Abemaciclib does not increase the corrected QT interval in healthy participants.

Abemaciclib is an orally administered, potent, and selective small molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6, approved for advanced or metastatic breast cancer. This study aimed to use an exposure-response approach to investigate the effect of abemaciclib and its active metabolites (M2 and M20) on QTc interval and delay in cardiac repolarization at clinically relevant exposures. This was a single-blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled study of ascending doses of abemaciclib. Thirty-five healthy participants were administered a single dose of 200-600 mg abemaciclib. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram tracings and pharmacokinetic samples were collected serially pre- and post-dose. The primary objective was to study the relationship between abemaciclib and its active metabolites (M2 and M20) and QTc interval following ascending oral doses of abemaciclib. The secondary objective included evaluating the safety and tolerability of single ascending doses of abemaciclib in healthy participants. Exposure-response analysis demonstrated that there was no significant relationship between placebo-corrected change from baseline QTcF (ΔΔQTcF), abemaciclib, and metabolite plasma concentrations. Additionally, the ΔΔQTcF slopes of abemaciclib, its metabolites, and total analyte concentrations were not statistically different from zero. Single doses of abemaciclib, up to 400 mg, were well-tolerated by healthy participants; however, at the 600 mg dose (three times the highest registered dose), the frequency and severity of treatment-related gastrointestinal events (primarily diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting) increased. In conclusion, single doses of abemaciclib, up to 400 mg, had no statistically or clinically relevant effects on QTc, and abemaciclib was well tolerated up to a dose of 400 mg in this study.

Abemaciclib Inhibits Renal Tubular Secretion Without Changing Glomerular Filtration Rate.

Abemaciclib, an inhibitor of cyclin dependent kinases 4 and 6, is indicated for metastatic breast cancer treatment. Reversible increases in serum creatinine levels of ~15-40% over baseline have been observed following abemaciclib dosing. This study assessed the in vitro and clinical inhibition of renal transporters by abemaciclib and its metabolites using metformin (a clinically relevant transporter substrate), in a clinical study that quantified glomerular filtration and iohexol clearance. In vitro, abemaciclib inhibited metformin uptake by organic cation transporter 2, multidrug and toxin extrusion (MATE)1, and MATE2-K transporters with a half-maximal inhibitory concentration of 0.4-3.8 µM. Clinically, abemaciclib significantly increased metformin exposure but did not significantly affect measured glomerular filtration rate, serum neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), serum cystatin-C, or the urinary markers of kidney tubular injury, NGAL and kidney injury molecule-1.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modelling of Cytochrome P450 2C9-Related Tolbutamide Drug Interactions with Sulfaphenazole and Tasisulam.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9) is involved in the biotransformation of many commonly used drugs, and significant drug interactions have been reported for CYP2C9 substrates. Previously published physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models of tolbutamide are based on an assumption that its metabolic clearance is exclusively through CYP2C9; however, many studies indicate that CYP2C9 metabolism is only responsible for 80-90% of the total clearance. Therefore, these models are not useful for predicting the magnitude of CYP2C9 drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This paper describes the development and verification of SimCYP®-based PBPK models that accurately describe the human pharmacokinetics of tolbutamide when dosed alone or in combination with the CYP2C9 inhibitors sulfaphenazole and tasisulam. METHODS: A PBPK model was optimized in SimCYP® for tolbutamide as a CYP2C9 substrate, based on published in vitro and clinical data. This model was verified to replicate the magnitude of DDI reported with sulfaphenazole and was further applied to simulate the DDI with tasisulam, a small molecule investigated for the treatment of cancer. A clinical study (CT registration # NCT01185548) was conducted in patients with cancer to assess the pharmacokinetic interaction of tasisulum with tolbutamide. A PBPK model was built for tasisulam, and the clinical study design was replicated using the optimized tolbutamide model. RESULTS: The optimized tolbutamide model accurately predicted the magnitude of tolbutamide AUC increase (5.3-6.2-fold) reported for sulfaphenazole. Furthermore, the PBPK simulations in a healthy volunteer population adequately predicted the increase in plasma exposure of tolbutamide in patients with cancer (predicted AUC ratio = 4.7-5.4; measured mean AUC ratio = 5.7). CONCLUSIONS: This optimized tolbutamide PBPK model was verified with two strong CYP2C9 inhibitors and can be applied to the prediction of CYP2C9 interactions for novel inhibitors. Furthermore, this work highlights the utility of mechanistic models in navigating the challenges in conducting clinical pharmacology studies in cancer patients.

Effects of duloxetine on norepinephrine and serotonin transporter activity in healthy subjects.

