A phase 1, open-label, single-arm study evaluating the ocular safety of OTX-101 and systemic absorption of cyclosporine in healthy human volunteers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ocular safety of OTX-101 0.09% - a novel, nanomicellar, clear, aqueous solution of cyclosporine (CsA) - and to determine the systemic exposure to CsA following ophthalmic administration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Healthy volunteers ≥18 years of age were recruited for participation in this phase 1, open-label, single-center, single-arm, study. Subjects received one drop of OTX-101 0.09% in each eye every 12 hours for 7 days, and once on day 8. Blood samples were collected predose, and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours post-first dose on day 1 and day 8. CsA levels in whole blood samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters (maximal whole blood concentration [Cmax, ng/mL], time to Cmax [Tmax, hours]), and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to the last measurement [AUC(0-t), h·ng/mL]) were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Safety assessments included subject-reported adverse events (AEs), vital signs, visual acuity, intraocular pressure measurement, biomicroscopy, and direct ophthalmoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 16 subjects were enrolled; 15 subjects completed the study. Blood sample analysis indicated limited systemic exposure to CsA; three subjects had a CsA concentration greater than or equal to the lower limit of quantitation (LLOQ) on day 1; only four subjects had three consecutive CsA concentration measurements ≥LLOQ on day 8; the mean±SD for Cmax was 0.17±0.02 ng/mL, Tmax was 1.5±0.58 hours, and AUC(0-t) was 0.53±0.06 h·ng/mL. Three subjects reported three AEs (eye pain, eye pruritis, and eye irritation) during the study. No clinically significant changes in the safety assessments were noted. CONCLUSION: The OTX-101 formulation was well tolerated. Systemic exposure to CsA was negligible in healthy volunteers after twice-daily ocular administration. No evidence for systemic accumulation of CsA was observed.

Aqueous humor penetration of topical bimatoprost 0.01% and bimatoprost 0.03% in rabbits.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the aqueous humor concentrations of bimatoprost acid after topical instillation in rabbits of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.01% and bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03%, two commercially available intraocular pressure-lowering medications. METHODS: Male Dutch Belted rabbits were divided into two teratment groups (four rabbits/eight eyes per group): bimatoprost 0.01% and bimatoprost 0.03%. Thirty microliters (µL) of study medication was to pically instilled into both eyes of each animal. Thirty minutes and 90 minutes after instillation, aqueous humor samples were collected. These samples were analyzed by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography for bimatoprost acid concentration. RESULTS: Following a single topical ocular instillation, the bimatoprost 0.01% formulation had a lower mean aqueous humor concentration of bimatoprost acid than the bimatoprost 0.03% formulation at both 30 minutes (11.5 ± 2.1 ng/mL versus 37.8 ± 28.8 ng/mL; P = 0.17) and 90 minutes (20.8 ± 5.7 ng/mL versus 45.8 ± 14.3 ng/mL; P = 0.03) after topical instillation. CONCLUSIONS: Topical ocular instillation of bimatoprost 0.01% produced significantly lower bimatoprost acid concentration in the aqueous humor of rabbits than bimatoprost 0.03%, despite the 4-fold increase of benzalkonium chloride contained in bimatoprost 0.01%.

Diurnal IOP-lowering efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% compared with tafluprost 0.0015% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

PURPOSE: To compare the diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% and tafluprost 0.0015% administered to patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-masked, active-controlled, crossover design trial, in which patients were randomized to either travoprost or tafluprost monotherapy administered once daily in the evening for six weeks and then crossed over to the alternative treatment for another six weeks. Diurnal IOP was measured (8 am to 8 pm, every two hours) and a solicited symptom survey was administered at the end of both six-week periods, as was conjunctival hyperemia and visual acuity assessment, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and adverse event solicitation. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were randomized and 48 patients completed the study. The 12-hour mean diurnal IOP was significantly lower with travoprost therapy than with tafluprost therapy (P = 0.01), and a significantly lower IOP was also reported for travoprost at five of the seven individual time points (P < 0.05). Neither therapy produced a significant increase from baseline in any of the individual patient-reported symptom scores, except for hyperemia (P ≤ 0.01), which was increased with both treatments. Investigator-observed hyperemia was also increased from baseline with both therapies (P < 0.01), although the increase with travoprost therapy was significantly smaller than with tafluprost (P < 0.01). No additional safety concerns were noted from slit-lamp biomicroscopy or visual acuity results, and no difference was noted in patient-reported tolerability of the two medications. CONCLUSION: Travoprost 0.004% monotherapy produced lower diurnal IOP than tafluprost 0.0015% in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and exhibited a similar safety profile.

