Efficacy and safety of oral ibrexafungerp for the treatment of acute vulvovaginal candidiasis: a global phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled superiority study (VANISH 306).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ibrexafungerp versus placebo for acute vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) treatment. DESIGN: Global phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled superiority study. SETTING: Study sites in the USA (n = 19) and Bulgaria (n = 18). POPULATION: Female patients aged ≥12 years with acute VVC and a vulvovaginal signs and symptoms (VSS) score ≥4 at baseline. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to ibrexafungerp (300 mg twice for 1 day) or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a clinical cure (VSS = 0) at the test-of-cure visit (day 11 ± 3). Secondary endpoints included percentages of patients with mycological eradication, clinical cure and mycological eradication (overall success), clinical improvement (VSS ≤1) at test-of-cure visit, and complete resolution of symptoms at follow-up visit (day 25 ± 4). RESULTS: At the test-of-cure visit, patients receiving ibrexafungerp had significantly higher rates of clinical cure (63.3% [119/188] versus 44.0% [37/84]; P = 0.007), mycological eradication (58.5% [110/188] versus 29.8% [25/84]; P < 0.001), overall success (46.1% [82/188] versus 28.4% [23/84]; P = 0.022) and clinical improvement (72.3% [136/188] versus 54.8% [46/84]; P = 0.01) versus those receiving placebo. Symptom resolution was sustained and further increased with ibrexafungerp (73.9%) versus placebo (52.4%) at follow-up (P = 0.001). Ibrexafungerp was generally well tolerated. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal and were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Ibrexafungerp demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for the primary and secondary endpoints. Ibrexafungerp is a promising novel, well-tolerated and effective oral 1-day treatment for acute VVC. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Ibrexafungerp is statistically superior to placebo for the treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis.

A comparison of the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of the anti-migraine compound almotriptan in healthy adolescents and adults.

This study was designed to assess and compare the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of almotriptan, a 5-HT1B/1D agonist used to treat migraine attacks, in adolescents and adults. Healthy adolescents (n = 18) and adults (n = 18) received a single 12.5-mg dose of almotriptan after fasting overnight. Plasma and urinary almotriptan concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Pharmacokinetic parameters of almotriptan were determined by non-compartment analysis. The 90% confidence interval (CI) approach was employed to assess age effects. Mean Cmax, tmax, area under the curve (AUC0- infinity ), half-life, and percentage excreted in urine were nearly identical for the two populations. Mean oral (CLPO) and renal (CLR) clearances were similar between the age groups; however, weight-corrected CLPO was approximately 32% higher (90% CI 16, 51) in adolescents compared with adults. The higher weight-corrected CLPO appeared to offset increases in exposure expected on the basis of lower body weight in adolescents. The findings were the same when a subgroup (n = 9) of 12-14-year-old children was compared with adults. The type, incidence and severity of adverse events were similar between the two age groups and were consistent with those reported previously during adult clinical trials. Based on these pharmacokinetic and tolerability findings, no dose adjustment for almotriptan would be required when treating patients as young as 12 years old.

Lack of effect of reboxetine on cardiac repolarization.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of reboxetine on electrocardiographic parameters, particularly the QTc interval, was assessed in 20 healthy subjects (15 male, 5 female). METHODS: In a 5-way crossover study, subjects received placebo, 2 mg, 4 mg, or 6 mg reboxetine, or 6 mg reboxetine and 200 mg ketoconazole twice daily for 7 days. Plasma samples, vital signs, and 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) were obtained during one dosing interval of days 1, 4, and 7. Additional ECGs were recorded immediately after an exercise paradigm, so that the RR versus QT relationship might be used in calculating QTc. Plasma concentrations of R,R (-)reboxetine and the more active S,S (+)reboxetine were measured by HPLC-dual mass spectrometry. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences among treatments in mean dose-corrected pharmacokinetic parameters were observed, except that the dose-corrected area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 12 hours and the peak plasma concentration were significantly increased on days 4 and 7 in the presence of ketoconazole. As expected, heart rate increased from baseline (approximately 8-11 beats/min) at > or =8 mg reboxetine daily. No statistically significant prolongation of QTc (Fridericia correction) occurred after any of the treatments. No relationships between DeltaQTc and plasma concentrations of reboxetine enantiomers were apparent. Similar results were obtained with Bazett's correction and two linear corrections that relied on exercise data generated before drug administration. CONCLUSIONS: Reboxetine, at systemic exposures approximately twice the recommended dose, did not significantly affect cardiac repolarization in healthy subjects. Use of QT versus RR relationship in the drug-free state to correct QT for heart rate in the drug-treated state may provide an acceptable alternative to classic correction equations.

Effect of MAO-A inhibition on the pharmacokinetics of almotriptan, an antimigraine agent in humans.

