label, single-dose, randomized, three-way crossover trial with two independent groups (fasting group and fed group). A total of 72 healthy Chinese subjects (36 subjects in the fasting state and 36 subjects in the fed state) were enrolled and randomized to treatment. Blood samples were collected from 0 to 120 h after a single oral dose of a 250-mg generic azithromycin tablet (test, T) or branded azithromycin tablet (reference, R). The plasma concentrations of azithromycin were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC‒MS/MS). A non-compartmental analysis method was used to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters. Adverse events were documented. In a fasting state, the bioequivalence of maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was evaluated using the reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) approach (within-subject standard deviation, SWR >0.294), and the bioequivalence of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last measurable plasma concentration (AUC0-t) and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) were evaluated by the average bioequivalence (ABE) method (SWR < 0.294). The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of T/R for Cmax was 106.49%, while the 95% upper confidence bound was < 0. The GMRs of AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 103.34% and 101.28%, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the test/reference were 95.90-111.35%/94.85-108.15%, respectively. In the fed state, the RSABE approach was applied to estimate the bioequivalence of Cmax (SWR >0.294), and the ABE approach was applied to estimate the bioequivalence of AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ (SWR < 0.294). The GMR for Cmax was 99.80%, while the 95% upper confidence bound value was < 0. The GMRs of AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 97.07% and 98.15%, and the 90% CIs of the T/R were 90.02-104.68% and 90.66-106.25%, respectively. All adverse events were mild and transient. The trial indicated that the test and the reference azithromycin tablets were bioequivalent and well tolerated in healthy Chinese volunteers under both fasting and fed conditions. Clinicaltrials, ChiCTR2300071630 (retrospectively registered in 19/05/2023).

A single-dose, randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover equivalence trial comparing the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar rupatadine fumarate to reference Wystamm® in healthy Chinese subjects.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of two formulations of rupatadine (10-mg tablets) under fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese subjects. A total of 72 subjects were randomly assigned to the fasting cohort (n = 36) and fed cohort (n = 36). Each cohort includes four single-dose observation periods and 7-day washout intervals. Blood samples were collected at several timepoints for up to 72h post-dose. The plasma concentration of rupatadine and the major active metabolites (desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine) were analyzed by a validated HPLC-MS/MS method. The non-compartmental analysis method was employed to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters. Based on the within-subject standard deviation of the reference formulation, a reference-scaled average bioequivalence or average bioequivalence method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of the two formulations. For the fasting status, the reference-scaled average bioequivalence method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of the maximum observed rupatadine concentration (Cmax; subject standard deviation > 0.294), while the average bioequivalence method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of the area under the rupatadine concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last detectable concentration (AUC0-t) and from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞). The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the test/reference for Cmax was 95.91%, and the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval was 95.91%. For AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ comparisons, the GMR and 90% confidence interval (CI) were 98.76% (93.88%-103.90%) and 98.71% (93.93%-103.75%), respectively. For the fed status, the subject standard deviation values of Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were all <0.294; therefore, the average bioequivalence method was used. The GMR and 90% CI for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were 101.19% (91.64%-111.74%), 98.80% (94.47%-103.33%), and 98.63% (94.42%-103.03%), respectively. The two-sided 90% CI of the GMR for primary pharmacokinetic endpoints of desloratadine and 3-hydroxydesloratadine was also within 80%-125% for each cohort. These results met the bioequivalence criteria for highly variable drugs. All adverse events (AEs) were mild and transient. The test drug rupatadine fumarate showed a similar safety profile to the reference drug Wystamm® (J. Uriach y Compañía, S.A., Spain), and its pharmacokinetic bioequivalence was confirmed in healthy Chinese subjects based on fasting and postprandial status. http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html, identifier CTR20213217.

Maximum a posteriori Bayesian methods out-perform non-compartmental analysis for busulfan precision dosing

