First clinical trials of the inhaled epithelial sodium channel inhibitor BI 1265162 in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) represents a mutation-agnostic therapeutic approach to restore airway surface liquid hydration and mucociliary clearance in patients with cystic fibrosis. BI 1265162 is an inhaled ENaC inhibitor with demonstrated preclinical efficacy. METHODS: Three phase I trials of BI 1265162 in healthy male subjects are presented: NCT03349723 (single-rising-dose trial evaluating safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK)); NCT03576144 (multiple-rising-dose trial evaluating safety, tolerability and PK); and NCT03907280 (absolute bioavailability trial). RESULTS: BI 1265162 single doses ≤1200 µg and multiple doses of 600 µg were well tolerated. Adverse events were balanced across treatment groups, were of mainly mild or moderate intensity and resolved by trial-end. One subject discontinued from trial medication on day 7 (asymptomatic hyperkalaemia adverse event; recovered day 8). One subject experienced a serious adverse event (neuropathia vestibularis) leading to hospitalisation and missed one of the four dosing periods. Both events were not considered to be drug-related and subjects recovered. BI 1265162 displayed dose-proportional, time-independent PK; maximum accumulation was 1.6-fold; calculated effective elimination half-life was 3.6-8.7 h over the dose ranges tested. Renal excretion was not a major drug elimination route. Oral and inhaled dosing (±activated oral charcoal) absolute bioavailability was 0.50% and ∼40%, respectively. CONCLUSION: BI 1265162 single or multiple doses up to 6.5 days were well tolerated. Systemic exposures mainly represent drug absorbed through the lungs and not the gastrointestinal tract, with ∼40% of the inhaled dose reaching the systemic circulation. Accumulation was minimal. Twice-daily dosing is supported for future development.

Investigation of the predictive validity of laser-EPs in normal, UVB-inflamed and capsaicin-irritated skin with four analgesic compounds in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: The aim of the present study was to assess the predictivity of laser-(radiant-heat)-evoked potentials (LEPs) from the vertex electroencephalogram, using an algesimetric procedure, testing the anti-nociceptive/anti-hyperalgesic effects of single oral doses of four marketed analgesics (of different compound classes) vs. placebo, in healthy volunteers with three skin types. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, single-blind, five-way-crossover trial. Twenty-five healthy male/female Caucasians were included (receiving celecoxib 200 mg, pregabalin 150 mg, duloxetine 60 mg, lacosamide 100 mg or placebo) in a Williams design, with CO2 laser-induced painful stimuli to normal, ultraviolet (UV) B-inflamed and capsaicin-irritated skin. LEPs and visual analogue scale ratings were taken at baseline and hourly for 6 h postdose from all three skin types. RESULTS: In normal skin, the averaged postdose LEP peak-to-peak-(PtP)-amplitudes were reduced by pregabalin (-2.68 µV; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.16, 1.19) and duloxetine (-1.73 µV; 95% CI -3.21, -0.26) but not by lacosamide and celecoxib vs. placebo. On UVB-irradiated skin, reflecting inflammatory pain, celecoxib induced a pronounced reduction in LEP PtP amplitudes vs. placebo (-6.2 µV; 95% CI -7.88, -4.51), with a smaller reduction by duloxetine (-4.54 µV; 95% CI -6.21, -2.87) and pregabalin (-3.72 µV; 95% CI -5.40, -2.04), whereas lacosamide was inactive. LEP PtP amplitudes on capsaicin-irritated skin, reflecting peripheral/spinal sensitization, as in neuropathic pain, were reduced by pregabalin (-3.78 µV; 95% CI -5.31, -2.25) and duloxetine (-2.32 µV; 95% CI -3.82, -0.82) but not by celecoxib or lacosamide vs. placebo, which was in agreement with known clinical profiles. Overall, PtP amplitude reductions were in agreement with subjective ratings. CONCLUSIONS: LEP algesimetry is sensitive to analgesics with different modes of action and may enable the effects of novel analgesics to be assessed during early clinical development.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Twice Daily and Once Daily Regimens of Empagliflozin in Healthy Subjects.