Assessment of the Abuse Potential of the Orexin Receptor Antagonist, Suvorexant, Compared With Zolpidem in a Randomized Crossover Study.

Suvorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist approved in the United States and Japan for the treatment of insomnia at a maximum dose of 20 mg. This randomized double-blind crossover study evaluated the abuse potential of suvorexant in 36 healthy recreational polydrug users with a history of sedative and psychedelic drug use. Single doses of suvorexant (40, 80, and 150 mg: 2-7.5 × maximum dose), zolpidem (15 and 30 mg: 1.5-3 × maximum dose), and placebo were administered, with a 10-day washout between treatments. Subjective and objective measures, including visual analog scales (VASs), Addiction Research Center Inventory, and cognitive/psychomotor tests, were evaluated for 24-hour postdose. Suvorexant had significantly greater peak effects on "drug liking" VAS (primary endpoint) than placebo. Although effects of suvorexant on abuse potential measures were generally similar to zolpidem, they remained constant across doses, whereas zolpidem often had greater effects at higher doses. Suvorexant (all doses) had significantly fewer effects than zolpidem 30 mg on secondary measures, such as "high" VAS, Bowdle VAS, and Addiction Research Center Inventory morphine-benzedrine group. The overall incidence of abuse-related adverse events, such as euphoric mood and hallucination, was numerically lower with suvorexant than zolpidem. In agreement with its classification as a schedule IV drug, suvorexant demonstrated abuse potential, compared with placebo. The abuse potential was similar to zolpidem using certain measures, but with a reduced incidence of abuse-related adverse events. Although this suggests that the overall abuse liability of suvorexant may be lower than zolpidem, the actual abuse rates will be assessed with the postmarketing experience.

Translational biomarkers: from preclinical to clinical a report of 2009 AAPS/ACCP Biomarker Workshop.

There have been some successes in qualifying biomarkers and applying them to drug development and clinical treatment of various diseases. A recent success is illustrated by a collaborative effort among the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and the pharmaceutical industry to provide a set of seven preclinical kidney toxicity biomarkers for drug development. Other successes include, but are not limited to, clinical biomarkers for cancer treatment and clinical management of heart transplant patients. The value of fully qualified surrogate endpoints in facilitating successful drug development is undisputed, especially for diseases in which the traditional clinical outcome can only be assessed in large, multi-year trials. Emerging biomarkers, including chemical genomic or imaging biomarkers, and measurement of circulating tumor cells hold great promise for early diagnosis of disease and as prognostic tests for managing treatment of chronic diseases such as osteoarthritis, Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. To advance the success of treating and managing these diseases, efforts are needed to establish the temporal relationship between changes in inflammatory or imaging biomarkers with the progression of the chronic disease, and in the case of cancer, between the extent of circulating cancer cells and tumor progression or remission.

Opening up to precompetitive collaboration.

In order to enhance biomedical research and development efficiency and innovation, nontraditional research collaborations have emerged that feature the sharing of information, resources, and capabilities. Although many of these so-called precompetitive collaborations are in the field of oncology, the lessons they offer are broadly applicable to other subfields of translational medicine.

PhRMA survey on the conduct of first-in-human clinical trials under exploratory investigational new drug applications.

The FDA guidance on exploratory IND studies is intended to enable sponsors to move ahead more efficiently with the development of promising candidates. A survey of PhRMA member companies was conducted in 2007 to obtain a cross-sectional industry perspective on the current and future utility of exploratory IND studies. About 56% of survey responders (9 companies of 16 survey responders) conducted or were planning to conduct clinical studies under exploratory INDs. The majority of microdosing studies are performed to characterize human pharmacokinetics or to examine target organ pharmacokinetics using PET imaging techniques. On the other hand, the majority of pharmacological end point studies conducted under exploratory IND are performed to determine whether the compound modulated its pharmacological target or to evaluate the degree of saturation of a target receptor. The present survey suggests that although the merits of exploratory INDs are still being debated, the diversity in the applications cited, the potential for early clinical guidance in decision making and the increasing pressure on containing drug development costs, suggest that the exploratory IND/CTA will be a valuable option with evolving and possibly more specific applications for the future.

Assessment of a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between simvastatin and anacetrapib, a potent cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor, in healthy subjects.

