Venetoclax pharmacokinetics in participants with end-stage renal disease undergoing haemodialysis.

AIMS: Renal insufficiency is a common comorbidity in patients with haematological malignancies. This study aimed to assess how end-stage renal disease (ESRD) might affect the pharmacokinetics of venetoclax, a Bcl-2 inhibitor, in participants with ESRD undergoing haemodialysis. METHODS: Venetoclax was administered as a single 100-mg dose to 6 female participants with ESRD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min) both prior to haemodialysis and between haemodialysis days and 7 healthy female participants with normal renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate >90 mL/min). Intensive pharmacokinetic and protein binding samples were collected from all participants. Arterial and venous samples were collected from ESRD participants during haemodialysis to assess the effect of haemodialysis on venetoclax pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: There was no difference in plasma venetoclax concentrations between arterial and venous samples, suggesting that haemodialysis did not affect the pharmacokinetics of venetoclax. The fraction unbound (fu ) of venetoclax was ~2-fold higher for participants with ESRD compared to participants with normal renal function. The unbound maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 48 h were comparable between ESRD and normal function groups. The mean half-life ranged from 10.4 to 12.2 h across groups, demonstrating that ESRD did not affect the half-life of venetoclax. No new safety signals were observed during this study. CONCLUSION: ESRD and dialysis do not alter unbound venetoclax plasma concentrations. No pharmacokinetics driven dose adjustment is needed for patients with renal insufficiency.

Brigatinib pharmacokinetics in patients with chronic hepatic impairment.

Brigatinib is an anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. This open-label, parallel-group study investigated the effect of chronic hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of brigatinib to inform dosing recommendations for these patients. Participants with hepatic impairment classified according to Child-Pugh categories of mild (A), moderate (B), or severe (C) and matched-healthy participants with normal hepatic function received a single oral dose of 90-mg brigatinib. Plasma samples were collected for the determination of brigatinib plasma protein binding and estimation of plasma PK parameters. Twenty-seven participants were enrolled (Child-Pugh A-C, n = 6 each; matched-healthy participants, n = 9). The mean fraction of free plasma brigatinib was comparable for the Child-Pugh A (11.1%), Child-Pugh B (10.8%), and healthy participant groups (8.5%); free brigatinib was higher in the Child-Pugh C group (23.1%). There were no clinically meaningful effects of mild or moderate hepatic impairment on unbound systemic exposures (area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC]) of brigatinib (geometric least-squares mean ratios [90% CI] of 89.32% [69.79%-114.31%] and 99.55% [77.78%-127.41%], respectively). In the severe hepatic impairment group, brigatinib unbound AUC was approximately 37% higher (geometric least-squares mean ratio [90% CI] of 137.41% [107.37%-175.86%]) compared with healthy participants with normal hepatic function. Brigatinib was well tolerated in healthy participants and in participants with hepatic impairment. No dose adjustment is required for patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment. The brigatinib dose should be reduced by approximately 40% for patients with severe hepatic impairment.

Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Taniborbactam (VNRX-5133) with Cefepime in Subjects with Various Degrees of Renal Impairment.

Taniborbactam, an investigational ß-lactamase inhibitor that is active against both serine- and metallo-ß-lactamases, is being developed in combination with cefepime to treat serious infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Anticipating the use of cefepime-taniborbactam in patients with impaired renal function, an open-label, single-dose clinical study was performed to examine the pharmacokinetics of both drugs in subjects with various degrees of renal function. Hemodialysis-dependent subjects were also studied to examine the amounts of cefepime and taniborbactam dialyzed. Single intravenous infusions of 2 g cefepime and 0.5 g taniborbactam coadministered over 2 h were examined, with hemodialysis-dependent subjects receiving doses both on- and off-dialysis. No subjects experienced serious adverse events or discontinued treatment due to adverse events. The majority of adverse events observed were mild in severity, and there were no trends in the safety of cefepime-taniborbactam related to declining renal function or the timing of hemodialysis. Clinically significant and similar decreases in drug clearance with declining renal function were observed for both cefepime and taniborbactam. The respective decreases in geometric mean clearance for subjects with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment compared to subjects with normal renal function were 18%, 63%, and 78% for cefepime and 15%, 63%, and 81% for taniborbactam, respectively. Decreases in clearance were similar for both drugs and were shown to be proportional to decreases in renal function. Both cefepime and taniborbactam were dialyzable, with similar amounts removed during 4 h of hemodialysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03690362.