Duloxetine selectively inhibits the serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) transporters (5-HTT and NET, respectively), as demonstrated in vitro and in preclinical studies; however, transporter inhibition has not been fully assessed in vivo at the approved dose of 60 mg/d. Here, the in vivo effects of dosing with duloxetine 60 mg once daily for 11 days in healthy subjects were assessed in 2 studies: (1) centrally (n = 11), by measuring concentrations of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG), and NE in cerebrospinal fluid, and (2) versus escitalopram 20 mg/d (n = 32) in a 2-period crossover study by assessing the ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma during orthostatic testing and by pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of reuptake inhibition using subjects' serum in cell lines expressing cloned human 5-HTT or NET. At steady state, duloxetine significantly reduced concentrations of DHPG and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (P < 0.05), but not NE, in cerebrospinal fluid; DHPG was also decreased in plasma and urine. The ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma decreased significantly more with duloxetine than escitalopram (65% and 21%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ex vivo reuptake inhibition of 5-HTT was comparable (EC50 = 44.5 nM) for duloxetine and escitalopram, but duloxetine inhibited NET more potently (EC50 = 116 nM and 1044 nM, respectively). Maximal predicted reuptake inhibition for 5-HTT was 84% for duloxetine and 80% for escitalopram, and that for NET was 67% and 14%, respectively. In summary, duloxetine significantly affected 5-HT and NE turnover in the central nervous system and periphery; these effects presumably occurred via inhibition of reuptake by the 5-HTT and NET, as indicated by effects on functional reuptake inhibition ex vivo.

Evaluation of the effects of duloxetine and escitalopram on 24-hour heart rate variability: a mechanistic study using heart rate variability as a pharmacodynamic measure.

A decrease in heart rate variability (HRV) can indicate increased sympathetic nervous system activity and possibly increased norepinephrine levels. In this randomized, placebo- and escitalopram (ESC)-controlled, subject-blind, 2-period, crossover study, 26 healthy subjects 50 to 65 years old received duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg once daily or ESC 20 mg once daily for 11 days, each in sequential study periods separated by a 10-day or more washout period. Continuous electrocardiogram recordings were obtained by Holter monitoring (baseline, day 9, and day 10 of treatment). Duloxetine and ESC did not produce any clinically significant effects on standard measures of HRV, which included SD of normal R-R intervals and the root mean square difference among successive R-R normal intervals index values, mean change in SD of normal R-R intervals, and frequency domain analysis. However, treatment with DLX was associated with significantly less change from baseline in total beats per 24 hours than ESC, which was an unexpected finding compared with previous observations in which vital signs were measured at a specific time point while awake. In conclusion, in healthy adults exposed to DLX or ESC, no clinically significant effects on HRV were observed.

Evaluation of methods for achieving stable INR in healthy subjects during a multiple-dose warfarin study.

PURPOSE: No consistent method is available for finding stable warfarin maintenance doses and fast stabilization of international normalized ratio (INR) values among healthy subjects in experimental warfarin interaction studies. Using data from an earlier study that targeted a stable INR of 1.5-2.0 to test an interaction, we retrospectively evaluated potential dosing algorithms using all methods available to us to decrease the time needed for INR stabilization, which could be useful for future interaction studies in healthy subjects. METHODS: Published pharmacogenetic and clinical dosing algorithms used to initiate pharmacotherapy with warfarin were applied, predicted doses and actual doses were compared by regression analysis, and concentration-time profiles of S-warfarin were simulated using SimCYP® software. RESULTS: No demographic variables were significantly associated with time to reach a stable, low-intensity INR in this population of relatively young, healthy subjects. Predicted and actual doses were positively correlated for the pharmacogenetic algorithm, but not for the clinical algorithm. INR levels and S-warfarin concentrations were associated with CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Induction to a pharmacodynamic steady state for warfarin for future multiple-dose warfarin drug-interaction studies in healthy volunteers may be predicted using a pharmacogenetic-based dosing algorithm. Simulations revealed that the desired subtherapeutic INR level may be achieved by reducing the predicted dose by approximately 15%. Further study is needed to assess the applicability of this approach to decrease attrition rates and the time needed to reach INR stabilization.

Duloxetine: clinical pharmacokinetics and drug interactions.

