Pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic characterization of the dolutegravir/rilpivirine two-drug regimen in SWORD-1/-2 phase 3 studies.

AIM: SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 phase 3 studies concluded that switching virologically suppressed participants with HIV-1 from their current three- or four-drug antiretroviral regimen (CAR) to the two-drug regimen of once-daily dolutegravir (DTG, 50 mg) and rilpivirine (RPV, 25 mg) was safe, well tolerated and noninferior for maintaining HIV-1 suppression at week 48 and highly efficacious to week 148. A secondary objective was to characterize drug exposure and exposure-efficacy/safety relationships. METHODS: Adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL were randomized to switch to once-daily DTG + RPV on day 1 or to continue CAR for 52 weeks before switching. Trough plasma concentrations (C0) of DTG and RPV, the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and adverse events to week 100 were summarized and subjected to exposure-response analyses in the overall population, in the subset of participants who switched from CAR containing enzyme-inducing drugs and by age category (≥50 and <50 years). The relationship between C0avg (individual average C0 across visits) and efficacy/safety was investigated. RESULTS: Although week 2 DTG and RPV C0 were lower in participants switching from enzyme-inducing antiretroviral drugs, C0 and C0avg stayed above in vitro antiviral protein binding-adjusted IC90 and to week 100 with viral suppression >89%. DTG or RPV C0avg showed no relationship with virologic failures or safety. Participants ≥50 years had similar C0avg and safety response to younger participants. CONCLUSION: No clinically relevant relationship between DTG or RPV exposures and virologic or safety response was observed, confirming the DTG + RPV switch for participants as a safe and effective treatment.

Comparative clinical pharmacology of mometasone furoate, fluticasone propionate and fluticasone furoate.

AIMS: To investigate the pharmacokinetics and effects on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis of mometasone furoate (MF), fluticasone propionate (FP) and fluticasone furoate (FF). METHODS: Study 1: Fourteen healthy participants received inhaled and intravenous MF (inhaled dose via Twisthaler) and FP (inhaled dose via Diskus), both given at 400 µg, using a randomised, single-dose, four-way crossover design. Study 2: Twenty-seven participants with mild to moderate asthma, who discontinued their corticosteroid medication for 5 days to obtain a baseline 24 h serum cortisol, received inhaled MF Twisthaler and FP Diskus, both given at 400 µg twice daily (BID), using a randomised, 14-day repeat dose, two-way crossover design. Study 3: Forty-four healthy participants were randomised to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-period crossover study where the following treatments were administered via the inhaled route for 7 days: FP Diskus (250, 500, 1000 µg BID), FF Diskus (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 µg once daily [QD]) or placebo Diskus. In each study, 24-h serial blood samples were collected and assayed to assess concentrations of MF, 6ß-hydroxy mometasone, mometasone, FP, FF and cortisol. Pharmacokinetic and serum cortisol parameters were estimated as geometric means and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Study 1: For intravenous MF and FP, respectively: absolute bioavailability was 11.4% (95% CI: 7.5, 17.6) and 7.8% (6.3, 9.6); plasma clearance was 47 L/h (41, 52) and 60 L/h (52, 69); half-life was 7.4 h (6.9, 8.0) and 7.2 h (6.5, 8.0); and volume of distribution was 499 L (439, 567) and 623 L (557, 698). Inhalation of single dose MF or FP did not significantly affect serum cortisol (<10% reduction from baseline), whereas intravenous administration of MF or FP each changed serum cortisol by approximately -50% from baseline. Study 2: For MF and FP, respectively: area under the curve up to the last measurable concentration on Day 1 was 421 pg h/mL (270, 659) and 248 pg h/mL (154, 400), and on Day 14 was 1092 pg h/mL (939, 1269) and 591 pg h/mL (501, 696); absolute bioavailability was 12.8% (11.2, 14.2) and 8.9% (7.7, 10.2). On Day 14, 24-h serum cortisol change from baseline was -35% (-44%, -26%) and -18% (-28%, -5%) for MF and FP, respectively; the reduction was significantly greater for MF than FP (ratio for geometric adjusted mean serum cortisol concentration: 1.28 [1.04, 1.56]). Low plasma concentrations of 6ß-hydroxy mometasone were detected after intravenous dosing (Study 1) and after multiple inhaled dosing (Study 2); mometasone was not detected in any samples. Study 3: Inhaled FP and FF had similar systemic bioavailability estimates (12.0% [11.0, 13.2] and 15.0% [12.0, 17.3], respectively), but a differential effect on the HPA axis which was in agreement with the known 1.7-fold higher glucocorticoid receptor-binding affinity of FF versus FP. However, for FP 250 µg BID and FF 100, 200 and 400 µg QD, reduction in serum cortisol was not significantly different from placebo. For higher doses, FP 500 and 1000 µg BID, and FF 800 and 1600 µg QD, changes in serum cortisol concentration relative to placebo were -30%, -70%, -41% and -90%, respectively. Repeat inhaled dosing of FP 1000 µg/day (within the therapeutic dose range) resulted in comparable cortisol suppression to MF in the therapeutic range (30% reduction); whereas for FF this occurred at more than 3-fold above the therapeutic dose range (644 µg/day). CONCLUSIONS: Single inhaled and intravenous doses of MF and FP (400 µg) resulted in similar bioavailability and reductions in serum cortisol. Repeat dosing of inhaled MF and FP in the therapeutic range (800 µg/day) resulted in greater systemic exposure for MF, and a 35% reduction in serum cortisol that was 2-fold greater than for FP. The higher glucocorticoid receptor-binding affinity and bioavailability, lower clearance and the presence of active metabolites may contribute to the greater systemic exposure and effect on cortisol for MF. Repeat dosing of inhaled FP and FF resulted in similar systemic bioavailability but differed in terms of the dose required for comparable cortisol suppression to MF in the therapeutic range. Unlike FP and FF, MF has active metabolites that may contribute to its systemic effects, while device/formulation performance differences also exist between MF-containing products.