Effect of mild or moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of risdiplam.

AIM: This phase I, multicentre, open-label, nonrandomised, parallel-group, two-part study aimed to evaluate the effect of mild to moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of a single oral dose of risdiplam. METHODS: Adult subjects (aged 18-70 years) with mild (Child-Pugh Class A; Part 1) or moderate (Child-Pugh Class B; Part 2) hepatic impairment were matched with subjects with normal hepatic function on sex, age, body mass index and smoking status. Each subject received a single oral dose of 5 mg of risdiplam. Plasma concentrations of risdiplam and its metabolite M1 were measured and PK parameters were compared. Adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, vital signs and electrocardiogram measurements were assessed. RESULTS: After a single dose (5 mg) of risdiplam, the risdiplam PK parameters area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity and maximum observed plasma concentration were approximately 20% and 5% lower, respectively, in subjects with mild hepatic impairment and approximately 8% and 20% higher, respectively, in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment compared with subjects with normal hepatic function. These differences were not statistically significant; all 90% confidence intervals for geometric least squares-means ratios spanned unity. No new risdiplam-related safety findings were observed in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment. CONCLUSION: Mild or moderate hepatic impairment did not have a clinically relevant impact on the PK of risdiplam. Therefore, no dose adjustment is required in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment when receiving risdiplam.

Pharmacokinetics of capmatinib in participants with hepatic impairment: A phase 1, open-label, single-dose, parallel-group study.

AIMS: Capmatinib, a mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and aldehyde oxidase. In individuals with hepatic impairment, alterations in hepatobiliary excretion and metabolism could lead to higher capmatinib exposure. We compared the pharmacokinetics of a single oral dose of capmatinib 200 mg administered to participants with varying degrees of hepatic impairment vs. matched controls with normal hepatic function. METHODS: This phase 1, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study enrolled adult participants with normal hepatic function and mild, moderate and severe hepatic impairments. Eligible participants received a single oral dose of 200 mg capmatinib. The pharmacokinetic parameters of capmatinib were analysed and compared across participants with impaired and normal hepatic function. RESULTS: Of 31 enrolled participants, 29 had an evaluable pharmacokinetic profile: normal (n = 9); mild (n = 6); moderate (n = 8); severe (n = 6). Compared with the normal group, geometric mean (GM) maximum (peak) observed plasma drug concentration after single-dose administration decreased by 27.6% in the mild group (GM ratio [GMR] = 0.724; 90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.476-1.10), by 17.2% in the moderate group (GMR = 0.828; 90% CI: 0.563-1.22) and remained unchanged in the severe group (GMR = 1.02; 90% CI: 0.669-1.55). Compared with the normal group, GM area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity decreased by 23.3% in the mild group (GMR = 0.767; 90% CI: 0.532-1.11), by 8.6% in the moderate group (GMR = 0.914; 90% CI: 0.652-1.28) and increased by 24% in the severe group (GMR = 1.24; 90% CI: 0.858-1.78). CONCLUSION: Mild, moderate and severe hepatic impairment did not have a clinically relevant impact on capmatinib pharmacokinetics. No new safety findings are reported in this study.

Effect of severe renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of brigatinib.

Background Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, targets activated, mutant forms of ALK and overcomes mechanisms of resistance to the ALK inhibitors crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib. Brigatinib is approved in multiple countries for treatment of patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Based on population pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses, no dosage adjustment is required for patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Methods An open-label, single-dose study was conducted to evaluate the PK of brigatinib (90 mg) in patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 8) and matched healthy volunteers with normal renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 90 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 8). Plasma and urine were collected for the determination of plasma protein binding and estimation of plasma and urine PK parameters. Results Plasma protein binding of brigatinib was similar between patients with severe renal impairment (92 % bound) and matched healthy volunteers with normal renal function (91 % bound). Unbound brigatinib exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity) was approximately 92 % higher in patients with severe renal impairment compared with healthy volunteers with normal renal function. The renal clearance of brigatinib in patients with severe renal impairment was approximately 20 % of that observed in volunteers with normal renal function. Conclusions These findings support a brigatinib dosage reduction of approximately 50 % in patients with severe renal impairment.Trial registry: Not applicable.

Glucosuric, renal and haemodynamic effects of licogliflozin, a dual inhibitor of sodium-glucose co-transporter-1 and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2, in patients with chronic kidney disease: A randomized trial.

