Diclofenac systemic bioavailability of a topical 1% diclofenac + 3% menthol combination gel vs. an oral diclofenac tablet in healthy volunteers: a randomized, open-label, crossover study
.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate systemic exposure with repeated topical application of a fixed-combination topical gel product containing 1% diclofenac sodium and 3% menthol in either of 2 formulation packages relative to oral administration. METHODS: In this phase 1, single-center, 4-way crossover study, healthy volunteers aged 18 - 50 years underwent consecutive 3-day treatment regimens in a randomly assigned sequence with each of 4 treatment groups: 4 g of topical 1% diclofenac + 3% menthol gel administered via an aluminum tube or roll-on device applied 4 times daily; 4 g of topical 1% diclofenac sodium gel (Voltaren Gel) applied 4 times daily; and oral diclofenac sodium tablets 50 mg 3 times daily. Treatment regimens were separated by 2-day washout periods. RESULTS: A total of 18 subjects enrolled and completed the study. Relative to oral administration, area under the concentration time curve from 48 to 72 hours (AUC48-72) with topical administration of 1% diclofenac + 3% menthol gel from a tube or roll-on device was 16.1% (90% CI: 12.2 - 21.1%) and 14.4% (90% CI: 11.0 - 19.0%), respectively. The diclofenac/menthol combination delivered significantly higher exposures of diclofenac compared with Voltaren Gel. A higher number of adverse events (AEs) occurred with the topical diclofenac/menthol combination (61%) vs. Voltaren Gel (22%) or oral diclofenac (6%); most were local skin reactions. No difference in systemic AEs was observed among the groups. CONCLUSION: As expected, systemic exposure was significantly lower with the topical diclofenac/menthol treatment regimens compared with oral diclofenac. Local skin AEs were increased with the topical combination product, but the risk of systemic AEs was low.
.

Objective and self-reported evidence of dextromethorphan antitussive efficacy in children, aged 6-11 years, with acute cough due to the common cold.

OBJECTIVE: To determine objective and subjective endpoints most suitable for evaluating antitussive efficacy of dextromethorphan hydrobromide (DXM) in children. Spontaneous resolution of acute cough and large placebo effects are impediments to evaluating antitussive efficacy. Another impediment is paucity of age-appropriate, validated cough assessment tools. METHODS: This was a multiple-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, pilot clinical study in children, aged 6-11 years, with cough due to the common cold. Eligible subjects met entry criteria and qualified by completing a run-in period where coughs were recorded with a cough monitor after they were dosed with sweet syrup. They were subsequently randomized to receive DXM or placebo over 4 days. Coughs were recorded during the initial 24 h; subjective assessments of cough severity and frequency were self-reported daily during treatment. RESULTS: Data from 128 evaluable subjects (67 DXM; 61 placebo) were analyzed. Total coughs over 24-hours (primary endpoint) and cough frequency during daytime were reduced by 21.0% and 25.5%, respectively, with DXM relative to placebo. Also, greater reductions in cough severity and frequency were self-reported with DXM. These findings were statistically significant and medically relevant. No effects were detected between treatments for nighttime cough rates or impact of cough on sleep. Multiple doses of DXM and placebo were generally well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: Evidence of DXM antitussive efficacy was shown in children using objective and subjective assessment tools validated in pediatric populations. Diurnal variation of cough frequency over 24 h reduced the assay sensitivity needed to detect treatment differences at nighttime, as coughs/hour decreased during sleep for both groups.

Effect of meal and antisecretory agents on the pharmacokinetics of danoprevir/ritonavir in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a low- and high-fat meal and co-administration of ranitidine or omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted danoprevir (DNVr). METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, cross-over study, healthy subjects received a single dose of DNVr. In group 1, DNVr was administered while fasting or with a low-fat or high-fat meal. In group 2, DNVr was administered alone or with ranitidine 150 mg (single dose) or omeprazole 40 mg (multiple doses). KEY FINDINGS: Group 1 (n = 16): relative to fasting conditions, food slightly prolonged absorption but did not alter the extent of absorption. DNV area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), and plasma concentration 12 h after administration (C12h) geometric mean ratios (GMR%) (90% confidence interval (CI)) with a low-fat meal were 92.3 (80.2-106), 61.8 (51.0-74.9) and 95.2 (80.9-112), versus fasting conditions, and with a high-fat meal 99.5 (86.4-115), 58.9 (48.5-71.6) and 101 (86.0-119). Group 2 (n = 13): ranitidine or omeprazole had no clinically significant effect on DNV pharmacokinetics. DNV AUC0-∞, Cmax and C12h GMR% (90% CI) with ranitidine: 81.9 (68.3-98.1), 104 (86.9-123) and 87.5 (69.3-111), and with omeprazole: 83.0 (67.4-102), 92.7 (70.6-122) and 93.3 (65.6-133). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of clinically relevant effects of food, ranitidine or omeprazole on DNVr pharmacokinetics suggests that DNVr can be administered without regard to meals and in combination with H2 antagonists or proton pump inhibitors.