Imaging and management of fibroepithelial breast lesions on percutaneous core needle biopsy.

The purpose of this study is to review the clinical presentation, multi-modality appearance, and management of the most common benign and malignant fibroepithelial lesions of the breast. Fibroepithelial lesions of the breast may exhibit characteristic features on mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, although definitive diagnosis most often requires biopsy and at times, surgical excision. Knowledge of the imaging features can assist in refining the differential diagnosis and guiding appropriate management.

Bioequivalence of a Fixed-Dose Combination Tablet of the Complete Two-Drug Regimen of Dolutegravir and Rilpivirine for Treatment of HIV-1 Infection.

A complete 2-drug regimen of dolutegravir at 50 mg and rilpivirine at 25 mg was approved to treat HIV-1 infection in virologically suppressed patients after demonstrating acceptable efficacy and tolerability. This study investigated the bioequivalence and pharmacokinetics of the fixed-dose combination tablet compared with those of separate tablets. Secondary endpoints were the tolerability and safety of the fixed-dose combination tablet. In this open-label, randomized-sequence, 2-way crossover trial, single doses of the fixed-dose combination tablet (the test treatment) and the combination of separate tablets (the reference treatment) were administered to healthy adults after a moderate-fat meal, with a 21-day washout between treatments. Pharmacokinetic samples were collected through 12 days after dosing. The primary endpoints were the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and the maximum concentration of drug in plasma (Cmax). The study employed a prespecified sample size reestimation based on a blind midpoint review of Cmax variability to update the enrollment size to achieve statistical power. Of 118 participants enrolled, 113 received both treatments and underwent pharmacokinetic assessment. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least-squares mean ratios for the AUC from 0 h to infinity, the AUC from 0 h to the last quantifiable measurement, and Cmax (test treatment versus reference treatment) were within the bioequivalence range of 0.80 to 1.25 for both drugs, indicating bioequivalence. In this study, a single dose of either treatment was well tolerated overall, with 4% (n = 5) and 3% (n = 3) of participants reporting adverse events considered related to the test and reference treatments, respectively. The dolutegravir-rilpivirine fixed-dose combination tablet is bioequivalent to a combination of separate tablets, and no new safety signals emerged. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02741557.).