AIMS: To assess the effect of a reversible MAO-A inhibitor, moclobemide, on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of almotriptan and assess the clinical consequences of any interaction. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received the following treatments in a randomized, open-label, two-way crossover design (with a 1 week washout between treatments): (A) one 150 mg moclobemide tablet every 12 h for 8 days and one 12.5 mg almotriptan tablet on the morning of day 8; and (B) one 12.5 mg almotriptan tablet on day 8. Plasma almotriptan was quantified by h.p.l.c.-MS-MS, while urinary concentrations were measured by h.p.l.c.-u.v. Vital signs, ECGs, and adverse events were evaluated after almotriptan administration. Treatment effects on pharmacokinetics and vital signs were assessed by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Mean almotriptan AUC was higher (483 +/- 99.9 vs 352 +/- 75.4 ng ml-1 h, P = 0.0001) and oral clearance was lower (26.6 +/- 4.00 vs 36.6 +/- 5.89 l h-1, P = 0.0001) when almotriptan was administered with moclobemide. Mean half-life was longer (4.22 +/- 0.78 vs 3.41 +/- 0.45 h, P = 0.0002) after coadministration with moclobemide. Renal clearance of almotriptan was unaffected by moclobemide. No serious adverse events occurred and no clinically significant vital sign changes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Moclobemide increased plasma concentrations of almotriptan on average by 37%, but the combined administration of these two compounds was well tolerated. The degree of interaction was much less than that seen previously for sumatriptan or zolmitriptan given with moclobemide.

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between the antimigraine compound, almotriptan, and propranolol in healthy volunteers.

This study was designed to assess the pharmacokinetics of almotriptan, a 5-HT1B/1D agonist, when administered in the presence and absence of propranolol. Healthy male (n = 10) and female (n = 2) volunteers received (i) 80 mg propranolol twice daily for 7 days and 12.5 mg almotriptan on day 7, and (ii) 12.5 mg almotriptan on day 7, according to a two-way crossover design. Plasma and urinary almotriptan concentrations were measured by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods. Treatment effects on pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistically significant differences between treatments in area under the curve (AUC), clearance, and half-life were observed (P < 0.03), but these differences were < 7%. Ninety percent confidence interval analysis of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters showed that the treatments were equivalent. Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity, and no treatment effects on vital signs were observed. The results show that propranolol has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of almotriptan. Concomitant administration of the two drugs is well tolerated.

Evaluation of the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between almotriptan and fluoxetine in healthy volunteers.

This study was designed to assess the pharmacokinetics of almotriptan, a 5HT1B/1D agonist used to treat migraine attacks, when administered in the presence and absence of fluoxetine. Healthy male (n = 3) and female (n = 11) volunteers received (1) 60 mg fluoxetine daily for 8 days and 12.5 mg almotriptan on Day 8 and (2) 12.5 mg almotriptan on Day 8, according to a two-way crossover design. Plasma and urinary almotriptan concentrations were measured by HPLC methods. Treatment effects on pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed by analysis of variance. Mean almotriptan Cmax was significantly higher following combination treatment with fluoxetine (52.5 +/- 11.9 ng/ml vs. 44.3 +/- 10.9 ng/ml, p = 0.023). Mean AUC0-infinity was not significantly affected by fluoxetine coadministration (353 +/- 55.7 ng.h/ml vs. 333 +/- 33.6 ng.h/ml, p = 0.059). Confidence interval analysis (90%) of log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters showed that the confidence interval for AUC0-infinity was within the 80% to 125% limit for equivalence, but Cmax was not (90% CI 106%-134% of the reference mean). Adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity, and no clinically significant treatment effects on vital signs or ECGs were observed. The results show that fluoxetine has only a modest effect on almotriptan Cmax. Concomitant administration of the two drugs is well tolerated, and no adjustment of the almotriptan dose is warranted.

Intravenous diltiazem and CYP3A-mediated metabolism.