Dose personalization improves patient outcomes for many drugs with a narrow therapeutic index and high inter-individuality variability, including busulfan. Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) and model-based methods like maximum a posteriori Bayesian (MAP) approaches are two methods routinely used for dose optimization. These approaches vary in how they estimate patient-specific pharmacokinetic parameters to inform a dose and the impact of these differences is not well-understood. Using busulfan as an example application and area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) as a target exposure metric, these estimation methods were compared using retrospective patient data (N = 246) and simulated precision dosing treatment courses. NCA was performed with or without peak extension, and MAP Bayesian estimation was performed using either the one-compartment Shukla model or the two-compartment McCune model. All methods showed good agreement on real-world data (correlation coefficients of 0.945–0.998) as assessed by Bland–Altman plots, although agreement between NCA and MAP methods was higher during the first dosing interval (0.982–0.994) compared to subsequent dosing intervals (0.918–0.938). In dose adjustment simulations, both NCA and MAP estimated high target attainment (> 98%) although true simulated target attainment was lower for NCA (63–66%) versus MAP (91–93%). The largest differences in AUC estimation were due to different assumptions for the shape of the concentration curve during the infusion phase, followed by how the methods considered time-dependent clearance and concentration–time points collected in earlier intervals. In conclusion, although AUC estimates between the two methods showed good correlation, in a simulated study, MAP lead to higher target attainment. When changing from one method to another, or changing infusion duration and other factors, optimum estimated exposure targets may require adjusting to maintain a consistent exposure.

1363. Preliminary Safety Results from a Phase 1 First in Human Study of VYD222: an Extended Half-Life Monoclonal Antibody (mAb) in Development for COVID-19 Prevention

Abstract Background VYD222 is a fully human IgG1 mAb demonstrating broad and potent in vitro neutralizing activity across SARS-CoV-2 variants including XBB.1.5. VYD222 is a re-engineered version of adintrevimab, an Fc-modified mAb that has a robust safety data package and demonstrated clinically meaningful results in Phase 2/3 clinical trials for both treatment and prevention of COVID-19 (NCT04805671, NCT04859517). VYD222 is currently in development for COVID-19 prevention. Methods This is an ongoing Phase 1, first in human, blinded, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, single ascending dose study of VYD222 administered as slow intravenous (IV) push to healthy adults aged 18-65 years (NCT05791318). Participants were randomized 8:2 in each of 3 cohorts (n=8 VYD222, n=2 PBO): VYD222 1500 mg, 2500 mg, and 4500 mg. Safety and tolerability will be assessed as incidence of treatment emergent adverse events, including serious adverse events (SAEs). Serum pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters will be calculated for VYD222 using noncompartmental analysis methods. Serum virus neutralizing antibody (sVNA) titers of VYD222 ex vivo against relevant SARS-CoV-2 variants will be assessed using a validated assay. Safety, tolerability, PK, and sVNA titers will be assessed through 12 months post-dose. Here we report preliminary blinded safety results from cohorts 1 and 2. Results Overall, 12 participants received VYD222 or PBO. Through a minimum of 14 days post dose, among 10 participants in cohort 1 (VYD222 1500 mg n=8, PBO n=2), there were 9 AEs (adverse events) reported, all of which were mild in severity and considered unrelated to study drug. No participant experienced SAEs, infusion-related reactions, or hypersensitivity reactions. Through 2 days post dose, 2 sentinel participants in cohort 2 (VYD222 2500 mg n=1, PBO n=1) experienced zero AEs, study drug related AEs, SAEs, infusion-related reactions, or hypersensitivity reactions. Enrollment continues in cohort 2 as of the data cutoff (04/25/2023) for this abstract. Data remain blinded currently. Conclusion To date, a single dose of VYD222, up to 2500 mg IV push, was well tolerated across all healthy participants receiving either VYD222 or PBO in this ongoing phase 1 study. These findings support continued clinical development of VYD222. Disclosures Kathryn Mahoney, PharmD, Invivyd, Inc.: Employee|Invivyd, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Deepali Gupta, BSc, Invivyd, Inc.: Employee|Invivyd, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Yong Li, PhD, Invivyd, Inc.: Employee|Invivyd, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Natalia Betancourt, MS, Invivyd, Inc.: Employee|Invivyd, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Aanika Das, PharmD, Invivyd, Inc.: Employee|Invivyd, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Ed Campanaro, MS, Invivyd, Inc.: Employee|Invivyd, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds Pete Schmidt, MD, Invivyd, Inc.: Employee|Invivyd, Inc.: Stocks/Bonds

Etoricoxib Coated Tablets: Bioequivalence Assessment between Two Formulations Administered under Fasting Conditions.