Assessment of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder via a capsule-based inhaler and a multi-dose inhaler in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: In developing countries, there is a need for access to affordable inhaled respiratory medicines. This study tested the clinical non-inferiority of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 50/250 µg Rotacaps®/Rotahaler® compared with FSC 50/250 µg Diskus®. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study evaluated 12 weeks, twice daily treatment of FSC 50/250 µg administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus inhaler in a crossover design in patients with asthma (pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 40%-85% of predicted, FEV1 reversibility ≥12%, prior stable dose with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or ICS/long acting beta-agonist). The primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline in trough morning FEV1 at Day 85, was analysed using a model for repeated measures analysis. The pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority was the lower limit of the CI (0.025, one-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (Rotacaps/Rotahaler-Diskus) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, being greater than -125 mL. Secondary endpoints included serial FEV1 measurements, morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, day- and night-time asthma symptoms, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and serial cortisol measured over 12 h (area under the curve (AUC0-12)). RESULTS: Treatment with FSC 50/250 µg via Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus resulted in a similar LS mean increase from baseline in trough FEV1 at Day 85 (231 mL and 203 mL respectively). The difference in the model-adjusted LS mean change was 28 mL (95% CI -24 mL, 80 mL), fulfilling the criterion for non-inferiority. Data for all secondary endpoints were similar for the two treatments, supporting the primary endpoint findings. Both treatments were well tolerated and demonstrated similar safety profiles. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the clinical non-inferiority of FSC 50/250 µg when administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler compared with administration using Diskus in patients with asthma, and suggests there is no difference in the risk:benefit profile between the two FSC inhalers.

Concentration-QT analysis of the randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled thorough QT study of umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination in healthy subjects.

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) is approved as a once-daily monotherapy and in combination with the long-acting ß2 agonist vilanterol (VI) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The objective of this analysis was to assess the relationship between observed plasma UMEC and/or VI concentrations and QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction (QTcF). 103 subjects were enrolled and 86 (83 %) completed the study. Subjects were randomized to 4 of 5 repeat-dose treatments (days 1-10: n = 77 subjects received placebo, n = 76 UMEC 500 µg, n = 78 UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, or n = 76 UMEC/VI 500/100 µg; day 10: n = 74 oral tablet moxifloxacin 400 mg [positive control]). The concentration-QTcF interval relationship was examined using nonlinear mixed-effects methods. For UMEC, predicted QTcF interval prolongation (at observed geometric mean of maximum plasma concentrations) was -2.38 ms (90 % prediction interval [PI] -3.82, -0.85) with UMEC 500 µg and -0.50 ms (90 % PI -0.80, -0.18) and -2.01 ms (90 % PI -3.22, -0.72) with UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and 500/100 µg, respectively. For VI, estimates were 5.89 ms (90 % PI 4.89, 6.91) and 7.23 ms (90 % PI 5.88, 8.55) with UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and 500/100 µg, respectively. Combined additive mean effects were estimated for UMEC/VI 125/25 µg (5.39 ms [90 % PI 4.40, 6.47]) and 500/100 µg (5.22 ms [90 % PI 3.72, 6.80]). The model-predicted decrease with UMEC and increase with UMEC/VI combination in QTcF interval suggest that the QT effect is likely attributable to VI. These model-predicted results support those of previously-published traditional statistical analyses.

Pharmacokinetics of fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol as a triple therapy in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Two single-center, four-way, single-dose, crossover studies assessed the systemic exposure, systemic pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety profile of the closed triple fluticasone furoate/ umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) therapy compared with dual therapies. These are the first studies where pharmacokinetic (PK) profile assessment was possible for this inhaled triple fixed-dose combination product. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were randomized to receive 4 consecutive inhalations (each administered as a single dose) via a single ELLIPT® dry powder inhaler: in study 1 (CTT116415/NCT01691547), FF/UMEC/VI at total doses of 400/500/100 µg, FF/UMEC 400/500 µg, UMEC/VI 500/100 µg, or FF/VI 400/100 µg; in study 2 (200587/NCT01894386), FF/UMEC/VI at total doses of 400/500/100 µg or 400/250/100 µg, FF/VI 400/100 µg, or UMEC/VI 250/100 µg. PK and PD parameters and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of 88 subjects, 95% completed both studies and received all planned treatments. Total systemic exposure was similar for FF, UMEC, and VI when administered as a triple therapy compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. No clinically significant systemic PD findings were detected. The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic exposure to all three components of the closed triple therapy, following single-dose delivery, was similar to that seen with the dual therapies FF/VI and UMEC/VI. The delivered lung dose and safety profile of all three agents, delivered via a single inhaler, are expected to be similar to those of the dual therapies.