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare the steady-state pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of empagliflozin 5 mg twice daily (BID) and 10 mg once daily (QD) in healthy subjects. METHODS: In an open-label, 2-way crossover study, subjects (n = 16) received empagliflozin 5 mg BID for 5 days and empagliflozin 10 mg QD for 5 days in a randomized order, with a washout period of ≥6 days between each treatment. The primary objective was the comparison of the overall exposure during a 24-hour period at steady state (AUC0-24,ss) for empagliflozin, based on standard bioequivalence criteria, with BID and QD dose regimens. FINDINGS: The study population comprised 7 (43.8%) men and 9 (56.3%) women with a baseline median age of 38.0 years (range, 23-47 years) and a median body mass index of 23.3 kg/m(2) (range, 19.8-27.8 kg/m(2)). Based on standard bioequivalence criteria, there was no difference in the overall exposure of empagliflozin between BID and QD dose regimens (geometric mean ratio of AUC0-24,ss for empagliflozin 5 mg BID compared with empagliflozin 10 mg QD = 99.36%; 90% CI, 94.29-104.71). For empagliflozin 10 mg QD, mean (%CV) AUC during the dosing interval was 1900 nmol · h/L (20.6%), mean (%CV) Cmax,ss was 330 nmol/L (25.3%), and median (range) Tmax,ss was 1.0 hour (0.7-2.0 hours). For empagliflozin 5 mg BID, mean (%CV) AUC during the dosing interval was 1010 nmol · h/L (15.1%) and 867 nmol · h/L (18.6%) after the morning and evening dose, respectively, mean (%CV) Cmax,ss was 193 nmol/L (16.5%) and 120 nmol/L (21.0%), respectively, and median Tmax,ss was 1.0 hour (range, 0.7-2.0 hours) and 2.0 hours (range, 1.0-4.0 hours), respectively. The mean (%CV) cumulative amount of glucose excreted in urine during 24 hours was 52.1 g (32.1%) with empagliflozin 5 mg BID and 43.9 g (30.3%) with empagliflozin 10 mg QD. Adverse events were reported in six subjects (37.5%) receiving empagliflozin 5 mg BID and four (25.0%) receiving empagliflozin 10 mg QD. Headache was the most frequent AE. No severe, serious, or drug-related AEs were reported. IMPLICATIONS: There were no clinically relevant differences in pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties between BID and QD dose regimens of empagliflozin in healthy subjects. Both dose regimens were well tolerated. EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) number: 2009-012524-90.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of afatinib with rifampicin and ritonavir.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Afatinib is a potent, irreversible, ErbB family blocker in clinical development for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic head and neck cancer, and other solid tumours. As afatinib is a substrate for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) pump transporter the three studies presented here investigated the pharmacokinetics of afatinib in the presence of a potent inhibitor (ritonavir) or inducer [rifampicin (rifampin)] of P-gp. METHODS: We conducted phase I, open-label, single-centre studies in healthy male volunteers who received a single once-daily oral dose of afatinib (20 or 40 mg) together with either ritonavir or rifampicin; two studies had a randomised, two- and three-way crossover design and the third was a non-randomised, two-period sequential study. RESULTS: When afatinib 20 mg was administered 1 h after ritonavir, afatinib geometric mean (gMean) maximum plasma concentration (C max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC∞) increased by 38.5 and 47.6 %, respectively. Coadministration of ritonavir either simultaneously or 6 h later than afatinib 40 mg resulted in minimal increase in the afatinib gMean C max and AUC∞ (4.1 and 18.6 % for simultaneous administration with AUC∞ not completely within the bioequivalence limits; 5.1 and 10.8 % for timed administration within the bioequivalence limits). Administration of afatinib 40 mg in the presence of rifampicin led to reduction in C max and AUC∞ by 21.6 and 33.8 %, respectively. In all studies, P-gp modulation mainly affected the extent of absorption of afatinib; there was no change in the terminal elimination half-life. The overall safety profile of afatinib was acceptable. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of potent P-gp modulators had no clinically relevant effect on afatinib exposure. Effects of potent P-gp inhibitors were minimal at higher afatinib doses and can be readily managed by the timing of concomitant therapy. As afatinib is not a relevant modulator or substrate of cytochrome P450 enzymes, the drug-drug interaction potential is considered to be low.

The sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin does not prolong QT interval in a thorough QT (TQT) study.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin is a potent, selective sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in development as an oral antidiabetic treatment. This QT interval study assessed potential effects of empagliflozin on ventricular repolarisation and other electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters. METHODS: A randomised, placebo-controlled, single-dose, double-blind, five-period crossover study incorporating a novel double-placebo period design to reduce sample size, while maintaining full statistical power. TREATMENTS: single empagliflozin doses of 25 mg (therapeutic) and 200 mg (supratherapeutic), matching placebo and open-label moxifloxacin 400 mg (positive control). Triplicate 12-lead ECGs of 10 second duration were recorded at baseline and during the first 24 hours after dosing. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline (MCfB) in the population heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTcN) between 1-4 hours after dosing. RESULTS: Thirty volunteers (16 male, 14 female, mean [range] age: 34.5 [18-52] years) were randomised. The placebo-corrected MCfB in QTcN 1-4 hours after dosing was 0.6 (90% CI: -0.7, 1.9) ms and -0.2 (-1.4, 0.9) ms for empagliflozin 25 mg and 200 mg, respectively, below the ICH E14 defined threshold of regulatory concern 10 ms. Assay sensitivity was confirmed by a placebo-corrected MCfB in QTcN 2-4 hours post-dose of 12.4 (10.7, 14.1) ms with moxifloxacin 400 mg. Empagliflozin tolerability was good for all volunteers; 23.3% experienced adverse events (AEs) with empagliflozin and 27.6% with placebo. The most frequent AE was nasopharyngitis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Single doses of empagliflozin 25 mg and 200 mg were not associated with QTcN prolongation and were well tolerated in healthy volunteers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01195675.

Pharmacokinetics of empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, coadministered with sitagliptin in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized, open-label, crossover study investigated potential drug-drug interactions between the sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor empagliflozin and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin. Empagliflozin is a potent and selective SGLT-2 inhibitor that lowers blood glucose levels by inhibiting renal glucose reabsorption, leading to an increase in urinary glucose excretion. Sitagliptin lowers blood glucose through an insulin-dependent mechanism of action. METHODS: Sixteen healthy male volunteers received three treatments (A, B, C) in one of two treatment sequences (AB then C, or C then AB). In treatment AB, 50 mg empagliflozin was administered once daily (q.d.) for 5 days (treatment A), immediately followed by coadministration of 50 mg empagliflozin q.d. and 100 mg sitagliptin q.d. over 5 days (treatment B). In treatment C, 100 mg sitagliptin was administered q.d. for 5 days. A washout period of ≥7 days separated treatments AB and C. RESULTS: Coadministration of sitagliptin with empagliflozin did not have a clinically relevant effect on the area under the concentration-time curve of the analyte in plasma at steady state over a uniform dosing interval τ (AUC(τ,ss)) (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 110.4; 90% confidence interval [CI] 103.9, 117.3) or maximum measured concentration of the analyte in plasma at steady state over a uniform dosing interval τ (C (max,ss)) (GMR 107.6; 90% CI 97.0, 119.4) of empagliflozin. Coadministration of empagliflozin with sitagliptin did not have a clinically meaningful effect on the AUC(τ,ss) (GMR 103.1; 90% CI 98.9, 107.3) or C (max,ss) (GMR 108.5; 90% CI 100.7, 116.9) of sitagliptin. Empagliflozin and sitagliptin were well tolerated when given alone or in combination. Five subjects (31.3%) reported at least one adverse event (AE): three (18.8%) experienced an AE while receiving empagliflozin monotherapy and three (18.8%) while receiving sitagliptin monotherapy. No adverse events were reported during the coadministration period. No AEs were regarded as drug-related by the investigator. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that empagliflozin and sitagliptin can be coadministered without dose adjustments.