Etoricoxib is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with high selectivity for cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2), exerting a pronounced anti-inflammatory effect with fewer adverse events when compared to COX-1 inhibitors. The present study aimed to evaluate the bioequivalence between two etoricoxib-coated tablet formulations to meet regulatory requirements for a branded generic product registration in Brazil. A crossover study with an open-label, randomized design and a single-dose regimen with two treatments and two periods was conducted on healthy Brazilians of both genders. Subjects randomly received a single dose of a 90 mg etoricoxib coated tablet of test product Xumer® 90 mg (Adium S.A.) and the reference product Arcoxia® 90 mg (Merck Sharp & Dohme Farmacêutica Ltda.) under fasting conditions separated by a 14-day period. Blood samples were collected sequentially for up to 96 h following drug administration, and the concentrations of etoricoxib in plasma were determined using a validated UPLC-MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were computed utilizing non-compartmental analysis methods. A total of 32 healthy subjects were enrolled, and 25 subjects completed the study. Geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf were 103.98% (95.63-113.06), 96.82% (91.82-102.09), and 95.79% (90.70-101.16), respectively. In accordance with regulatory standards, the test formulation (Xumer® 90 mg) has been deemed bioequivalent to the reference product (Arcoxia® 90 mg). As a result, these formulations can be considered interchangeable in clinical practice, with both proving to be safe and well-tolerated. The need for in vivo testing for the Xumer® 60 mg strength was waived due to the proportional similarity of the formulations and the similar in vitro dissolution profiles observed across the various strengths.

Pharmacokinetics of Moxidectin combined with Albendazole or Albendazole plus Diethylcarbamazine for Bancroftian Filariasis.

Moxidectin (MOX) is a milbemycin endectocide recently approved by the U.S. FDA for the treatment of onchocerciasis in persons at least 12 years of age. MOX has been shown to have a good safety profile in recent clinical trials. The efficacy of MOX for the treatment of lymphatic filariasis (LF) and its potential use in mass drug administration protocols for the elimination of LF is currently under evaluation. In the context of a clinical trial, we investigated the pharmacokinetics and drug interactions of a combination of MOX plus albendazole (ALB) with or without diethylcarbamazine (DEC) compared to ivermectin (IVM) plus ALB with or without DEC in the following four different treatment arms: (I) IVM (0.2mg/kg) plus DEC (6 mg/kg) and ALB (400mg); (II) IVM plus ALB; (III) MOX (8 mg) plus DEC and ALB; and (IV) MOX plus ALB. Drug concentrations were determined using validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric methods. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using standard non-compartmental analysis methods. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP software. Fifty-eight of 164 study participants (53 men and five women) were included with ages ranging from 18 to 63 yrs (mean = 37). MOX apparent oral clearance (Cl/F) ranged from 0.7 to 10.8 L/hr with Cmax values ranging from 20.8 to 314.5 ng/mL. The mean (range) area under the curve (AUC)0-∞ for MOX, 3405 ng*hr/mL (742-11376), and IVM 1906 ng*hr/mL (692-5900), varied over a ~15.3 and ~8.5-fold range, respectively. The geometric mean ratio for Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ were within the no-drug interaction range of 80-125% for all drugs. This indicates that the addition of MOX to ALB alone or ALB plus DEC for LF therapy did not alter the drug exposure of co-administered drugs compared to IVM combinations. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04410406, https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Limitations of fexofenadine limited sampling strategy using plasma concentrations and partial area under the concentration-time curve to estimate transporter activity in healthy adults.

Fexofenadine is a probe drug used to phenotype P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B1/3 activities. This study evaluated a limited sampling strategy using plasma concentrations and/or partial area under the concentration versus time curves (AUCs) to estimate systemic exposure and, potentially, P-gp and OATP1B1/3 activities. Plasma concentration versus time data were obtained from 53 healthy adult participants (22 females) from four published studies. Participants were administered a single oral dose (120 mg) of fexofenadine during constitutive P-gp and OATP1B1/3 conditions. Concentration-time data were divided into a training (n=18) and validation (n=35) set. Backwards stepwise linear regression generated single-, 2-timepoint, and partial AUC limited sampling models (LSMs). Noncompartmental analysis methods were used to determine total AUC (AUC0-lNF) from intensive sampling. Coefficient of determination (r2) and bias and precision were assessed via relative percent mean prediction error (%MPE), relative percent mean absolute error (%MAE), and relative percent root mean square error (%RMSE). The geometric mean observed AUC0-INF was 1,680 ng×h/mL. The 2-, 5-, and 2- plus 5-hour LSMs met backwards stepwise linear regression significance (p<0.15) to remain in the model but had unacceptable %RMSE (17-29%). The majority of partial AUC LSMs had unacceptable r2 (0.21-0.83), with all models having unacceptable %MAE (12-35%). Fexofenadine limited sampling strategy using single-timepoint, 2-timepoint, and partial AUCs were unable to accurately estimate AUC0-lNF and thus constitutive P-gp and OATB1B1/3 activities in healthy adults. Timepoints that were not measured or selected may have improved LSM performance.