AIMS: To study whether intravenous diltiazem, a calcium channel blocker commonly prescribed for hypertension and stable angina, is an inhibitor of the CYP3A enzymes by using oral lovastatin, an HMG Co-A reductase inhibitor, as a substrate. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were studied in a randomized two-way crossover design. The two arms were 1) administration of a 20 mg dosage of lovastatin orally and 2) administration of a 20 mg dosage of lovastatin orally 1 h after an intravenous loading dosage and constant infusion of diltiazem. Blood samples were collected up to 25 h in order to quantify lovastatin and diltiazem concentrations in the separated serum. Lovastatin and diltiazem concentrations were quantified by GC-MS and h.p.l.c., respectively. RESULTS: Intravenous diltiazem did not significantly affect the oral AUC, Cmax, t(1/2), or tmax of lovastatin. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the interaction of lovastatin with diltiazem does not occur systemically and is primarily a first-pass effect. Thus, drug interactions with diltiazem may become evident when a patient is moved from intravenous to oral dosing.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between verapamil and almotriptan in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the interaction between almotriptan, a 5-HT1B/1D-receptor agonist used to treat migraine, and verapamil, an agent for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received the following treatments in a crossover design: (1) 120-mg sustained-release verapamil tablet twice daily for 7 days and one 12.5-mg almotriptan tablet on day 7 and (2) one 12.5-mg almotriptan tablet alone on day 7. Serial plasma and urine samples were obtained on day 7. Almotriptan plasma concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; urine samples were analyzed by ultraviolet HPLC. Safety measures included blood pressure and pulse measurements, electrocardiography, and adverse event monitoring. Statistical comparisons of pharmacokinetic parameters and vital sign data were made by ANOVA. RESULTS: Mean almotriptan peak concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve were significantly higher and volume of distribution and oral clearance were significantly lower after coadministration of almotriptan and verapamil compared with administration of almotriptan alone. The magnitudes of these differences were approximately 20%. Renal clearance was unaffected by verapamil coadministration. No significant effects of treatment on blood pressure or pulse were detected, with the exception of sitting systolic blood pressure at 2 hours after administration. However, the difference in mean change from baseline at this time point was only 8 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Verapamil modestly inhibited almotriptan clearance to a degree consistent with the modest contribution of CYP3A4 to almotriptan metabolism. This observation and the lack of effect of verapamil on the tolerability to almotriptan administration suggest that no reduction of the almotriptan dose is warranted.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of a novel 5-HT1D agonist, PNU-142633F.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to characterize the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a single, oral dose of PNU-142633F escalating over the range of 1.0 mg to 100 mg (free base equivalents). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial, with each dose group (1.0, 3.0, 10, 30, 50, 75 and 100 mg) having eight volunteers (six PNU-142633F and two placebo). Clinical laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, Holter monitoring, and assessment of adverse events were used to gauge the tolerability of PNU-142633. Serial blood samples and urine collections were obtained and plasma and urine PNU-142633 concentrations were determined by a validated HPLC fluorescence method. RESULTS: PNU-142633 was well tolerated after oral administration. There were no reports of serious or unexpected adverse events. The most common adverse event that was possibly medication-related was transient dizziness. There were no clinically significant or dose-related effects of PNU-142633 on any vital sign parameters (aural temperature, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate or respiratory rate), at any study time or dose. There were no clinically significant ECG changes. Only sporadic abnormalities in clinical chemistry values and hematology were noted. After the 1.0 mg and 3.0 mg doses, plasma concentrations of PNU-142633 were either below or only slightly above the lower limit of quantitation (2 ng/ml). At higher doses (30-100 mg) the terminal half-life was relatively constant at approximately 11 hours. Neither Cmax nor AUC(0-infinity) increased proportionally with the administered dose. The mean percentage of the dose excreted in the urine as intact PNU-142633 increased from 14.3% after the 1 mg dose to 49.3% after the 100 mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical safety and pharmacokinetic data support the study of this agent as a potential treatment for migraine attacks.

The interaction of diltiazem with lovastatin and pravastatin.

BACKGROUND: Lovastatin is oxidized by cytochrome P4503A to active metabolites but pravastatin is active alone and is not metabolized by cytochrome P450. Diltiazem, a substrate and a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P4503A enzymes, is commonly coadministered with cholesterol-lowering agents. METHODS: This was a balanced, randomized, open-label, 4-way crossover study in 10 healthy volunteers, with a 2-week washout period between the phases. Study arms were (1) administration of a single dose of 20 mg lovastatin, (2) administration of a single dose of 20 mg pravastatin, (3) administration of a single dose of lovastatin after administration of 120 mg diltiazem twice a day for 2 weeks, and (4) administration of a single dose of pravastatin after administration of 120 mg diltiazem twice a day for 2 weeks. RESULTS: Diltiazem significantly (P < .05) increased the oral area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC) of lovastatin from 3607 +/- 1525 ng/ml/min (mean +/- SD) to 12886 +/- 6558 ng/ml/min and maximum serum concentration (Cmax) from 6 +/- 2 to 26 +/- 9 ng/ml but did not influence the elimination half-life. Diltiazem did not affect the oral AUC, Cmax, or half-life of pravastatin. The average steady-state serum concentrations of diltiazem were not significantly different between the lovastatin (130 +/- 58 ng/ml) and pravastatin (110 +/- 30 ng/ml) study arms. CONCLUSION: Diltiazem greatly increased the plasma concentration of lovastatin, but the magnitude of this effect was much greater than that predicted by the systemic serum concentration, suggesting that this interaction is a first-pass rather than a systemic event. The magnitude of this effect and the frequency of coadministration suggest that caution is necessary when administering diltiazem and lovastatin together. Further studies should explore whether this interaction abrogates the efficacy of lovastatin or enhances toxicity and whether it occurs with other cytochrome P4503A4-metabolized 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, such as simvastatin, fluvastatin, and atorvastatin.