Effect of ritonavir-boosted danoprevir, a potent hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics of methadone in healthy subjects undergoing methadone maintenance therapy.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics of methadone when coadministered with ritonavir-boosted danoprevir (DNVr). DESIGN: Open-label, two-period, single-sequence pharmacokinetic study. SETTING: Two U.S. research centers. PATIENTS: Eighteen methadone-maintained healthy adults. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In Period 1 (Day -1), subjects received their daily methadone maintenance therapy (MMT). In Period 2 (Days 1-10), subjects received MMT plus DNVr 100/100 mg twice/day. Pharmacokinetic parameters for the total concentrations of (R)- and (S)-methadone on Days -1 and 10 were determined using noncompartmental methods. Unbound (R)- and (S)-methadone concentrations at 3 hours postdose were also assessed on Days -1 and 10. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare steady-state (R)- and (S)-methadone pharmacokinetics when MMT was administered with or without DNVr. Methadone withdrawal was assessed using the Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scale. Compared with MMT alone, methadone AUCtau and Cmax GMR (90% CI) following coadministration with DNVr were 1.02 (0.91-1.15) and 1.01 (0.90-1.13) for (R)-methadone, and 1.01 (0.90-1.13) and 0.99 (0.89-1.10) for (S)-methadone, respectively. Unbound (R- and (S)-methadone concentrations were comparable with or without DNVr. No instances of methadone withdrawal were reported. MMT in combination with DNVr was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of DNVr with MMT resulted in no significant pharmacokinetic interactions or signs of methadone withdrawal. No dosage adjustment is needed for MMT when coadministered with DNVr.

Pharmacokinetics of a three-way drug interaction between danoprevir, ritonavir and the organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) inhibitor ciclosporin.

BACKGROUND: Danoprevir (RG7227) is a potent macrocyclic inhibitor of the hepatitis C virus NS3/4A protease, which is currently in development in combination with low-dose ritonavir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection. Danoprevir is a substrate of cytochrome P450 3A4, and the organic anion transporting polypeptides (OATP) 1B1 and 1B3. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a potent OATP inhibitor, ciclosporin, on danoprevir pharmacokinetics, when administered as danoprevir/ritonavir. The effect of danoprevir/ritonavir on ciclosporin pharmacokinetics was also investigated. METHODS: This was a single-dose, randomized, open-label, two-sequence, three-period, crossover study in healthy volunteers. In the first period, subjects were randomized to receive either a single oral dose of danoprevir 100 mg in combination with ritonavir 100 mg or a single oral dose of ciclosporin 100 mg. After a 14-day washout, patients were crossed over to receive the opposite treatment. In period 3, all subjects received the combination of danoprevir/ritonavir and ciclosporin following a 14-day washout from period 2. Blood samples were collected serially with each dose for pharmacokinetic assessment. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using non-compartmental analysis. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare pharmacokinetic parameters [maximum concentration (C max), area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC∞), and concentration 12 h post-dose (C 12h)] of danoprevir/ritonavir and ciclosporin when administered alone or in combination. Measures of safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 18 subjects were enrolled, and 17 completed the study. The C max, AUC∞, and C 12h GMRs (90 % CI) when danoprevir/ritonavir and ciclosporin were co-administered versus danoprevir/ritonavir or ciclosporin alone were 7.22 (5.42-9.62), 13.6 (11.2-16.6), and 22.5 (17.4-29.3), respectively, for danoprevir, 1.97 (1.72-2.27), 2.23 (2.07-2.42), and 2.50 (2.22-2.81), respectively, for ritonavir, and 1.42 (1.29-1.57), 3.65 (3.27-4.08), and 6.15 (5.32-7.11), respectively, for ciclosporin. All treatments were well tolerated, with no laboratory abnormalities, and no clinically significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiograms, or physical examinations observed. CONCLUSIONS: A significant drug-drug interaction was observed between ciclosporin and danoprevir/ritonavir, leading to substantial increases in exposure to danoprevir and a lesser impact on exposure to ritonavir. Therefore, co-administration of danoprevir/ritonavir with potent OATP inhibitors should be undertaken with appropriate precautions.

Improved human bioavailability of vemurafenib, a practically insoluble drug, using an amorphous polymer-stabilized solid dispersion prepared by a solvent-controlled coprecipitation process.

The present work deals with improving the solubility of vemurafenib, a practically insoluble drug, by converting it into an amorphous-solid dispersion using a solvent-controlled precipitation process. The dispersion containing vemurafenib and hypromellose acetate succinate (HPMCAS), an enteric polymer, is termed microprecipitated bulk powder (MBP), in which the drug is uniformly dispersed within the polymeric substrate. HPMCAS was found to be the most suitable polymer for vemurafenib MBP, among a series of enteric polymers based on superior physical stability and drug-release characteristics of the MBP. The MBP provided a greater rate and extent of dissolution than crystalline drug, reaching an apparent drug concentration of 28-35 µg/mL, almost 30-fold higher than solubility of crystalline drug at 1 µg/mL. The supersaturation was also maintained for more than 4 h. Upon exposure to high temperature and humidity, the MBP was destabilized, resulting in crystallization and lower dissolution rate. The control of moisture and temperature is essential to maintain the stability of the MBP. In a relative human bioavailability study, vemurafenib MBP provided a four- to fivefold increase in exposure compared with crystalline drug. Improving solubility with an amorphous-solid dispersion is a viable strategy for the development of practically insoluble compounds.