Compartmental model describing the physiological basis for the HepQuant SHUNT test

The HepQuant SHUNT test quantifies hepatic functional impairment from the simultaneous clearance of cholate from the systemic and portal circulations for the purpose of monitoring treatment effects or for predicting risk for clinical outcome. Compartmental models are defined by distribution volumes and transfer rates between volumes to estimate parameters not defined by noncompartmental analyses. Previously, a noncompartmental analysis method, called the minimal model (MM), demonstrated reproducible and reliable measures of liver function (Translational Research 2021). The aim of this study was to compare the reproducibility and reliability of a new physiologically based compartmental model (CM) vs the MM. Data were analyzed from 16 control, 16 nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and 16 hepatitis C virus (HCV) subjects, each with 3 replicate tests conducted on 3 separate days. The CM describes transfer of cholates between systemic, portal, and liver compartments with assumptions from measured or literature-derived values and unknown parameters estimated by nonlinear least-squares regression. The CM was compared to the MM for 6 key indices of hepatic disease in terms of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a lower acceptable limit of 0.7. The CM correlated well with the MM for disease severity index (DSI) with R2 (95% confidence interval) of 0.96 (0.94–0.98, P < 0.001). Acceptable reproducibility (ICC > 0.7) was observed for 6/6 and 5/6 hepatic disease indices for CM and MM, respectively. SHUNT, a measure of the absolute bioavailability, had ICC of 0.73 (0.60–0.83, P = 0.3095) for MM and 0.84 (0.76–0.90, P = 0.0012) for CM. The CM, but not the MM, allowed determination of anatomic shunt and hepatic extraction and improved the within individual reproducibility.

Impact of Azithromycin on Forsythiaside Pharmacokinetics in Rats: A Population Modeling Method.

ObjectiveLianhuaqingwen and Shuanghuanglian are drug treatment options for Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In China, use of traditional Chinese medicine with Shuanghuanglian or Lianhuaqingwen (for them, forsythiaside is the active antiviral and antibacterial component) in combination with azithromycin is common for the treatment of pediatric pneumonia. It is important to understand the reason why the combination of these compounds is better than a single drug treatment. This study aimed to explore the pharmacokinetic interaction between forsythiaside and azithromycin.MethodsTwelve male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into an experimental group (Forsythia suspensa extract and azithromycin) and a control group (a single dose of Forsythia suspensa extract in 5% glucose solution). Plasma samples were collected at scheduled time points, and the high-performance liquid chromatography combined with ultraviolet method was used to determine the plasma forsythiaside concentration. Non-compartmental analysis and population pharmacokinetic methods were used to investigate the forsythiaside pharmacokinetic difference between the experimental and control group.ResultsCompared with a single administration, the area under the curve and half-life of forsythiaside increased, and forsythiaside clearance decreased significantly after co-administration with azithromycin. The in vivo behavior of forsythiaside could be described by the one compartment model. The forsythiaside clearance decreased when combined with azithromycin. Visual evaluation and bootstrap results suggested that the final model was precise and stable.ConclusionCo-administration of azithromycin can significantly decrease the forsythiaside clearance and increase drug exposure. A lower dose of azithromycin can obtain sufficient forsythiaside concentration to provide antiviral and antibacterial activity.

Clinical and Preclinical Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics of VIR-2218, an RNAi Therapeutic Targeting HBV Infection.