Umeclidinium in patients with COPD: a randomised, placebo-controlled study.

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium administered in a dry power inhaler were evaluated in moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. This was a randomised, placebo-controlled study assessing once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 µg over 12 weeks. The primary end-point was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 85. Secondary end-points were 0-6-h weighted mean and serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s. Other end-points were transitional dyspnoea index, health outcomes (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire), pharmacokinetics and safety. 246 patients were enrolled; 168 completed the study. On day 85, umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 µg significantly improved least squares mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 (127 and 152 mL, respectively; p<0.001) compared with placebo. On day 84, umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 µg significantly improved least squares mean change from baseline in 0-6-h weighted mean (166 and 191 mL, respectively; p<0.001) and serial FEV1 at each time point (p≤0.003). Significant improvements in least squares mean transitional dyspnoea index focal score for UMEC 125 mg(1.3 units; p,0.05) and change from baseline St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score for both UMEC doses (-7.9 and -10.87 units, for UMEC 62.5 mg and 125 mg, respectively; both p,0.001) were noted compared with placebo at week 12 [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED].The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across treatments. Umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 µg significantly improved lung function, dyspnoea and health status compared with placebo, and were well tolerated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients over 12 weeks.

A randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled thorough QT study of umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination in healthy subjects.

INTRODUCTION: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting beta2 agonist vilanterol (VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effect of UMEC and UMEC/VI on the QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction (QTcF) following a 10-day treatment period. METHODS: Randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled, 4-period incomplete block crossover study of healthy non-smokers (n = 103). All treatments were double blind, except for moxifloxacin/moxifloxacin placebo controls which were single blinded. Subjects were randomized to a treatment sequence which consisted of 4 of 5 regimens. Each regimen consisted of once-daily doses on Days 1-10 via the ELLIPTA™ dry powder inhaler and a single tablet on Day 10 of the following: placebo + placebo; placebo + moxifloxacin; UMEC 500 µg + placebo; UMEC/VI 125/25 µg (delivered dose: 113/22 µg) + placebo; UMEC/VI 500/100 µg + placebo. QT interval, additional cardiac parameters, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety were assessed. RESULTS: No clinically significant changes from baseline in QTcF occurred with UMEC 500 µg and UMEC/VI 125/25 µg compared with placebo, however, there was a change in QTcF from baseline of 6.4 ms (90% confidence interval [CI]: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90%: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min post dose following UMEC/VI 500/100 µg compared with placebo. On Day 10, categorical analysis demonstrated absolute QTcF values >450-480 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 µg (1 subject) and moxifloxacin (3 subjects), and a change from baseline QTcF of >30-60 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, UMEC 500/100 µg and placebo (1 subject each) and moxifloxacin (2 subjects). On Day 10, the mean change from baseline in heart rate was increased with UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 500/100 µg compared with placebo with the maximum increase occurring at 10 min post dose (8.4 bpm [90% CI: 7.0, 9.8] for UMEC/VI 125/25 µg; 20.3 bpm [90% CI: 18.9, 21.7] for UMEC/VI 500/100 µg); after this timepoint, heart rate rapidly returned to normal levels. UMEC and VI systemic exposures following UMEC/VI 500/100 µg were >4-fold higher than those following UMEC/VI 125/25 µg. All treatments were generally well tolerated in terms of adverse events, laboratory, vital signs and electrocardiogram data; the proportion of subjects with any adverse event was similar across treatments arms (39-59%).. CONCLUSION: There was no clinically significant effect on QTcF observed following 10-days' treatment with inhaled UMEC/VI 125/25 µg or UMEC 500 µg compared with placebo. The supratherapeutic dose of UMEC/VI 500/100 µg prolonged QTcF by 6.4 ms (90% CI: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90% CI: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min compared with placebo, following which QTcF interval difference from placebo declined rapidly..

