Novel Patient-Friendly Orodispersible Formulation of Ivermectin is Associated With Enhanced Palatability, Controlled Absorption, and Less Variability: High Potential for Pediatric Use.

Ivermectin has been used since the 1980s as an anthelmintic and antiectoparasite agent worldwide. Currently, the only available oral formulation is tablets designed for adult patients. A patient-friendly orodispersible tablet formulation designed for pediatric use (CHILD-IVITAB) has been developed and is entering early phase clinical trials. To inform the pediatric program of CHILD-IVITAB, 16 healthy adults were enrolled in a phase I, single-center, open-label, randomized, 2-period, crossover, single-dose trial which aimed to compare palatability, tolerability, and bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of CHILD-IVITAB and their variability against the marketed ivermectin tablets (STROMECTOL) at a single dose of 12 mg in a fasting state. Palatability with CHILD-IVITAB was considerably enhanced as compared to STROMECTOL. Both ivermectin formulations were well tolerated and safe. Relative bioavailability of CHILD-IVITAB compared to STROMECTOL was estimated as the ratios of geometric means for Cmax, AUC 0-∞, and AUC0-last, which were 1.52 [90% CI: 1.13-2.04], 1.27 [0.99-1.62], and 1.29 [1.00-1.66], respectively. Maximum drug concentrations occurred earlier with the CHILD-IVITAB formulation, with a median Tmax at 3.0 h [range 2.0-4.0 h] versus 4.0 h [range 2.0-5.0 h] with STROMECTOL (P = .004). With CHILD-IVITAB, variability in exposure was cut in half (coefficient of variation: 37% vs 70%) compared to STROMECTOL. Consistent with a more controlled absorption process, CHILD-IVITAB was associated with reduced variability in drug exposure as compared to STROMECTOL. Together with a favorable palatability and tolerability profile, these findings motivate for further clinical studies to evaluate benefits of such a patient-friendly ODT formulation in pediatric patients with a parasitic disease, including infants and young children <15 kg.

Use of GLP1 receptor agonists in early pregnancy and reproductive safety: a multicentre, observational, prospective cohort study based on the databases of six Teratology Information Services.

OBJECTIVES: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) are indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and more recently for weight loss. The aim of this study was to assess the risks associated with GLP1-RA exposure during early pregnancy. DESIGN: This multicentre, observational prospective cohort study compared pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to GLP1-RA in early pregnancy either for diabetes or obesity treatment with those in two reference groups: (1) women with diabetes exposed to at least one non-GLP1-RA antidiabetic drug during the first trimester and (2) a reference group of overweight/obese women without diabetes, between 2009 and 2022. SETTING: Data were collected from the databases of six Teratology Information Services. PARTICIPANTS: This study included 168 pregnancies of women exposed to GLP1-RA during the first trimester, alongside a reference group of 156 pregnancies of women with diabetes and 163 pregnancies of overweight/obese women. RESULTS: Exposure to GLP1-RA in the first trimester was not associated with a risk of major birth defects when compared with diabetes (2.6% vs 2.3%; adjusted OR, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.16 to 5.82)) or to overweight/obese (2.6% vs 3.9%; adjusted OR 0.54 (0.11 to 2.75)). For the GLP1-RA group, cumulative incidence for live births, pregnancy losses and pregnancy terminations was 59%, 23% and 18%, respectively. In the diabetes reference group, corresponding estimates were 69%, 26% and 6%, while in the overweight/obese reference group, they were 63%, 29% and 8%, respectively. Cox proportional cause-specific hazard models indicated no increased risk of pregnancy losses in the GLP1-RA versus the diabetes and the overweight/obese reference groups, in both crude and adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers reassurance in cases of inadvertent exposure to GLP1-RA during the first trimester of pregnancy. Due to the limited sample size, larger studies are required to validate these findings.

Oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia (ASCERTAIN): a registrational, randomised, crossover, pharmacokinetics, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The DNA methyltransferase inhibitors azacitidine and decitabine for individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are available in parenteral form. Oral therapy with similar exposure for these diseases would offer potential treatment benefits. We aimed to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of oral decitabine plus the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine. METHODS: We did a registrational, multicentre, open-label, crossover, phase 3 trial of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia and individuals with acute myeloid leukaemia, enrolled as separate cohorts; results for only participants with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia are reported here. In 37 academic and community-based clinics in Canada and the USA, we enrolled individuals aged 18 years or older who were candidates to receive intravenous decitabine, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 and a life expectancy of at least 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 days of oral decitabine-cedazuridine (one tablet once daily containing 35 mg decitabine and 100 mg cedazuridine as a fixed-dose combination) or intravenous decitabine (20 mg/m2 per day by continuous 1-h intravenous infusion) in a 28-day treatment cycle, followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. Thereafter, all participants received oral decitabine-cedazuridine from the third cycle on until treatment discontinuation. The primary endpoint was total decitabine exposure over 5 days with oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for cycles 1 and 2, measured as area under the curve in participants who received the full treatment dose in cycles 1 and 2 and had decitabine daily AUC0-24 for both oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine (ie, paired cycles). On completion of the study, all patients were rolled over to a maintenance study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03306264. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2018, and June 7, 2021, 173 individuals were screened, 138 (80%) participants were randomly assigned to a treatment sequence, and 133 (96%) participants (87 [65%] men and 46 [35%] women; 121 [91%] White, four [3%] Black or African-American, three [2%] Asian, and five [4%] not reported) received treatment. Median follow-up was 966 days (IQR 917-1050). Primary endpoint of total exposure of oral decitabine-cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine was 98·93% (90% CI 92·66-105·60), indicating equivalent pharmacokinetic exposure on the basis of area under the curve. The safety profiles of oral decitabine-cedazuridine and intravenous decitabine were similar. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse were thrombocytopenia (81 [61%] of 133 participants), neutropenia (76 [57%] participants), and anaemia (67 [50%] participants). The incidence of serious adverse events in cycles 1-2 was 31% (40 of 130 participants) with oral decitabine-cedazuridine and 18% (24 of 132 participants) with intravenous decitabine. There were five treatment-related deaths; two deemed related to oral therapy (sepsis and pneumonia) and three to intravenous treatment (septic shock [n=2] and pneumonia [n=1]). INTERPRETATION: Oral decitabine-cedazuridine was pharmacologically and pharmacodynamically equivalent to intravenous decitabine. The results support use of oral decitabine-cedazuridine as a safe and effective alternative to intravenous decitabine for treatment of individuals with myelodysplastic syndromes or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia. FUNDING: Astex Pharmaceuticals.