In vivo comparative study of ocular vasodilation, a relative indicator of hyperemia, in guinea pigs following treatment with bimatoprost ophthalmic solutions 0.01% and 0.03%.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this in vivo study was to compare the incidence of vasodilation in guinea pigs following topical administration of bimatoprost ophthalmic solutions 0.01% and 0.03%. METHODS: The study comprised 20 guinea pigs assigned to 2 treatment groups (10 per treatment group) to receive either bimatoprost 0.01% or bimatoprost 0.03%. Animals were hand-held under 2.75 x magnification to score ocular vasodilation (a measure of hyperemia), using a scoring system developed at Alcon Research, Ltd. Following baseline ocular scoring, each animal received a 30 muL dose to the left eye of either bimatoprost 0.01% (3 mug) or bimatoprost 0.03% (9 mug). Vasodilation was again scored at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 hours after dosing. Incidence of vasodilation was calculated as the percent of total eyes in each 2-hour time interval with scores >/=2. RESULTS: The incidence of vasodilation was higher in the bimatoprost 0.01% treatment group (range, 45.0% to 60.0%) than the bimatoprost 0.03% treatment group (range, 30.0% to 52.2%) at all post-dosing time points. CONCLUSION: The 2 bimatoprost formulations elicited ocular vasodilation of long duration (>6 hours) in the guinea pig model, with the bimatoprost 0.01% treatment group showing a higher incidence of ocular vasodilation than the bimatoprost 0.03% treatment group. Further clinical studies would be needed to determine whether the higher incidence of vasodilation may also be attributed to the increased BAK concentration in the bimatoprost 0.01% formulation.

Impact of topical bimatoprost 0.01% and bimatoprost 0.03% on conjunctival irritation in rabbits.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the conjunctival irritation (congestion, swelling, and discharge) of topical bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.01% and bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03% in rabbits. METHODS: Six healthy New Zealand White rabbits were treated with either bimatoprost 0.01% or bimatoprost 0.03% (3 animals/group). One dose (2 drops/dose) of study medication was administered to the right eye of each animal every 30 minutes for 4.5 hours. Approximately 1 hour after the last dose, conjunctival irritation was assessed using a slit-lamp biomicroscope to individually evaluate conjunctival congestion, swelling, and discharge. RESULTS: The mean conjunctival congestion, swelling and discharge scores for bimatoprost 0.03% were 1.67, 0.33 and 0.33, respectively, and for bimatoprost 0.01% were 2.00, 0.33 and 1.33, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lower drug concentration of the 0.01% formulation, bimatoprost 0.01% does not reduce conjunctival irritation, including conjunctival congestion, swelling, and discharge, in rabbits compared to bimatoprost 0.03%. Further studies would be needed to determine whether the increase in the mean conjunctival congestion and discharge scores may be attributed to the increased BAK concentration in the bimatoprost 0.01% formulation.

Inhibition of atazanavir oral absorption by lansoprazole gastric acid suppression in healthy volunteers.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir, a protease inhibitor used to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, are altered by its coadministration with lansoprazole, a proton pump inhibitor. DESIGN: Single-dose, open-label, complete-crossover study. SETTING: Clinical research center. SUBJECTS: Ten healthy adult volunteers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In phase A, subjects received a single oral dose of atazanavir 400 mg alone. In phase B, the same subjects received oral lansoprazole 60 mg, and after 24 hours they were given a second dose of oral lansoprazole 60 mg with atazanavir 400 mg. Eleven blood samples were collected from each subject over a 24-hour period for determination of atazanavir plasma concentrations by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography assay. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by standard noncompartmental methods. Nine subjects completed the study, and no significant adverse events were reported. Absorption of atazanavir was significantly reduced when it was coadministered with lansoprazole, as evidenced by a 94% decline in mean area under the concentration-time curve during the 24 hours after administration (AUC(0-24)) (p<0.01). The mean +/- SD AUC(0-24) for phase A was 16.3 +/- 9.0 microM x hour versus 0.95 +/- 1.8 microM x hour for phase B (p<0.01). The mean +/- SD maximum concentration of atazanavir was 3.2 +/- 1.7 microM for phase A and 0.13 +/- 0.19 microM for phase B (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Acid suppression markedly reduced the bioavailability of atazanavir in this group of healthy volunteers. Based on these results, atazanavir should not be coadministered with lansoprazole or other proton pump inhibitors.