Pharmacokinetics of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder via a capsule-based inhaler and a multi-dose inhaler.

AIM: To compare salmeterol (SALM) and fluticasone propionate (FP) systemic exposure following inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) from a unit-dose capsule-based inhaler (Rotacaps(®)/Rotahaler(®)) and a multi-dose dry powder inhaler (Diskus(®)) in healthy volunteers. METHODS: An open-label, randomised, repeat-dose, cross-over, adaptive design study (n = 36 in each part) evaluated SFC 50/250 µg and SFC 50/100 µg in Rotacaps used with two types of Rotahaler inhalers (airflow resistance similar to (S) and lower than (L) Diskus) versus the Diskus. Primary endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval [AUC0-τ] and maximum plasma concentration [Cmax]. RESULTS: SFC 50/250 µg Rotacaps/Rotahaler (S) showed 1.2-1.9-fold greater FP and SALM systemic exposure compared with Diskus. FP and SALM systemic exposure were comparable to DISKUS following SFC 50/250 µg Rotacaps/Rotahaler (L) (90% CI of ratio of Rotahaler to DISKUS within 0.8-1.25) for salmeterol (AUC0-τ and Cmax) and FP (AUC0-τ). Following SFC 50/100 µg Rotacaps/Rotahaler (L), FP and SALM systemic exposures were 1.2-1.4 fold higher in terms of FP (AUC0-τ and Cmax) and salmeterol (Cmax) compared with Diskus. SFC at both doses and via both inhalers was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: SFC 50/250 µg Rotacaps/Rotahaler (L) showed comparable systemic exposure to Diskus in terms of FP AUC and SALM AUC and Cmax. These results merit further progression of SFC 50/250 µg Rotacaps/Rotahaler (L) to phase 3 clinical evaluation in asthma and COPD patients. The lack of pharmacokinetic comparability between the inhalers for SFC 50/100 µg requires further evaluation.

Dose response of umeclidinium administered once or twice daily in patients with COPD: a randomised cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way cross-over, incomplete block study to evaluate UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, and 125 µg administered once daily (QD), and UMEC 15.6 µg and 31.25 µg administered twice daily (BID), over 7 days in patients with COPD. Tiotropium was included as an open-label treatment arm. The primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on Day 8. Secondary efficacy endpoints included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours after morning dosing on Day 7, and serial FEV1 at each time point over 24 hours after morning dosing on Day 7. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also examined. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three patients (mean age 59.5 years, 52% female) were randomised. Based on the population dose-response model of trough FEV1 data, the geometric mean potency (ED50) of UMEC was 37 µg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18, 57) with a predicted maximum intrinsic efficacy (Emax) at trough of 0.185 L (95% CI: 0.153, 0.218) after QD dosing. UMEC 125 µg QD demonstrated the greatest improvements in measure of lung function compared with doses of 62.5 µg and below. UMEC 125 µg QD exhibited more consistent increases in FEV1 from baseline across serial time points over 24 hours compared with other UMEC doses and tiotropium. Increases in FEV1 over 0-12 hours were similar to those observed over 12-24 hours after the second dose of UMEC was administered. UMEC was rapidly absorbed following inhaled dosing and eliminated from plasma. Adverse events, generally mild, were highest with UMEC 125 µg QD (18%) compared with placebo (8%), tiotropium (4%) and other UMEC doses (5-12%). CONCLUSIONS: UMEC is a potent QD bronchodilator with geometric mean ED50 of 37 µg. A dose ordering over the range of UMEC 15.6-125 µg QD doses was observed, with UMEC 125 µg showing the greatest improvement in trough FEV1.

Population Dose-Response-Time Analysis of Itch Reduction and Patient-Reported Tolerability Supports Phase III Dose Selection for Linerixibat.