Duloxetine, a potent reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine, is effective for the treatment of major depressive disorder, diabetic neuropathic pain, stress urinary incontinence, generalized anxiety disorder and fibromyalgia. Duloxetine achieves a maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of approximately 47 ng/mL (40 mg twice-daily dosing) to 110 ng/mL (80 mg twice-daily dosing) approximately 6 hours after dosing. The elimination half-life of duloxetine is approximately 10-12 hours and the volume of distribution is approximately 1640 L. The goal of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may impact the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine with a focus on concomitant medications and their clinical implications. Patient demographic characteristics found to influence the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine include sex, smoking status, age, ethnicity, cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 genotype, hepatic function and renal function. Of these, only impaired hepatic function or severely impaired renal function warrant specific warnings or dose recommendations. Pharmacokinetic results from drug interaction studies show that activated charcoal decreases duloxetine exposure, and that CYP1A2 inhibition increases duloxetine exposure to a clinically significant degree. Specifically, following oral administration in the presence of fluvoxamine, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and C(max) of duloxetine significantly increased by 460% (90% CI 359, 584) and 141% (90% CI 93, 200), respectively. In addition, smoking is associated with a 30% decrease in duloxetine concentration. The exposure of duloxetine with CYP2D6 inhibitors or in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers is increased to a lesser extent than that observed with CYP1A2 inhibition and does not require a dose adjustment. In addition, duloxetine increases the exposure of drugs that are metabolized by CYP2D6, but not CYP1A2. Pharmacodynamic study results indicate that duloxetine may enhance the effects of benzodiazepines, but not alcohol or warfarin. An increase in gastric pH produced by histamine H(2)-receptor antagonists or antacids did not impact the absorption of duloxetine. While duloxetine is generally well tolerated, it is important to be knowledgeable about the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between duloxetine and drugs that inhibit CYP1A2 or drugs that are metabolized by CYP2D6 enzymes.

Effects of duloxetine on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of warfarin at steady state in healthy subjects.

This study evaluated the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of once-daily dosing of warfarin at steady state when taken concomitantly with once-daily doses of duloxetine. Healthy subjects with a stable international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.5 to 2.0 on an individualized fixed dose of warfarin (2-9 mg) in period 1 received daily warfarin and duloxetine (60 mg for 14 days [n = 15] or 60 mg for 4 days, then 120 mg for 10 days [n = 15]) in period 2. Across the 14-day period when warfarin was coadministered with duloxetine, the least squares mean INR changes from baseline (warfarin alone) ranged from -0.05 to +0.07, and the 90% confidence intervals ranged from -0.12 to +0.14. Following coadministration of warfarin with 60 mg duloxetine, but not with 120 mg duloxetine, there was a statistically significant prolongation in bleeding time compared to warfarin alone. For both R- and S-warfarin, the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratios of area under the curve (AUC(tau,ss)) and maximum plasma concentrations (C(max,ss)) between warfarin administered alone and with 60 or 120 mg duloxetine were contained within the bioequivalence limits of 0.8 to 1.25. In conclusion, duloxetine had no clinically or statistically significant effect on the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics of warfarin at steady state.

In vitro and in vivo evaluations of cytochrome P450 1A2 interactions with duloxetine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether duloxetine is a substrate, inhibitor or inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 enzyme, using in vitro and in vivo studies in humans. METHODS: Human liver microsomes or cells with expressed CYP enzymes and specific CYP inhibitors were used to identify which CYP enzymes catalyse the initial oxidation steps in the metabolism of duloxetine. The potential of duloxetine to inhibit CYP1A2 activity was determined using incubations with human liver microsomes and phenacetin, the CYP1A2 substrate. The potential for duloxetine to induce CYP1A2 activity was determined using human primary hepatocytes treated with duloxetine for 72 hours. Studies in humans were conducted using fluvoxamine, a potent CYP1A2 inhibitor, and theophylline, a CYP1A2 substrate, as probes. The subjects were healthy men and women aged 18-65 years. Single-dose duloxetine was administered either intravenously as a 10-mg infusion over 30 minutes or orally as a 60-mg dose in the presence or absence of steady-state fluvoxamine (100 mg orally once daily). Single-dose theophylline was given as 30-minute intravenous infusions of aminophylline 250 mg in the presence or absence of steady-state duloxetine (60 mg orally twice daily). Plasma concentrations of duloxetine, its metabolites and theophylline were determined using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using noncompartmental methods and evaluated using mixed-effects ANOVA. Safety measurements included vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, a physical examination, ECG readings and adverse event reports. RESULTS: The in vitro results indicated that duloxetine is metabolized by CYP1A2; however, duloxetine was predicted not to be an inhibitor or inducer of CYP1A2 in humans. Following oral administration in the presence of fluvoxamine, the duloxetine area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(infinity)) and the maximum plasma drug concentration (C(max)) significantly increased by 460% (90% CI 359, 584) and 141% (90% CI 93, 200), respectively. In the presence of fluvoxamine, the oral bioavailability of duloxetine increased from 42.8% to 81.9%. In the presence of duloxetine, the theophylline AUC(infinity) and C(max) increased by only 13% (90% CI 7, 18) and 7% (90% CI 2, 14), respectively. Coadministration of duloxetine with fluvoxamine or theophylline did not result in any clinically important safety concerns, and these combinations were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine is metabolized primarily by CYP1A2; therefore, coadministration of duloxetine with potent CYP1A2 inhibitors should be avoided. Duloxetine does not seem to be a clinically significant inhibitor or inducer of CYP1A2; therefore, dose adjustment of CYP1A2 substrates may not be necessary when they are coadministered with duloxetine.