AIM: To investigate the glucosuric, renal and haemodynamic effects of licogliflozin, a dual sodium-glucose co-transporter-1 and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: This multiple-dose, parallel-group, phase II mechanistic study randomized 53 participants (aged 18-78 years, body mass index ≤ 50 kg/m2 ) with varying degrees of CKD or normal renal function to treatment with licogliflozin (50 mg once daily) or placebo for 7 days. The effects of licogliflozin on 24-h urinary glucose excretion (UGE24 ), renal function, haemodynamics, pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Licogliflozin treatment for 7 days significantly (p < .01) increased UGE24 from baseline in participants with normal renal function (adjusted mean change: 41.8 [33.6, 49.9] g) or with mild (32.6 [24.1, 41.0] g), moderate A (35.7 [28.6, 42.9] g) or moderate B (20.3 [13.1, 27.5] g) CKD, but not in severe (6.2 [-0.71, 13.18] g) CKD. Licogliflozin reduced urinary electrolytes (sodium, potassium and chloride), blood pressure and urinary volume to varying extents among different groups. Significant increases in renin (p < .05), angiotensin II (p < .05) and aldosterone (p < .01) levels were observed. Adverse events were generally mild, and most commonly included diarrhoea (94%), flatulence (68%) and abdominal pain (21%). CONCLUSION: Licogliflozin treatment results in significantly increased UGE and favourable changes in urinary electrolytes and haemodynamics in patients with varying degrees of CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 ).

Clinical improvement in psoriasis with specific targeting of interleukin-23.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder that affects approximately 2-3% of the population worldwide and has severe effects on patients' physical and psychological well-being. The discovery that psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease has led to more targeted, effective therapies; recent advances have focused on the interleukin (IL)-12/23p40 subunit shared by IL-12 and IL-23. Evidence suggests that specific inhibition of IL-23 would result in improvement in psoriasis. Here we evaluate tildrakizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the IL-23p19 subunit, in a three-part, randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential, rising multiple-dose phase I study in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis to provide clinical proof that specific targeting of IL-23p19 results in symptomatic improvement of disease severity in human subjects. A 75% reduction in the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score (PASI75) was achieved by all subjects in parts 1 and 3 (pooled) in the 3 and 10 mg kg(-1) groups by day 196. In part 2, 10 out of 15 subjects in the 3 mg kg(-1) group and 13 out of 14 subjects in the 10 mg kg(-1) group achieved a PASI75 by day 112. Tildrakizumab demonstrated important clinical improvement in moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients as demonstrated by improvements in PASI scores and histological samples.

Impact of renal impairment and human organic anion transporter inhibition on pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of relebactam combined with imipenem and cilastatin.

AIMS: Two phase 1, open-label studies were conducted to investigate the effect of renal impairment (RI) and organic anion transporter (OAT) inhibition on pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of relebactam (REL) plus imipenem/cilastatin (IMI). METHODS: Study PN005 evaluated the PK of REL (125 mg) plus IMI (250 mg) in participants with RI vs healthy controls. Study PN019 evaluated the PK of REL (250 mg) and imipenem (500 mg; dosed as IMI) with/without probenecid (1 g; OAT inhibitor) in healthy adults. RESULTS: Geometric mean ratios (RI/healthy matched controls) of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞ ; 90% confidence interval) for REL, imipenem and cilastatin increased as RI increased from mild (1.6 [1.1, 2.4], 1.4 [1.1, 1.8] and 1.6 [1.0, 2.5], respectively) to severe (4.9 [3.4, 7.0], 2.5 [1.9, 3.3] and 5.6 [3.6, 8.6], respectively). For all 3 analytes, plasma and renal clearance decreased and corresponding plasma apparent terminal half-life increased with increasing RI. Geometric mean ratios ([probenecid+IMI/REL]/[IMI/REL]) of plasma exposure for REL and imipenem were 1.24 (1.19, 1.28) and 1.16 (1.13, 1.20), respectively. The dose fraction excreted (fe) in the urine decreased progressively from mild to severe RI. Probenecid reduced renal clearance of REL and imipenem by 25 and 31%, respectively. Compared with IMI/REL, coadministration of IMI/REL with probenecid yielded lower fe for REL and imipenem. In both studies, treatment was well tolerated; there were no serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: RI increased plasma exposure and similarly decreased clearance of REL, imipenem and cilastatin; IMI/REL dose adjustment (fixed-ratio) will be required for patients with RI. Probenecid had no clinically meaningful impact on the PK of REL or imipenem.