Increase in serum bile acids (BAs) in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) may play a causal role in cholestatic pruritus (itch). Linerixibat is a selective small molecule inhibitor of the ileal bile acid transporter, which blocks re-absorption of BAs in the gastrointestinal tract thereby lowering BAs in the systemic circulation and reducing itch. One consequence is excess BAs in the colon, leading to diarrhea and abdominal pain. GLIMMER (NCT02966834) was a placebo-controlled phase IIb dose-ranging trial of linerixibat once (q.d.) or twice daily (b.i.d.) in adults with moderate to severe pruritus and PBC. To determine the optimal dose for maximum itch reduction while minimizing diarrhea, a kinetic-pharmacodynamic (k-PD) model was developed using data from GLIMMER. The PD end point modeled was worst daily itch, derived from itch score reported by patients b.i.d. A proportional odds model was developed post hoc to indicate the probability of diarrhea occurrence, a patient-reported outcome (GI-5) recorded weekly. The final k-PD model successfully described the effects of linerixibat and placebo on itch. Model simulations were consistent with the observed dose-dependent increase in the average number of itch responders (patients with a ≥ 2-point improvement in itch). This was paralleled by a dose-dependent increase in the probability of higher diarrhea frequency scores. The b.i.d. dosing regimens led to a modest increase in the number of itch responders as compared with q.d. dosing. This quantitative framework highlights the trade-off between benefit and tolerability and supported the selection of 40 mg b.i.d. in the phase III GLISTEN trial (NCT04950127).

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Abacavir/Dolutegravir/Lamivudine to Support a Fixed-Dose Combination in Children with HIV-1.

INTRODUCTION: Once-daily fixed-dose combinations (FDC) containing abacavir (ABC), dolutegravir (DTG), and lamivudine (3TC) have been approved in the US for adults and children with HIV weighing ≥ 6 kg. This analysis assessed the ability of previously developed ABC, DTG, and 3TC pediatric population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models using multiple formulations to describe and predict PK data in young children using dispersible tablet (DT) and tablet formulations of ABC/DTG/3TC FDC in the IMPAACT 2019 study. METHODS: IMPAACT 2019 was a Phase I/II study assessing the PK, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of ABC/DTG/3TC FDC in children with HIV-1. Intensive and sparse PK samples were collected over 48 weeks. Existing drug-specific pediatric PopPK models for ABC (2-compartment), DTG (1-compartment), and 3TC (1-compartment) were applied to the IMPAACT 2019 drug concentration data without re-estimation (external validation) of PopPK parameters. Drug exposures were then simulated across World Health Organization weight bands for children weighing ≥ 6 to < 40 kg for each drug and compared with pre-defined exposure target ranges. RESULTS: Goodness-of-fit and visual predictive check plots demonstrated that the previously developed pediatric PopPK models sufficiently described and predicted the data. Thus, new PopPK models describing the IMPAACT 2019 data were unnecessary. Across weight bands, the predicted geometric mean (GM) for ABC AUC0-24 ranged from 14.89 to 18.50 µg*h/ml, DTG C24 ranged from 0.74 to 0.95 µg/ml, and 3TC AUC0-24 ranged from 10.50 to 13.20 µg*h/ml. These exposures were well within the pre-defined target ranges set for each drug. CONCLUSION: This model-based approach leveraged existing pediatric data and models to confirm dosing of ABC/DTG/3TC FDC formulations in children with HIV-1. This analysis supports ABC/DTG/3TC FDC dosing in children weighing ≥ 6 kg.

Role of Clinical Pharmacology in Diversity and Inclusion in Global Drug Development: Current Practices and Industry Perspectives: White Paper.