Pharmacokinetics of duloxetine in breast milk and plasma of healthy postpartum women.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize duloxetine pharmacokinetics in the breast milk and plasma of lactating women and to estimate the duloxetine dose that an infant might consume if breastfed. METHODS: This open-label study included six healthy women aged 22-35 years who stopped nursing during and after the study. Duloxetine 40 mg was given orally every 12 hours for 3.5 days; seven plasma and milk samples over 12 hours were obtained after the seventh dose. Plasma and milk samples were analysed using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods. Safety measures included vital signs, ECGs, laboratory tests, adverse event monitoring and depression rating scales. RESULTS: The mean steady-state milk-to-plasma duloxetine exposure ratio was 0.25 (90% CI 0.18, 0.35). The amount of duloxetine in the breast milk was 7 microg/day (range 4-15 microg/day). The estimated infant dose was 2 microg/kg/day (range 0.6-3 microg/kg/day), which is 0.14% of the maternal dose. Dizziness, nausea and fatigue were commonly reported adverse events. No clinically important changes in safety measures occurred. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine is detected in breast milk, and steady-state concentrations in breast milk are about one-fourth of those in maternal plasma. As the safety of duloxetine in infants is unknown, prescribers should carefully assess, on an individual basis, the potential risks of duloxetine exposure to infants and the benefits of nursing an infant when the mother is on duloxetine therapy.

The effects of supratherapeutic doses of duloxetine on blood pressure and pulse rate.

The effects of supratherapeutic dosages of duloxetine, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on blood pressure and pulse rate were assessed in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 117 healthy women aged 19 to 74 years. Dosages were escalated from 60 mg twice daily (BID) to 200 mg BID over 16 days. Vital signs were monitored at baseline, before morning dosing, and sequentially at steady state. Duloxetine produced increases in supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures, which reached maximums of approximately 12 mm Hg and approximately 7 mm Hg above baseline, respectively, during dosing at 120 mg BID and then stabilized. Supine pulse rate increased gradually with dose, reaching 10 to 12 bpm above baseline after 4 days of dosing at 200 mg BID. Duloxetine caused changes in orthostatic blood pressures and pulse rate that reached plateau values after 3 to 4 days of dosing at 160 mg BID and were generally not associated with subjectively reported orthostatic-related adverse events. All vital signs normalized by 1 to 2 days after study drug discontinuation. Prehypertensive subjects may become hypertensive upon initial duloxetine dosing, but this can be predicted from predose blood pressure. Short-term supratherapeutic duloxetine dosages up to 200 mg BID are not well tolerated but are generally not associated with severe, clinically important adverse events. Overall, the types of adverse events reported in this study were similar to those in other studies of duloxetine in healthy subjects.

QT effects of duloxetine at supratherapeutic doses: a placebo and positive controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The electrophysiological effects of duloxetine at supratherapeutic exposures were evaluated to ensure compliance with regulatory criteria and to assess the QT prolongation potential. METHODS: Electrocardiograms were collected in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study that enrolled 117 healthy female subjects aged 19 to 74 years. Duloxetine dosages escalated from 60 mg twice daily to 200 mg twice daily; a single moxifloxacin 400 mg dose was used as a positive control. Data were analyzed using 3 QT interval correction methods: mixed-effect analysis of covariance model with RR interval change from baseline as the covariate, the QT Fridericia's correction method, and the individual QT correction method. Concentrations of duloxetine and its 2 major metabolites were measured. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the mean change from baseline in QTc decreased with duloxetine 200 mg twice daily. The upper limits of the 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for duloxetine vs. placebo were <0 msec at each time point by any correction method. No subject had absolute QT Fridericia's correction values >445 msec with duloxetine, and the change in QT Fridericia's correction from baseline with duloxetine did not exceed 36 msec. No relationship was detected between QTc change and plasma concentrations of duloxetine or its metabolites even though average duloxetine concentrations ranged to more than 5 times those achieved at therapeutic doses. Moxifloxacin significantly prolonged QTc at all time points, regardless of correction method. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine does not affect ventricular repolarization as assessed by both mean changes and outliers in QT corrected by any method.