Guselkumab in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Study evaluated the efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an interleukin-23p19 subunit antagonist, in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) with prior inadequate response and/or intolerance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and/or advanced therapy. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, induction study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive intravenous guselkumab 200 or 400 mg or placebo at weeks 0/4/8. The primary endpoint was clinical response (compared with baseline, modified Mayo score decrease ≥30% and ≥2 points, rectal bleeding subscore ≥1-point decrease or subscore of 0/1) at week 12. Guselkumab and placebo week-12 clinical nonresponders received subcutaneous or intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, respectively, at weeks 12/16/20 (uncontrolled study period). RESULTS: The primary analysis population included patients with baseline modified Mayo scores ≥5 and ≤9 (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg, n = 101; 400 mg, n = 107; placebo, n = 105). Week-12 clinical response percentage was greater with guselkumab 200 mg (61.4%) and 400 mg (60.7%) vs placebo (27.6%; both P < .001). Greater proportions of guselkumab-treated vs placebo-treated patients achieved all major secondary endpoints (clinical remission, symptomatic remission, endoscopic improvement, histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement, and endoscopic normalization) at week 12. Among guselkumab week-12 clinical nonresponders, 54.3% and 50.0% of patients in the 200- and 400-mg groups, respectively, achieved clinical response at week 24. Safety was similar among guselkumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab intravenous induction was effective vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active UC. Guselkumab was safe, and efficacy and safety were similar between guselkumab dose groups. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number: NCT04033445.

An Open-Label Crossover Study of the Pharmacokinetics of the 60-mg Edoxaban Tablet Crushed and Administered Either by a Nasogastric Tube or in Apple Puree in Healthy Adults.

BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is an orally active, direct factor Xa inhibitor indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of the edoxaban 60-mg tablet crushed and administered via a nasogastric tube in a water suspension or orally mixed in apple puree. METHODS: This phase 1, open-label, crossover study randomized 30 healthy adults to receive three edoxaban treatment regimens (oral 60-mg edoxaban tablet, or 60-mg edoxaban tablet crushed and administered via a nasogastric tube or orally in apple puree) in one of six treatment sequences. RESULTS: Total edoxaban exposure was similar between the intact and crushed tablet regimens (mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity: whole tablet, 2132 ng·h/mL; nasogastric tube, 2021 ng·h/mL; apple puree, 2076 ng·h/mL). Mean maximum plasma concentration, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the time of the last measurable concentration, terminal half-life, and apparent total body clearance values were also similar. Time to maximum plasma concentration was significantly shorter for the nasogastric tube suspension and apple puree vs. the whole tablet [Hodges-Lehmann estimate of median difference (90% confidence interval): -0.75 (-1.25, -0.28); p = 0.0003 and -0.62 (-0.99, -0.26); p = 0.0024, respectively]. The maximum plasma concentation, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity, and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the time of the last measurable concentration were similar between treatment regimens; 90% confidence interval of the geometric least-squares means ratios were within the predefined 80-125% bioequivalence criterion. The safety and tolerability of edoxaban did not differ between treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: The results support the use of edoxaban tablets crushed and administered either via a nasogastric tube or orally mixed in apple puree in patients who are unable to swallow solid oral dose formulations.

A single supratherapeutic dose of rolofylline does not prolong the QTcF interval in healthy volunteers.

Rolofylline is a potent, selective adenosine A1 receptor antagonist that was under development for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure and renal function impairment. The 30-mg dose of rolofylline administered by intravenous infusion over 4 hours for 3 days represented the anticipated recommended clinical regimen of rolofylline. This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study performed with a single 2-hour intravenous infusion of 60 mg rolofylline, placebo, or oral moxifloxacin in healthy subjects. Plasma samples were collected for determination of rolofylline, M1-trans, and M1-cis pharmacokinetic parameters. The upper limit of the two-sided 90% confidence interval for the placebo-adjusted least squares mean change from baseline in QTcF interval for rolofylline was less than 5 msec at every time point. Moxifloxacin demonstrated an increase in QTcF of greater than 10 msec at 2, 2.5, and 3 hours postdose, thus establishing the sensitivity of the assay to detect modest increases in QTcF interval. Mean Cmax values of 1947.4, 739.2, and 54.8 nM were attained for rolofylline and its metabolites M1-trans and M1-cis, respectively, which were 2.2- to 3.1-fold higher than historic Cmax values seen at the anticipated clinical dose and regimen. Adenosine A1 receptor antagonism from a single supratherapeutic intravenous dose of 60 mg rolofylline over 2 hours was generally well tolerated and did not prolong the QTcF interval relative to placebo.

The effects of multiple doses of rolofylline on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of midazolam in healthy subjects.

Rolofylline is a potent, selective adenosine A1 receptor antagonist that was under development for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure and renal function impairment. This was a phase I, randomized, open-label, 2-period, fixed-sequence study in 19 healthy adult volunteers to examine the effect of multiple intravenous rolofylline doses on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of midazolam, a sensitive CYP3A4 substrate. In period 1, subjects received a single oral dose of midazolam 7.5 mg on day 1. In period 2, subjects received 30 mg, 4-hour infusions of rolofylline (intended clinical dose and duration) once daily for 4 consecutive days; midazolam 7.5 mg was coadministered on day 4. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for AUC0-infinity and Cmax of midazolam in the presence/absence of rolofylline were 1.20 (1.12-1.29) and 1.17 (1.03-1.32), respectively. The apparent terminal half-life (t1/2) for midazolam was similar in the presence/absence of rolofylline (4.31 and 4.27 hours, respectively). The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for AUC0-infinity and Cmax of 1'-hydroxymidazolam in the presence/absence of rolofylline were 1.04 (0.96-1.13) and 0.98 (0.84-1.14), respectively. The t1/2 for 1'-hydroxymidazolam was slightly higher in the presence relative to absence of rolofylline (4.24 and 3.17 hours, respectively). Multiple doses of intravenous rolofylline 30 mg for 4 days were generally well tolerated and did not result in clinically important inhibition of CYP3A4 as indicated by little or no change in the pharmacokinetics of midazolam.