Super-thin anterolateral thigh flap for reconstruction of the medial plantar artery perforator flap donor site.

BACKGROUND: The medial plantar artery perforator (MPAP) flap is widely used to reconstruct the weight-bearing area of the foot. Traditionally, its donor site is closed using a skin graft, which is associated with several complications, including walking disability. This study aimed to examine our experience with using a super-thin anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap to reconstruct the MPAP flap donor site. METHODS: We examined 10 patients who underwent reconstruction of the MPAP flap donor site using a super-thin ALT flap between August 2019 and March 2021. The vascular pedicle was anastomosed to the proximal end of the medial plantar vessels or the end of the posterior tibial vessels. RESULTS: All reconstruction flaps survived and all patients were satisfied with the aesthetic appearance. No blisters, ulcerations, hyperpigmentation, or contractures occurred. All patients gained protective sensation in the super-thin ALT flap. The average visual analog scale score for the aesthetic appearance of the reconstructed foot was 8.5 ± 0.7 (range, 8-10). All patients were able to ambulate without aids and could wear regular shoes. The average revised Foot Function Index score was 26.4 ± 4.1 (range, 22-34). CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of the MPAP flap donor site using a super-thin ALT flap is reliable and provides satisfactory functional recovery, aesthetic appearance, and protective sensation while minimizing postoperative morbidity.

Safety, Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics, and Absolute Bioavailability of Dexmedetomidine Hydrochloride Nasal Spray in Healthy Subjects: A Randomized, Parallel, Escalating Dose Study.

Background: The present study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), and absolute bioavailability (Fabs) of Dex nasal spray in healthy adult subjects, which serves as a bridge for the subsequent study in children. Methods: Part 1: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study was performed on 48 subjects. For 20-/40-µg groups, every 6/2 subjects received either Dex/placebo nasal spray or Dex/placebo injection in two periods. In total, 12/4 subjects each received 100 µg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; 12/4 subjects received 150 µg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 3: a randomized, open, self-crossover study; 12 subjects received 20 µg and 100 µg Dex nasal spray in two periods alternately. The method of administration was optimized in Part 2 and Part 3. Results: In part 1, Dex nasal spray was well tolerated up to the maximum dose of 100 µg, whereas the Fabs was tolerated to only 28.9%-32.3%. In Part 2 and Part 3, the optimized nasal spray method was adopted to promote the Fabs of Dex nasal spray to 74.1%-89.0%. A severe adverse event was found in Part 2. In Part 3 (100 µg), the Ramsay score increased the most and lasted the longest, whereas the BIS score decreased most significantly. Conclusion: Using the optimized nasal spray method, a single dose of 20/100 µg of the test drug was safe and tolerable, and 100 µg may have approached or reached the plateau of sedation. In addition, it is found that the optimized method can greatly improve the bioavailability of the test drug, leading to its higher reference value.

Bioavailability and Safety of a New Highly Concentrated Midazolam Nasal Spray Compared to Buccal and Intravenous Midazolam Treatment in Chinese Healthy Volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Buccal midazolam treatment is licensed in the European Union for prolonged acute convulsive seizures in children and adolescents, but the buccal pathway is often hampered by jaw clenching, hypersalivation, or uncontrolled swallowing. Midazolam formulations that are more secure, reliable, and faster for use are needed in the acute setting. Pharmacokinetics and comparative bioavailability of intranasally administered midazolam and two midazolam intravenous solutions administered buccally or intravenously in healthy adults were evaluated. METHODS: In this phase 1, open-label, randomized, single-dose, three-period, three-sequence crossover study, 12 healthy adults (19-41 years) were randomly assigned to receive 2.5 mg midazolam intranasally; 2.5 mg midazolam intravenously; 2.5 mg midazolam buccally. Blood samples were collected for 10 h post dose to determine pharmacokinetic profiles. Adverse events and vital signs were recorded. RESULTS: Intranasal administration of 2.5 mg midazolam demonstrated a more rapid median time to Cmax compared to buccal administration of midazolam (Tmax, 12.6 min vs. 45 min; Cmax, 38.33 ng/ml vs. 24.97 ng/ml). The antiepileptic effect of intranasal and buccal midazolam treatment lasted less than 4 h and generally did not differ from intravenously administered midazolam. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to study discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Intranasal administration of midazolam may be a preferable alternative to the currently approve buccal midazolam treatment for prolonged acute convulsive seizures in children and adolescents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial [ http://www.chictr.org.cn ] (ChiCTR2000032595) on 3 May, 2020.

Pharmacokinetic effects of proton pump inhibitors on the novel PARP inhibitor fluzoparib: a single-arm, fixed-sequence trial in male healthy volunteers.

Purpose To assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) effect of proton pump inhibitors on the novel poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor fluzoparib, and observe the safety of its co-administration with omeprazole. Patients and methods Sixteen male healthy volunteers (HVs) were enrolled in a single-center, single-arm, open-label, fixed-sequence study. HVs took fluzoparib (100 mg, p.o.) after meal consumption on day-1, took omeprazole 40 mg (p.o.) under a fasting condition from day-5 to day-9, and took fluzoparib (100 mg, p.o.) after meal consumption on day-9. Blood samples were collected at predetermined timepoints for PK analyses. Safety was assessed via clinical laboratory tests. The study was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry on 30 September 2019 (NCT04108676). Results The peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) after fluzoparib administration was 2395.17 ± 418.27 ng/mL, the area under the curve (AUC) within 72 h (AUC0 - 72 h) was 26669.09 ± 7320.12 h·ng/mL, and AUC0-∞ was 26897.44 ± 7573.61 h·ng/mL. The Cmax after co-administration of fluzoparib and omeprazole was 2489.43 ± 423.72 ng·mL, AUC0 - 72 h was 30300.49 ± 8350.08 h·ng/mL, and AUC0-∞ was 30678.74 ± 8595.55 h·ng/mL. The geometric mean ratio of Cmax, AUC0 - 72 h and AUC0-∞ was 104.0% (90%CI: 94.8-114.0%), 113.6% (104.2-123.9%) and 104.1% (104.5-124.6%). The number of HVs with adverse reactions was identical (eight) for administration of fluzoparib and co-administration of fluzoparib and omeprazole. Conclusions The proton pump inhibitor omeprazole did not have a significant influence on the PK behavior of fluzoparib, and its safety profile was good upon co-administration with omeprazole. (NCT04108676, 30 September 2019).