Background and ObjectiveVIR-2218 is an investigational N-acetylgalactosamine–conjugated RNA interference therapeutic in development for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. VIR-2218 was designed to silence HBV transcripts across all genotypes and uses Enhanced Stabilization Chemistry Plus (ESC+) technology.This study was designed to evaluate the single-dose pharmacokinetics of VIR-2218 in preclinical species and healthy volunteers.MethodsPreclinically, a single subcutaneous dose of VIR-2218 (10 mg/kg) was administered to rats and nonhuman primates (NHPs), and the pharmacokinetics were assessed in plasma, urine, and liver using standard noncompartmental analysis (NCA) methods. Clinically, healthy volunteers were randomized (6:2 active:placebo) to receive a single subcutaneous dose of VIR-2218 (50–900 mg) or placebo. Pharmacokinetics were similarly assessed within human plasma and urine using NCA methods.ResultsIn rats and NHPs, VIR-2218 was stable in plasma and was converted to AS(N-1)3’VIR-2218, the most prominent circulating metabolite, at < 10% plasma exposure compared with parent. VIR-2218 rapidly distributed to the liver, reaching peak liver concentrations within 7 and 24 h in rats and NHPs, respectively. In humans, VIR-2218 was rapidly absorbed, with a median time to peak plasma concentration (tmax) of 4–7 h, and had a short median plasma half-life of 2–5 h. Plasma exposures for area under the plasma concentration–time curve up to 12 h (AUC0–12) and mean maximum concentrations (Cmax) increased in a slightly greater-than-dose-proportional manner across the dose range studied. Interindividual pharmacokinetic variability was low to moderate, with a percent coefficient of variation of < 32% for AUC and < 43% for Cmax. A portion of VIR-2218 was converted to an active metabolite, AS(N-1)3’VIR-2218, with a median tmax of 6–10 h, both of which declined below the lower limit of quantification in plasma within 48 h. The pharmacokinetic profile of AS(N-1)3’VIR-2218 was similar to that of VIR-2218, with plasma AUC0–12 and Cmax values ≤ 12% of VIR-2218. VIR-2218 and AS(N-1)3’VIR-2218 were detectable in urine through the last measured time point, with approximately 17–48% of the administered dose recovered in urine as unchanged VIR-2218 over 0–24 h postdose. Based on pharmacokinetics in preclinical species, VIR-2218 localizes to the liver and likely exhibits prolonged hepatic exposure. Overall, no severe or serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events were observed within the dose range evaluated for VIR-2218 in healthy volunteers (Vir Biotechnology, Inc., unpublished data).ConclusionsVIR-2218 showed favorable pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers supportive of subcutaneous dosing and continued development in patients with chronic HBV infection.Clinical Trial Registration NoNCT03672188, September 14, 2018.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40268-021-00369-w.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modelling and Simulation to Determine the Optimal Dose of Nanoparticulated Sorafenib to the Reference Sorafenib.

Sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, exhibits a highly variable absorption profile due to enterohepatic reabsorption and poor solubility. SYO-1644 improved the solubility of sorafenib by nanoparticulation technology leading to enhanced bioavailability. To evaluate the pharmacokinetically equivalent dose of SYO-1644 to the reference Nexavar® 200 mg, a randomized, open-label, replicated two-period study was conducted in healthy volunteers. A total of 32 subjects orally received a single dose of the following assigned treatment under a fasted state in the first period and repeated once more in the second period with a two-week washout: SYO-1644 100, 150 and 200 mg and Nexavar® 200 mg. Pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were collected up to 168 h post-dose. The PK profile was evaluated by both non-compartmental analysis and population PK method. With the final model, 2 × 2 crossover trial scenarios with Nexavar® 200 mg and each dose of SYO-1644 ranging from 100 to 150 mg were repeated 500 times by Monte Carlo simulation, and the proportion of bioequivalence achievement was assessed. Transit absorption compartments, followed by a one-compartment model with first-order elimination and enterohepatic reabsorption components were selected as the final model. The simulation results demonstrated that the SYO-1644 dose between 120 and 125 mg could yielded the highest proportion of bioequivalence.

Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence of Two Formulations of Valsartan 80 mg Capsules: A Randomized, Single Dose, 4-Period Crossover Study in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under Fasting and Fed Conditions.

PurposeTo compare the bioequivalence of two formulations of valsartan (80 mg capsules) under fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese volunteers using a full-replicate study design.MethodsA total of 78 Subjects were randomly assigned to fasting cohort (n = 48) or fed cohort (n = 30). Each cohort includes 4 single-dose observation periods and 3-day washout periods. Blood samples were collected at designed time point. Plasma concentration of valsartan was analyzed by a validated LC-MS/MS method. Noncompartmental analysis method was employed to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters. Based on the within-subject standard deviation (SWR) of the reference formulation, either reference-scaled average bioequivalence (RSABE) or average bioequivalence (ABE) method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of the two formulations.ResultsUnder fasting conditions, the RSABE method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of Cmax (SWR>0.294), while ABE method was used to evaluate the bioequivalence of AUC0-t and AUC0-∞. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of the test/reference for Cmax was 99.52%, and the 95% upper confidence bound was <0. For AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ comparisons, GMRs were 102.07% and 101.92%, and the 90% CIs of the test/reference were 96.28%–108.21%, 96.28%–107.88%, respectively. Under fed conditions, the SWR value of Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ all exceeded the cutoff value of 0.294 and therefore, the RSABE method was used. The GMRs for Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 98.78%, 103.33% and 103.08%, respectively, while the 95% upper confidence bound values were all <0. These results all met the bioequivalence criteria for highly variable drugs. All adverse events were mild and transient.ConclusionIn this study, the generic formulation of valsartan 80 mg capsule was considered to be bioequivalent to the reference product under both fasting and fed conditions, and satisfied the requirements for marketing in China.NMPA Registration NoCTR20181422.

Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous, Intramuscular, Oral, and Transdermal Administration of Flunixin Meglumine in Pre-wean Piglets.

Castration and tail-docking of pre-wean piglets are common procedures that are known to induce pain and would benefit from pain mitigation. Flunixin meglumine (FM) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug currently approved in the United States for pyrexia in swine and lameness pain in cattle. The objective of this study was to establish the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters resulting from intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), oral (PO) and transdermal (TD) administration of FM in pre-wean piglets. FM was administered to thirty-nine pre-wean piglets at a target dose of 2.2 mg/kg for IV and IM and 3.3 mg/kg for PO and TD route. Plasma was collected at twenty-seven time points from 0 to 9 days after FM administration and concentrations were determined using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS). Pharmacokinetic data were analyzed using noncompartmental analysis (NCA) methods and nonlinear mixed-effects (NLME). Initial plasma concentration for IV (C0) 11,653 μg/L and mean peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) 6,543 μg/L (IM), 4,883 μg/L (PO), and 31.5 μg/L (TD) were measured. The time points of peak FM concentrations (tmax) were estimated 30 min, 1 h, and 24 h for IM, PO, and TD, respectively. The bioavailability (F) of PO and IM FM was estimated at >99%, while the bioavailability of TD FM was estimated to be 7.8%. The reported Cmax of FM after IM and PO administration is consistent with therapeutic concentration ranges that mitigate pain in other species and adult pigs. However, the low estimated concentration of FM after TD dosing is not expected to mitigate pain in pre-wean piglets. The low F of TD FM suggests that expanding the surface area of application is unlikely to be sufficient to establish an effective TD dose for pain, while the high bioavailability for PO FM should allow for an effective dose regimen to be established.

Biomarker Modulation By Mivebresib (ABBV-075) +/- Venetoclax in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Biomarker Modulation By Mivebresib (ABBV-075) +/- Venetoclax in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Lack of a Clinically Significant Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Pregabalin and Thioctic Acid in Healthy Volunteers

PurposePregabalin and thioctic acid are likely to be used concomitantly for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. In this study, the pharmacokinetic interaction between pregabalin and thioctic acid was investigated at steady state. MethodsA randomized, open-label, 6-sequence, 3-period, 3-treatment crossover study was conducted in 42 healthy male volunteers. The volunteers randomly received pregabalin 300 mg BID for 6 times, thioctic acid 600 mg once daily for 3 times, or the combination of pregabalin and thioctic acid. Serial blood samples were collected up to 24 hours after the last dosing in each period. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by using noncompartmental analysis methods. FindingsThe mean concentration–time curves were similar between each drug alone and in combination with the other drug. The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios with and without the co-administered drug for Cmax at steady state and AUC during the dosing interval were well within the conventional bioequivalence range of 0.8 to 1.25, except for Cmax at steady state for thioctic acid, which barely exceeded only the lower bound (0.78–1.15). Co-administered pregabalin and thioctic acid was well tolerated. ImplicationsRepeatedly administered pregabalin and thioctic acid do not interact pharmacokinetically. This study suggests that the combination of pregabalin and thioctic acid can safely be administered concomitantly without dose adjustment. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01808300.