Targeting the hepcidin-ferroportin pathway in anaemia of chronic kidney disease.

AIMS: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents used to treat anaemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been associated with cardiovascular adverse events. Hepcidin production, controlled by bone morphogenic protein 6 (BMP6), regulates iron homeostasis via interactions with the iron transporter, ferroportin. High hepcidin levels are thought to contribute to increased iron sequestration and subsequent anaemia in CKD patients. To investigate alternative therapies to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for CKD patients, monoclonal antibodies, LY3113593 and LY2928057, targeting BMP6 and ferroportin respectively, were tested in CKD patients. METHODS: Preclinical in vitro/vivo data and clinical data in healthy subjects and CKD patients were used to illustrate the translation of pharmacological properties of LY3113593 and LY2928057, highlighting the novelty of targeting these nodes within the hepcidin-ferroportin pathway. RESULTS: LY2928057 bound ferroportin and blocked interactions with hepcidin, allowing iron efflux, leading to increased serum iron and transferrin saturation levels and increased hepcidin in monkeys and humans. In CKD patients, LY2928057 led to slower haemoglobin decline and reduction in ferritin (compared to placebo). Serum iron increase was (mean [90% confidence interval]) 1.98 [1.46-2.68] and 1.36 [1.22-1.51] fold-relative to baseline following LY2928057 600 mg and LY311593 150 mg respectively in CKD patients. LY3113593 specifically blocked BMP6 binding to its receptor and produced increases in iron and transferrin saturation and decreases in hepcidin preclinically and clinically. In CKD patients, LY3113593 produced an increase in haemoglobin and reduction in ferritin (compared to placebo). CONCLUSION: LY3113593 and LY2928057 pharmacological effects (serum iron and ferritin) were translated from preclinical-to-clinical development. Such interventions may lead to new CKD anaemia treatments.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of glecaprevir and pibrentasvir in HCV-negative subjects with hepatic impairment.

PURPOSE: This study characterized the effects of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics and safety of glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, two direct-acting antivirals used for treatment of chronic HCV infection. METHODS: HCV-negative subjects with normal hepatic function, or with mild (Child-Pugh [CP]-A), moderate (CP-B), or severe (CP-C) hepatic impairment received single doses of pibrentasvir 120 mg alone or with glecaprevir 200 mg or 300 mg (n = 6/functional group/dose). Plasma pharmacokinetics and protein binding were evaluated. Doses were separated by ≥ 14 days of washout. RESULTS: For the approved combination of glecaprevir 300 mg with pibrentasvir 120 mg, glecaprevir AUC was increased by 33% (CP-A), to 2.0-fold (CP-B), and to 11-fold (CP-C) relative to normal subjects; pibrentasvir AUC was ≤ 26% different (CP-A or CP-B) and increased to 2.1-fold (CP-C). For glecaprevir 200 mg with pibrentasvir 120 mg, glecaprevir AUC was increased by 80% (CP-A) or to 2.8-fold (CP-B), while pibrentasvir AUC was unaffected in the same subjects (≤ 12% difference). Pibrentasvir 120 mg alone AUC increased 51% (CP-A), 31% (CP-B), and to 5.2-fold (CP-C). The unbound fraction of glecaprevir was higher in CP-C subjects than normal subjects and pibrentasvir protein binding was similar across groups. The most common adverse event was headache; no events were serious. CONCLUSION: This study supported evaluation of the glecaprevir 300 mg with pibrentasvir 120-mg combination in HCV-infected subjects with CP-A hepatic impairment without dose adjustment. Elevated glecaprevir and/or pibrentasvir exposures are expected in HCV-infected patients with CP-B or CP-C hepatic impairment.