Comparative in vitro activities of daptomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin/dalfopristin against Gram-positive bacterial isolates from a large cancer center.

Our objective was to evaluate and compare the in vitro activity of daptomycin, linezolid, and quinupristin/dalfopristin against clinical bloodstream isolates of Gram-positive pathogens from a large cancer center in the Northeastern United States. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined for daptomycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, and linezolid against 258 isolates; bactericidal activity was evaluated using time-kill experiments against 14 representative pathogens. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci represented the largest proportion of bacteria tested (32% of the isolates), followed by methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (23%), and vancomycin sensitive enterococci (14%). Against staphylococci, the MIC90 was 1 microg/mL for both daptomycin and quinupristin/dalfopristin and 4 microg/mL for linezolid. Against enterococci, the MIC90 for both daptomycin and linezolid was 4 microg/mL and was 16 microg/mL for quinupristin/dalfopristin. The quinupristin/dalfopristin MIC90 for Enterococcus faecium was 2 microg/mL. Two enterococci were linezolid resistant and remained susceptible to daptomycin. In vitro time-kill studies found daptomycin to be rapidly bactericidal against the majority of organisms tested, killing 99.9% of bacteria within 6 h. Quinupristin/dalfopristin was bactericidal against staphylococci and bacteriostatic against most enterococci. Linezolid was bacteriostatic against all organisms evaluated. Daptomycin, quinupristin/dalfopristin, and linezolid each demonstrated in vitro activity against this collection of organisms. Future clinical studies to evaluate a potential role for these agents in the management of infections in cancer patients, including the treatment of febrile neutropenia, appear warranted.

Physical compatibility of pemetrexed disodium with other drugs during simulated Y-site administration.

PURPOSE: The physical compatibility of pemetrexed disodium with selected other drugs during simulated Y-site injection was studied. METHODS: A 5 mL sample of pemetrexed disodium 20 mg/mL in 0.9% sodium chloride injection was combined with 5 mL of a solution of each of 79 other drugs. The other test drugs included antineoplastics, antiinfectives, and supportive care drugs used undiluted or diluted in 0.9% sodium chloride injection or 5% dextrose injection. Visual examinations were performed with the unaided eye in normal diffuse fluorescent light at intervals up to four hours after mixing. Combinations with no obvious incompatibility were examined further with a high-intensity monodirectional light source to enhance visualization of small particles and low-level turbidity. The combinations were also evaluated with a turbidimeter at one and four hours. All combinations without visual incompatibility were assessed with a particle sizer-counter. RESULTS: Of the 79 pemetrexed-secondary drug combinations, 55 were compatible for at least four hours. However,mixture with 24 drugs resulted in precipitation (including microprecipitation) and color change. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed disodium was incompatible with 24 drugs during simulated Y-site administration and should not be administered with them.

Using medium-fill simulation to establish a benchmark microbiological contamination rate for low-risk-level compounding.

A benchmark contamination rate for prefilled syringe compounding was determined by using a medium-fill-simulation method. One thousand thirty-five 1-mL tuberculin syringes were aseptically filled with 0.9 mL of sterile soybean-casein digest medium and capped. These syringes were placed into clear nonsterile plastic bags and incubated at 35 degrees C for seven days, then inspected for cloudiness or colony formation indicative of bacterial growth. The operation was performed by two certified pharmacy technicians in an ISO Class 5 vertical-airflow biological safety cabinet in a typical inpatient pharmacy compounding area over two days. The technicians wore protective garments and gloves and followed standard procedures of preparing sterile injections. The adequacy of the methodology was verified by using four syringes that contained deliberately contaminated medium and incubating them along with 15 aseptically prepared syringes at 35 degrees C for seven days. Colony formation in the four syringes containing contaminated medium was directly observed and differentiated from the control syringes, which confirms the validity of the method. No bacterial growth was detected in any of the 1035 medium-filled syringes studied. Therefore, the contamination rate for aseptic compounding operation was less than 0.1%. Medium-fill-simulation testing of 1035 prefilled tuberculin syringes yielded no contamination. A contamination rate of less than 0.1% should be achievable and expected for this type of low-risk pharmacy preparation after pharmacies validate their own compounding operation.