Pharmacokinetics of the Oral Selective CXCR2 Antagonist AZD5069: A Summary of Eight Phase I Studies in Healthy Volunteers

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to summarise the pharmacokinetic findings from eight phase I studies in healthy volunteers given oral AZD5069, a selective small-molecule CXCR2 antagonist.Methods240 healthy volunteers across eight phase I studies received single (0.1–200 mg) or multiple once- or twice-daily (10–120 mg) oral AZD5069 as solution, suspension, capsules or tablets. Pharmacokinetics were evaluated using non-compartmental analysis methods.ResultsAZD5069 was rapidly absorbed (time to maximum concentration ~ 2 h) under fasting conditions. A high-fat, high-calorie meal delayed and reduced the peak plasma AZD5069 concentration (Cmax) by 50%, but total exposure (AUC) was unchanged (fed:fasting geometric mean ratio 90% confidence interval within 0.80–1.25). The plasma concentration of AZD5069 declined with an initial half-life of 4 h and terminal half-life of 11 h. Steady-state plasma concentrations were achieved within 2–3 days and accumulation was ~ 1.1-fold with twice-daily dosing. Systemic exposure was approximately proportional to dose. Intra- and inter-subject variability in AUC was 3–11 and 29–64%, respectively. Less than 5% of the AZD5069 dose was excreted as parent drug in the urine. Elderly subjects had 39% higher AZD5069 AUC and 21% higher Cmax than younger adults. Japanese subjects had similar or slightly higher exposure to AZD5069 than Caucasian subjects. Co-administration with ketoconazole resulted in 2.1-fold higher AUC and 1.6-fold higher Cmax. All formulations had similar bioavailability.ConclusionsAZD5069 demonstrated predictive linear pharmacokinetics with low intra- and moderate inter-subject variability and no major influences from ethnicity, age, food or formulation. Half-life data indicated suitability for twice-daily dosing.Clinicaltrials.gov identifiersNCT00953888, NCT01051505, NCT01083238, NCT01100047, NCT01332903, NCT01480739, NCT01735240, NCT01989520.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40268-018-0236-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmacokinetic study of single- and multiple-dosing with metolazone tablets in healthy Chinese population

BackgroundMetolazone is a diuretic, saluretic and antihypertensive chemical compound from the quinazoline category that possesses medicinal features similar to those of other thiazide diuretic drugs. However, the pharmacokinetics of metolazone in the Chinese population has rarely been studied.This study aimed to examine the pharmacokinetic characteristics, safety characteristic, and tolerability of metolazone in healthy Chinese subjects after single and multiple doses taken orally as well as the effects that food and gender have on oral metolazone pharmacokinetic parameters.MethodsAn open-label, randomized, and single- and multiple-dosing investigation was performed in healthy Chinese subjects. The investigation included 3 study groups: the 0.5 mg, 1 mg and 2 mg dose groups were the single-dose study groups in the first stage. Eligible volunteers were randomly and orally administered a single 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg metolazone tablet. The 0.5 mg dose group was also part of the multiple-dose study group, and the 1 mg dose group was the food-effect study group in the second stage. Human plasma samples were gathered pre-dosing and up to 48 h after dosing. The human plasma sample concentration of metolazone was quantified using a validated liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method. Pharmacokinetic data were calculated by a noncompartmental analysis method using WinNonlin version 6.4. Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events, medical examination, 12-lead ECG, and other clinical laboratory exams.ResultsThirty eligible subjects (15 men and 15 women) were registered in our investigation and completed all of the study stages. The AUC and Cmax showed dose proportionality after a single dose based on the linear-regression analysis. A comparison of the pharmacokinetic data revealed that the differences between the male and female groups were not statistically significant. The tmax of metolazone was increased by approximately 100% in the fed condition. Metolazone was well tolerated at the tested dose, and no adverse effects were observed.ConclusionsSingle dosing with 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg metolazone yielded linear plasma pharmacokinetic properties in healthy Chinese subjects. Multiple oral doses of metolazone did not display significantly different distributions or elimination characteristics from those observed for a single dose. Gender factors did not appear to influence the pharmacokinetic parameter variation of metolazone. The tmax of metolazone increased in the fed condition. Metolazone was well tolerated at the tested dose in this study.Trial registrationThis investigation is retrospectively registered at chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR-IIR-17012929, October 09 2017).

Comparison of non-compartmental and mixed effect modelling methods for establishing bioequivalence for the case of two compartment kinetics and censored concentrations.