The 2022 United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) draft guidance on diversity plan (DP), which will be implemented through the Diversity Action Plans by December 2025, under the 21st Century Cures Act, marks a pivotal effort by the FDA to ensure that registrational studies adequately reflect the target patient populations based on diversity in demographics and baseline characteristics. This white paper represents the culminated efforts of the International Consortium of Quality and Innovation (IQ) Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Working Group (WG) to assess the implementation of the draft FDA guidance by members of the IQ consortium in the discipline of clinical pharmacology (CP). This article describes current practices in the industry and emphasizes the tools and techniques of quantitative pharmacology that can be applied to support the inclusion of a diverse population during global drug development, to support diversity and inclusion of underrepresented patient populations, in multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs). It outlines strategic and technical recommendations to integrate demographics, including age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and comorbidities, in multiregional phase III registrational studies, through the application of quantitative pharmacology. Finally, this article discusses the challenges faced during global drug development, which may otherwise limit the enrollment of a broader, potentially diverse population in registrational trials. Based on the outcomes of the IQ survey that provided the current awareness of diversity planning, it is envisioned that in the future, industry efforts in the inclusion of previously underrepresented populations during global drug development will culminate in drug labels that apply to the intended patient populations at the time of new drug application or biologics license application rather than through post-marketing requirements.

Impact of imaging nurse navigation on breast interventions: Direct and closed-loop patient communication and documentation.

OBJECTIVE: A breast imaging nurse navigator (NN) was established with the goals to enhance the patient experience after biopsy, improve care timeliness, accuracy, and coordination, facilitate direct communication to patients, and increase care retention within our system. Our aim was to determine the impact of NN on patient care time metrics, communication, documentation, compliance, and care retention at our institution after breast biopsy. METHODS: Retrospective review of a six-month period before (5/1/17-10/31/17) and after (5/1/19-10/31/19) establishment of a nurse navigator in our breast imaging department was performed, including 498 patients in the pre-navigation (pre-NN) group and 526 patients in the post-navigation (post-NN) group. Data was gathered from the electronic medical record and collected using REDCap. RESULTS: Biopsy pathology results were communicated directly to the patient more often post-NN (71%, 374/526) compared to pre-NN (4%, 21/498) (p < 0.0001), without change in overall time of result communication (p = 0.08). Due to factors outside of imaging, most care time metrics were longer post-NN, including days from biopsy to pathology report (p < 0.001), result communication to initiation of care (p < 0.001), and biopsy to surgery (p < 0.001). There was no difference and high compliance (p = 1) and care retention (p = 0.015) in both groups. There was improved documentation of pathology results, recommendations, and communication post-NN (0/526 vs 10/498, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Imaging nurse navigation added greatest value by communicating breast biopsy results and recommendations directly to patients and ensuring documentation. Compliance and retention were high in both groups. Factors outside of Radiology influenced time metrics, requiring further investigation of multidisciplinary collaboration.

Breast Imaging Fellowship Training in the United States: A National Survey of Fellowship Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated characterization of breast imaging fellowship programs in the United States to identify opportunities for improvement and standardization. METHODS: An anonymous survey was e-mailed to program directors of breast imaging fellowship programs listed on the Society of Breast Imaging website. The survey was open from April 23, 2021, through May 27, 2021. The survey was deemed exempt by the IRB. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 80 (59%) program directors responded, of which 36/47 (77%) represented programs dedicated 100% to breast imaging, and 11/47 (23%) represented programs dedicated 50%-75% to breast imaging. Common elements to most programs include tumor boards (47/47, 100%), journal clubs (39/47, 83%), case-based teaching sessions (35/47, 74%), didactic lectures (40/47, 85%), and participation in radiology-pathology conferences (29/47, 62%). Mammography Quality and Standards Act audit training (22/47, 47%), mammography quality control training (22/47, 47%), and formal communication training (19/47, 40%) were less common. Most programs provide exposure to wire (42/47, 89%) and wire-free localization procedures (45/47, 96%), but exposure to contrast-enhanced mammography (13/47, 28%) and molecular breast imaging (4/47, 9%) was limited. A small majority of programs (25/47, 53%) do not require weekday call; however, more (31/47, 66%) have weekend call responsibilities. Many programs (29/47, 62%) offer at least 3 weeks of elective time, which may be clinical or nonclinical. CONCLUSION: Breast imaging fellowship programs vary in curricula, modality exposure, and academic policies. The results of this survey can help guide further efforts to standardize and optimize fellowship training.