Effects of Renal Impairment and Hemodialysis on the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of the Glecaprevir and Pibrentasvir Combination in Hepatitis C Virus-Negative Subjects.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an independent risk factor for developing chronic renal impairment and end-stage renal disease. Limited treatment options are available for HCV genotype 2, 3, 5, and 6 infections in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 ml/min. Glecaprevir and pibrentasvir are active against all six major HCV genotypes, are primarily excreted in the bile, and have minimal renal elimination. Therefore, combined treatment with these direct-acting antivirals may be useful for patients with HCV infection and chronic kidney disease. A phase 1, multicenter, open-label study evaluated the effects of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics and safety of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. In substudy 1, 38 subjects with stage 2 to 5 chronic kidney disease who were not on dialysis or who had normal renal function received single doses of the combination of 300 mg glecaprevir and 120 mg pibrentasvir. In substudy 2, 8 subjects requiring hemodialysis received single doses of the combination of 300 mg glecaprevir and 120 mg pibrentasvir under dialysis and nondialysis conditions. Regression analyses demonstrated increased glecaprevir and pibrentasvir plasma exposures, as determined by the area under the curve, with decreasing renal function, up to 56% and 46%, respectively, in subjects with an eGFR of <15 ml/min/1.73 m2 In dialysis-dependent subjects, glecaprevir and pibrentasvir exposures were similar (≤18% difference) when study drugs were administered before hemodialysis or on a nondialysis day. Adverse events were mostly mild, with the most common being self-limited fatigue (3 subjects). The study findings support the clinical evaluation of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir without dose adjustment in HCV-infected subjects with renal impairment. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT02442258.).

Severe Renal Impairment Has Minimal Impact on Doravirine Pharmacokinetics.

Doravirine is a novel nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor in development for use with other antiretroviral therapies to treat human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. Doravirine metabolism predominantly occurs via cytochrome P450 3A with <10% of elimination occurring via the renal pathway. As severe renal impairment can alter the pharmacokinetics (PK) of metabolically eliminated drugs, the effect of severe renal impairment on doravirine PK was assessed. A single dose of doravirine 100 mg was administered to subjects aged 18 to 75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 ml/min/1.73 m2 (severe renal impairment group) and healthy controls with an eGFR of ≥80 ml/min/1.73 m2, matched to the mean of the renal impairment group by age (±10 years) and weight (±10 kg). Doravirine plasma concentrations were determined at regular intervals, and safety was monitored throughout. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) for severe renal impairment/healthy subjects were 1.43 (1.00, 2.04), 1.38 (0.99, 1.92), and 0.83 (0.61, 1.15) for the plasma doravirine area under the curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-∞), plasma concentration at 24 h postdose (C24), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), respectively. Doravirine was generally well tolerated in both groups. Based on the overall efficacy, safety, and PK profile of doravirine, the minor effect of severe renal impairment on doravirine PK observed in this study is not considered clinically meaningful. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02641067.).

Effect of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Grazoprevir, a Hepatitis C Virus Protease Inhibitor.

Grazoprevir (GZR) plus elbasvir is an approved treatment for chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 or 4. HCV infection complications include liver cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of multiple-dose GZR (200, 100, or 50 mg) in non-HCV participants with mild, moderate, or severe hepatic impairment (HI), respectively, and in healthy matched controls (protocol MK-5172_p013; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ). Participants with mild, moderate, or severe HI and controls (aged 18 to 65 years) matched for race, age, sex, and body mass index were enrolled in a 3-part, open-label, sequential-panel pharmacokinetic study. Participants received oral doses of GZR 200 mg (two 100-mg tablets), 100 mg (one 100-mg tablet), or 50 mg (two 25-mg tablets) once daily for 10 days. A total of 50 participants were enrolled: 8 with mild HI, 9 with moderate HI, 8 with severe HI, and a corresponding number of healthy matched controls for each hepatic cohort. Participants with HI demonstrated higher GZR exposure than healthy matched controls and showed an increase in exposure with increasing HI severity. The steady-state GZR AUC0-24 (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h) for participants with mild, moderate, or severe HI was ≈2-, ≈5-, or ≈12-fold higher, respectively, than that for healthy matched controls. GZR was generally well tolerated in participants with HI. No dose adjustment is required for GZR in people with HCV with mild HI. GZR is contraindicated for those with moderate or severe HI (Child-Pugh class B or C), since they may have significantly increased GZR exposures that may lead to an increased risk of transaminase elevation.

Clinical safety and performance of VIVIA: a novel home hemodialysis system.