Non-compartmental analysis (NCA) is regarded as the standard for establishing bioequivalence, despite its limitations and the existence of alternative methods such as non-linear mixed effects modelling (NLMEM). Comparisons of NCA and NLMEM in bioequivalence testing have been limited to drugs with one-compartment kinetics and have included a large number of different approaches. A simulation tool was developed with the ability to rapidly compare NCA and NLMEM methods in determining bioequivalence using both R and NONMEM and applied to a drug with two-compartment pharmacokinetics. Concentration-time profiles were simulated where relative bioavailability, random unexplained variability (RUV) at the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) differed between simulations. NLMEM analyses employed either the M1 or M3 methods for dealing with values below the LLOQ. It was used to elucidate the impact of changes in (i) RUV at the LLOQ, (ii) the extent of censoring data below the LLOQ and (iii) the concentration sampling times. The simulations showed NLMEM having a consistent 20-40% higher accuracy and sensitivity in identifying bioequivalent studies when compared to NCA, while NCA was found to have a 1-10% higher specificity than NLMEM. Increasing data censoring by increasing the LLOQ resulted in decreases of ~10% to the accuracy and sensitivity of NCA, with minimal effects on NLMEM. The tool provides a platform for comparing NCA and NLMEM methods and its use can be extended beyond the scenarios reported here. In the situations examined it is seen that NLMEM is more accurate than NCA and may offer some advantages in the determination of bioequivalence.

Lack of Clinical Pharmacokinetic Studies to Optimize the Treatment of Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review.

IntroductionNeglected tropical diseases (NTDs) affect more than one billion people, mainly living in developing countries. For most of these NTDs, treatment is suboptimal. To optimize treatment regimens, clinical pharmacokinetic studies are required where they have not been previously conducted to enable the use of pharmacometric modeling and simulation techniques in their application, which can provide substantial advantages.ObjectivesOur aim was to provide a systematic overview and summary of all clinical pharmacokinetic studies in NTDs and to assess the use of pharmacometrics in these studies, as well as to identify which of the NTDs or which treatments have not been sufficiently studied.MethodsPubMed was systematically searched for all clinical trials and case reports until the end of 2015 that described the pharmacokinetics of a drug in the context of treating any of the NTDs in patients or healthy volunteers.ResultsEighty-two pharmacokinetic studies were identified. Most studies included small patient numbers (only five studies included >50 subjects) and only nine (11 %) studies included pediatric patients. A large part of the studies was not very recent; 56 % of studies were published before 2000. Most studies applied non-compartmental analysis methods for pharmacokinetic analysis (62 %). Twelve studies used population-based compartmental analysis (15 %) and eight (10 %) additionally performed simulations or extrapolation. For ten out of the 17 NTDs, none or only very few pharmacokinetic studies could be identified.ConclusionsFor most NTDs, adequate pharmacokinetic studies are lacking and population-based modeling and simulation techniques have not generally been applied. Pharmacokinetic clinical trials that enable population pharmacokinetic modeling are needed to make better use of the available data. Simulation-based studies should be employed to enable the design of improved dosing regimens and more optimally use the limited resources to effectively provide therapy in this neglected area.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-016-0467-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Population pharmacokinetic modeling of glibenclamide in poorly controlled South African type 2 diabetic subjects.

AimThe aim of this study was to describe the pharmacokinetics (PK) of glibenclamide in poorly controlled South African type 2 diabetic subjects using noncompartmental and model-based methods.MethodsA total of 24 subjects with type 2 diabetes were administered increasing doses (0 mg/d, 2.5 mg/d, 5 mg/d, 10 mg/d, and 20 mg/d) of glibenclamide daily at 2-week intervals. Plasma glibenclamide, glucose, and insulin determinations were performed. Blood sampling times were 0 minute, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes, and 120 minutes (post breakfast sampling) and 240 minutes, 270 minutes, 300 minutes, 330 minutes, 360 minutes, and 420 minutes (post lunch sampling) on days 14, 28, 42, 56, and 70 for doses of 0 mg, 2.5 mg, 5.0 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg, respectively. Blood sampling was performed after the steady state was reached. A total of 24 individuals in the data set contributed to a total of 841 observation records. The PK was analyzed using noncompartmental analysis methods, which were implemented in WinNonLin®, and population PK analysis using NONMEM®. Glibenclamide concentration data were log transformed prior to fitting.ResultsA two-compartmental disposition model was selected after evaluating one-, two-, and three-compartmental models to describe the time course of glibenclamide plasma concentration data. The one-compartment model adequately described the data; however, the two-compartment model provided a better fit. The three-compartment model failed to achieve successful convergence. A more complex model, to account for enterohepatic recirculation that was observed in the data, was unsuccessful.ConclusionIn South African diabetic subjects, glibenclamide demonstrates linear PK and was best described by a two-compartmental model. Except for the absorption rate constant, the other PK parameters reported in this study are comparable to those reported in the scientific literature. The study is limited by the small study sample size and inclusion of poorly controlled type 2 diabetic subjects.