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Tazarotene Clindamycin Cream: A Single-Dose, 3-Period Crossover Study.

The current study compared the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of the new compound pharmaceutical preparation tazarotene clindamycin cream, and 2 single pharmaceutical preparations, tazarotene cream and clindamycin phosphate gel. Twelve healthy volunteers were enrolled in this single-center, single-blind, 3-treatment, 3-period crossover, single-dose randomized study. An 800-cm2 area on volunteers' backs was evenly smeared with 1.6 g of the test preparation to form a film. Blood samples were collected at predetermined time points for pharmacokinetic analysis. Safety and tolerability were assessed via skin reaction evaluation and clinical laboratory tests. The incidences of skin reactions were 18.2% for tazarotene clindamycin cream, 25.0% for tazarotene cream, and 18.2% for clindamycin phosphate gel. There were no significant differences in safety or tolerability among the 3 groups. Erythema, desquamation, and pruritus occurred in 7 volunteers, but no burning or tingling occurred. All adverse events were mild and resolved spontaneously, and there were no severe adverse events. The respective maximum plasma concentrations of tazarotenic acid after local administration of tazarotene clindamycin cream and tazarotene cream were 11 ± 5 pg/mL and 18 ± 12 pg/mL, and the areas under the curve within 72 hours were 444 ± 341 pg · h/mL and 692 ± 462 pg · h/mL.

A randomized, double-blind, single-dose study to evaluate the biosimilarity of QL1101 with bevacizumab in healthy male subjects.

PURPOSE: This is the first study to compare the pharmacokinetics of QL1101, a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar, with Avastin® sourced from Roche Diagnostics GmbH. METHODS: In this double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group study, healthy male subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive QL1101 or Avastin® 3 mg/kg intravenously. Pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted for 85 days, with additional safety and immunogenicity assessments until day 90. Primary study endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞), AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-last), and maximum serum concentration (Cmax). Pharmacokinetic equivalence was shown if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of the C0-max, AUC0-last, and AUC0-∞ were within the predefined bioequivalence margin of 80-125.00%. RESULTS: A total of 82 subjects were randomized to the following groups: 42 to QL1101 and 40 to Avastin®. The 90% CIs of the GMRs of AUC0-∞, AUC0-last, and Cmax of QL1101 and Avastin® were (97.8%, 107.0%), (94.5%, 106.9%), and (94.1%, 107.3%), respectively, which were all within the bioequivalence margin. The incidence of adverse events was 90.5% and 95.0% in the QL1101 and Avastin® groups, respectively. Mean serum concentration-time profiles, secondary pharmacokinetic parameters, and safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable across the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated the pharmacokinetic equivalence of QL1101 to Avastin®. QL1101 (3 mg/kg, iv) is safe and tolerable in healthy Chinese subjects. These data support the further clinical evaluation of QL1101 as a bevacizumab biosimilar.

Human UDP-Glucuronosyltransferase 2B4 and 2B7 Are Responsible for Naftopidil Glucuronidation in Vitro.

Naftopidil (NAF) is widely used for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prevention of prostate cancer in elderly men. These patients receive a combination of drugs, which involves high risk for drug-drug interaction. NAF exhibits superior efficacy but must be administered at a much higher dosage than other therapeutic drugs. We previously showed that extensive glucuronidation of NAF enantiomers caused poor bioavailability. However, the metabolic pathway and mechanism of action of NAF enantiomer remain to be elucidated. The present study was performed to identify the human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) responsible for the glucuronidation of NAF enantiomers and to investigate the potential inhibition of UGT activity by NAF. The major metabolic sites examined were liver and kidney, which were compared with intestine. Screening of 12 recombinant UGTs showed that UGT2B7 primarily contributed to the metabolism of both enantiomers. Moreover, enzyme kinetics for R(+)-NAF, UGT2B7 (mean Km, 21 µM; mean Vmax, 1043 pmol/min/mg) showed significantly higher activity than observed for UGT2B4 and UGT1A9. UGT2B4 (mean Km, 55 µM; mean Vmax, 1976 pmol/min/mg) and UGT2B7 (mean Km, 38 µM; mean Vmax, 1331 pmol/min/mg) showed significantly higher catalysis of glucuronidation of S(-)-NAF than UGT1A9. In human liver microsomes, R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF also inhibited UGT1A9: mean Ki values for R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF were 10.0 µM and 11.5 µM, respectively. These data indicate that UGT2B7 was the principal enzyme mediating glucuronidation of R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF. UGT2B4 plays the key role in the stereoselective metabolism of NAF enantiomers. R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF may inhibit UGT1A9. Understanding the metabolism of NAF enantiomers, especially their interactions with metabolic enzymes, will help to elucidate potential drug-drug interactions and to optimize the administration of this medicine.