Background: The VIVIA Hemodialysis System (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA) was designed for patient use at home to reduce the burden of treatment and improve patient safety. It has unique features including extended use of the dialyzer and blood set through in situ hot-water disinfection between treatments; generation of on-line infusible-quality dialysate for automated priming, rinseback and hemodynamic support during hypotension and a fully integrated access disconnect sensor. Methods: The safety and performance of VIVIA were assessed in two clinical studies. A first-in-man study was a prospective, single-arm study that involved 22 prevalent hemodialysis (HD) patients who were treated for ∼4 h, four times a week, for 10 weeks. A second clinical study was a prospective, single-arm study (6-8 h of dialysis treatment at night three times a week) that involved 17 prevalent patients treated for 6 weeks. Results: There were 1114 treatments from the two studies (first-in-man study, 816; extended duration study, 298). Adverse events (AEs) were similar in the two studies to those expected for prevalent HD patients. No deaths and no device-related serious AEs occurred. Adequacy of dialysis ( Kt / V ) urea in both clinical trials was well above the clinical guidelines. VIVIA performed ultrafiltration accurately as prescribed in the two studies. The majority of patients achieved 10 or more uses of the dialyzer. Endotoxin levels and bacterial dialysate sampling met infusible-quality dialysate standards. Conclusion: These results confirm the safety and expected performance of VIVIA.

Pharmacokinetics of sugammadex in subjects with moderate and severe renal impairment
.

AIMS: Sugammadex rapidly reverses moderate and deep rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade at doses of 4 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg, respectively. Sugammadex is renally eliminated. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics of sugammadex in subjects with renal impairment versus those with normal renal function. METHODS: This open-label, two-part, phase 1 study included adults with moderate (creatinine clearance (CLcr) 30 - < 50 mL/min) and severe (CLcr < 30 mL/min) renal impairment and healthy controls (CLcr ≥ 80 mL/min). A single intravenous (IV) bolus injection of sugammadex 4 mg/kg was administered into a peripheral vein over 10 seconds directly by straight needle in part 1 (n = 24; 8/group), and via an IV catheter followed by a saline flush in part 2 (n = 18; 6/group). Plasma concentrations of sugammadex were collected after drug administration. Due to dosing issues in part 1, pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for part 2 only. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from 18 subjects. Mean sugammadex exposure (AUC0-∞) in subjects with moderate and severe renal impairment was 2.42- and 5.42-times, respectively, that of healthy controls. Clearance decreased and apparent terminal half-life was prolonged with increasing renal dysfunction. Similar Cmax values were observed in subjects with renal impairment and healthy controls. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex exposure is increased in subjects with moderate and severe renal insufficiency due to progressively decreased clearance as a function of worsening renal function. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was well tolerated in subjects with renal impairment, with a safety profile similar to that of healthy subjects. These results indicate that dose adjustment of sugammadex is not required in patients with moderate renal impairment; however, current safety experience is insufficient to support the use of sugammadex in patients with CLcr < 30 mL/min.
.

A Single-Dose, Open-Label Study of the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate in Individuals With Normal and Impaired Renal Function.

BACKGROUND: Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) and D-amphetamine pharmacokinetics were assessed in individuals with normal and impaired renal function after a single LDX dose; LDX and D-amphetamine dialyzability was also examined. METHODS: Adults (N = 40; 8/group) were enrolled in 1 of 5 renal function groups [normal function, mild impairment, moderate impairment, severe impairment/end-stage renal disease (ESRD) not requiring hemodialysis, and ESRD requiring hemodialysis] as estimated by glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Participants with normal and mild to severe renal impairment received 30 mg LDX; blood samples were collected predose and serially for 96 hours. Participants with ESRD requiring hemodialysis received 30 mg LDX predialysis and postdialysis separated by a washout period of 7-14 days. Predialysis blood samples were collected predose, serially for 72 hours, and from the dialyzer during hemodialysis; postdialysis blood samples were collected predose and serially for 48 hours. Pharmacokinetic end points included maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞) or to last assessment (AUClast). RESULTS: Mean LDX Cmax, AUClast, and AUC0-∞ in participants with mild to severe renal impairment did not differ from those with normal renal function; participants with ESRD had higher mean Cmax and AUClast than those with normal renal function. D-amphetamine exposure (AUClast and AUC0-∞) increased and Cmax decreased as renal impairment increased. Almost no LDX and little D-amphetamine were recovered in the dialyzate. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be prolonged D-amphetamine exposure after 30 mg LDX as renal impairment increases. In individuals with severe renal impairment (GFR: 15 ≤ 30 mL·min·1.73 m), the maximum LDX dose is 50 mg/d; in patients with ESRD (GFR: <15 mL·min·1.73 m), the maximum LDX dose is 30 mg/d. Neither LDX nor D-amphetamine is dialyzable.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of co-administered paritaprevir plus ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir in hepatic impairment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Paritaprevir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir are direct-acting antivirals for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The aim of this study was to characterize the effects of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of these drugs. METHODS: HCV-negative subjects with normal hepatic function (n=7) or mild (Child-Pugh A, n=6), moderate (Child-Pugh B, n=6), or severe (Child-Pugh C, n=5) hepatic impairment received a single-dose of the combination of paritaprevir plus ritonavir (paritaprevir/r, 200/100 mg), ombitasvir (25 mg), and dasabuvir (400 mg). Plasma samples were collected through 144 hours after administration for pharmacokinetic assessments. RESULTS: Paritaprevir, ombitasvir, dasabuvir, and ritonavir exposures (maximal plasma concentration, C(max), and area under the concentration-time curve, AUC) were minimally affected in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment. Differences in exposures between healthy controls and subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment were less than 35%, except for 62% higher paritaprevir AUC in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment. Paritaprevir and dasabuvir AUC were significantly higher in subjects with severe hepatic impairment (950% and 325%, respectively). However, ombitasvir AUC was 54% lower and ritonavir AUC was comparable. Adverse events included eye stye, insomnia, and pain from an infiltrated intravenous line. CONCLUSIONS: The changes observed in paritaprevir, ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir exposures in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment do not necessitate dose adjustment. Subjects with severe hepatic impairment had substantially higher paritaprevir and dasabuvir exposures.