28-Day safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in combination with vilanterol in COPD: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; GSK573719) is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) currently in development in combination with vilanterol (VI), an inhaled, long-acting beta2 agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of repeat dosing of UMEC and VI in combination once daily for 28 days in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. Patients aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤80% of predicted normal values and FEV1/FVC ratio ≤0.70, and a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years, were randomized 4:1 to once-daily UMEC/VI (500/25 mcg; n = 42) or placebo (n = 9). RESULTS: UMEC/VI was non-inferior to placebo in weighted mean pulse rate over 0-6 h at Day 28 (primary endpoint: difference of -0.5 bpm, 95% CI: -5.5 to 4.5). There was no evidence of a difference between UMEC/VI compared with placebo in blood pressure, minimum and maximum pulse rate, or QTcF assessments. Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 11 (26%) patients in the UMEC/VI group and one (11%) patient in the placebo group. No serious AEs were reported. Both UMEC and VI showed rapid absorption (median t(max) ∼6 min for both drugs) with no evidence of accumulation for AUC or C(max) on Day 28 compared with Day 1 for UMEC or VI. There was no correlation between individual steady-state C(max) and pulse rate on Day 28. Change from baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 29 showed numerically greater improvements with UMEC/VI compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing with UMEC in combination with VI in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD was well tolerated over 28 days.

Characterization of True and False Positive Findings on Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to characterize true and false positive findings on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and correlate enhancement pattern and method of detection with pathology outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective review of diagnostic CEM performed from December 2015 through December 2019 for which biopsy was recommended. Background parenchymal enhancement, tissue density, finding features, pathologic/clinical outcomes, and method of detection were captured. CEM includes low-energy images (LE), similar to standard 2D mammography, and recombined images (RI) that show enhancement. 'MG-detected' findings were identified on mammography or LE. 'RI-detected' findings were identified due to enhancement on RI. The positive predictive value (PPV2) was calculated on a per-case and a per-finding level. Comparisons were performed using Pearson chi-square and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: One hundred sixty CEM cases with 220 findings were evaluated with a case PPV2 of 58.1%. 32.3% (71/220) of lesions were RI-detected.  The PPV2 of RI-detected enhancement was 40.8% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 22.2%, 32%, and 51.4% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. The PPV2 of MG-detected enhancement was 73.5% with subanalysis revealing PPV2 of 50%, 54.1%, and 83.8% for foci, NME, and masses, respectively. There were 100 false positives findings, 42 of which were RI-detected. CONCLUSION: PPV2 of diagnostic CEM is within the range of other diagnostic breast imaging exams. However false positives remain a challenge, especially for RI-detected findings. Additional efforts to improve specificity of RI-detected findings are worthwhile.

Patient preferences regarding use of contrast-enhanced imaging for breast cancer screening.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our purpose is to understand patient preferences towards contrast-enhanced imaging such as CEM or MRI for breast cancer screening. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was offered to all patients having screening mammography at a single academic institution from December 27 th 2019 to March 6 th 2020. Survey questions related to: (1) patients' background experiences (2) patients' concern for aspects of MRI and CEM measured using a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) financial considerations. RESULTS: 75% (1011/1349) patients completed the survey. 53.0% reported dense breasts and of those, 47.6% had additional screening. 49.6% had experienced a callback, 29.0% had a benign biopsy, and 13.7% had prior CEM/MRI. 34.7% were satisfied with mammography for screening. A majority were neutral or not concerned with radiation exposure, contrast allergy, IV line placement, claustrophobia, and false positive exams. 54.7% were willing to pay at least $250-500 for screening MRI. Those reporting dense breasts were less satisfied with mammography for screening (p<0.001) and willing to pay more for MRI (p<0.001). If patients had prior CEM/MRI, there was less concern for an allergic reaction (p<0.001), IV placement (p=0.025), and claustrophobia (p=0.006). There was less concern for false positives if they had a prior benign biopsy (p=0.029) or prior CEM/MRI (p=0.005) and less concern for IV placement if they had dense breasts (p=0.007) or a previous callback (p=0.013). CONCLUSION: The screening population may accept CEM or MRI as a screening exam despite its risks and cost, especially patients with dense breasts and patients who have had prior CEM/MRI.