AIMS: Anacetrapib is an orally active, potent inhibitor of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP), which is in development for the treatment of dyslipidaemia. Because of the likely use of anacetrapib with hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, we aimed to evaluate the potential for a pharmacokinetic interaction with simvastatin. METHODS: A randomized, two-period, two-treatment, balanced, open-label, crossover study in 12 healthy subjects was performed. Subjects received simvastatin 40 mg alone or anacetrapib 150 mg co-administered with simvastatin 40 mg, once daily. Both treatments were administered following a low-fat breakfast for 14 days, separated by a wash-out period of at least 14 days. Safety and tolerability, simvastatin and simvastatin acid concentrations, and lipoproteins, were assessed. RESULTS: Both treatments were well tolerated. The pharmacokinetics of simvastatin and simvastatin acid were similar with and without anacetrapib administration {AUC(0-24 h) geometric mean ratio [90% confidence interval (CI)] for simvastatin acid and simvastatin were 1.36 [1.17, 1.57] and 1.30 [1.14, 1.47], respectively} based on the prespecified comparability bounds of (0.50, 2.00). Treatment with simvastatin alone led to a mean (95% CI) % reduction from baseline in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) of -36% (-27, -46) compared with a reduction of -54% (-44, -63) for anacetrapib co-administered with simvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no clinically meaningful effect of anacetrapib on the pharmacokinetic parameters of simvastatin. When co-administered with simvastatin, anacetrapib appeared to exhibit incremental LDL-C-lowering efficacy, due to CETP inhibition. Co-administration of anacetrapib and simvastatin was well tolerated.

Assessment of the CYP3A-mediated drug interaction potential of anacetrapib, a potent cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor, in healthy volunteers.

In this study, midazolam was used as a probe-sensitive CYP3A substrate to investigate the effect of anacetrapib on CYP3A activity, and ketoconazole was used as a probe-inhibitor to investigate the effect of potent CYP3A inhibition on the pharmacokinetics of anacetrapib, a novel cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor in development for the treatment of dyslipidemia. Two partially blinded, randomized, 2-period, fixed-sequence studies were performed. Safety, tolerability, and midazolam and anacetrapib plasma concentrations were assessed. All treatments were generally well tolerated. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of midazolam with anacetrapib/midazolam alone for AUC0-infinity and Cmax were 1.04 (0.94, 1.14) and 1.15 (0.97, 1.37), respectively. Exposure to anacetrapib was increased by ketoconazole--specifically, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of anacetrapib with ketoconazole/anacetrapib alone for AUC0-infinity and Cmax were 4.58 (3.68, 5.71) and 2.37 (2.02, 2.78), respectively. The study showed that anacetrapib does not inhibit or induce CYP3A activity. Furthermore, anacetrapib appears to be a moderately sensitive substrate of CYP3A.

A cost-effectiveness approach to the qualification and acceptance of biomarkers.

The flow of new medicines to patients depends on the development of new biomarkers and their correct interpretation, yet there are no widely accepted and practically applicable criteria that facilitate adequate biomarker qualification. As a result, case-by-case qualifications are based on subjective assessments that do not lead to optimal decisions for patients, which have contributed to the 'stagnation' in drug productivity identified by the FDA. An alternative is to qualify biomarkers in terms of cost effectiveness using a set of principles that enable the evaluation of biomarkers even with incomplete knowledge. This approach could minimize harm to patients, improve access to medicines and reduce healthcare costs.

A review and assessment of potential sources of ethnic differences in drug responsiveness.

The International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E5 guidelines were developed to provide a general framework for evaluating the potential impact of ethnic factors on the acceptability of foreign clinical data, with the underlying objective to facilitate global drug development and registration. It is well recognized that all drugs exhibit significant inter-subject variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic response and that such differences vary considerably among individual drugs and depend on a variety of factors. One such potential factor involves ethnicity. The objective of the present work was to perform an extensive review of the world literature on ethnic differences in drug disposition and responsiveness to determine their general significance in relation to drug development and registration. A few examples of suspected ethnic differences in pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics were identified. The available literature, however, was found to be heterologous, including a variety of study designs and research methodologies, and most of the publications were on drugs that were approved a long time ago.