The effect of renal and hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of ospemifene, a tissue-selective estrogen agonist/antagonist.

Ospemifene is a nonestrogen tissue-selective estrogen agonist/antagonist approved to treat moderate to severe dyspareunia due to vulvar and vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women. Three single-dose, open-label, parallel-group pharmacokinetic studies examined the pharmacokinetics of ospemifene in postmenopausal women with (1) mild hepatic impairment (n = 7), (2) moderate hepatic impairment (n = 8), and (3) severe renal impairment (n = 8) compared with a similar number of matched healthy controls. The study durations ranged from 8 to 12 days. Study participants received a single oral dose of ospemifene 60 mg on day 1 and blood samples were collected serially. The geometric mean ratios (hepatic or renal impairment/healthy) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) and maximum concentration (Cmax), respectively, of ospemifene were 90.86% (90% CI, 65.95%-125.19%) and 79.48% (90% CI, 65.95%-95.79%) in the mild hepatic impairment study; 128.62% (90% CI, 87.13%-189.88%) and 101.12% (90% CI, 66.17%-154.52%) in the moderate hepatic impairment study, and 119.63% (90% CI, 81.37%-175.88%) and 79.30% (90% CI, 52.85%-118.99%) in the severe renal impairment study. Overall, there was no clinically important effect of hepatic or renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of ospemifene, indicating that dosing does not need to be adjusted in postmenopausal women with mild or moderate hepatic impairment or in subjects with severe renal impairment.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction of siponimod (BAF312) and propranolol in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cardiac and pulmonary effects of siponimod (BAF312) and propranolol co-administration in healthy subjects. METHODS: Healthy subjects (n=76) were randomized in a doubleblind manner to receive propranolol at siponimod steady state (group A), siponimod at propranolol steady state (group B), placebo (group C) and propranolol (group D). Pharmacodynamic evaluations included maximum change from baseline in time-matched hourly average heart rate (Emax HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (Emax MABP) over 24 hours postdose, change from baseline in PR intervals, cardiac rhythm, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Pharmacokinetic and safety parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: Siponimod and propranolol when administered alone resulted in similar HR decrease at steady state. Compared to propranolol alone, the combination at steady state had an additional 6.21 bpm (95%CI: 2.32, 10.11) decrease of mean EmaxHR, a decrease of 5.04 bpm (0.52, 9.56) for group A and 7.39 bpm (2.87, 11.90) for group B. A minor decrease in MABP and a trend towards PR interval increase were noted with co-administration treatment vs. propranolol alone. There were no episodes of second-degree atrioventricular blocks or sinus pauses>3 seconds. Baseline-corrected FEV1 was reduced by -0.07 L (95% CI: -0.17, 0.03) for group A and -0.05 L (-0.15, 0.05) for group B vs. propranolol alone. There were no cardiovascular adverse events during coadministration treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of siponimod and propranolol was well tolerated. Bradyarrhythmic effects were less pronounced when propranolol was added to siponimod steady-state therapy compared with siponimod addition to propranolol.